Flem's Daily Ramble II

2009-01-07T14:40:00.001-06:00

Never Underestimate The Predictability of Stupidity: Part III

The recent news media torrent of coverage concerning recent cases of police brutality have not slipped past me unnoticed. One of the more troubling tales to occur last week was when a 23 year old black man was essentially shot in the back by a police officer in his parent’s driveway while officers were investigating whether or not his car was stolen or not. Obviously, cases of police brutality and citizen complaints concerning these acts have been common place for decades, so this is nothing new. However, in a county where our government is based upon the consent of the people (police are a part of the government, mind you), one must figure that something has to be done about the way that police officers operate.

To begin, I fully respect the role that police officers play in our society: to protect and serve. A vast majority of these officers are indeed good cops and work hard at what they do. At the same time though, police officers are part of our civil service and for all intents and purposes, police officers are at the bottom of the heap in terms of education. Sure, they undergo extensive training, but this is training that is the brainchild of other officers with minimal education. Some departments do require that their officers obtain a bachelor’s degree before becoming employed, but this is not enough.

By trade and education, I am a social scientist. That is, I study society as a whole, whether from my concentration of politics, to history and other various views of how our modern society interacts with each other. I am not about to claim that I understand what a police officer working in South Central LA experiences and knows about the area; that is beyond me. However, being that we give a lot of power to our most undereducated civil servants, universities and other police training grounds should really consider more education and training in the realm of social science. Police officers need to understand how society works; from issues of race to the role that they play in our government, for example.

I have never really had any major run ins with police officers and when I have, I have been more than compliant. For others, they have been far from complaint, which leads to a milieu of issues. I understand the use of force, whether from a gun to a tazer, when an officer’s life is in danger. However, part of me believes that an officer finds legitimacy in the eyes of society not through the badge, but through the gun that they carry. When the person that you are talking to has the ability to take your life and you do not have the ability counter it because you are not carrying a gun, you are going to comply. The fear of god is not stricken into us by the badge, but the gun.

Many of us have viewed “The Andy Griffith Show” at some time or another in our lives. The one thing that I remember about the show is that Andy, the “sheriff” never carried a gun- instead, it was always in his desk drawer. Yet, he was able to garner the respect of the citizens of “Mayberry” without a gun. Granted, this was a TV show in the middle of “white America” in the 1950’s where no real danger existed. But the point is, what if police officers were never given guns in the first place? Would a vast majority of criminals today even use guns? What if they had to actually resolve conflict without the risk of force coming to mind (much like the UK)?

I am not suggesting that we take guns away from cops, nor am I suggesting that our right to own guns be curtailed, as it is a constitutional right of almost everyone in this country (minus felons). I am simply suggesting that police departments put more of an emphasis on training their officers in a more intelligent manner. For example, require more and more successful completion of social science and community or interpersonal relations in college education and training. With a more thorough understanding of how society works, I believe that crime would decrease and at the same time, officers would find more respect for themselves in the community. Would it hurt to try this? To force more training on some of our most undereducated, yet most powerful civil servants?

2008-12-28T21:53:00.001-06:00

A Few Words at the End of the 2008 NFL Regular Season

As with the end of any NFL season, there is always much to be discussed and analyzed. I am not into the analysis part of the equation, as I’ll leave that to the various “experts” on TV. However there are a few things that need to discussed, mainly the current playoff system, the Detroit Lions, and the TV coverage of the league. Like any fan, we all have areas of the game that we are unhappy with (besides our own teams that we root for), but these three matters in general seem to stick out to me the most. Of course, I could rant on about the rather disappointing and pathetic season that the Chicago Bears had, but I’ll go ahead and leave that for another day.

First, let’s have a word about the current playoff system that the league uses. My gripe in this respect is that the New England Patriots finished up at 11-5 and still did not make the playoffs. A few years back the league reorganized the respective conferences into four divisions from three. Before the reorganization, a few divisions were lacking in comparison to the others. However, the Seahawks were moved to the NFC and now all eight divisions have four teams each. This in itself was not a bad idea (something that MLB should look into) and should be kept in mind if the league were to change its playoff system. Ideally, teams should continue to play teams within their respective divisions twice, but instead of 6 teams making it into the playoffs, 8 should. With 8 teams, the two top seed would lose their bye in the first week, which would irritate some at first, but they would get over it. In essence, 2 more wild card trams would be added.

Next, the 7 year demise of the Detroit Lions came to fruition today, as the Lions became the first team not to win a single game since the inception of the 16 game schedule in 1978. In 2001, the Lions hired Matt Millen as their president and over that time his reign was met with hostility and disappointment in Detroit. Granted, Millen was fired in September, but this season was the fruit of his incompetent labors. Unlike other professional sports, football is the one sport where every team seemingly has a chance at the beginning of each season. In the case of the Lions over the past 7 years though, the Lions never had a chance. Frankly, an 0-16 season is inexcusable in this day and age in the NFL. In a town that is having enough problems as it is, the Lions 2008 season was the figurative cherry on top.

Finally, let’s explore the general TV coverage surrounding the NFL. The first gripe that I have with the NFL is its move to make it into a pay-per-view sport, such as boxing, with its NFL Network. The beauty of most professional sports that anyone seems to care about is the mainstream coverage by the major networks that are accessible by almost anyone with a TV antenna. However, the NFL has betrayed many of its fans by forcing them to purchase a package of channels just to get their network, much less for one measly game that they want to see. It would be a lot easier if we could turn on CBS, NBC, or FOX to view a Thursday or Saturday night game instead of having to pony up even more money to your carrier. Hopefully, the NFL Network goes belly up in the coming years so fans do not have to deal with this frustration.

2008-12-24T05:11:00.002-06:00

Just a Few More Weeks

In just a few weeks, Barack Obama will take the presidential oath of office, which will effectively end one of the curious presidential administrations in this nation’s history. From the height of his popularity just after 9/11 to now, George W. Bush has ridden the figurative public approval rollercoaster up and down to both soaring heights and the lows of lows. However, we should be cautious when coming to conclusions over a man who fears that his legacy will be that of LBJ, as time has long been the ultimate judge of American presidents. If we could ask Harry Truman, I’m sure that he would say the same thing.

On January 20, 2001, Bush’s inauguration day, he was met with angry crowds on the streets of Washington D.C. After winning a close election over Al Gore, many in the crowds on the parade route found it necessary to pelt his limo with mounds of debris while he traveled to the Capital building. Who would have guessed that this event would foreshadow what would become one of America’s most intriguing presidential administrations. To this day, many believe that Bush was handed the election by a right leaning Supreme Court (thanks to Ronald Reagan) and had essentially stolen the election by not winning the popular vote. When less than 51 percent of “the people” did not vote for him, he was bound for a hard 4 years and later, another 4 years.

The psyche of the countless nations and their people that have existed on this planet over the course of history is to cling to their leader(s) during times of great distress and needless to say, after the events of 9/11, the people of the United States embraced Bush for both comfort and security. Just as his father’s approval ratings had soared during and right after the first Persian Gulf War, so did his son’s after 9/11. For months his approval ratings were commonly hovering within the 90 percent range. However, when your enemy is not an organized nation and an all out victory is unobtainable, the steps that Bush took to seek vengeance upon the Taliban in Afghanistan and Sadam Hussein in Iraq soon backfired.

