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

2007-12-26T21:12:00.000-06:00

The Price of Our Actions?

The “big story” of Christmas had nothing to do with Christmas, but instead was centered on the San Francisco Zoo, where a 17 year old was killed by a Siberian tiger that escaped from its pen. The tiger also attacked two other individuals, but they lived to tell the tale. I’m aware of the fact that zoos have been around for quite a long time and are probably never going away, but we need to reconsider the principal behind zoos themselves. That is, are we putting too much emphasis on conservation in the wrong place, i.e. our zoos? Maybe we should start placing more effort to the actual conservation of lands where endangered and exotic creatures live so that we may view them in their natural surroundings.

When a story of an animal attack hits the national media, we all become aware that we are not atop of the food chain (save for our guns and such). In the case of the Siberian tiger, we are looking at the largest land carnivore on the planet, with the biggest of the males occasionally hitting 900+ pounds. Luckily, the cat that escaped yesterday was only in the 300 pound range, but still managed to crush the skull of the individual she killed. When dealing with that kind of power, the zoos where these creatures are housed must be on top of their respective games at all times in order to protect visitors. No one is sure what happened yesterday, but it is safe to assume that something went wrong. The obvious problem that I have deciphered from the news reports is that there were 4 of these giant cats inside of one enclosure, which would signal that there is a bit of overcrowding.

The UN reports that species on this planet are becoming extinct at 100 times the natural rate; both animals and plants. Due to this mass extinction caused by humankind, some and rightfully so have taken it upon themselves to conserve endangered species. I do not doubt these people at all, as what they do is admirable and unselfish. The conservation movement has shown some of man’s biggest successes of the 20th century (i.e. the return of wolves to Yellowstone or the removal of the bald eagle from the endangered species list). In the spirit of such successes, I believe that we can best help powerful predators and smaller animals alike by not just breeding them in captivity, but focusing more on where they come from.

Yes, habitat is being lost, but it is in the power of governments to protect these habitats. Yes, there are still those that kill endangered species for a variety of reasons, but last time I checked, humans weren’t exactly endangered (if you get my drift). In the case of the Siberian (Amur) tiger, their home range is found in eastern Siberia, just to the south of Vladivostok. The Russian government protects these creatures not with just the force of law, but the force of the gun, as anyone found to be hunting the creatures are jailed and occasionally shot. If that is what needs to be done to protect these creatures and their habitats, so be it. In a sense, I can indeed understand why it is frustrating to be a major player in the conservation movement. But at the same time, there are improvements to be made.

2007-12-18T03:15:00.000-06:00

Steroids in Baseball

Obviously the release of the “Mitchell Report” has been one of the more prominent news stories of the past week, as it has finally “named names” in regards to who has used performance enhancing drugs in baseball. Some are calling this report the worse thing to hit baseball since the Black Sox Scandal of 1919. Others have taken a less dramatic approach and are calling the report a simple indicator of the times, or rather, the “steroid era” of baseball. Either way, it would appear as if there is indeed a lot of explain to do on the part of those indicated in the report as well as a comprehensive drug testing system that MLB needs to put in place. Either way, expect the 2008 season to be riddled with the words “performance enhancing drugs” every time you turn on a game, watch SportsCenter, or even attend a game.

I have reviewed the report over the past few days and listened to the commentary from the “experts,” and a few questions have come to mind. First, many of the names implicated in the report are essentially “no names” or rather, those who didn’t do anything significant while on the drugs; plain and simple, what the hell does it matter? Yes, they cheated, but they didn’t set any records. Personally, I don’t think that Bud Selig is going to waste his time on these present and former players. But then the future hypocrisy will come to fruition. What I mean by this is that Bud will undoubtedly investigate the more prominent names on the list, mainly Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens. The numbers indicate that these two men are by far the best hitter and pitcher of this generation, respectively. But should their numbers be looked upon with scrutiny and should they be disciplined?

In my opinion, if any of the names on the list are shown to have taken any performance enhancing drugs, they should be subsequently banned from the game for life. Think about it, if Pete Rose was banned from betting on the game due to the fact that his involvement in the game could have possibly led to illegitimate actions on the field, then why not these men? The use of performance enhancing drugs, at least in regards to some players led to unfair competition. Isn’t fair competition what the game is based upon? I highly doubt that the banning of these players will ever come to fruition, as it will probably tarnish the game even more. But it does bring up the idea of putting the famous asterisk by these individual’s stats. If some of the experts are claiming that this is indeed the steroid era, then next to the asterisk at the legend of the page it should be written “steroid era.” Let future fans judge for themselves whether these individual’s records are indeed legitimate

2007-12-03T02:43:00.000-06:00

The Origin of AIDS

I have written on the subject matter before, but I again feel the need to elaborate on it. I have become aware of a little know, yet controversial theory in regards as to the origin of HIV and AIDS. Like many of us, I would agree in part that AIDS, like many other deadly diseases occur out of millions of years of mutation and evolution- an act of God if you will. But in virology terms, AIDS is a new disease never before seen or recorded throughout human history. I do not doubt that one day humankind will invent a cure for it, but we have yet to even invent a cure for any known virus. As I’m sure most of us have been to the doctor and have been told that we have a cold virus. There is nothing we can do for it; we let it run its course and we carry on. The trouble is that AIDS does not work like that.

To be clear, not much is known about the origin of AIDS. Some argue that the first case of AIDS was discovered in 1931 in Africa based upon a primordial blood test that indicated a severely weakened immune system, amongst other symptoms. Medical science will argue that this is the origin of AIDS. But others argue that the first case occurred in 1959 in what is now the Democratic Republic of Congo. Oddly enough, the first case occurred roughly 2 years after a mass inoculation occurred in order to eradicate another disease, polio. You can see what I am getting at here, but I need to further elaborate on the logistics the polio vaccine itself.

Now don’t go out and have yourself tested for HIV if you’ve had a polio vaccination. In the mid 1950’s there was a race of sorts between competing scientists in regards to the creation of the world’s first polio vaccine. To make a long story short, one version of the vaccine was tested in Estonia, Latvia, and Kazakhstan. To be blunt, this is the version of the vaccine that was made prominent in the west. The other version was tested in Zaire (now the DRC). At the time Zaire was a colony of Belgium and this new vaccine testing was authorized by the government. What was the difference between the two vaccines? It appears as if the one that found common use in the west was created using the kidneys of “green monkeys” while the other vaccine used in Africa was created using the kidneys of Chimpanzees, our closest living relative.

What is the big deal? Oddly enough there is a “monkey version” of the human HIV virus, called SIV or SV40. There are many different versions of SV, but the one with 40 next to it is the key. When the vaccines were being made, the one used in Africa appeared to contain what was being called “virus x,” a rather unstable virus at that. The thing about using the “green monkeys,” as we would later find out is immune from our HIV virus, while chimpanzees are not and can even die from their own SIV. The basic assumption of this theory is that the vaccine used in Africa contained SV40 or the chimp version of the virus. It is then assumed that the SIV found in the chimp version that was injected into 1 million Africans morphed into what we now know as human immunodeficiency virus. How does that sound? Could it be true that humans mistakenly created one of the greatest killers of the 20th century? A killer that as we know cannot be cured and will continue to kill?

2007-11-03T00:28:00.000-05:00

Science vs. God

The title subconsciously begs the big question: is there a God? Or are we simply running around without anyone watching over us? If you’re alive and are old enough to comprehend any semblance of religion, you have probably asked yourself this question a time or two. Those who study various religions, both past and present will tell you that throughout history, humans have commonly given broad conceptualization to things that they have never been able to explain. Obviously, the concept of God has always been rather hard to define by the everyday sort of person, which is why we have always left it up to the church.

Whether you’re Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, or Orthodox, by definition these various faiths all worship the same God. The cause for there being a variety of faiths can be attributed to various schisms throughout history based on power and doctrinal divergence. It’s simple as that. Even before the modern Christianity movement that took place in the beginning of the first millennia, there were other faiths, which included paganism (those who worship inanimate objects) or Zoroastrianism (those who worshipped a “prophet” of sorts named Zoroaster). As one can tell, these religions and many others have lost out in the natural order of human history for various reasons. But why?

“The Church” or what is now the modern Catholic Church did away with paganism by attaching brutal stigmas to it, i.e. barbarism, etc… Pagans still exist today, but in areas of the world that are remote and are out of the reach of modern society. Oddly enough, the stars that symbolize the rank of general were always seen as a symbol of evil in paganism; I find that ironic, which is why I mention it. Anyways, it was the Egyptians, Romans, and the Greeks that gave us the modern concept of God, as they were polytheistic or believed in many Gods. The Egyptians for example had various Gods that they believed to control natural phenomena such as the weather and crop growth.

It was the early Christians that gave us the monotheistic view of God or the one all powerful God. Even though we live in a modern age where science has trumped many aspects of religion, billions still believe. A common area of discourse is over our very existence on this planet. Religion tells us that God created the world and us in 7 days. Science tells us that we are here because of the “Big Bang” or the idea that the universe was created in one giant burst of energy. The products of that giant burst eventually came together to create Earth and the life on it (long story short). My point is that religion has crafted our current view of God over time and they haven’t exactly forthcoming about it.

Religion is firmly aware of science and have has gone to extreme lengths in the past to disprove it to maintain their stranglehold on the masses. In the basement of the Vatican, there are archives that document human history over the past two thousand years. Yet, the Vatican has always been guarded in allowing access to the archives, most of which has never seen the eyes of an outsider. Only the pope has access to these archives. Do you think they are hiding something? For example, our common visualization of Jesus is of a white man, but in reality, Jesus was probably Middle Eastern in descent and looked like a common, dark skinned Middle Eastern. Even the above picture of God painted by Michaelangelo on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel isn’t exactly representative of humanity.

To me the whole concept of religion and God has been skewed by human finagling over the centuries. Even what you see in the Bible today was decided in 325 in the first ecumenical council; do you think they were unbiased? I don’t think God showed up to deliver the final manuscript in person. For all we know, we are a bunch of psychotic apes floating around through space on a tiny ball of various gasses that allows us and every creature on this planet to survive. On the other hand, maybe we were strategically put here by a super natural being for some reason or another. If I knew the answer to those questions, I’d probably be God or some sort of billionaire prophet. This is a question that is subjective to the individual or “faith,” but isn’t it a fantastic source of discussion and war?

2007-10-31T01:40:00.000-05:00

Love is War

Our most basic and yet most vital instinct embedded deep within our brains in concerned with one thing and one thing only: procreating or ensuring the survival of the species. Even though we do not know it, when we see an individual of the opposite sex, we are sizing them up or rather, we are curious as to if they would suffice as a future mate. Granted, all of that is subjective, as we all look for different characteristics while eye raping an individual. During the era of the caveman thousands upon thousands of years ago, this process was much the same, but getting to the point of “getting the job done” was a lot easier, to be blunt. Fact is, our brains were smaller then, and hence we never had the capacity to think too much into the matter. But sadly that has changed; love has turned into the new World War between the sexes or what I like to call, “the game.”

Being that I am alive and am a man, it is sufficient to assume that I have “struck out” a time or ten thousand in my day (sober and inebriated). Through all of these manic collapses, I have come to the conclusion, as has every other male on this planet, that women somehow evolved beyond us in regards to controlling when this “action” occurs (I blame Midol and that godforsaken sitcom, “Sex and the City”). This so called “game” consists of many aspects and rules, which I have constructed from my vast experiences with the opposite sex. These rules include, (1) Don’t talk to a man first, (2) Don’t stare at a man or talk too much, (3) Don’t call him, or rarely return his calls, (4) Don’t accept a Saturday night date after Wednesday, (5) Always end the date first, (6) Don’t see him more than once or twice a week, (7) Lie consistently, (8) Don’t discuss “the game” with your shrink, and (9) Don’t go “Dutch” on a date; make him pick you up.

Like most things in the world, there is a serious lack of logic in “the game.” This lack of logic either dumbfounds the guy or simply turns a guy off to the prospect of even talking to a woman. It is because of “the game” that my hypothesis that all women are bat shit crazy has been proven wrong and instead has been turned into a paradigm. Personally, I wouldn’t trust a woman who abides by the paradigm with my prodigy, much less a bean bag. For example, “Dutch dating” simply implies that the man should have to pay for everything (meals, flowers, etc…). If I totaled up the amount of capital that I have pissed away, err spent on women, I would be able to afford a supercharger for the true love of my life (funny how a complex machine makes me happy). As a matter of fact, I might just send out a few invoices later on to recoup my financial losses.

Now, if women were to discuss the paradigm known as “the game” in their weekly therapy sessions (they should all seek help if you ask me), this wouldn’t be a problem at all. But women cling to these rules like a sloth clings to a tree for dear life. I wouldn’t be a man if I didn’t admit that I have analyzed a “Cosmo” or two while on the throne and oddly enough, “the game” seems to be a key component to each and every issue. This my friends is why love is war; it is as if society has turned us into warring parties over nothing (Cold War). The Cold War could have very well spelled doom for everyone, much less the planet. I know that all we need right now is even more people to piss up the planet, but if “the game” continues, I fear that we shall go extinct as a species (I’m joking, but you get the point). Knock it off!