The early periods of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were for all intents and purposes quite successful. The Taliban were eradicated and Sadam was toppled from power. Many in the United States would have been content to leave things at that; two victories and stronger security on the home front. As we know now, he did not leave it at that and chose to intensify military efforts in Iraq. While the situation in Iraq has turned into a disastrous quagmire, the Taliban and other terrorist organizations have again taken hold in Afghanistan due to Bush’s preoccupation with Iraq. If Bush had decided to end U.S. military operations after the above mentioned victories, his legacy may have been cemented as mediocre, if not successful.

Unlike Bush, time has begun to speak on the legacy of Lyndon B. Johnson’s presidency. America still wears the scars of the Vietnam conflict, as a generation of men who survived a draft and hell on Earth in the jungles of Vietnam still bare the mental and physical scars of pointless fighting. Johnson’s presidency though had marked success in the domestic policy arena. His “Great Society” initiatives have indeed brought this nation closer than it has ever been. Bush’s domestic policy success has not even been marginal, much less inexistent. The one domestic initiative that many will remember is Bush’s “No Child Left Behind.” It will not be remembered because it was a success, but because it was a dismal failure. America’s schools have been tainted by a brainless policy from the mind of a “C student.” At least Johnson’s presidency was marked with domestic policy success, which to many, still goes unnoticed to this day.

To finish, through this week, Bush has an approval rating of 29 percent, slightly up from the all time low of 22 percent a few months back. The 22 percent approval rating a few months back was the lowest approval rating of any president in the history of presidential approval ratings. Even though we do not have approval ratings that span the years after a president has left office, I have a feeling that if we did, Bush may very well find himself at the bottom of the pile. Then again, only time will tell.

2008-11-24T17:53:00.004-06:00

A Scenario to Fix the Ghastly BCS System

It has been evident since the implementation of the Bowl Championship Series (BCS)in division one college football is that it does not truly decide the national champion at the end of the year, much less the two best teams in the nation who should play in the deciding game. Opponents of the BCS system are far more numerous than proponents, with yours truly fitting in with the opponents. Even President-elect Barack Obama has spoken out against the BCS and like many opponents, has proposed a play-off system. Personally, I am in favor of a playoff system or even going back to the old system where the human voters decide who is to play for the national championship.

As is obvious, the human component is more art than science, while the current BCS system is based upon science. A playoff system on the other hand is a mix of art and science and in all likely hood may very well be the best solution for all involved. If you think about it, who would you rather have deciding who plays in the national championship game, a human or a computer?

Below I present a this hybrid system, which I believe would satisfy opponents and proponents alike. We can still use the BCS set up, the computers, and human voters to decide a national champion. However, the plan is to use these components in a playoff setup.

The Setup
To begin, I will use the current BCS standings in this example. The top 14 teams in the BCS standings will be ushered into the playoff set up.

The teams included would be:
1. Alabama 11-0
2. Texas 10-1
3. Oklahoma 10-1
4. Florida 10-1
5. USC 9-1
6. Utah 12-0
7. Texas Tech 10-1
8. Penn State 11-1
9. Boise State 11-0
10. Ohio State 10-2
11. Georgia 9-2
12. Oklahoma State 9-2
13. Missouri 9-2
14. TCU 10-2

The bracket for the round would look as follows (with the hypothetic winner in parentheses, i.e. the top seed for simplicity’s sake):
1. Alabama vs. 14. TCU (Alabama)
2. Texas vs. 13. Missouri (Texas)
3. Oklahoma vs. 12. Oklahoma State (Oklahoma)
4. Florida vs. 11. Georgia (Florida)
5. USC vs. 10. Ohio State (USC)
6. Utah vs. 9. Boise State (Utah)
7. Texas Tech vs. 8. Penn State (Texas Tech)

The second round (top remaining seed gets a bye):
2. Texas vs. 7. Texas Tech (Texas)
3. Oklahoma vs. 6. Utah (Oklahoma)
4. Florida vs. 5. USC (Florida)

The third round:
1. Alabama vs. 4. Florida (Alabama)
2. Texas vs. 3. Oklahoma (Texas)

The national championship game:
1. Alabama vs. 2. Texas (Alabama)

Personally, I believe that it is simple as that. Granted, modifications could be made, i.e. a bye in the first round or even an NCAA basketball like set up. In this case everyone wins, as there are more game and more money to be had by all involved. This may extend the season a bit into mid January, but it appears to be a fair system

2008-10-03T02:09:00.001-05:00

Cursed of Simply Unlucky?

I am not one who believes in such superstitions as curses, especially in the realm of sports. However, one has to wonder what exactly has befallen the Cubs franchise throughout their history. To date, the Cubs are in their 133rd season, as they played their very first game on April 25, 1876. Throughout those 133 years, they have managed to win two World Series championships. Furthermore, the franchise made their last appearance in a World Series and last in the twentieth century in 1945, eventually losing to the Detroit Tigers. In total, the Cubs won the NL pennant four times in the twentieth century, which leads into my analysis of whether their losing ways is a curse or a simply a case of bad luck.

Undoubtedly, the most success that the Cubs franchise has ever had occurred from 1906 to 1908. The 1906 team won a major league record of 116 games, but would eventually lose to their cross-town rivals in the World Series. 1907 would bring the team 110 wins and their first ever World Series title by sweeping the Detroit Tigers. 1908 brought the team less wins in the regular season, only 99, but it was enough to propel them into the World Series against the Tigers once again. They would eventually win the series 4-1. But as we know, this was the last time the Cubs franchise would win a World Series title. Many forget about 1945, as the Cubs won 98 games and would go onto lose the World Series 4-3 against the Detroit Tigers (again).

Since 1945, the Cubs have never made it back to the World Series. In 1969, the team was the preferred choice to win it all, but a monumental collapse left the Cubs 8 games out. Obviously, we are all familiar with the NLCS collapse of 2003 against the eventual World Series champion Florida Marlins. Lou Pinella would lead the team to an NL central division crown in 2007. However, the team was easily dispatched in the first round (NLDS) by the Arizona Diamondbacks.

That of course brings us to this year, a 97 win season and another central division championship. Many thought that this would be year for a variety of reasons, mainly because it was the first time since the fabled 1907 and 1908 seasons that the Cubs had made the playoffs in back to back years. Dominant hitting and pitching have been key throughout the year, but just like last year, both the offense and defense have hit a figurative brick wall in the first round. At the time of this writing, the Cubs are down 0-2 to the LA Dodgers in the NLDS. Not to stick a fork in them too early, but things are not looking up and defeat is likely unless they can pull off a miracle.

As one can see from above, the latest teams to have made the playoffs had to play a 162 game regular season, while the other teams to make the playoffs and win the World Series only had to play a 154 game season. It is a long season and winning that many games is an incredible feat. Yet one has to wonder, especially this year, with such a dominant team, how are they are down 0-2 to a team who struggled to win their division? Is everyone tired? Has the figurative magic run its course? No one really knows or will ever know for that matter. Personally, I lean towards the theory that the team is tired from the long season and are simply out of the magic and luck that a great team needs to win it all.

2008-08-26T23:34:00.001-05:00

Party Conventions: Worth the Hype?

With the Democratic National Convention (DNC) happening this week, I figured that it would be worthwhile to have a word about the current status for the highest office in the land. To this point, the presumed nominees, Barack Obama and John McCain are tied in the polls with just over 3 months remaining until Election Day. Predictably, those numbers may jump in favor of Obama during and after the DNC, but not as much as in the past. The “bump” that candidates receive after their party’s respective conventions is usually noticeable. However, the Republican National Convention is set to be staged next week, just four days after the DNC concludes. Mind you, this is not a coincidence, holding the RNC a so close to the DNC was planned.

With that said, I do not expect the numbers to go up considerably in favor of either candidate over the coming weeks. Obama has named his VP nominee, Delaware Senator Joe Biden and McCain has yet to announce his. Unless McCain taps Bill Gates, it will not make much difference in the polls, at least in terms of favorables. Where do the conventions leave us then? I venture to posit that each party’s respective convention will leave the status of the election where we stood on August 1st: Up in arms.

With no substantial bumps expected, the coming three months are going to be vital for each candidate, especially in battle ground states. I expect there to be heavy campaigning from both candidates in the following states: WI, VA, PA, OH, NM, NH, NV, MO, MI, IA, IN, FL, and CO. Of those states, expect to see a lot of Obama in Florida if the numbers remain close in the state. The high numbers of African American and Latino voters in Florida may in fact make a difference if it is close in November. Missouri may also be worthwhile for both candidates, as the nation’s “bellwether” has voted on the side of each presidential winner since 1904 (excluding 1956).

Let the games begin, again.

2008-07-17T03:02:00.002-05:00

Never Underestimate the Predictability of Stupidity: Part II

I recently came across a video on CNN that displayed a young man sticking his fingers into a jaguar’s (panthera onca) cage at the Oklahoma City Zoo. Evidently, he decided that it would be a great idea to release the video on liveleak for all to see. Thankfully, the news media caught on and proceeded to make a complete dimwit of the person. As is obvious, stunts like this tend to irritate me. Would you find it in your best interest to tease a wild jaguar? I think not. A stunt like this is not exactly like sticking your fingers into “fluffy’s” cage on the way to the vet. Unfortunately, this gentlemen still has all of his fingers.

Zoos have a myriad of fences set up for a reason: to keep visitors and staff safe. Countless “exotic” animals in zoos have the ability to kill a human without thinking about it. However, scaling a fence or two to taunt an apex predator (top of the food chain) can lead to a major league headache for all involved. Look at it this way, the jaguar is widely believed to have the second most powerful bite of all mammals, which even allow it to puncture the shells of turtles (i.e. biting through solid bone) or kill a giant anaconda. Taking off a human finger is comparable to running a hot knife through butter.

I find it rather pathetic that a great predator like the jaguar has been reduced to being teased in a zoo cage. Ancient South American cultures idolized this great cat. For example, the name jaguar is derived from the ancient Guarani language word “jaguarete,” which translates to “kills in a single bound.” The Guarani revered this powerful animal, as they believed that the cat’s spots were comparable to the stars above (jaguars are usually nocturnal hunters). Sadly, those days have long since passed to days where the jaguar is now an endangered species.

What lesson can be taken away this above-mentioned incident? There are two: One, don’t stick your fingers in a cage at the zoo. Two, show a little respect for a creature that could easily have you for breakfast.

Video link: http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2008/07/15/dnt.ok.finger.in.cage.koco?iref=videosearch

2008-07-12T00:43:00.001-05:00

O Brett: Just Hang It Up Already

In March, I wrote a “rant” praising Brett Favre’s career and his accomplishments. I am not about to take those comments back, as no one can argue that Brett Favre has not been one of the best quarterbacks in NFL history. However, his latest antics of all but confirming a comeback have rubbed me the wrong way. Since March, NFL fans have been pummeled with so-called rumors of Favre’s potential return, but to Packer’s fans chagrin, those rumors have been false. It would appear though that this latest rumor is indeed true and we may in fact see Favre back on gridiron in August, but not for the Packers.

As I understand it, Favre has asked for his unconditional release from the Green Bay Packers, which in itself signals that he wants to explore other options. Why would Favre want to explore other options? Since his “retirement” in March, the Packers have proclaimed Aaron Rodgers the next savior of the organization. In terms of a team’s morale, it helps to know who your new “field general” is. Favre on the other hand, claims that the Packers rushed him into making his retirement decision. As is obvious, Favre is again ready to play football, but the Packers do not want him back.

This puts the upper echelons of the Packer organization in a tight spot. They can either release him and their fan base will surely be up in arms. If the Packers chose to keep him (and do not let him play) to ensure that he does not move to a division rival, they again face a potential mutiny by the fans. As an adamant Bears fan, there is nothing better than seeing the Packers squirm. But then again, Favre’s latest antics lean on uncouthness. I cannot understand the relentless pull that a sport has on a great athlete, as I am not exactly the optimal definition of a true athlete. However, regardless of the pull, Favre had a great career and the chances of him coming back with any team and winning the Super Bowl is slim.

If Favre wants to keep his immortal legend status intact, he should do the right thing and simply let things be and ride off into the sunset.

2008-07-10T19:21:00.001-05:00

Poor Hollywood

A recent study conducted in a variety of technologically advanced nations (i.e. nation’s that have DVD players and recorders) revealed that one in three individuals copies DVDs. This is not exactly news, but there is some substance to this study. As is probably obvious, this particular study was commissioned by a company who has a vested interest in DVD sales (Macrovision). Evidently, the studios and DVD makers alike are not making “enough” money off of their cinematic endeavors, at least as of last year (2007) when DVD sales began to sag. The thing is, I do not believe that DVD copying is to blame for this sag in sales and this is why.

For one, the advent of Bluray has surely curtailed regular DVD sales to a degree. Eventually when everyone has a flat screen TV capable of outputting HD, Bluray will more than likely be in every household in the world. That is to say is not the natural progression towards Bluray what the major studios and DVD makers want? If one has not noticed, Blurays tend to cost a “bit” more than your average DVD, which leads to me to believe that Hollywood will start to see profits skyrocket in good time.

Second, many high profile movies are now available for download or streaming from such companies like Apple (iTunes) and Netflix. For the foreseeable future, it is fair to assume that these alternative formats will take a good chunk of the market share away from DVDs. Not to mentioned that Netflix actually rents out DVDs in mass quantity, which if one figures, also dents the profits of Hollywood. If I can view a movie for $2 instead of having to buy it brand new for $20, I like many others am going to lean towards the $2 method.