2007-10-16T03:17:00.000-05:00

Frustration

I am unsure if confusion is a symptom of being young or it is a condition that pervades through all of us throughout our lives. Confusion can make us do and say things that lack logic in all senses of the word. It strives to turn us into something that we are not. I learned long ago that the world is a big and scary place; a place that will obliterate every ounce of being that encompasses the soul. Yet, I have learned to look past that fear; fear will only destroy what little you have. What has replaced that fear is frustration, a frustration of a different sort that only the most abstract of thinkers can hope to comprehend.

It isn’t that I fear people, as we only fear things which we do not understand. The world that I see today, the people that I see bring rise to a single emotion, the emotion of frustration. The world around us is based upon logic, yet it seems as if the very foundation of logic has long ago eroded into an entanglement of nonsense. When all you do is observe the human condition, you tend to become bitter, that is to say, frustrated at our current state of affairs. I do not speak of morals per say, as it is not my place to judge the beliefs and actions of others; I am speaking of a much larger and abstract condition.

I have stated it before and I will state it again, I have lost faith in humanity. Throughout my short existence on this planet, I can count on one hand the number of people that I have met who have contradicted the previous statement. If everyone on this planet was more like those people, the world would be much better off. It seems as if the world of the past thousand years has effectively altered our stature in the grand scheme of things. Instead of survival, we now are now fixated on our own selfish endeavors, superior and appalling; things that we are not by nature suppose to even fret about.

It is not my intent to claim that I understand each and every person on this planet, as we all lead very different and distinct lives. But I do understand one aspect of every person on this planet and that is instinct. If you are breathing, there is always a portion of the brain that never quiets down. We all share it, as I believe it to be a primitive response to what we once were. It all boils down to survival; what you need to do in order to sustain yourself. It is in essence, the built in “selfish chip.” It is what most psychologists would term the “fight or flight” reflex.

You could be a walking saint for all I care, but I know deep down that we both operate on the same “platform.” If it is my intent to harm another person, physically or otherwise, “fight or flight” kicks in. It is as if we all believe that every person out there is out to “get us.” The world we have created has turned a survival mechanism into a mechanism of deceit; we are more confused than ever. It is this confusion in our world that leads to frustration for some, including myself. It isn’t that the world is filled with bad people, but confused people who are reacting to the times in a manner in which we are conditioned to respond.

2007-10-13T01:35:00.000-05:00

People Change

I’ve always considered myself an astute observer of the human condition since I can first remember. As I’m sure most people can recall, watching our parent(s) is the beginning of fashioning our curiosity about people in general. That is to say, I’ve always found myself wondering exactly what makes people tick. I guess you could say that is why I have always found myself attracted to the social sciences. Subjects such as history, political science, psychology, sociology, anthropology, etc… always enthralled me in school and still do for that matter. I am never one to assume much about people I meet (until I get to know them), as these previously listed social sciences have told me that there is always a reason behind why people are the way they are.

Whenever I meet someone new, I’m always inclined to make conversation about their present, past, and future moments in their lives. I have noticed that people are always inclined to speak of their families, friends, relationships, pets, what they wish to become, or even what they think of our current leaders (if they even know). By creating a synthesized time line in my mind, I can construct a general “inner picture” of that person. I do it because I want to know if that person is to be of long term “value” to me, i.e. if they are stimulating. This is just my method for attempting to decipher people; we all have a method, we just don’t think about it. Of course, there is always much more to be told about any individual, which obviously takes a longer commitment to that person if I am to find out if my generalized time line is accurate.

The beauty of human society is that it facilitates our social evolution. My 88 year old grandmother is always telling me how amazed she is how the world has evolved into what it is today. The prior generation’s societal experiences are incomprehensible to most of us, including myself. I cannot fathom myself in say, 1930 with my current accumulation of experiences. I wouldn’t fit in if I tried. If you happen to be reading, you are probably wondering what the point of all this rant is? I’m glad you asked.

If you look back at what has been written thus far, you will see that this rant has evolved into something generalized and vague into this point: Life is about evolution. I’m not talking about Darwinism evolution (biological), but the evolution of the individual. We all change in that sense. You could say that everyday our perceptions of the world change, whether we meet a new person or even go to work. The common saying goes that we learn something new everyday unless we are dead. The brain is an awesome sponge for this purpose. People change.

2007-10-09T10:37:00.000-05:00

Is It Our Fault or Is It Their Time?

For many observers, there is a conservation crisis on the Australian island of Tasmania. Many are familiar with the Tasmanian devil, a small, yet fierce meat eating marsupial that has resided on the island for thousands of years. Fossil records indicate that the devil resided on the actual continent of Australia up to 600 years ago. But the rise of dingo (a wild dog) populations led to the eventual extinction of the creature on the continent. Trouble is that we (humans) brought the dingo to Australia in the first place, hence disturbing the natural ecological balance.

As of now, there are only 80,000 devils remaining on the island. That doesn’t sound too bad, right? Look at it this way, as of 1990 there were over 140,000 devils on the island; that is almost half of the population gone in less than two decades. What is causing the devil to die off? The cause is a large outbreak of tumors, more specifically facial tumors that lead to the eventual starvation and death of the creature. Scientists discovered that due to a lack of genetic diversity, the remaining devils develop tumors because their systems do not have the ability to ward off infection from biting which is rather common amongst the devil.

In short, the mechanism that most creatures have that short out tumors before they start to grow is absent in the devil. This dilemma is comparable to per say primates that inbreed. A prime example would be English monarchs of the past centuries. If you recall, they would only have kids within the family, which would lead to genetic conditions and their eventual deaths. This is the case for the devils. Because they are so genetically similar, their immune systems have mutated, which makes them prime candidates for disease.

Many would argue that this is the natural cycle of life; Darwinism, survival of the fittest. If a creature cannot adapt, it is not meant to survive; a new creature will take the extinct one’s place. But as mentioned above, their very survival has been put in jeopardy by our actions of the past. We brought the wild dog to Australia, which in turn forced the devil the find refuge in an isolated environment. So the question still remains; did we do it? Or is it their time?

2007-09-12T23:36:00.000-05:00

Who Likes Bombs?

Remember the good ol’ days of the Cold War? You know the 40 year ideological conflict between the United States and the debunked USSR. I consider myself a historian as well as a political scientist (I have degrees in both fields) and one thing that almost any person with a background in history will tell you is that history tends to repeat itself. Being an avid subscriber to this theory and with thousands of years of evidence to support it, I fear as if we may find ourselves again in the midst of a Cold War.

Yesterday the Russians successfully (in their words) tested the “dad of all bombs.” Excuse the peculiar name of the device, but it appears as if it is the real deal. In essence, the Russian bomb is a counter to the U.S. made device termed the “mother of all bombs.” The Russians claim their bomb is four times more powerful than its American cousin and the most powerful non-nuclear bomb in history. Both devices are vacuum bombs, which act like a nuclear bomb in the sense that they consume massive amounts of oxygen to detonate and then push that oxygen back out with incredible force.

Does this new found bomb have any implication for renewed tensions between Moscow and Washington? Relations are strained between both President Bush and President Putin, some even calling their relationship “cold.” Bush like the rest of the world is concerned that Putin is reasserting the old “hard line” in Russia, i.e. taking countless steps away from democratization. To say that Russia is still in shambles is an understatement, but one needs to realize that they have the world’s largest oil reserves. I don’t believe anything imminent to be at hand; look towards the future for dicey relations to reassert themselves.

If the Third World War were to erupt between the U.S. and Russia in the future, I would not be concerned about “the dad of all bombs” or the “mother of all bombs.” Granted, each pack around 8 tons of TNT and are formidable, but both nations still have around 20,000 nuclear warheads sitting around. Nuclear weapons are still by far the most horrific means of killing people (and the planet for that matter) ever constructed. Even though the Cold War is over and world tensions are a shadow of what they use to be, it doesn’t mean the plutonium with its 29,000 year half life disappeared when the USSR collapsed, nor did human nature suddenly change.

2007-09-12T03:35:00.000-05:00

We Shall Never Forget

It seems as if six years has been an eternity and for some, six years has indeed been an eternity. Yesterday the sixth anniversary of the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon came and passed without incident. The Great Depression defined what we now refer to as the “greatest generation;” Vietnam defined the baby boomer generation; 9/11 has and will undoubtedly define my generation (usually considered to be generation x and generation y). Moments of hardship and despair forever brand us in this country, usually at the expense of those with the greatest potential.

That is what differentiates my generation from those of the past; those lost on September 11, 2001 were selected by fate if not just being at the wrong place at the wrong time. It was not the decision of a president that led to over 2800 lives being lost that day; it was the decision of those who despise what this great nation, this great melting pot stands for. The last six years have been the most tumultuous in the United States since the end of the Cold War. It seems as if the idea of hardship is what has defined every nation-state to have ever existed on this planet. Maybe that is a theory that need be explored.

Six years is not near enough time to even begin the healing process; I’m not sure if those who experienced and went through Vietnam have forgotten the sheer turmoil of the era. The mantra for 9/11 has been “we shall never forget.” I concur, as I will never forget the images that flooded through the television that day. Those that experienced first hand will never forget the sights and sounds of terror. It is my hope that the next generation, our children will never have to know the horror of a 9/11. But like most things in this world, it is never a guarantee that the worse will not happen.

2007-07-31T01:28:00.000-05:00

Status Quo

War is defined as follows: “A conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.” Throughout pre-history and recorded history, taking up arms against each other has always been the only means of settling conflicts, not diplomacy. Immanuel Kant, an 18th century German philosopher struggled with the idea of humankind lacking the moral perception to create a cosmopolitan society; a society that would essentially integrate the world into a utopia of sorts. Kant died over 200 years ago and I fear that humankind has yet to make any progress towards that cosmopolitan society.

It’s as if the concept of war is encoded within our DNA; that it is predestined that we destroy ourselves over political agendas. Countless philosophers and everyday people have struggled with the question of why war is the only way to attain petty material items. War even finds common place within the Bible, Torah, and Koran; three respective pieces of literature that form the three major religions. The harshness of the text relating to war found in the Torah is one of, if not the major reason that Jews have been discriminated against for the past two millennia. Marx believed that every aspect of society revolved around the economy, which may be true to an extent, but I believe everything revolves around war.

The concept of war has become even more paramount over the past 100 years, as weapons technologies have advanced at a deadly pace. Humankind now has the means to forever banish ourselves from this planet on a permanent basis. No living creature on this planet cannot escape the wild beast that we call nuclear fission; the atomic bomb. My basement is not stocked with 50 years worth of food and water, nor am I an individual that constantly thinks about ‘doomsday.’ But we have created a beast that will surely lead to our demise. It may not happen tomorrow, it may not happen 100 years from now, but it will happen.

Life itself is not the status quo; the existence of life on this planet is dependent upon our actions as a race.

2007-07-13T23:15:00.000-05:00

The Best of All Time?

ESPN is currently running an elongated “mini segment” on Sportscenter entitled “Who’s Now.” The goal is to decide who is the best current athlete using an NCAA basketball style bracket. It’s a hard task to decipher who is the best athlete with the deluge of stars in their respective sports. Who’s better, Tiger Woods or Jeff Gordon? It is impossible to decide because they are each the best in their respective sports. But I am curious as to who is the very best of all time, regardless of sport or era.

The ESPN series named each of their four “brackets” based off of the supposed best athletes of all time; Michael Jordan, Babe Ruth, Muhammad Ali, and Billy Jean King. These individuals are undoubtedly some of the best athletes ever. Arguably, ESPN could have picked countless other athletes for the honor, due to the fact that there is typically a super star athlete in every sport for every generation. But these are the ones I will analyze in my attempt to decipher who is really the best.

Michael Jordan dominated the game of basketball for almost 15 years in both college and the NBA. In three years at North Carolina, he averaged a human 17.7 points per game, but was definitely “Mr. Clutch.” His NBA career on the other hand was inhuman; 6 NBA championships, 5 MVP awards, 10 all-star selections (3 MVP’s), and 6 NBA finals most valuable players amongst countless other recognitions. He finished his NBA career averaging 30.1 points per game (the best ever), 32,292 total points, 2,514 steals, and a mirage of other “big numbers.”

George Herman Ruth is arguably the best baseball player to have ever played the game. Even though he started out as a pitcher, Ruth would go on to compile some of the best numbers ever seen in the game. Ruth was not a prototypical athlete, but actions speak louder than appearances. In 22 seasons Ruth hit 714 home-runs (3rd all time), collected 2,217 RBI’s, 3 MVP awards, a .968 career fielding percentage, and a .690 career slugging percentage. What is most impressive about Ruth is the fact that he was intoxicated half of the time; most people cannot even hit a ball 2 feet sober; he did it 2,873 times.

Born Cassius Marcellus Clay Jr., Ali would change his name to Muhammad in 1964 after he “accepted” Islam. Always outspoken, brash, and rebellious Ali would back up his strong words with even stronger left jabs and right hooks. Like many modern athletes, Ali was known more for his mouth than for his craft. But he was successful in the craft of boxing. He would finish his career with 56 wins to 5 losses, 37 knock outs, and 3 reigns as world heavyweight champion. We may never know what his full potential was due to his protest of the Vietnam War in 1967, which he was stripped of his title and his license.

Billy Jean King is the lesser known of the previously mentioned athletes. But she is by far the best woman to have ever played the game of tennis. She will be remembered the most for motivating masses of female athletes to succeed in sports that were typically dominated by men. She is the holder of 12 grand slam titles, 16 grand slam doubles titles, 11 grand slam mixed doubles titles, 67 total singles titles, and 3 time she was ranked #1 in the world.

There are the numbers; you decide.

2007-07-08T02:03:00.000-05:00

Pig Latin

On Saturday, Pope Benedict XVI issued a decree removing the restriction of using the traditional Latin mass. Otherwise known as the “Tridentine Rite,” the Latin mass has been part of the Catholic Church for centuries. But its use was restricted as a result of the Vatican II Council (1962-1965) and subsequently the local dialect of the area where a church was located was permitted. Besides allowing the use of the local language, Vatican II struck down the use of texts that were prejudiced against Jews. Predictably enough, liberals and Jews were the most outraged by the decree.

It seems as if the pope has taken a step back in time by giving into conservative Catholics who split from the Church after Vatican II. The pope believes that by using the traditional mass, the sacred aura of the church will be restored. Granted, there is a good chance that most Catholics will not be hearing the traditional mass when they arrive at church next Sunday, as no changes were made to the traditional missal used in every Catholic Church. But there will be cases of outrage that will arise from the decree, which may or my not influence the next pope’s stance on the issue.

Undoubtedly the appeal of Catholicism to the general public will be hurt by this decree and will chase the younger generation away from the church. On top of that, the decree will erase the good will and sense of tolerance towards other faiths that Pope John Paul II spread during his tenure as Bishop of Rome. Compared to John Paul II, Benedict is a hard line conservative who has brought forth the old feelings of ill will towards the Catholic Church. I’m not conjecturing that his election was a mistake. But if the church wants to be the “church of the 21st century,” the next pope will surely be younger and more liberal. Maybe then we can finally move on.

2007-07-06T02:42:00.000-05:00

Are YOU Smarter than A 5th Grader?

I’m not a big fan of television game shows. But I happened across Jeff Foxworthy’s “Are You Smarter than A 5th Grader?” this evening while channel browsing and deciphering regressions pertaining to the gold standard. The concept of the show is rather simple and somewhat similar to “Who Wants to be a Millionaire.” The contestant chooses questions ranging from 1st grade geography to 5th grade English, while five actual fifth graders simultaneously answer the same question. The contestant is provided three “lifelines” that involve obtaining the answer from one of the fifth graders.

Jeff Foxworthy is a funny man, but the inability of the adults (18+) to answer elementary questions is even more entertaining. I was shocked that a woman who was at least 30 was unable to answer the question, “What continent is a country unto itself” or something along those lines. Her first thought was that North America was a country, and then followed by South America being a country. Personally, I thought that she was going to spout out Antarctica. I would hope that a majority of the breathing population would know that the answer is Australia. Long story short, she had to quit the game on that question and admit that she was not as smart as a fifth grader.

Another contestant believed that there were 7 justices on the U.S. Supreme Court. But luckily he was bailed out by a ten year old who knew that the answer is 9 justices. Now I know why the show is such a hit! It is absolutely abysmal how incompetent this nation’s inhabitants are, especially involving common knowledge that every American without a learning disability should know. Is the populous of the U.S. this ineffectual? Are we so consumed with our own lives and vanity? The backbone of this country used to be out intelligence and education. But that aspect of America has left and went on permanent vacation.

The United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF) ranked the United States 18th in the world in education. South Korea ranked number one, with just 1.4% of their 15 year olds not meeting international educational standards (set by the UN). I also happened upon statistics concerning average IQ (Intelligence Quotient) by country. The average IQ of an American is 90, wherein the world average is 100-110. Granted, the IQ standard is not exactly a means of deciphering education, but it is a firm example of how uneducated this country is. We use to have the best and the brightest, but it seems as if the best and the brightest have moved else where in the world. A solution must be found.

2007-07-01T04:24:00.000-05:00

Reality TV Show Madness

Is it just me, or is America slowly becoming aggravated with reality TV? It maybe 4AM, but I have been watching the Bravo Network for roughly an hour and during that time I have encountered two reality shows: “Top Chef” and Kathy Griffin’s show. Is there no aspect of life that cannot be made into a reality TV show? From cooking to listening to someone shell off bad jokes, no one is safe from the latest fad in American society. Accordingly, it is not my intention to single out Bravo, as there are countless reality shows on countless networks; it just happened to be on.

“Top Chef” is a show that encompasses a “real life” competition between various chef wannabes, whose creations are judged by a panel of “professional” chefs. This is not riveting television people; it lacks any semblance of “must watch TV.” The only thought that I had while watching the show was of American Idol. The panel of “professional” chefs seemed to intimidate and shred what little confidence the budding chefs had left, just as Simon does to the singers on American Idol. Not to rip the cooking business, but what do these people know about what I or anyone else likes for that matter?

The working definition of a professional chef includes one who charges extravagant prices for “food” that can be thrown in the microwave at home for a tenth of the cost, they have a show on Food Network, and have an eating disorder. With that said, one needs to ask how much do we really need to know about the lives of others? Our elected officials on the national and state level are scrutinized and queried on every aspect of their personal lives, i.e. Bill Clinton. Because they are elected by the people, the people need to know what color sheets are on their beds.

My point is simple; reality TV is another fad that Americans are growing tired of. Personally, I do not habitually watch a single reality TV show (or any other show for that matter) due to the fact that I do not care what people like Kathy Griffin or “Simon” think. I’m sure they do perfectly fine in their selected professions. But most of these professions are entertainment based. The American public is firmly aware of what entertains them; we do not need to be told what we like.

2007-06-29T03:08:00.000-05:00

Two Well Deserving Gents and Various Records

Two well deserving gentlemen entered the immortal history books of baseball today. Craig Biggo became the 27th member of the 3000 hit club with a five-for-six performance against the Arizona Diamondbacks. Earlier in the day Frank Thomas became the 21st member of the 500 homerun club with a blast off of the Minnesota Twins. Both of these men have both played out their respective careers with grace and class, a rare quality nowadays; their numbers maybe impressive, but their attitudes and actions both on and off the field will surely seal their fate as hall of famers in Cooperstown.

Which record is more impressive though? Personally, I believe that the 3000 hit club is monumentally harder to join than the 500 homerun club, even though as of right now, there are more members in the 3K hit club. On top of that, Biggio is a second baseman, a position that is not renowned for sluggers and has accrued the most hit by pitches in his career. Thomas will surely enter the hall of fame on the first ballot due to the fact that he has never been connected or accused of using performance enhancing drugs. He is has also hit the most homeruns of any DH in history (248). But as every year passes, especially this year, the 500 homerun club will gradually become less prestigious, but still monumental.

Unless an individual has officially or by their own admission been linked to performance enhancing drug use, I still envision 500 homeruns a sure ticket to the hall. As of right now, Gary Sheffield (473), Manny Ramirez (481), Jim Thome (482), and Alex Rodriguez (492) will undoubtedly join the club this year or next year, which will bring the total to 25 men. In the future other potential members may include Andruw Jones (354), Vladimir Guerrero (352), Albert Pujols (266), and Ryan Howard (100 and fastest to 100). The ultimate measure of the homerun hitter may in fact now be the 600 homerun club. Sammy Sosa (601) became the fifth man ever to hit 600 and Ken Griffey Jr. (584) will join by the end of the year.

On the other hand, only 4 active players are in range of obtaining their 3000th career hit; Barry Bonds (2894), Julio Franco (2575), Steve Finley (2548), Omar Vizquel (2531), and Ken Griffey Jr. (2484). But the likely hood of any of these men obtaining the feet is slim. Bonds may have the best shot if his body holds up (or if he isn’t indicted), but the others, especially Franco (who has been playing since 1982 and is almost 50) will fall short. Young greats such as Albert Pujols may approach the “big 3K,” but predicting such things isn’t an exact science.

Pitching milestones are also on the forefront of MLB records this year. Tom Glavine will be the next man to join the 300 win club, as he is currently at 297 career wins. Randy Johnson, who currently owns 284 career wins, will eventually join the club. But the 300 win club may not be the sure fire measure of electing modern pitchers to the hall. Johnson may be the last 300 win pitcher we see in the live ball era due to the fact that the 5 man rotation is severely cutting down on the amount of wins that pitchers obtain on a yearly basis. Roger Clemens is back in the league for his 24th season, but has only one win this season, which puts him at 350 wins. The ageless Greg Maddux just obtained his 340th career win and very well may reach 360 by the time he retires.

2007-06-27T00:25:00.000-05:00

A Disturbing Trend

Today the world found out that Chris Benoit, a World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) star is dead. Benoit, 40 was found in his rural Atlanta, Georgia home along with his wife and seven year old son. Police reported that Benoit strangled his wife and suffocated his seven year old son (placing Bibles by their bodies) before hanging himself from a weight machine in his weight room. Investigators have yet to decipher why Benoit acted the way he did, but they did find anabolic steroids in the house, which have the potential to cause something known as “roid rage” amongst other issues.

Benoit, a former World Heavyweight Champion was one of the most popular wrestlers in the WWE and was even scheduled to wrestle Sunday at a PPV event, but he called off, citing “personal reasons.” Needless to say, we will probably never know what was going through his mind when he committed this heinous act. Yet, one has to notice the disturbing trend amongst professional wrestlers, specifically the countless names that have died far too young.

Professional wrestling is a tough business, by far the most taxing of any professional sport. Wrestlers are on the road over 300 days a year, not to mention the toll that the sport itself takes on their bodies. Anabolic steroid abuse, pain killer addiction, and other various drugs allow most wrestlers relief from their jobs and pain. Wrestling is a multi billion dollar sport, with viewers from all corners of the world; the risk is big, but the reward is worth the risk to many. Sadly though, many that set out to seek that reward never live to see their dreams come to fruition.

A common side effect of anabolic steroid use is heart disease. Since 1997, at least 20 professional wrestlers under the age of 50, most of which were known or confirmed anabolic steroid users died of heart related ailments. The most recent of which was Eddie Guerro (38), another popular WWE superstar who was found dead in his hotel room prior to an event due to apparent heart failure in 2005. The other frightening figure is that at least 20 more professional wrestlers have committed suicide in a variety of ways since 1997, another common issue with anabolic steroid use and stress.

Vince McMahon, chairman of WWE single handedly turned professional wrestling into the sport it is today. McMahon is known as a ruthless businessman and to many wrestlers, a callous soul who pushes his wrestlers to the limit and then some (obviously). I know that these men and women choose to wrestle; they are not forced into it. But if this disturbing trend continues, I have a feeling that professional wrestling in the U.S. and abroad may die a slow death. Government regulation may be the answer, but first, internal regulation needs to be attempted.

2007-06-25T04:04:00.001-05:00

Are We Alone?

That is the very question that mankind has been trying to answer for countless millennia and up to this very moment in our history on this planet. From Galileo to the Hubble Telescope, our view of space has increased ten fold. Can you believe that it was just over 500 years ago that we believe the earth was the center of the solar system (Catholic Church propaganda)? Our current technology has given us an unprecedented view of our world and the worlds surrounding us, but we have a long way to go before we enter the “Star Trek” age of intergalactic exploration. Our view of the universe is still primitive, but progressive and that is what propels us forward in our search for the answer to the ultimate question.

But first, we have to scratch the surface of our own solar system. If you are alive and breathing there is a good chance that you have some basic knowledge of our solar system, i.e. the order of the planets, etc… We are just now investigating one of our closest neighbors, Mars (the red planet) more intensely and will undoubtedly be the first foreign world that mankind will visit. We didn’t get our first close up look at the outer planets until the early 1980’s with the Voyager missions. Voyager 1 is the furthest man made object from Earth (and still “talking”) at the very edge of the solar system, or the sun’s influence. Voyager 1 or 2 may very well be our introduction to a foreign world one day.

Oddly enough, I heard from one of Earth’s “outer cousins” the other night, Jupiter. Don’t worry; I haven’t completely lost it (yet). The next time you happen to find yourself on a deserted highway out in the middle of nowhere (where I’m at) and listening to AM radio, listen closely while browsing through the various stations. Mostly you will hear static, but on the off chance that you hear “radar like sounds,” pecking, pings, or other various high pitched sounds, it is indeed Jupiter “talking.” Specifically it is the remains of Jupiter’s massive 450 million mile magnetosphere. Bet you didn’t know that. Even one of Jupiter’s moons (there are 63 of them), Europa may harbor life in it’s oceans that are locked under ice.

Besides our own solar system, one needs to think even more abstractly to comprehend the odds that we are not alone. Our solar system is located on the edge of the Milky Way galaxy, an absolutely massive collection of stars and other space objects. If you think our own galaxy is massive, there are millions of other galaxies out there. Earth is not the center of the universe, Earth just happens to be a planet that happens to have the proper ingredients conducive to life. I’d be willing to bet every dime that I ever make on the fact that there is another planet out there that is swarming with life, maybe even intelligent life. I guess the universe doesn’t revolve around us.

2007-06-24T21:29:00.000-05:00

A Review: Death of a President

While carousing the latest line-up of PPV movies early this morning, I came across a controversial cinematic production released in 2006 entitled, “Death of a President.” The best picture at the 2006 Toronto Film Festival is a story addressing the hypothetical assassination of George W. Bush. Originally released only in Canada, the film is a powerful depiction of the times we live in, especially the prejudice that Muslim Americans have experienced since 9/11.

Without spoiling the film for those who wish to view the flick, I will say that it was well done, even though there were a few amusing moments of botched proletarian editing. I am not condoning assassinating a political leader in any way, especially the president of the United States. I live by the creed that one does not have to respect the man in the office. But we should all respect the office of the president of the United States.