Copying a DVD is not illegal either, only as long as you actually own the DVD that you copy for “backup” purposes. Many complain that they do not want to sit through “forced” previews and the other garbage that studios pack on DVDs. In order to get around that, they simply burn their copy of the disc onto a new one where the previously mentioned garbage has been magically erased- nothing illegal about that. But one can get into trouble if a DVD is copied and distributed or copied from a disc that an individual does not own (i.e. from a movie rental establishment).

The point is that I find it amusing that Hollywood has a complete breakdown if they fall a few hundred million dollars short in a “staple market.” Every year, those in Hollywood get richer and richer, regardless of what they say. Maybe giving the “poor public” a break here and there would not be so bad in the long run. But what do I know? Maybe income disparity is just a myth.

2008-07-09T19:48:00.001-05:00

The Challenges of the Job Market

In my search for gameful employment in the mart of competitive commerce, I have come to a few realizations. That is, I have had an epiphany of sorts. That epiphany is the fact that many employers in both the public and private sector are hypocritical to an extent. No matter the employer, they claim to want “new and young blood” within their respective organizations. Yet, every job description that I have read through requires experience, even for many entry-level positions. Can you see the conundrum here?

I am aware of the fact that education can make up lack any lack of experience, but only to a certain degree. The trouble is that with the more education one has, the more an individual becomes over qualified for entry- level positions. Instead, these individuals tend to look for positions that are a bit higher up in the chain of command within an organization. However, these positions tend to require a fair amount of experience, which to many individuals who have gone on to obtain an advanced degree, is rather lacking.

My personal theory on remedying this situation is to go for broke and apply for positions that are within my educational range, regardless of the experience requirement. I did not go into an “astronomical” amount of debt to start at a job that pays pennies instead of quarters. When going for such a position, it is absolutely vital that one’s resume and cover letter are in top-notch form, as it is necessary to show a potential employer that one is serious about a job. If that can be communicated, you indeed have a chance at getting a call. But as I have noticed, those calls tend to be sparse, which is another reason to be on top of your “game” when a call eventually comes through.

2008-06-21T00:42:00.000-05:00

The Potential MLB Hall of Fame Class of 2013: Star Studded?

Today Curt Schilling announced that he may very well have thrown his last pitch in the majors, which got me thinking about his potential Hall of Fame bid in 2013 when he first becomes eligible. Besides Schilling, a few other “greats” will become eligible in 2013 as well. The question is though: will these men make it to Cooperstown or will the steroid era claim even more victims? Let’s first take a look at the all important statistics.

-Mike Piazza (Catcher- LAD, FLA, NYM, SD, OAK): .308 BA, 2,127 Hits, 1,335 RBI, 427 HR, 1,113 SO, 1993 Rookie of the Year in 16 seasons.

-Roger Clemens (Pitcher- BOS, TOR, NYY, HOU): 354 wins, 4916.7 IP, 3.12 ERA, 4,672 K, 7 Cy Young Awards, 1 AL MVP in 24 seasons.

-Barry Bonds (Outfield- PITT, SF): .298 BA, 2,935 Hits, 1,996 RBI, 762 HR, 1,539 SO, 7 NL MVP Awards in 22 seasons.

-Sammy Sosa (Outfield- TEX, CHWS, CHC, BAL): .273 BA, 2,408 Hits, 1,667 RBI, 609 HR, 2,306 SO, 1 NL MVP in 18 seasons.

-Curt Schilling (Pitcher- BOS, AZ, PHIL, BAL, HOU): 216 wins, 3216 IP, 3.46 ERA, 3,116 K in 20 regular seasons; In 5 trips to the post seasons: 11-2, 2.23 ERA, 133.1 IP, 120 K, 1993 NLCS MVP, 2001 World Series MVP.

The first great question of this group is whether Curt Schilling is Hall of Fame material. Compared to many great starting pitchers already in the hall, Schilling’s regular season numbers do not exactly stack up. His numbers do not even stack up to some pitchers who have yet to make it to the hall. For example, Tommy John won 288 games in 26 seasons, but has yet to receive the nod to the hall. I included his post-season numbers, as they are the strongest part of his resume. The 11 wins to 2 losses is the highest winning percentage of any pitcher in history. However, the chances are that Schilling will not be a 1st ballot hall of famer, but rather, more like a 14th or 15th ballot hall of famer.

The two no brainers in this group (barring any “revealing information”) are Sammy Sosa and Mike Piazza. Sosa’s 609 home runs and 3 seasons of 60+ home runs are extraordinary and consistent. Granted, he has the second most strikeouts of all time, but Reggie Jackson made it in with less homeruns. In addition, he has yet to be linked to any steroid use. Piazza’s 427 homeruns are the most of any catcher in history. Combine that with a solid .308 career batting average, the hall might as well get out the red carpet now. On the downside, he was not exactly the best defensive catcher of all time, but I do not see that as a problem.

This of course all leads me to the two very questionable individuals on the above-mentioned list: Bonds and Clemens. Obviously, their numbers are mind blowing to say the least. If it wasn’t for the steroid controversy surrounding them, I would venture to call them the greatest hitter and pitcher of this generation, respectively. Their potential entrance to the hall will all boil down to what we find out about their steroid use in the coming years. If it is proven that either one or both used steroids, I highly doubt that they will inducted into the hall, especially if either one is in jail (perjury) or has been convicted by that time. If I were a know-it-all baseball writer who is able to vote on the matter and knew what I know now, it would be a definite thumbs down, especially if Mark McGwire does not get in by then.

2008-06-14T02:32:00.002-05:00

Population Growth! Kind of...

I’ve recently become intrigued by a TV program on the TLC network entitled “Jon and Kate Plus 8.” Let me be perfectly clear, I generally despise TLC’s programming, as really, it is “too much information” and “too many haunting visuals.” Never the less, I discovered this show about, you guessed it, Jon and Kate. Jon and Kate have 8 children. If that isn’t enough to scare you, it gets better. 2 of the children are twins and the other 6 all came at once. That’s right, sextuplets. Aside from having a potential break down from simply watching the show, I became intrigued about the chances of “conceiving” that many children in “one sitting.”

After a bit of research, I have come up with some figures. Let it be noted that I did not do this research for the hell of it. This is actually rather pertinent information to be aware of, or at least in my case for the potential future. I’m going to be blunt, I am going to take a genetic history of every woman I date from this point forth. Any sort of history of “multiples” will in turn lead to me beating a hasty retreat to the nearest state line on foot. And you think I am joking…

Anyways, it is time to make my way to the figures. It should be noted that these figures are for natural incidences of “multiples,” not incidences that involve fertility treatment. As is obvious, fertility treatments greatly increase the incidences of “multiples.” The chance of having fraternal twins (not genetically identical) is 1 in 80; identical twins are 1 in 255. Triplets on the other hand are far rarer, as that chance is 1 in 8100. Quadruplets (4) are even rarer, as the chances are 1 in 729,000. Quintuplets (5) occur in 1 out of 55 million pregnancies. Finally, the chance of conceiving sextuplets is 1 in 4.7 billion. Needless to say, the “upper range” of those figures appears to be quite rare.

2008-06-13T02:48:00.001-05:00

More Confusion: Visual Tech.