Obviously, I am not a fan of George W. Bush’s anomalous foreign and domestic policies, but I do respect the fact that he is president of the United States. It was again the will of the people in 2004 (not mine) that he remain in office for a second term (even though many of those people are regretting their vote); the very core aspect that this republic was constructed upon. The film is a marvelous representation of the frustration that a majority of Americans are experiencing with Bush at the helm of the executive branch.

Ironically, the “assassination” takes place in Chicago, Illinois (my home state), a revered democratic stronghold. I believe that the writers of the film chose Chicago due to that very fact. Through interviews with presidential staff, witnesses, and secret service agents we find out what happened on “September 19, 2007.” I did disagree with the depiction that the secret service, the best armed body guards in the history of mankind (maybe except for the Swiss Guard who is charged with the protection of the pope) was inadequate in the protection of the president.

As I stated earlier, I will not spoil the film. But I would recommend that anyone who feels the way I do about the current direction of the country, should check this flick out.

2007-06-23T01:17:00.000-05:00

The Scapegoat?

Earlier this week the Chicago Cubs traded catcher Michael Barrett to the San Diego Padres for back-up catcher Rob Bowen and minor league outfielder Kyle Burke. The trade did not come as a surprise to most Cubs fans due to the fact that Barrett had been struggling behind the dish and his offensive numbers were down, at least in comparison to the last few years. Coupled with the fact that Barrett had not been getting along with the very men he was catching for; notably the scuffle with ace Carlos Zambrano and a heated discussion with Rich Hill.

Cubs GM Jim Hendry admitted that Barrett had “regressed” in his performance on the field and that a trade was the best move. Barrett had been catching a lot of the blame for the Cubs well documented impotence on the field, but to many, including me a trade was a bit rash, especially for two “no names.” Barrett has been a constant source of leadership the past few years on and off the field. I understand the business aspect of the trade, but Hendry needs to realize that baseball is a team sport. Yes, Barrett has cost the Cubs a few games this year, but what about the offense that has failed to drive in runs in key RBI situations?

Hendry might as well have traded the entire team if he is running the team along those lines. A leader is supposed to be contentious if you ask me, exactly what Michael Barrett was to the Chicago Cubs. As we know, the Cubs have had a long and rather ironic past when it comes to trading or letting players get a way. Do you remember a man by the name of Maddux? Yes, I realize that the Cubs also have had a bad history of waiting for players to come around (Wood and Prior) to no avail. But my gut tells me that they will end up eating this marvelous "business transaction."

2007-06-18T00:01:00.000-05:00

Border Security and Immigration: My Two Cents

It seems as if everyone these days has an opinion concerning two transient issues pervading America: Border Security and Immigration. The most recent fire storm concerning these two issues has burnt down Capitol Hill and is about to enter the White House. President Bush was counting on a recent immigration bill to revive what was left of his political capital, but the measure was killed in the Senate by Democrats and Republicans a like. But the bill is back on the table and it is all Bush has to cling to.

Countless conservatives are foaming at the mouth over the focal point of the measure, which is to grant all illegal aliens amnesty. If you can recall, the last time that amnesty was granted to all illegal aliens occurred in 1986 under President Reagan. Under Reagan’s measure, all undocumented individuals who had been working in the U.S. prior to January 1, 1982, were now full U.S. citizens. This pathetic attempt by President Bush to bring back recollections of Reagan politics has done nothing but insight anger on both sides of the aisle and for good reason.

Immigration and border security have always been at the heart of many heated arguments over the past 200 years. But just like economic depressions, the arguments become more vital and heated. Conservatives want the president to concentrate more on border security, which the president has obliged by pledging $4.4 billion in the recent reform measure. Conservatives and liberals (for the most part) both disagree on any idea of amnesty, as it would depress wages and harm American workers. What is the solution to all of this you ask?

While I agree with Bush’s conservative critics that the president lacks credibility in both border security and immigration, the answer though, is not to strengthen border security. The president needs to understand that the only way to solve a problem is to go to the root of the problem: The Mexican Government. The Mexican Government has shown a blatant disregard for our sovereignty by encouraging their citizens to cross into U.S. territory illegally; the logical solution would be to put pressure on Mexico City to help resolve the issue.

Maybe using the “money and might” on Mexico that we are wasting in Iraq could help the situation? Sadly, even Mexico has lost respect for the Bush Administration and he cannot do a damn thing about it. But we need to remember that logic has no place in this current administration. Logic has been replaced by sheer futility. The president needs to check his political bank account before he suggests anymore “bright” ideas.

2007-06-15T22:51:00.000-05:00

I Don’t Like You, Hillary (and George)

As the old saying goes, if I had a dime for every time I have heard the phrase “I don’t like you,” I would be worth a few hundred thousand. Sadly though, that pales in comparison to our current chief executive. George W. Bush’s approval ratings (which encompass his on the job performance) has been at a consistent 32-34% over the past year, especially due in part to his waning war in Iraq. But the question I am attempting to answer this time around is whether the voters actually like a candidate (or incumbent) as a person; not as a politician (is that an oxymoron?).

George W. Bush relates to a vast majority of the electorate based on his “down to Earth, everyday man” image (why do you think he relishes photo ops at his ranch?). The man use to be an alcoholic, he is a failed business man, he weaseled his way out of military duty in Vietnam, he owns a farm, and he has an IQ of 90 (the average American is around 100-110, I believe?). Whether we like it or not, most of us have one thing or another in common with this man (I to have a DUI, yes!). That may have won him the election in 2000 (he didn’t win), but in 2004 his leadership ability won him re-election.

That brings be to the real issue, what is the electorate looking for on the current slate of presidential contenders? Likability does help a candidate in any election, whether it is presidential or local. “Packaging” the candidate is a key component of any organized campaign; looks, personality, etc… all matter in the modern political arena (John Adams, a fowl looking man, would’ve never won if he were running today). Hillary Clinton is the least liked presidential contender (she can come off as quite cold and “unfeminine”). But on the flipside of the coin, she is also leading in the polls because voters believe her life experiences (her husband was president for 8 years, you know) have bestowed upon her above average leadership skills.

In many ways Hillary Clinton will never escape the shadow of her husband. Bill Clinton was one of the most popular presidents in history (whether or not you believe he did anything for the country, the electorate love his “nice guy image”) and is still immensely popular. There is a good chance that as the election approaches; the aggregate of opinions will not change towards Hillary due to the fact that we already know her life’s story and that she was incredibly capable while in the first lady’s post. Rudy Giuliani and Mit Romney have scored high “likability ratings” on the GOP side, while Barack Obama and John Edwards have scored the highest on the Democratic side of the coin. You may be a nice guy (or woman), but it doesn’t guarantee that you’ll win.

2007-06-15T01:25:00.000-05:00

Tough “Love” Bud

MLB Commissioner Bud Selig is contemplating suspending New York Yankees DH Jason Giambi for uncomplimentary comments about his possible use of performance enhancing drugs. Giambi, a former AL MVP has been linked to steroid use since his December 2003 BALCO grand jury testimony, in which he admitted to using steroids. Giambi’s latest trite occurred on May 18th when he was asked about performance enhancing drugs in a post game interview. Giambi subsequently stated in that interview:

“I was wrong for doing that stuff. What we should have done a long time ago was stand up -- players, ownership, everybody -- and said: `We made a mistake.' We should have apologized back then and made sure we had a rule in place and gone forward. ... Steroids and all of that was a part of history. But it was a topic that everybody wanted to avoid. Nobody wanted to talk about it.”

Jason, that was not exactly in your best interest, especially when Bud Selig has “independent investigator,” former Senator George Mitchell probing those who have potentially used performance enhancers in the last few years. In essence, Mitchell’s job is to clean up the game of baseball (good luck). Giambi was asked by the commissioner to comply with the senator’s inquiry, but as you can tell, Giambi hasn’t been too revealing in his conferences with Mitchell thus far.

This leaves Giambi at the mercy of Bud Selig and his “get tough” attitude on steroids. The chances are that Giambi will in fact be suspended by the commissioner for not cooperating with Mitchell’s investigation. If Selig is serious about cleaning up the game, I would like to see Giambi dismissed for at least 30 games; yes, 30 games, the amount of games a player is suspended for under the current rules if he tests positive for performance enhancing drugs.

Selig has been rather lethargic on the issue of steroids. But due to pressure from Congress and the public, he has been forced to step up his perambulation on the game. It isn’t enough that a plague-ridden imbecile is going to break the all-time homerun record under Selig’s watch, so I can understand if Bud comes down hard on Giambi. The trouble is that Gimabi’s suspension will surely be overturned due to the fact that steroid suspensions that do not include a positive test are not covered under the collective bargaining agreement.

There’s always next year, Bud…go get em!'

2007-06-04T23:53:00.000-05:00

Please Don’t Come Back Billy!

This past Friday, “former” University of Florida Head Coach Billy Donovan signed a 5 year deal with the NBA’s Orlando Magic for $27.5 million. Donovan, who has led the Gators basketball program to two consecutive NCAA national championships, seemed rather excited at the promise of a new start in the NBA at his introductory press conference on Friday. But all of that seemed to change Sunday when Donovan seemingly reneged on the deal with the Orlando Magic.

Evidently, Donovan has had second thoughts about going to the NBA because his heart is still with the gators. The trouble is that it is hard to extract yourself from a legally binding contract, especially one that you just signed three days ago. This is just another sickening example of how pathetic coaches in both professional and collegiate athletics have sunk. Integrity use to be the cornerstone of coaching, but now it seems as if indecision and dishonesty have replaced it.

Now granted, the Donovan saga is not the only case of indecision and irresponsibility in the college and professional athletics world. For example, the great Dan Marino resigned his post as Miami Dolphins Senior VP 22 days after taking job; Bobby Cremins took the South Carolina basketball coaching job, but changed his mind within 24 hours; or Nick Saban, who weaseled his way out of his Miami Dolphins contract to take the head coaching position for the University of Alabama football program.

I understand if coaches like Rick Pitino and Steve Spurrier have at least tried to coach in the professional ranks, failed, and went to back to the collegiate ranks. The point is that they tried! Billy Donovan needs to understand that there is a little thing called the real world outside of his fantasy world at the University of Florida. No one cares where “your heart is” Billy; you signed on the dotted line, now honor that agreement like a real man. Would you want to retain a man whose heart would not be in coaching your professional or collegiate team? I sure as hell wouldn’t! No matter what he does, he has lost all credibility in all worlds, even his own.

2007-05-31T12:41:00.000-05:00

The Next Great Epidemic?

I live by a great peril of wisdom from one of the greatest minds of our times, Bullet Tooth Tony (from the cinematic flick “Snatch”). Tony states, “Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity” after being held up by three men with the words “replica” carved on the side of their guns. Sadly, the human species in general is not immune to such acts of stupidity, even when it involves highly contagious diseases that have the leeway to turn into the next great epidemic.

The media reported that a 31 year old man diagnosed with Tuberculosis (TB) was advised by his doctor not to travel. TB is a bacterial infection that can affect countless bodily system, but is commonly found in the lungs. But his doctor did not understand that this man (his name has yet to be released) had been planning his wedding in Europe, so the man traveled anyways. It wasn’t until he was in Rome that he was informed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that he actually had acquired XDR TB, a rare drug resistant strain of the disease.

The CDC classifies the disease as drug resistant due to the fact that it is immune to first and second line drugs. Last year over 500K cases of XDR TB were reported world wide, occurring on all 6 of the inhabitable continents. Only around 30% of those who acquire the disease survive, which is why this act of stupidity is filling up our airwaves. TB itself is highly contagious and can be spread by talking, sneezing, or coughing; which is why the CDC is attempting to track down those who were on transatlantic flights with the man due to prolonged exposure.

Currently, the 31 year old is back in the U.S. and has been moved from CDC headquarters in Atlanta to a hospital in Denver that specializes in treating XDR TB. The media is undoubtedly going to blow this story out of proportion, confounding the masses into a state of perpetual paranoia. Chances are the disease was not spread to anyone on the transatlantic flights due to the air filtering mechanisms located in jumbo jets. Needless to say, anyone with the slightest bit of common sense should know the risks associated with TB and should listen to their doctors on the issue, not their conscience.

2007-05-30T15:07:00.000-05:00

Ask And You Shall Receive

Today on the Stephen A. Smith (a piece of work in his own right) Show, Los Angeles Lakers guard Kobe Bryant demanded a trade from Lakers’ ownership. Evidently, Bryant learned that team management gave Phil Jackson and himself two differing accounts about the future of the team. Bryant just learned that the team is interested in rebuilding, while Jackson has known of the rebuilding scheme the entire time. It appears as if Kobe is mimicking his on court antics with 110% pure selfishness. Apparently we have all forgotten that it is the Kobe Bryant show.

As I typically state in my various ‘rambles,’ I do not doubt the athletic ability of Kobe Bryant what so ever. He has proven himself as one of the premier players in the league over the past decade by playing consistently and winning three NBA titles with the Lakers. But like most NBA stars, Bryant possesses one weakness: vanity. The true test of greatness by an athlete in any sport can be measured with a simple test of humility. Bryant’s humility reflex seems to have taken a back seat to the idea that once pervaded NBA halls; that he was going to be the next Michael Jordan, “the air apparent.”