With my previous post, I discussed the technical aspects of visual technology, mainly the new found fad of high definition. But the question then, is what does it take to view high definition TV and movies? Many retailers provide guides to this question, but I believe that I can “one up” them and simplify matters. The first thing to remember though is that all of this costs money and depending on what you want, it can cost a lot of money. But with the financial aspects aside, let’s delve into the confusion, shall we?

Let’s first start with viewing high definition TV. As mentioned in the previous post, you will need a TV that is HD capable, i.e. plasma, LCD, or even a projector. Both plasmas and LCDs are slowly going down in price, so be on the lookout for bargains on exceptionally large units. You have the TV, now you need a service that will provide you with an HD quality signal. Typically, your present cable or satellite provider will offer this service as an add on to your current package. Obviously, this will cost more, but most rates are reasonable. I currently get HD through my cable company, but personally, I would argue that most satellite company’s offer more channels in HD. On a side note, if you chose to stick with your current provider, your residence may have to be rewired with updated technology.

With that down, the next matter at hand is how to view movies and such in HD. As of last year, there were 2 main competitors in the HD movie realm: Bluray and HD-DVD. HD-DVD was backed and made by Toshiba, but as you can tell, the word “was” is rather key. In essence, the Bluray format won out and is now the standard in HD movie viewing. Obviously, your old DVD player will not be able to play a Bluray disc, even though it is the same size. So you will then need to acquire a Bluray disc player. Many of these units are still a bit pricey, but like HD TV’s; they are slowly declining in price. I would personally recommend Sony’s Playstation 3, as it has the ability to play Bluray movies as well as game. On top of that, many Bluray players are able to play your old DVDs as well.

On a final note, if you want to truly experience high definition, you are going to need the proper cables to do so. Many are probably familiar with AV cables, YBPr cables, and S-Video cables, but these are unable to conduct the massive amount of information that an HD signal entails. Instead, you will have to acquire an HDMI (High Definition Media Interface) cable to view HD. In most cases, your cable or satellite provider will provide you with an HDMI cable to connect to your TV from the receiver. If you buy a Bluray player, you will probably have to purchase an HDMI cable separately. I would recommend purchasing one over the internet, as they are considerably cheaper and of the same quality as the expensive ones that you find in many major retailers.

2008-06-07T00:40:00.001-05:00

A Word about Visual Tech

I’m sure that many have heard of the latest craze about high definition and all of its attributes. Much of the country will become much more familiar with these terms when all cable providers will switch their signal from analog to digital starting in February 2009. But then again, what are those attributes and what do they mean? What’s the difference between 480i, 720p, and 1080p? How can you watch programming and movies in these different formats? It is my hope that I can dispel some of the confusion surrounding these items and more.

First though, a word must be had about the history of high definition. Surprisingly, high definition technology has been around since the 1980’s in Japan. Much of the craze over high definition here in the United States has been limited to the past ten years. Like many cultural and technological phenomena, we Americans seem to be at the end of the line before any of the latest and greatest makes its way here. To further demonstrate this, even by the late 1980’s, the Japanese had developed an analog signal to broadcast high definition programming. But on the other hand, our flat screen computer monitors are high definition.

That then brings us to the difference between digital and analog, as it may be central to some when the big switch over occurs in February 2009. Currently, many still receive analog broadcasts in regard to their television viewing. Analog technology is actually an “analog wave.” For example, when a television broadcasting station beams out an analog signal from a TV tower to a receiving device, the wave is in its original form. Digital technology on the other hand uses the original analog wave, but that wave is sampled at a given interval and turned into numbers. For example, a digital signal can be found within a compact disc, DVD, or Bluray Disc. On a CD, 44,000 numbers are stored per second of music. In sum then, an analog signal has limitations in size, but digital technology allows for the 0’s and 1’s (the information) to be compressed and error free, hence more clarity.

What does that have to do with 480i, etc…? First off, because a digital signal can carry more information than that of an analog signal, it allows us to view TV and movies in life like high definition. For example then, most television viewing is done in 480i, as it is in analog form and can only carry a limited amount of information in the signal. What exactly is 480i and such?

-480i: This is called “standard definition” and can only display a limited number of horizontal and vertical lines on your television.
-480p: This is what you would see when you view a standard DVD; a few more horizontal and vertical lines.
-720p & 1080i: These two formats are called “high definition.” These formats are broadcast in a digital signal due to the increased data, which in turn provides for more horizontal and vertical lines. -1080p: Known as “true HD,” 1080p is also broadcast in a digital signal and provides for the best picture possible.

The easiest way to think of the above is through the numbers. For example, there is a 360 horizontal and vertical line difference between 720p and 1080i. 1080p on the other hand can refresh the line rates in your TV at a much faster rate (hence the “I” and “p”). When the digital signal become standard, you are not going to be able to view high definition or true HD on your tube TV (if it has a digital tuner), as the TV is not capable of producing the number of lines required. You would have to purchase an LCD or a plasma TV in order for that to happen. If your tube TV is a bit older and does not have a digital tuner, you can acquire a converter from the government or from a cable company that will convert the digital signal into a usable form by the TV.

There are more nuances to be discussed, but I’ll leave it at this stage for now.

2008-06-02T01:16:00.002-05:00

Due Caution Must Be Observed

I hate to bring a figurative bout of depression to the rampart surrounding the Cub’s success thus far in the 2008 season. But I believe that due caution should be exercised in regard to their success. Yes, as I’m sure you have heard, the Cubs have the best record in baseball as of today, with 36 wins and 21 losses. Evidently, this is the first time since 1908, the last time that the organization won the World Series, in which they have had the best record in the league going into June. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

But as Lou Pinella said, it really does not matter right now. If this was the last week of the season and they had the best record, well, yes then, it would matter. I do not want to bring up the subject of curses and such, as I do not believe in such matters. Within the context of this season though, it should be noted that there are 105 games left. A baseball season is incredibly long and during that time all teams go through strings of great successes and struggles. But what makes a great team in baseball is a team that maintains consistency throughout those successes and struggles.

The Cubs have a long road ahead, as a vast majority of their games will be on the road after the all-star break. Even in June, they only have 9 games at the “Friendly Confines,” a place where they have proven to be rather formidable thus far. The key to a successful season for the Cubs will be winning on the road as well. Granted, much of the hype thus far has to do with the national media attention that the organization is receiving in regard to not winning a World Series in 100 years if they do not win it this year. I know that there are masses out there rooting for them to “win it all” this year and I am one of them.

But with that said, I wouldn’t start placing my bets just quite yet...

2008-05-07T21:22:00.002-05:00

Review: “I Am Legend”

The latest Will Smith blockbuster, “I Am Legend” has recently hit the DVD market. Regardless of the critics and their respective opinions, I will indeed posit my own opinion in regard to the film and the very question that the film poses. The film is based upon the Thoman Matheson book of the same title. In essence, without spoiling it for the few that actually read this blog, the film revolves around Smith’s character, who is the supposed last person on Earth. With this tale encompassing an “Orwellian twist,” he ends up being the last person on the planet after a “cure” for cancer has gone awry and turned into a virus that has wiped out humanity, or most of it. Smith’s character is the only individual that is immune from this virus. The question is then, what would you do if you were “the last person” on Earth?

I am firmly aware of the old saying that the best of intentions have led to some of the worst things imaginable. Take for example Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). After reading into the origin of AIDS, I have come to believe (as previously written about) that AIDS occurred in humans due to a polio vaccine gone wrong in Africa in 1957-1958. To make a long story short, it appears as if the vaccine was manufactured out of the kidneys of chimpanzees, which are our closest living relatives. Chimpanzees or some of them at least, carry SIV or Simeon Immune Deficiency Virus. SIV as it would appear to the regular conspiracy theorist, then morphed into HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.

Granted, AIDS is currently restricted to those who come in direct contact (certain bodily fluids) with those who already have either HIV or “full blown AIDS.” But there is always the potential for AIDS or an unknown virus out there to effectively wipe us out. Many virologists would posit the fact that a virus has the ability to become airborne. What would you do if you were immune from such a super virus? That is, what if your very blood contained the secret to surviving such a catastrophe? That you were one of the very few humans that was able to survive the virus and the chaos that it caused?

It is indeed an enticing plot line that keeps the curious viewer enamored with the film, at least if one is partial to such a plot line. Luckily for us, Will Smith has not really gone “batshit crazy” over the whole scientology thing, unlike Tom Cruise. Have you seen Tom Cruise in any films worth seeing within the past few years? I do not believe so. Smith is indeed affiliated with scientology, at least to an extent, as far as what I understand from the tabloids. Personally, I do not see the virtue behind scientology, even though it is indeed up to the individual to choose their own “religion.” Never the less, when one works in the spotlight of Hollywood, affiliation with questionable organizations such as scientology can indeed hamper profits and roles that the studios are willing to delve out to such individuals.

Overall then, I would rate this film a figurative 7/10, even though I have yet to see “28 Days Later,” a film that is rather similar in the already posited “Orwellian” context.

2008-05-02T01:08:00.001-05:00

I Told Ya’ So

A CNN/Gallup Poll released today indicates that George W. Bush in now the most unpopular modern president in history. The modern presidency is considered by many political scientists to have begun in 1933 when FDR took office. Over this time span of 75 years, 12 presidents, including Bush have occupied the White House. Bush’s disapproval rating has now hit a staggering 70 percent, the first time, according to CNN, that any modern president has ever cracked the 70 percent line. Bush’s approval rating is at 28 percent, which is not the lowest, as both Harry Truman and Richard Nixon still take the cake in that regard, at 24 and 22 percent respectively. Truman use to hold the record for the highest disapproval rating at 67 percent, but luckily for him, Bush now has the honor of holding this unique position amongst American presidents.

For many Americans, these are probably pointless numbers from another pointless survey of 1000 people or so, but for an individual of my background and training, frankly, this is marvelous. This is the time when many Bush opponents, including myself get to say, “I told ya’ so!” Specifically, the brunt of Bush’s disapproval comes from the ongoing debacle in Iraq. I have the feeling that no matter how much “good” the president believes this war is doing for the country; history will not be as kind as he has been on himself. If I were authoring a history book 20 years from now, I would write that Iraq was a pointless debacle that in no way shape or form benefitted this country or its people. Whatever happened to the notion of “we the people?”

For some more perspective on this matter of approval and disapproval ratings, let’s review the approval ratings of the most recent presidents. When Bill Clinton left the White House in January 2001, his approval rating was at 65 percent, the highest of any modern president. When Ronald Reagan left office in January 1989, his approval rating was at 64 percent. Eisenhower left office with a 59 percent approval rating; Kennedy’s approval rating was at 63 percent in November 1963; and Bush Sr.’s approval rating was at 56 percent when he was defeated by the above mentioned Bill Clinton in November 1992. Americans have the tendency to grow tired of a president by the end of his second term (and are obviously fed up if he isn’t re-elected to a second term), as the above numbers indicate. But even those numbers hold a steady average of above at least 55 percent. Long story short, I believe this country made a huge mistake when THEY re-elected Bush in November 2004.

2008-04-27T17:28:00.001-05:00

Who Likes Hydrocarbons?

Over the past few weeks the price of gasoline has again risen to what many would consider to be “astronomical” heights in the United States. The question on the minds of many Americans is why has gas prices risen to their current point? Some would use the basic economic supply and demand argument. For example, it is estimated that for every 4 barrels of oil that we use, we can only find one to replace it. Or put another way, the oil companies are charging a price that reflects the value of oil remaining in the ground, as oil is a non-renewable resource. But the problem to many in America is that oil companies are bringing in profits that have never been seen before in corporate history.

Conspiracy theories aside, it should be noted that the United States still has the lowest gas prices in the “industrialized” world. The average price for a gallon of regular gas is now somewhere in the range of $3.50. But if you compare what we currently pay to our western European friends, we have it rather easy. The lowest price in Western Europe can be found in Bulgaria, where they pay $6.12 a gallon. On the other hand, those residing in the Netherlands pay $9.39 a gallon. Granted, Western European governments have always been apt to charge a higher tax on fuel, hence the big difference between us and them. Our motor fuel tax is essentially meaningless in the grand scheme of it all, as different states have different rates and typically those funds procured are used to strictly for road repair and construction.

So, if you look at what we pay in the grand scheme of it all, we really should not have any room to complain. Many Europeans tend to drive smaller and more compact vehicles, hence the reason why we really do not hear too many complaints from across the pond. Many in the U.S. (depending on where one resides) tend to drive larger and less compact vehicles. I have no pity for those who chose to drive a massive SUV that burns gas like none other and complain about it. If one cannot afford it, buy something smaller and more economical, it is that plain and simple. Oil prices are going to continue to climb no matter what happens, i.e. I don’t believe that Congress is going to solve the problem anytime soon. I envision at least $4 a gallon by summer’s end, so be prepared.

2008-03-15T16:39:00.002-05:00

The Decline of the American Auto

If you haven’t been living in a closet over the past decade or so, it should be apparent that the glory days of the American automobile are indeed long over. Especially in these times of economic turmoil and high gas prices, the trend has become even more apparent. General Motors is bleeding money like a hemophiliac, Ford is struggling, and Chrysler appears to be on its last leg. Instead of the “classic” American auto on the road, foreign autos such as Toyota, Hyundai, and Honda are starting to dominate America’s roadways. What is the cause of this trend?

The first culprit, in my opinion is the ever increasing price of gas. It seems that the price of oil reaches a new high on a daily basis, which in turn hurts consumers at the gas pump. Traditional American vehicles, especially high performance, V8 vehicles (what we are known for) are not exactly economical at $3.30 a gallon. Instead, imports from the above mentioned companies have taken the cake in regards to fuel efficiency. 4 cylinders and smaller V6’s are definitively cheaper to own than say, a beefy 350 (cubic inch) Chevy motor. Someone with a family and other financial responsibilities would rather get 25-30 mpg, rather than 15-20 mpg.