Bryant has proven that he can score points like Mike, but that’s about all. Bryant’s style of play has more in common with a game of solitaire than that of a team sport. When Kobe takes the floor it is all about Kobe and no one else. My father told me of a line he heard Michael Jordan state after he dropped 63 points against the New York Knicks. Jordan said that if he scored 63 points every game, the Bulls were not going to win many games. That is an example of the key differences between humility and vanity; being great and being terrible. Hopefully Kobe is traded so we no longer have to listen to every word he says due to the LA media market. One can only hope that he ends up in Memphis.

2007-05-26T22:44:00.000-05:00

Conspiracy Theory: A Russian Example

If you consider yourself to be a student of history or even pursue it as a “light” hobby, then you and the rest of mainstream society are probably familiar with conspiracy theories. It seems that as more time surpasses our present era, the more conspiracy theories pervade our social and popular cultures. In particular, the emergence of conspiracy theories as themes in popular works of literature and cinema has led the everyday ‘Joe’ to question the merits of actual history. I’ll provide an example or two in the coming paragraphs to prove my point.

The modern definition of the conspiracy theory took off in the 1790’s in France. Conspiracy theories about the monarchy were the cornerstone of the French Revolution. But it wasn’t until the advent of modern communications technology that conspiracy theories began to take hold in society. For example, in October 1917 (in western time it was November) the Bolshevik Revolution took hold in Russia, ending over 700 years of imperial rule. In the beginning months of the revolution, Tsar Nicholas II and his family (The Romanov mystery) were taken to a remote area in the Caucus Mountains and subsequently executed. It wasn’t until 1979 that family’s makeshift grave was discovered. Oddly enough though, the remains of Anastasia, one of the Romanov daughters was not located.

The remains were eventually exhumed and placed in St. Petersburg in 1998. An imposter, Anna Anderson paraded around claiming to be Anastasia for most of her life, but DNA evidence revealed that she was not in fact Anastasia. So what happened to Anastasia? Steve Berry took the question up in his book entitled “The Romanov Prophecy.” Even though the book is a novel (fiction), it reeks of conspiracy theory. Berry asserts that Anastasia and another of the Romanov children escaped their demise by playing dead in the room where the family was executed. After surviving the slaughter, he then has an under cover Menshevik (white) smuggle the remaining children out of the area. One can guess where the rest of the plot goes; at least one child makes it to adulthood to have children, hence carrying on the ‘royal’ bloodline.

I’ll admit that the book was rather compelling and hard to put down. But I do not for one moment believe that any of the Romanovs survived on the night of July 16, 1918 in that small cellar. The Bolsheviks were ruthless and sometimes sloppy, but it would be assumed that the bodies would’ve been checked after the massacre. Yet, people such as Anna Anderson stir up our wildest dreams; that Anastasia may have lived. In this specific case, I believe that people would hold onto such fallacies out of sheer curiosity of the past. Plus, it would be rather entertaining to know if one of the last dynasties on Earth has living blood relatives. Yes, there are Romanovs out there that are related to the royal family, but not in the way that any of us want.

The point is that conspiracy theories involving popular figures such as JFK (too many to count), Marilyn Monroe, Roswell, NM, Stalin, The Da Vinci Code, etc… fill most of us with excitement. What if these people and countless other did not really die or were killed in different fashion? These stories allow our imaginations run wild with the countless possibilities of ‘what if.’ I’m not claiming that every aspect of history is 100% correct by any means; some things we will never know. But there are some issues that have been studies over and over by countless prominent scholars and if they conclude what the previous scholars concluded, I am inclined to believe the legitimate historical version. Never the less, conspiracy theories are entertaining to say the least.

2007-05-22T23:28:00.000-05:00

Bush: Iraq as Johnson: Vietnam

I’m sure that you have read it countless times over the past two years; Iraq is George W. Bush’s Vietnam. The actual “war” itself does not compare to the catastrophe that Vietnam was to a generation of Americans. But the political context of the comparison reigns true. Who supports the war? I mean more 70% of the American public disagrees with “King George’s War.” Yet, the president continues to defy those who put him in office. It is no secret that President Bush is paranoid about receiving a negative legendary status similar to that of President Lyndon B. Johnson, the war lord of the 60’s.

Johnson presided over a war similar to our current situation in Iraq. Johnson stuck his vain nose into a fire ant nest in which there was no way out. From 1959 to 1975, over 58,000 Americans lost their lives in the jungles of Vietnam. It was the first time in our nation’s history that our armed forces had to deal with a new style of warfare, that of guerilla warfare. Any traditional sense of warfare that had pervaded the upper echelons of the armed forces was thrown to the wind in favor of fighting a war “from the seat of our pants.” This is what is happening in Iraq today in a variety of ways that surpasses Vietnam.

The Bush Administration tells us that we are there to fight terror; to stop those who blew up the World Trade Towers from ever doing a heinous act like that again. But to many observers it seems as if we have exacerbated the situation even more so than before. Yes, we overthrew a horrible man by the name of Saddam Hussein, but at a cost that has yet to be determined. Our troops now find themselves not in the middle of fighting terror, but instead in between sectarian violence; a civil war. With Hussein and his regime out of power, it was simple a matter of time before someone started to vie for power.

As with the case of Vietnam, we have installed a “puppet government” in Iraq. The South Vietnamese government located in Saigon was less organized and even more powerless than the mafia. It is obvious that the “government” in Iraq is rather similar, if not worse. They have no real power; they do not control the country. Those who control the country generally have control of the hearts and minds of a public, this government does not. Instead, a majority of those in Iraq are more concerned with fighting for the Kurds, Shiites, and the Sunnis; factions that have been in place for over a millennia.

If “King George” is simple minded enough as LBJ to believe that American might and firepower can change centuries upon century’s worth of discontent, then we have truly elected a tyrant. History tells us that tyrants are not stupid people, but are vain and naïve; George Bush and those advising him fit this stereotype to the “t.” Vietnam went down as the biggest military debacle in out nation’s history; we left and the North Vietnamese stormed the south five minutes later. Richard Nixon had to clean up what LBJ did and I have a feeling that our next president, whomever that may be, will have to clean up “King George’s debacle” at the cost of this nation’s reputation.

I’m afraid that George W. Bush may very well be correct in his comparison with LBJ. The question is now, who destroyed America’s image and worldly spirit more? You decide.

2007-05-16T22:16:00.000-05:00

Super-Duper Tuesday: It Could Be Over Sooner Than You Think

Today Illinois joined California, Arkansas, Delaware, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Utah (along with West Virginia Republicans and New Mexico Democrats) by moving up the presidential primary to February 5th, 2008. You may have heard of “Super Tuesday,” or the day that most southern states hold their respective primaries that gives the south more influence, which essentially gives the rest of the nation direction on who to vote for in their primaries that occur at a later date, or what we like to call the “bandwagon” effect. But that is all going to change, with another 4 state governments contemplating the same move (NJ, NY, FL, and GA- some of the most populous states in the union).

What is all the hype about you may wonder? By holding their primary elections earlier than usual, these states are going to force candidates to concentrate more on their states, hence giving these states more influence over who the respective parties nominate. In other words, the nomination process is going to be highly contested and less predictable than in the past. This process is called “front-loading” in political science terms. Normally, we hear about the New Hampshire and Iowa primaries which use to help predict how other state primaries would turn out. Even though Iowa goes first on January 14th and New Hampshire goes on January 19th, these states will not hold the electoral prestige they once had.

In essence, February 5th will turn out to be a giant national primary that will decide the presidential nominations much earlier than usual. With each party’s respective presidential candidates locked up, the official campaign for the presidency can begin on both sides of the aisle. But like most things in politics, the early primaries will help support each state’s “favorite candidate.” For example, on the Democratic side it is obvious that Illinois is going early in order to provide support for Barack Obama, while New York could potentially go early to offer support for Hillary Clinton.

How does the presidential primary system work you may wonder? It is not as complicated as the Electoral College system that we use to elect the president, but rather it is similar to the parliamentary election format. For example, if I were to cast a vote for Barack Obama on February 5th, my vote would in turn be attached to a delegate that is to attend the Democratic National Convention at a later date. That delegate is then required by the party or law (depending on the state) to vote for that particular candidate at the convention.

It is not a pluralistic system (winner take all), but in a sense it is a proportional system. If Obama receives a million votes and Clinton receives 500,000 votes in Illinois (hypothetical situation, as there are not that many delegates sent to the convention), Obama would receive more delegates at the national convention in favor of nominating him for the presidency. The candidate with the most total delegates in their favor from all 50 states will be declared the party’s nominee. In other words, we will already know who each party’s respective presidential candidate will be on February 5th, it’s simple math. But the national party convention is a mere formality to help spread the party line and procure more votes for the general election in November.

2007-05-15T01:33:00.000-05:00

The Decline of Catholicism

Pope Benedict XVI finished up a five day trip to Brazil on Sunday with accusations that Marxism and capitalism are to blame for the decline Catholicism in the region. Brazil, the most populous Catholic nation on the planet, which is home to 100 million of the world’s 1.2 billion Catholics, was chosen as meeting point for 20 cardinals, 169 arch bishops, and bishops to discuss solutions to counter the growing problem of those converting to other faiths and Catholics who have become apathetic. Why is the pope concerned with Brazil and South America in general though?

Besides Brazil, South and Central America contain the brunt of the world’s Catholic population mainly because of the countless missions sent to the continents during the colonial era. Evidently the faith took root and has flourished since, but problems have arisen that the Vatican needs to deal with. In 1980 almost 89% of Brazilians claimed to be Catholic, but a more recent poll taken in 2000 revealed a steady decline, only 74% revealed that they were Catholic; a trend that is consuming most Central and South American nations. What is to blame for the decline besides apathy?

The pope and his predecessor, John Paul II has pointed to the rise of evangelicals or those that claim to be “born again Christians.” Typically these evangelicals reside mainly within the Protestant sect of religions, i.e. the arch nemesis of Catholicism since the mid 1500’s when Martin Luther challenged the ritualism and beliefs of the Western church. Unknown to many, more than half of those in the U.S. claim to be “born again Christians.” In comparison with the Catholic Church’s conservative doctrinal stance on countless social issues, evangelicals are generally liberal and think the exact opposite.

We all thought that rhetorical war between religions had been curbed over the past few centuries, especially those of us that reside in the U.S. where most people are tolerant (or don’t care) about the faith of our neighbor. There may not be as much violence over religion (in general world context), but social issues are bringing fiery rhetoric to the forefront. Mexico recently passed a law that legalized abortion, which was comparable to lighting a match and throwing it into a barrel full of gun powder; trouble is that the barrel is located in Rome.

Benedict blames capitalism and Marxism, two “modern” forms of economics. Over the past millennia Marx’s theory of socialism has rained true; the economy has been the center of human existence, i.e. all social systems function around it. Human greed and prosperity have been the one true challenge to religions and Benedict has realized this. Typically leftist nations and leaders (Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez) do not emphasize religion or it is banned. Social services and the glorification of the nation is the paramount goal, not practicing religion. Capitalism on the other hand is more concerned with one thing, money. Money is the root of all evil as far as most religions are concerned; you make the connection.

What will become of religion in our post modern society? Marx himself once called religion “the opium of the masses.” Humans have a need for religion because we do not like to think that we are alone; that a higher power is watching over and governing us. Yet recently, especially in the United States, we have experienced a “moral decline.” The pope’s concerns are valid, as he is doing what all of his predecessors have done, which is to try to maintain the allegiance of the masses, i.e. the power of the church. Catholicism’s conservative doctrine in a progressive world may very well indeed spell an increased decline in the faithful over the next decade.

2007-05-09T02:00:00.000-05:00

Resounding Disappointment

Barry Bonds hit career home run #745 last evening, which puts him 10 shy of tying Hank Aaron at 755 and just 11 shy of setting the all time career home run mark. It is no secret that I and countless other baseball fans do not want to see Bonds pass Hammerin’ Hank. But it seems as if it will come to fruition over the next month. Those that have swagger in the game have already made up their minds as well about Bonds’ chase; Hank Aaron has decided not to attend the game(s) that Bonds may potentially pass him. Even the Commissioner of Baseball, Bud Selig is still indecisive about attending the record breaking game. What does this say about Bonds and the integrity of the game?

Short of Bonds being indicted and thrown in the slammer, there is an almost certain probability that Bonds will surpass Aaron. MLB clubhouses are divided on whether to support Bonds in his chase. Some believe Bonds took steroids, some believe he did not. The point is that this “pick” countless players and fans have with Bonds is not over race; America is slowly moving beyond that. Hank Aaron is black and is one of the most respected men to ever play the game of baseball. This is more or less a resounding cry to keep the integrity of the game intact. I do not doubt that Bonds has taken steroids and I do not doubt that steroids have helped him attain the massive numbers he has to date.

Baseball has obviously come down hard on steroids over the past 5 years and rightly so. The trouble is that we may never have definitive proof that Bonds took steroids; it is not like he is exactly a reputable individual. He has never denied taking steroids, nor has he been stand up about this entire chase. With Bud Selig contemplating not attending the “big game,” it shows that Selig does not want Bonds viewed as the ambassador of the game; he does not stand for the true essence of what American baseball really is. Needless to say, at least those in San Francisco will be cheering for Bonds. But the rest of the nation will more than likely not even take notice (in a positive light) when it finally happens.