American automakers have attempted to retake the market by bringing back classic muscle car names from the past, such as Dodge’s new “Challenger SRT 8” model. The new Challenger has classic “box like” styling with classic weight (4200lbs) and power (425 horses). Chevrolet has brought back the classic Camaro namesake, as well. The trouble with these cars and many others is that the average American cannot afford them. If this were 1975, sure, everyone could afford these cars, as gas and the car itself were dirt cheap. But Joe Blow cannot afford to pay $40K for a car and on top of that to keep it filled up.

Congress and the EPA have also instituted new “mpg” specifications of 35 mpg by 2020. It is rumored that American automakers will start to work towards this new standard starting in 2012. Ford even has a top end Mustang model in the works for a turbo charged V6 to meet the new standards. When I read that, I immediately thought back to the 1981-1982 Mustang that had a top horsepower rating of 125 horses. I’m not sure about you, but I’m not ready for the V6 Mustang to be Ford’s namesake car in the market. Personally, I enjoy the thrill of a classic American auto. I enjoy getting in my “mach 1” and putting “the peddle to the metal” and acquiring whiplash (if I could marry my car, I probably would).

Granted, I may be spouting out a new tune in 10 years when I’m carting around my numerous prodigies (that's a whole new set of issues) in the latest and greatest minivan (it will be a cold day in hell when you see me driving one of those). I’m young and my responsibilities are minimal, hence my slight bias in all of this. But neither I nor America is ready for the thrill of driving to be taken away from us. I would want future generations to enjoy the thrill of good ol’ American muscle. At the same time though, I am not a fan of warring over oil or opening up ANWAR for drilling; I am aware that certain sacrifices must be made. What those sacrifices are, well if I had the answer, I would be a billionaire.

2008-03-13T02:14:00.002-05:00

Fall From Grace

I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again a million times over: Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity. The media has been in an uproar over what will surely become known as the “Client #9 Scandal.” Actually, if it becomes known as that, I want the copyright or trademark. Anyways, if you do not know what “client #9” means, I am referring to (former) New York Governor Eliot Spitzer’s fall from political and moral grace. Spitzer apparently spent large sums of his own money in procuring call girls from an elaborate prostitution ring that crossed national boundaries. By some estimates, it appears as if he spent $80,000 for 8 “sessions.” The “client #9” moniker is from the criminal affidavit where evidently Spitzer is identified as this mysterious client.

Spitzer has yet to be charged or even indicted on any charges, but charges could be forthcoming after a grand jury is convened to hear the logistics of the case. Of course, the first thing that comes to mind when you hear “sex scandal” is the Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky affair that occurred a decade ago. But the difference this time is that Spitzer’s actions were indeed illegal, Clinton’s were not. Prostitution is illegal in New York and Washington D.C. (where at least one of these encounters took place).He may also face charges under the Mann Act, which prohibits the transport of prostitutes between state borders. Plus, he very well may be brought up on charges of “structuring,” or attempting to disguise enormous sums of money from federal regulators by making a series of money transfers in small amounts (i.e. if you move over $10K in money from your bank account, the federal government knows about it). Based on those facts, the legislature of New York threatened to impeach Spitzer, which is why he resigned.

This is obviously not the first time that a powerful-rich (his wife is going to take him for half of it, trust me, I know women) man has had an issue with sleeping around, but the media is having a “hay-day” with this because Spitzer was a politician known for his "above average ethics." Before he became governor last year, he was New York’s attorney general for the previous 8 years. During his time as attorney general, he cracked down on “big money” in the realm of Wall Street (he didn’t make too many friends on Wall Street, as demonstrated by the fact that basically everything came to a halt for a few minutes in lieu of various celebrations when the news was leaked). What is the lesson learned from all of this?

There are a few lessons, actually. The first of which is that no matter who you are, you are not above the law. Coming from a state where many past (and current) governors have run into legal issues, I am firmly aware of the fact that no one really cares who you are, especially the federal government. Second, Americans do not like hypocrites. If you really want to irritate your constituency, do something the complete and udder opposite of what you are known for, i.e. abiding by the law. Now, if he was the governor of say, Alaska, no one would care, but in fact he was the governor of New York- the figurative center of the country. Plus, it’s the nation’s biggest media market, i.e. don’t get caught or the whole world is going to know. I am not going to elaborate on the morality of Spitzer’s actions (it would get “R rated” at this point), as that is up to the individual to decide.

2008-03-05T01:23:00.001-06:00

So Long #4

To the relief of many Chicago Bear’s fans and those who are not Green Bay Packers fans, the immortal Brett Favre called it quits today. Besides the fact that he played the mortal enemy of the Bears, there is really not much that can be said in malice of Favre. In many ways he embodied what it is to truly love a game for all its worth and at the same time, he was brilliant in its execution. For 17 years, Favre was indeed one of, if not the brightest shining star in the NFL and rightfully so. If one man is to hamper the hopes and dreams of “your” team, I’m glad it was him and no one else. If you are going to be beaten, it should be by a class act and by someone worthy of greatness.

Football is just a game and I am sure that Favre was well aware of that. But to the extent that a simple game becomes every part of your being, Favre was just that. His story should be one that more people should experience; learning the game from the old man and becoming great at it through perseverance, trial, and error. In a sense, I believe that his star power was fueled by the fact that he was human and showed it. No one is perfect and don’t get me wrong, I’d be the first to point those imperfections out on the football field. I am speaking rather, of not imperfection of life itself, but rather the one thing that every person finds in common; our humanity. He showed us that it is alright to get excited over a game and that it was ok to “let go” of it all through something that we love.

I believe that he is comparable to great figures in other sports in this regard, such as Michael Jordan or Wayne Gretsky. I am not contending that he was the best ever, but it is apparent that he indeed was the best of this generation of NFL quarterbacks. The great thing about history is that it is debatable and I am sure that the debates shall start in earnest about Favre’s place in NFL history. Was he the greatest quarterback ever? The numbers would say so. Yet there are countless variables and passions that will dominate the debate for generations to come. Whatever the debaters have to say, one thing is sure to come up every time; “he was great.”

2008-01-24T00:31:00.000-06:00

Finally, Empirical Evidence

A recent study by the Center for Public Integrity concluded that President Bush and his top advisors made 935 false statements between 2001 and 2003 regarding Iraq. Obviously, this should not be news to anyone, as it has become apparent that any statement made by the administration in the run up to the invasion of Iraq was completely false due to “bad intelligence.” If memory serves me correctly, the intelligence community was right about Iraq; Sadaam did not have weapons of mass destruction, nor was his regime a threat to the US or US interests in the area. The trouble is that the correct information was intentionally suppressed and ignored by the Bush Administration.

With this new found empirical evidence, is there any recourse for the American public? To be blunt, no, we cannot do a damn thing about it. It would have been nice if we were more informed about Iraq in the run up to the 2004 election and it would have been even better if this new information had come to light in 2003, but these notions are a moot point now. Yes, I do believe that if the American public knew what we know now, Bush would not be in the White House, plain and simple. Is there any legal recourse? Without getting into the legal “mumbo jumbo,” the answer in this case is a blunt no. Misleading the American public is not “a high crime or misdemeanor.” Now if one of these individuals slipped up under oath in Congressional testimony, that would constitute perjury, which is punishable under the law.