Even though the gesture may seem petty and inane, the next time I purchase a baseball almanac I will take it upon myself to place an asterisk next to his final tally. Bonds claims he does not pay attention to the rapture surrounding him, I would beg to differ. Steroids may change the body, but they cannot change our infallibility; he does care. Deep down inside I am sure that he is chewing himself to pieces over the issue. For me, well, I am done commenting on Bonds and his chase for 756. Short of a miracle, it seems as if baseball is going to take another cataclysmic hit to its already tarnished reputation.

2007-05-06T18:01:00.000-05:00

Hallelujah!

Good news everyone! The great savior Roger Clemens will once again be returning to baseball, but this time to another one of his alma maters, the New York Yankees. The 44 year old Clemens has been making a habit of playing half seasons for the past 3 years with the Houston Astros and decided to go for the cash this time. Clemens signed a 1 year contract worth $28 million today, which seems to be a bit much. I do not doubt the man’s abilities what so ever; he is a great pitcher. No one wins 7 Cy Young awards unless they are a proven pitcher, but then again, he is not Cy Young himself.

If Clemens would have signed with the Boston Red Soxs or even the Houston Astros, MLB fans may have taken the news a little better. But when a “big name” is bought off by the hated Yankees, fans are not going to be so accepting. Do you think I am? Undoubtedly, Clemens is one of the best pitchers of this generation, but he is now a pitcher that is past his prime. I have a lot more respect for Nolan Ryan, a man who pitched until he was 46 because he loved to pitch; not because of the money. I would not even pay Michael Jordan $28 million to play at his current age, much less Clemens; isn’t my money though.

Again, George Steinbrenner is attempting to buy his way into the post season, yet I have the distinct feeling that even his mega dollars may not do the trick this year. The Yankees have essentially lost their entire starting rotation to injury over the first month of the season and are definitely in the market for more starters. They may have a fifth of their issues dealt with, but putting your faith in a 44 year old arm is risky. Needless to say, whether you like the deal or not, this is all that baseball fans are going to be hearing about for the brunt of the summer; I can’t wait.

2007-04-16T00:14:00.000-05:00

#42

"The important thing is this: To be able at any moment to sacrifice what we are for what we could become." - Charles Dubois

On this very date 60 years ago an average man showed us all that a single act of courage could in fact change the lives of those around him and the lives of future generations. That man’s name was Jackie Robinson. Jackie Robinson did more than just play baseball; whether he knew it or not, he became the founder of the Civil Right Movement that would finally establish African Americans as true citizens of a country that they had inhabited for over 200 years.

Born in 1919, Jackie Robinson led what most would call at the time an average life in Cairo, Georgia. Life was especially harsh for a majority of African Americans who resided in the southern United States during Jackie’s era, but he made do. Besides baseball, Jackie was also a gifted football and basketball player. By the end of his athletic career in junior college, Robinson decided that baseball was his calling. But first he served his country in a distinguished manner from 1942-1944 as a second lieutenant during World War II.

By 1946, Brooklyn Dodger’s GM Branch Rickey had decided to give Robinson a chance to demonstrate his immense baseball talents by signing him to a minor league contract with the team’s minor league affiliate. Robinson quickly rose through the ranks of the minors and was soon promoted to the big league. On April 15, 1947, Robinson became the first black man in history to play in a Major League Baseball sanctioned game.

Even though he went 0 for 3 in his first game, he would rarely have another “0 for” game. He would win National League rookie of the year award and two years later he would lay claim to National League MVP honors. He would go on to have a distinguished career in the big league and retired in 1957. In 1962 he was inducted into the baseball hall of fame in Cooperstown, New York. After baseball he became an advocate for race relations, assisting countless others in their bid to find equality amongst their fellow countrymen.

Robinson passed away on October 24, 1972, but his legend has not been forgotten in MLB. His trademark # 42 was retired by the league, meaning that no one may every wear that number again for any MLB team. Some believe that we make too much out of Jackie Robinson, but those are the people that have been ignorant to the plight of countless minorities in this country, not just in sports, but in everyday life. Robinson risked his life every time he walked out onto the ball diamond. If he wasn’t worrying about his life, he was taking perpetual shit from his teammates and players throughout the league because of the color of his skin.

America has made leaps and bounds since the days of Jackie Robinson. But I believe that we would not be where we are today in race relations if Jackie Robinson had not summoned the courage to prove everyone wrong. The next time you go to any ballpark and you see a #42 banner flying, do not just think of the baseball player, but think of the man and his vital significance to our maturation as a nation. Jackie Robinson did not open doors, he ripped them off their hinges and then some.

2007-04-12T16:48:00.000-05:00

April 2007: Where the Candidates Stand
In my constant monitoring of every poll known to man, I have started to notice trends about our potential candidates for president next November. The anomalous aspect of this election cycle is that it has begun in earnest, which more or less tends to confuse Americans more so than anything else. I will take a look at each of the respective parties and where their front runners stand as of April 12, 2007. Might I add that we should all look at the news reports and numbers with a cautious eye due to the fact that it is April 2007, no where near primary season, which in itself will occur earlier than usual (December).

The GOP:
Rudy Giuliani has been the front runner in the polls since February. A correlation of polls from March 21st to April 9th puts the former New York mayor ahead of his nearest opponent John McCain by more than 15 points. Might I add that these results are pulled from potential Republican voters. Following McCain is former Senator Fred Thompson, who has not even declared yet (out of health concerns), then followed by GOP caucus favorite former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and finally the undeclared Newt Gingrich. Check out realclearpolitics.com for the in depth numbers.

Giuliani has held a sizeable lead since he has declared his intention to run, which more or less caters to the notion that Americans, especially amongst the GOP that we want a strong leader (9/11). Giuliani has raised around $15 million hence far, which is middle of the pack when you bring the Democrats into it. McCain on the other hand may have shot himself in the foot, at least with independents when he stated that he supported the president’s war in Iraq. Granted, 70% of Republicans claim to support the war, but he is not going to win anything catering to his base of voters; he needs to step outside of the box. McCain raised a petty $12.5 million over the course of the first ten weeks of the campaign, which may or may not hurt him when things get hot later in the year.

Mitt Romney, in a distant third in public opinion, but a distant first amongst the GOP caucus came out on top for fund raising. Romney generated a hefty $23 million from January 1 to March 31, which again signals that he is a favorite amongst Republicans. But the trouble with Romney is that he appears to be too conservative for the 42% of Americans that are undecided in their vote, i.e. the independents. Plus he does not have the same name recognition that many of his opponents have. Fred Thompson has yet to declare, but recent appearances on talk shows to discuss his intentions signals that he may very well be ready to declare. He recently disclosed that he was diagnosed with lymphoma (cancer) in 2004, but has since beat the disease into remission.

The Democrats:
On the Democratic side of the coin it appears as if Hillary Clinton holds a 13 point lead over nearest challenger Barack Obama. John Edwards is in a distant third with around 15 percent of public opinion behind him. He rose 9 percentage points after his wife, Elizabeth revealed that her breast cancer had returned and metastasized into her bones. This is not sympathy from the public, but a decision by potential Democratic voters that they believe in the Edwards’ decision to carry on with the campaign. Al Gore, who has not declared has 11 points of support from the public.

As with Giuliani, Clinton has been the front runner from the start of her campaign. Obviously her claim to fame is that she was first lady for 8 years and her subsequent victory to the Senate from New York. She also raised $26 million in the first quarter of her campaign, distancing herself from the rest of the field. Obama, who is still seen as a “rock star” in the Democratic Party came in a lose second in the fund raising effort by raising a petty $22 million over the first quarter. Usually it is the Democrats that have the problem raising funds, but Clinton and Obama have beaten the GOP at their own game. Like I said, we are still early in the campaigns, so do not be misled by the lack of pummeling on each other from both the Clinton and Obama camps. There is a good chance that both campaigns will start to fester negative feelings as primary time approaches.

Edwards has taken in $14 million in the first quarter, but it has not expanded his fortunes. The public believes in his leadership ability, at least under extreme duress, which is why he gained in the polls. Al Gore gained considerable support after his Academy Award win for his documentary “An Inconvenient Truth.” But he has reiterated many times over that he is not interested in running for president, which after his studious career in public service; I do not blame him.

2007-04-10T22:40:00.000-05:00

Imus, Imus, Imus...

The recent controversial comments by syndicated radio host Don Imus have been the talk of countless media outlets for the past week. What did Imus say that was so wrong? Imus referred to the Rutgers Women Basketball team as a bunch of “nappy headed hos.” Today the team spoke out against Imus, telling everyone that Imus’ remarks took away from their moment in the sun, as they made it to the women’s final four. Others like Jesse Jackson have called for Imus to be fired, but firing the man is going a bit too far.

I concur with most that Imus’ comments can be considered slanderous filth that does not belong on the airwaves. But as usual, it is obvious that the media has once again blown another simple comment out of proportion. Imus should be the first to know that the NAACP, the ACLU, and other various interest groups pay people to sit around and listen to and watch “entertainment” with political themes. An interest group or Jesse Jackson will do anything to get into the news in order to push their agenda on the public; Imus just helped them out.

I believe that Imus simply had a minor slip up. He was a tad over zealous in his bid to make a joke and a majority of the people out there took his comment too seriously. Was it unfair that he had fun at the expense of a women’s basketball team? Yes it was; but life is tough and people are going to formulate their opinions from people like Imus or other sources that have an under riding message. Insensitive comments are made everyday on the radio; we just do not hear them because most shows are not nationally syndicated.

Most people in the world believe that those of us in America are progressive in our respective in our ideologies. But I have noticed that America in general is sensitive to comments that push us outside of the box, whether we call ourselves liberal or conservative. News outlets and ideologues (purists) are going to pick up on rogue comments more so than the average American. Even a majority of those that listen to Imus were probably not startled by his comments. The point is that when the news hawks on a story because someone political did something wrong, there is a good chance that they are doing it because people love to buy news that is full of controversy. Bill Clinton ring a bell?

2007-04-07T21:56:00.000-05:00

For Sale: Chicago Cubs- Sold!

Well not really, but If I had three quarters of a billion dollars I wouldn’t mind investing in a professional sports team as prestigious as the Cubs. Sadly, I lack that kind of capital (play lotto, get ripped off), but there is no shortage of individuals with that kind of pocket change. The move to wholesale the Cubs came earlier in the week after Sam Zell (who owns part of the White Sox and Bulls) purchased the Tribune Company for a petty $8.2 billion. He has declined to state why he wants to liquidate one of the Tribune Company’s biggest assets.

Estimates put the team’s worth at around $600 million, but I have the distinct feeling that by season’s end that number will be around the billion dollar vicinity (what’s $400 million between friends?). The Tribune Company only paid a miniscule $20.5 million for the team in 1981, which is a good indicator of the sway sports franchises have in our current culture in the U.S. Who has one eye on the team and one hand firmly attached to their wallets? Rumor has it that Mark Cuban, Jerry Colangelo, and even Bill Murray are interested in the team.

The first thing running through Cub’s fans heads is whether the team would be leaving Chicago or even Wrigley field if per se someone such as Cuban purchases them. Basically, my thinking is that it will be a cold day in hell before that happens, because if it does, the term “Chicago Riots” will become part of American folklore. With their local and playing grounds likely secured, I welcome a new owner, as the Tribune Company has lacked any positive influence over the franchise. But at least the Tribune Company has realized over the past few years that fans wanted to see a winning team, hence they $300 million they shelled out this past off season.

The plan is to sell the team by season’s end, which may or may not be a good thing for player morale and concentration. The bidding war for the team is going to intense, as the team is one of the most prestigious in all of sports. The Cubs have fans reaching into all 50 states and a few foreign nations. You are not a citizen of this planet if you do not know what the “C” means. Never the less, the new owner of team will undoubtedly be aggressive, which is what fans crave to end the 99 year World Series championship drought. Stay tuned folks; this one could get very interesting as the season progresses.

2007-04-05T21:45:00.000-05:00

I Thought I Had Seen It All, Until…

I became acquainted with the Westboro Baptist Church located in Topeka, Kansas. These supposed zealots of theological knowledge base their beliefs around the denunciation of Roman Catholics (thanks), Muslims, Jews, and especially homosexuals. They have even condemned Canada and Sweden, two of the most “tyrannical” nations in history. But I am sure that Canada and Sweden aren’t concerned, only the families of fallen soldiers who have served in Iraq.

These so called primitive Anabaptists-Calvinists have helped to found the Anti-Defamation League, a hate group that protests at the funerals of fallen soldiers (Martin Luther and John Calvin would be proud). The Church and Anti-Defamation league is essentially made up of one family (a woman with ten kids) who broadcast hatred that Satan would savor. Various examples of their abhorrent slander includes: “Thank God for 9/11. Thank God for Katrina, Dyke Nuns and Fag Priests (outside of Catholic Churches), Fag Troops, and even Do Not Worship the Dead.”

I find it amusing that these people label themselves a church. I can deal with the hate group brand because it is true, but claiming you are from a church is crossing the line. I am Roman Catholic (Irish variety) and I am firmly aware of why the Reformation occurred. To make a really long story short, Protestant believe in justification through faith alone, while Catholics believe in justification through faith and good works.

The point is there maybe theological differences between Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, and other denominations- but no one worships Satan. In essence we are all human, we just have a few minor differences in belief and these people exploit and blow these differences out of proportion at the expense of our dead soldiers. The last time I checked, the soldiers have done nothing wrong; they are in Iraq because they were sent there by the president.

Most western faiths are centered on the doctrine that we must submit to the authorities on Earth because God put those authorities here for us to follow. The soldiers are following that very authority that God put on Earth. The point is that the Westboro Baptist Church does not have an argument based on theology. They do not have an argument in general because their attitude is treasonous to this nation, no matter if we or they believe in the war that is being fought. Calling fallen soldiers fags is sickening, much less berating anyone who is a homosexual for their belief and actions. This is the land of the individual and of the aggregate of individual opinions and that aggregate says the “church” is wrong.

2007-04-03T22:18:00.000-05:00

No More Sunsets

As I was browsing the annals of CNN, I discovered a report on a documentary detailing the last days of a meth addict’s life entitled, “No More Sunsets: The Last Days of a Meth Addict.” Shawn Bridges, a former truck driver died a few weeks ago at the age of 35, a seemingly young age by any measure. Bridges used a variety of drugs throughout most of his teenaged and adult life, with a special affection for methamphetamine, which caused his ultimate demise. Bridges thought it appropriate to film his impending death in order to possibly save others who may go down the very same path.

Bridges had 2 heart attacks during his short life, the first of which occurred when he was only 26. According to the trailer he was brought back both times, but never quit using. The trailer alone should be enough to persuade anyone from using meth, much less terrifying those who currently use to acquire the proper help. Meth has become a common occurrence in our culture, especially throughout the Midwest where it is produced in mass quantity. The documentary has even caught the eyes of many school administrators and teachers who are showing the documentary in schools.

In all actuality Methamphetamine is a simple concoction of ingredients, which up until a few years ago were readily available. Meth (or crystal meth when made in a woodshed out back) is also known by the name Desoxyn, a legal prescription drug used to treat disorders such as ADHD and narcolepsy. The structure of the pure version of the drug is quite similar to synthesized versions of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine. Ephedrine was banned in the U.S. by the FDA a few years back due to a serious health risk the stimulant posed on the hearts of athletes, as the drug was typically used in athletic and weight loss supplements.

States such as Illinois have imposed a registry for those who purchase pseudoephedrine, which is commonly used in cold medicines like Sudafed. Needless to say, it does take a massive amount of these over the counter drugs to produce meth, but the trouble is that the purification process tends to quite literally “blow people up” due to the massive amounts of explosive chemicals used in the process. Besides death, the common addict will deal with symptoms that include “meth mouth,” where the teeth and gums essentially rot away, skin lesions and ulcers, and the essential shorting out of their sex drive.

I believe that individuals should at least take a look at the trailer for the film, as it is quite powerful in itself. If kids knew that they could one day end up like Shawn Bridges, the world would be a safer, healthier, and smarter place. Addiction does ruin lives and this is a drug that no one should ever experiment with; it is that powerful. Watch the trailer and you will get my point; there are indeed no more sunsets for those who are addicted to meth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ng-vxTx6h8

2007-03-28T01:54:00.000-05:00

Why We Do The Things We Do

I wish I had solutions to offer for this cause, but as of right now I believe that none would work and you shall see why. As I sat around this evening consuming a Miller High Life (I beg to differ that it is the champagne of beers), I asked myself what in the hell I was doing. I then recalled a quote from one of the most prolific cinematic features of the twentieth century, Terminator 2: Judgment Day. The Terminator (Arnold Schwarzenegger) proclaims, “It's in your nature to destroy yourselves.” Psychologists term self destruction as “self defeating behavior.”

The Terminator trilogy may not be the most credible source of infinite knowledge, but the quote has rained true since humans have roamed the Earth (at least homo sapien sapien). Even in an era where modern medicine and technology has augmented the life span of someone in the industrial world to almost 78 years, we still find new ways to destroy ourselves and everything around us. It was built into our most basic genes long ago that we do not know when to stop; for good or bad.

Look at OUR planet, planet Earth. No matter how you look at it, Earth was placed in our charge by either God or evolution. What has our “progressive” species done to it? We have managed to screw it up to the point where we are on the brink of disaster for ourselves and the other creatures that call Earth home. I subscribe to the theory (or paradigm) of global warming. We have managed to crank out more carbon dioxide and other various pollutants than our atmosphere can handle. In turn the average global temperature will shoot up over 3 degrees in the next 50 years, which on a planetary scale is massive and in this case, catastrophic.

We have even managed to over populate the Earth. I am not claiming that 6 billion people are too many people, nor am I claiming that a socialist utopia is the answer. Everyday we add somewhere in the neighborhood of 1 million new people. The newest members of Earth are more often than not born in the 3rd world, where in essence, they do not consume anywhere near the amount of resources that an American newborn will. Those of us in the industrialized world consume more than our fair share of resources, which is what I mean by over population. But on the other hand by 2010 there will be over 7 billion people living on the Earth. There will come a time when we run out of resources for those of us rich and poor. When we eliminated “natural population control”, i.e. diseases such as smallpox, the plague, TB (for the most part), etc…we hastened the demise of future generations.

What about our “personal habits” that leads to our demise? By far the most preventable cause of death has to do with smoking. The World Health Organization predicts that over 1 billion people will die this century due to smoking. Maybe I was wrong when I said that population control methods were out of the mix. It is a scientific fact that smoking is detrimental to human health, yet we do it because we think we are invincible (or vain in some cases). The leading cause of death worldwide (which can be attributed to smoking is heart disease). Over 8 million people die a year in the world from heart disease. Why? The answer is simple; our eating habits are atrocious (in the industrialized world we do not know when to quit, i.e. stress). What ever happened to fruits and vegetables, you know natural produce?

It seems to me that no matter what we do, we are essentially defeating ourselves. We find ways to defeat ourselves on a personal level and we manage to find even more ways on the collective level. It is as if we choose to intentionally suffer. Maybe suffering is part of being human (such as the crab fisherman I am watching on TV). I do not think that there is one cause for our self destructive behavior, but I find it amusing how it manages to catch on to everyone in all cultures and societies all around the world. Maybe this is a theory that will be debated for the next millennia, if we are around that long.

2007-03-25T23:07:00.000-05:00

What to Do With Iran (or the Islamic Republic of Iran)?

Over the past week events within and outside of Iran have come to a head with the international community. Earlier in the week 15 British marines and sailors were “detained” by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard’s naval force (an elite group that I will return to) in the Shatt al-Arab waterway. The waterway is around 125 miles long and essentially separates Iraq and Iran. Iran claims that the British were infringing on their territorial waters, but obviously the British are thinking the other way. Tony Blair called the acts unjust and illegal. Obviously all British ships have the best technology on them, including GPS, which in this case is a good indicator of where exactly the British ships were at.

The waterway has been a constant point of dispute since 1639 when the Ottoman Empire and the Persians signed an agreement that divided up the waterway and other parts of the land surrounding it. The trouble is that no boundaries were drawn and ever since then, Iraq has claimed the waterway as its sovereign territory. Evidently Iran has thought different over the past few hundred years, as shown by their recent act of aggression. A treaty was signed by the two nations in 1975 that divided the waterway down the middle, but that has never been enforced.

The Iranian Revolutionary Guard is an elite military group that only answers to either the Shah (top religious leader of Iran) or the president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. One needs to understand that the religious leaders of Iran call the shots, not so much the president, even though you may see him on the news more often than not. The religious leaders will pick a group of candidates for president and then the public will cast their vote. Not exactly the most stable process that you will ever see, but whatever works for them.

Since the early 1980’s, Iran’s power in the region has gone unchecked, which leaves us in the current situation. On top of it all, it seems as if the Iranian government wants to trade the 15 Britons for a few of their own people who seemed to have “disappeared” over the past few months, including a former leader of the Revolutionary Guard. Depending on how far Blair wants to take things, he very well may have to deal with Iranians. Ahmadinejad may not deal though, as the UN Security Council today passed more sanctions on Iran for their continued pursuit of nuclear weapons (or “power” as he claims).

Where does this leave us? Ahmadinejad is severely ticked off right now and could easily have the 15 soldiers done away with. But on the other hand he would lose his leverage, much less half of his country at the expense of a lot of bombs and such. If the U.S. and our “coalition” were not in Iraq right now, there is a good chance that no one on the face of the planet would careless what Iran is doing, whether they are building nuclear bombs or making fried camel. President Bush underestimated the unyielding role that Iran has in the region and it makes me worry that our war monger president will pick another fight that he cannot possibly win out of sheer spite.

You may ask what exactly should the world do with Iran? I would have said leave the country alone, but that has obviously gone out the door and went on a permanent vacation. The U.S. is actually attempting to talk with Iran on diplomatic terms, but the president’s propensity for being a statesman is not exactly forthright. Iran is still a few years off from acquiring nuclear weapons, which does give the world some time to deal. Toothless resolutions by the UN are not the answer. I believe before we go in an shoot up the place, we should seriously consider this diplomacy stuff. But I have a feeling that it will not happen during this administration. Hold onto your horses, this could get messy.

2007-03-23T01:17:00.000-05:00

Wanted: Coach for Prestigious College Basketball Program

As much as I would relish verbally punishing Tony LaRussa for his DUI gaffe yesterday, I will hold back the wave of castigation. We are all human and I understand that no one is perfect; unfortunately I am familiar with the procedure and punishment for a DUI, so I am not exactly one to talk. But there is other news that has roused my inquisitiveness, which happens to be with my favorite college basketball team, the Kentucky Wildcats; one of the most storied programs in NCAA history.

Even though he had four years remaining on his contract, Head Coach Tubby Smith resigned yesterday in favor of taking the head coaching position at Minnesota only a week after falling out of the NCAA tournament at the hands of Kansas. I sympthize with Tubby, as he has done a marvelous job over the past ten years. The trouble is that he peaked too soon, winning a national championship in his first year as head coach in 1998. After that he spent the rest of his time trying to live up to the storied legacy of the University of Kentucky basketball program.

The Wildcats have not been back to the Final Four since that 1998 season, which for a prestigious program like Kentucky’s has been the longest in school history. Smith won 263 and lost 83 games in his tenure as head coach, which is winning at a 78% clip. Fans have been calling for his ouster the last four years because winning at a 78% clip is not good enough for Kentucky basketball and I concur. I do not doubt Tubby’s ability to coach what so ever; it takes a bold man to attempt to live up to the standards set by individuals like Adolph Rupp.

But as stated earlier he did deliver a national championship and ten NCAA tournament appearances, a truly admirable record by anyone’s standards. His decision to leave now was best for all parties involved; Minnesota needed a proven winner and no one wanted to see him fired. Tubby’s experience and winning record will undoubtedly resurrect a basketball program in desperate need of a savior. On the other hand though, it leaves Kentucky without a coach. But I highly doubt that the job will stay vacant for long, as this is a dream job for any college basketball coach.

I would personally love Kentucky to pursue Michigan State Head Coach Tom Izzo, who has proven himself as a winner by establishing Michigan State as a powerhouse in the Big Ten and nationally, even winning a national championship in 2000. Izzo seems to be the best ideological fit, as well as the man with a plan for how to win to a conference as demanding as the SEC. Other potential candidates include Marquette coach Tom Crean, Memphis’ John Calipari, Gonzaga's Mark Few, Notre Dame's Mike Brey, Texas' Rick Barnes, Texas A&M's Billy Gillispie and Villanova's Jay Wright.

2007-03-21T01:24:00.000-05:00

I’m No M.D., but…

I recently came across a story on CNN pertaining to the overuse of antibiotics, especially during this time of the year. Winter is turning into spring, but the trouble is that the temperature never stays consistent and we all get what is affectionately called “the crud.” The most common variance of “the crud” is the dreaded sinus infection, which is in all essence a viral infection. A recent study concluded that doctors prescribe antibiotics in 82% of acute sinus infections and 70% in chronic situations. In sum, over 50 million pounds of antibiotics are produced in the U.S. each year, compared to 2 million pounds in 1954.

The trouble is that antibiotics do not cure a viral infection. Viral infections are not living, but instead they live off of a cell in order to keep replicating. This is the equivalent to spraying a block of ice with a fire extinguisher. The ice stays cooler longer and you just waste the fire extinguisher’s fluid. By using antibiotics in mass quantity, common bacterial infections (what antibiotics are meant to treat, a living organism within a cell) are building up a tolerance to the treatments (bacterial resistance). Some antibiotics are becoming obsolete due to their over prescription and this could have disastrous consequences for the future.

The CDC is even concerned about this problem, as it is one of the most concerning public health problems the world faces today. Common ailments such as pneumonia and tuberculosis may one day become a problem once again. I am not saying that the controlled use of antibiotics is detrimental in anyway. But when we stuff our faces with them every time we have a slight post nasal drip or a sore throat, we need to take a step back and take care of things the old fashioned way. Take some vitamin C, drink some orange juice, catch some extra zzzzzz’s…

2007-03-17T16:24:00.000-05:00

The Role of Morals in the Military: Any Room?

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace recently criticized the role of gays in the military. In a radio address last week, Pace termed gay acts as immoral and that gays should not serve in the military. I find these remarks rather ironic, as the U.S. military is in severe need of bodies for service in our “war against terror” in Iraq. Even presidential hopeful Senator Sam Brownback agreed with Pace’s remarks by sending President Bush a letter of support (Bush has no coattails to ride, so God only knows why he is kissing up).