The trouble is that it would prove impossible to follow the trail of lies back to Bush. Those close to Bush are firmly aware that he is not the most intelligent person to have ever resided in the White House, so they have taken extra measures to ensure that those below Bush take the rap for any misdoing. That is, he has advisors and staff cronies for every single aspect of the job. The punishment for George W. Bush in this case is history. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Bush is concerned that his legacy as president will parallel that of Lyndon B. Johnson (Vietnam). I believe that history will be kind to Bush in terms of his handling of 9/11, but the true legacy of his administration will be strewn with incompetence and failure. Ask yourself this: What has he really accomplished besides spending money like a kid who stole his dad’s credit card?

2008-01-19T14:51:00.000-06:00

Economic Stimulus Plan: I Beg To Differ

President Bush has proposed a $500 tax rebate to every American that pays taxes in order to help stimulate the economy. If you haven’t noticed, the economy has been in the “dumps” of late and it doesn’t appear to be improving. I would venture to even say that the economy may in fact be in a recession. Granted, I am not an economist, but the signs are rather obvious to any American that follows the news or has capital invested in the market. The slumping real estate market is probably the best indicator. Even the chairman of the Federal Reserve has signaled to Congress that something must be done, but I don’t think that $500 to every tax paying American is the answer.

The question that you have to ask yourself is what would you do with an extra $500? In today’s world there isn’t much that you can do with $500 except pay down debt. I venture to assert that a majority of Americans will in fact pay down some of their debt with the extra cash. I’ll be the first to tell you that I will be trying to cut some of my debt with the extra cash. It is a general rule of thumb; at least in the economic world that paying down debt will not stimulate the economy in the way that the president hopes. Think of it this way: if you paid off a credit card with the extra money, what have you bought? $500 is simply not enough to force more demand in the market for much of anything, hence the flaw with the plan.

So, what should the government do? The president does not have that much control over the economy, at least the amount of control that the media would have you believe. Nor does the Federal Reserve Board, as they technically do not lower interest rates, they simply recommend lowering interest rates. In this case the “Fed” should recommend a drastic lowering of interest rates if they wish to stimulate the economy in a more immediate fashion. I’m not talking about quarter or half points, I’m talking in the way of whole points. The exact number is debatable, but I do believe that it would breathe a breath of fresh air into an economy starving for air. The point is that it would quell investor’s fears on Wall Street where the recovery would start and then so on throughout the economy.

2008-01-18T01:03:00.000-06:00

Never Underestimate The Predictability of Stupidity

A few weeks back I discussed the “price of our actions” in regard to the terrible incident at the San Francisco Zoo on Christmas Day where one person was killed by a captive Siberian Tiger. But today police released a report that said one of the other two victims of the tiger was intoxicated and agitating the beast while it was in its enclosure. After reading the report, three thoughts came to mind: One, these creatures are a bit smarter than we like to think they are; two, never underestimate the predictability of stupidity; three, more safeguards are needed to protect imbeciles from captive predators. Isn’t a zoo a place where we can enjoy these animals in a controlled environment for both the animal and us?

As one can tell, I am a bit “fired up” over this event and for good reason. No, I do not belong to PITA, as I believe their ideology and goals are farfetched and extreme. But on the other hand, I unlike some people have a healthy respect for nature’s creatures and the power that some of them possess. This leads into my first thought on the matter: our underestimation of many creature’s intelligence. If the report is true and at least one person was taunting the tiger, isn’t it a bit surprising that the “beast” explicitly remembered who these people were? Then it methodically “hunted” them down. How do we react when we are taunted? Typically we try to silence the individuals through tact or force. Maybe the tiger was reacting just as it should- in its self defense. It obviously felt threatened and it dealt with the situation in the only way it knew how: fight or flight. It obviously chose to fight. Keep that in mind next time you are on a trip in the great outdoors.

Secondly, one must never underestimate the predictability of stupidity. The first mind boggling question is who goes to a zoo drunk? It is a fact that alcohol impairs judgment and a variety of other cognitive faculties, so why would one choose to go to a zoo to taunt the animals? If you have visited a zoo, there is no doubt that we have all tapped on the glass or the bars of an enclosure to get an animal’s attention. But it would appear as if at least one individual went a bit overboard and chose the wrong animal. They do not call them “big cats” for nothing; any cat classified in that category is more than able to rip a human apart without thinking about it. The prey they game in the wild is far bigger and stronger than us, hence they have to be bigger and stronger than their prey in order to survive. I don’t know about you, but I am not about to go one on one with a cat that was at least 300+ pounds of pure muscle.

Finally, it should be the responsibility of zoos to keep their guests safe. As mentioned previously, I am not a fan of zoos, but they aren’t going away anytime soon, so it would be logical to properly enclose the creatures in proper facilities. In theory, a vast majority of creatures found in zoos shouldn’t have to be shielded from everyone by giant iron bars. But when individuals intentionally tease these creatures, well they ruin it for all of us. Granted, the facilities zoos use is dependent upon that particular zoo’s ideology and relationship with their animals. Never the less, there should be a standard that all zoos should have to abide by. Some places even walk their big cats around while guests are present in order to give the guests the full experience. I don’t see anything wrong with that, just as long as morons do not tease them.

2007-12-27T17:38:00.000-06:00

The Power of an Idea

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction; this fundamental paradigm of physics has long held true for our social world. I begin this way to illustrate a point, the point that in the world of politics, the power of an idea is indeed remarkable. People do not fear vast armies, weapons, repression, etc…, no, people fear ideas. What kind of ideas are these? These ideas range from the laws of Hammurabi to democracy in today’s world; basically anything that you can think of that has happened throughout history. For these ideas to come to fruition they must have popular support and at the same time, popular resistance; otherwise, what would the point be if everyone agreed?

The country that we live in today was formed on an idea, an idea of freedom. Obviously we all know the story, but the point reigns true in this case as well. Countless lives were lost in this struggle some two-hundred years ago for an idea that is still flourishing today. Those that we see as ultimate patriots are seen in the eyes of the English as traitors, the gravest of humanity’s crimes. Yet without such branding on both sides of the coin, the significance of what exists today would have been long undermined and thrown to the realm of innate history. The events of today in Pakistan exemplify our fear of an idea, a fear of democracy.

I could sit here for days trying to explain the significance of democracy and what it means for those who fight for it today. But it would be futile, at least for those of us who reside in the western world, as I believe that it is something that we take for granted on a daily basis. Benazir Bhutto was assassinated by someone or a group that feared the idea of democracy; an idea that would undoubtedly improve the prospects for those residing in the country. This isn’t the first time in human history that the leader of a popular movement has been assassinated. But we need to remember, even though the media is “freaking out,” that sometimes the death of a leader can indeed strengthen the cause for democracy in the end.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."- Thomas Jefferson