The current administration needs to understand that this “moral crusade” has boundaries, one of those boundaries being the military. Everyone has the God given right to believe what they want, but what does being gay have to do with someone’s ability to serve in the armed forces? I really do not see the logic in Pace’s comments when I put it into that context. I do not doubt his abilities as the top general in the military by any means, but when you are in the military your views on “moral issues” need to “stay in the closet,” Peter.

The last time I checked, the U.S. has been involved in a war of attrition for the past five years and it appears as if “the terrorists” are doing a knock up job of outlasting us. General Pace needs to worry about commanding the military, not commanding the views of the “Christian right.” For all I care he can pull a Wesley Clark by retiring and running for president, but he has yet to retire. As one can probably tell I am all for gay’s serving in the military. I am not concerned with someone’s sexual preference as a measure of someone’s ability to serve.

2007-03-16T17:56:00.000-05:00

Another Line of BS?

Gambian President Yahya Jammeh claims that he has the answer to the world’s AIDS problem. The herbal treatment that he claims cures AIDS, came to him in a dream late last year. He has yet to release the ingredients of the concoction that has been given to AIDS patients since January, but users of the substance claim that it is working.

AIDS was first brought to the attention of the United States (The West) in 1981 when the viral disease surfaced throughout the gay community. Scientists have been aware of the disease since 1959 when the virus was an invisible entry in the medical books. No one is exactly positive where or how the virus originated, but anthropologists point to the jungles of the Congo (Democratic Republic of Congo) where HIV was somehow passed from monkeys (primates) to humans.

Today HIV/AIDS has been tamed in the West, partly because of massive educational campaigns and the relative easy access to anti-retroviral drugs. But Africa is a different story, as AIDS has run rampant since the late 1970’s. Today over 25 million people on the continent are infected with either HIV or AIDS and more are contracting the virus each day. The spread of the virus has been slowed due to the increase in donations from Western pharmaceutical corporations and the UN, but the problem still remains.

Because the virus has been tamed in the West, some people are oblivious to the consequences of HIV/AIDS. HIV/AIDS are not one disease, but in fact are separate diseases. HIV or human immunodeficiency virus is the virus that causes AIDS or acquired immune deficiency syndrome. HIV can be kept in check with anti-retroviral drugs, which in the West infected people can live normal life spans if they take the drugs religiously.

But when HIV turns into AIDS there is nothing that can be done. AIDS is defined by the medical community when an individual’s T-CELL (immune system cells) drops below a specific level. AIDS does not technically kill people; it is usually a common ailment such as pneumonia that causes the demise of an individual.

If President Jammeh’s herbal concoction is indeed inept as the UN claims it is, the results will be devastating for Africa. The UN fears that people afflicted will quit taking their anti-retroviral drugs, hence hastening their ultimate declines. I believe that the president had the best of intentions, but like the old saying goes: some of the worse things imaginable have been done with the best of intentions.

2007-03-15T15:53:00.000-05:00

What's The Deal with "March Madness?"

As I sit fixated to ESPN’s coverage of “March Madness,” I couldn’t help but wonder why Americans are suddenly obsessed with college basketball when the brackets come out. Oddly enough, I find myself apart of the vogue and I am firmly aware of my prospects to come out with an untainted bracket (I am already screwed). “March Madness” reaffirms one of America’s grandest pastimes, the art of gambling.

Besides rioting in large mobs, Americans cannot resist gambling, as it is part of our moniker to bet collateral that we do not have on the off chance that we actually succeed (writing checks that our asses cannot cash). The brackets were spurred forth last Sunday and to no one's surprise, we have gobbled them up like a blue whale feeding on plankton.

ESPN has their own little bracket challenge (which I entered to no avail) and they claim over 3 million people entered the contest. People, that is around 1/300th of the population, a majority of which are probably men, but still that is a considerable portion of the population.
One cannot forget the countless office pools that boast grand petty grand prizes of $100 or so. Over 10% of Americans participate in these office pools. Surprisingly, the $5 entrance fee is well worth the off chance of winning that immaculate load of cash that will in all likeliness, be blown at the local pub moments after winning it.

What is the off chance of producing a perfect bracket? 9,223,372,036,854,775,808 to 1, which in Lehman’s terms means 9 quintillion to one. If you do not like those odds, you have no business participating in “March Madness.” The FBI estimates that over $2.5 billion in illegal funds will be wagered on “March Madness,” but on the bright side 4% of that sum is wagered legally in Nevada.

Besides risking arrest from the FBI and forgetting the massive odds of losing, which any Texas Hold Em’ player would drop dead upon hearing, the answer to my question is simple; gambling has systematically been built into our genes over the past two-hundred years (I am sure science would refute it, but who cares)!

2007-03-13T18:11:00.000-05:00

It’s 2007, not 2004…duh!

What is the big deal about the recent firings of 8 U.S. Attorneys? We must first begin with exactly how a U.S. Attorney gets their job in the first place in order to understand the overall significance of the firings. Generally U.S. Attorney’s are nominated by the president based on the input of Senators from selected districts. Usually the individuals that are nominated are from the president’s political party; the GOP in this case. In a sense, becoming a U.S. Attorney is a patronage affair. And they all serve at the pleasure of the president.

But the thing is, after becoming a U.S. Attorney, your politics suddenly goes out the door, as it is the job of an attorney to be fair and unbiased in all legal matters. Democrats allege that the 8 U.S. Attorneys that were unceremoniously dismissed were fired for their politics. This is a serious accusation because most U.S. Attorneys eventually resign at the end of a president’s term and are either retained or let go. It is no secret that U.S. Attorney’s are fired, but during the middle of a president’s term is something else.

It was originally the idea of Harriet Miers, former White House Counsel, that all 93 U.S. Attorneys be fired at the beginning of President Bush’s second term. Oddly enough, the Bush Administration declined to fire anyone. Even though these attorneys do serve at the pleasure of the president, they should only be fired in circumstances in which they are not performing their job in a satisfactory manner. Three of the individuals fired did receive poor ratings, but it still does not explain the sudden urge to fire the individuals.

The attorney in question in this case is David Iglesias, who had received a superb rating and was not on the original list of candidates to be fired. He was fired because New Mexican Republicans were irritated that he was not prosecuting enough voter fraud cases. Yes, there is a voting fraud issue in New Mexico, but it does not explain why Iglesias and 7 other U.S. Attorney’s were removed from their offices during the middle of the president’s term. If this is a blatant abuse of power that the Democrats are claiming it is, Alberto Gonzales should be fired to.

2007-03-12T01:36:00.000-05:00

Pardon Me, Scooter

Former Dick Cheney top aid, Lewis “Scooter” Libby was convicted on four counts of perjury, false testimony, and obstruction of justice last Tuesday. Libby, who was essentially part of the top brass in the White House and chief confidant to the vice-president, will face up to 25 years in prison when his sentencing hearing begins in June. But our endless judicial appeal systems will more than likely spare “Scooter” a trip to repair shop.

His conviction stems from accusations that he revealed Valerie Plame as a covert CIA operative, which in turn could have potentially put her life in grave danger. Libby was not convicted of leaking the name, but his convictions stem from interfering in the investigation of the leak. Democrats greeted news of the conviction with bliss.

"It's about time someone in the Bush administration has been held accountable for the campaign to manipulate intelligence and discredit war critics," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi added, “This trial provided a troubling picture of the inner workings of the Bush administration. The testimony unmistakably revealed -- at the highest levels of the Bush administration--a callous disregard in handling sensitive national security information and a disposition to smear critics of the war in Iraq."

Democrats are concerned that President Bush may pardon Libby if the appeals process goes on long enough. The key words in that sentence are “long enough.” Bush is hurriedly approaching the “lame duck” stage of his presidency and if he has nothing to lose by late 2008 (depending on what the GOP does in the presidential elections), he very well may pardon Libby before he leaves office. This is nowhere near the magnitude of the Nixon pardon, but the principle behind a potential pardon is the question at hand.

It is no secret that Dick Cheney operates White House intelligence; in essence he is a sort of dictator of intelligence. With Cheney running the intelligence show, it was Libby who had access to almost the same information as Cheney. But like most of the debacles that have taken place within the Bush Administration, there is more to the story.

Many have claimed that Bush or Cheney may have ordered the release of Plame’s name because her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson openly questioned Bush’s basis for invading Iraq in a New York Times op-ed piece in July 2003. It would outwardly appear that Scooter is a scapegoat for the administration, as his role in the “scandal” seems minimal.

Many commentators have placed the blame on Dick Cheney for sticking Libby out on the end of the stick to be sacrificed. What is the significance of this conviction, regardless of whether Libby gets a new trial or not? As Speaker Pelosi stated above, it may act as a basis for Congress to investigate the authenticity of the Bush Administration’s intelligence on a wide range of issues, including Iraq (and a little thing called credibility, which Bush and gang are slowly running out of).

2007-03-11T00:29:00.000-06:00

FOX News: Fair and Un-Biased My Ass

The Nevada Democratic Party is pulling out of a schedules debate that was to be co-hosted by Fox News in Reno on August 14th. The sudden pull out from the debate stems from a comment that Fox News Chairman and CEO Roger Ailes (he appears to be a larger version of Albert Hitchcock) made earlier this week. Ailes believed that it would be apposite to crack a joke comparing Barrack Obama to Osama Bin Laden by stating:

"And it is true that Barack Obama is on the move. I don't know if it's true that President Bush called (Pakistani President Pervez) Musharraf and said, 'Why can't we catch this guy?' "

Ailes’ comment capped off a tension that had been brewing for weeks, as John Edwards stated that he would not be participating in the debate due to Fox’s conservative ties. Fox News blames the cancellation on MoveOn, a “radical” left wing organization that has been calling for the debate to be cancelled with a staggering 265,000 signatories to a petition sent to the state Democratic Party.

Democrats believe that they should not have to defend themselves against such bigotry and I concur. I am not so ignorant to the world not to believe that every single American news outlet does not have a bias. But when it comes to moderating a debate, it is not the job of the so called “moderator” to throw a curveball; the politicians will throw each other enough curveballs.

Whether we like it or not, our news media will continue to put their own spin on politics. But when a news network decides to get directly involved in politics, they have stepped over the already stretched line. Plus the so called “joke” was rather insensitive. So begs the idea of whether you like Obama or not, he is a U.S. Senator, not the leader of a major terrorist organization that has claimed the lives of thousands.

The commentary by Ailes was absolutely uncalled for and his network is going to suffer the consequences in August with a lack of ratings and suffer even more as the general election approaches. If you thought that Fox News was not exactly reputable before the joke, it is fair to assume that the organization’s reputation is now debunked in the eyes of many more than before (it rhymes!).

2007-03-08T23:36:00.000-06:00

Are You Kidding Me?

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich admitted in front of a conservative Christian group today that he was having an affair at the same time he was leading the charge for Bill Clinton to be impeached. When I read that, I asked myself, ‘Are you kidding me?’ Gingrich did not call his actions hypocritical, as he did make a valid point that Clinton perjured himself in front of a federal judge. The thing is though, Newt, that the whole impeachment thing and independent counsel Ken Starr were not looking into Clinton’s illegitimate comments in front of the judge, but instead were running a witch hunt comparable to the Salem Witch Trials. Newt and the gang were out to crucify Clinton for anything and when they couldn’t succeed on an actual legal premise, they played the moral card.

Newt, who fancies himself a potential presidential candidate in 2008 (I ask myself again, ‘Are you kidding me?’) has campaigned in the past on a generic GOP platform of family values and morals, evidently something he forgot that he lacks (he forgot to look in the mirror). He has been divorced twice, with his most recent divorce in 2000. Newt now resides with his third wife, a former congressional aid who is 20 years his junior (robbing the cradle) and the one whom he had been having the affair with. One can sense that I have a lot of pent up hatred towards Newt Gingrich and for good reason. Like a lot of his GOP friends (Rush Limbaugh- OXYCONTIN and Bill O’Reilly- BEATOFF) who tout the family values and morals line, Newt is what I term a hypocrite.

This is a man that even Bill Clinton despises and Bill Clinton does not despise many. Say what you want about Bill, but I did not see Newt’s approval rating through the roof when he resigned from Congress (his approval rating as speaker was at 28% and he resigned for violations of ethics and hypocrisy rules). I am firmly aware that humans are not perfect, trust me. But when you’re a politician and you attempted to crucify a man for his moral values and you committed the same act, I believe it becomes necessary for Newt to cease to chatter, much less run for president. If Newt does indeed run for president, there is a good chance he will receive a taste of his own medicine, either from the Democrats or the media, as I am sure that he has a few more infidelities somewhere in the closet. Newt, your 15 minutes has been up for a few years now; drop the politician act, it’s not your thing.

2007-03-07T23:18:00.000-06:00

President for a Day?

What would you do if you were president of the United States for a day? Maybe drop some bombs on an ex-girlfriend’s house? The possibilities could be endless with the amount of power that POTUS wields. Ever heard of David Rice Atchison? Not too many Americans have; I’ll admit that I had never heard of the man up until tonight. Atchison’s story is worth telling though, as his chronicle has become a renowned urban legend over the past century. The urban legend states that Atchison was president for exactly one day, March 4, 1849, which would have made him the 12th president instead of Zachary Taylor.

The legend states that Zachary Taylor was set to be inaugurated the 12th president on that very day, March 4, 1849. But the trouble was that Taylor refused to be inaugurated because it was a Sunday, the Sabbath, so the inauguration was moved up a day to March 5, 1849. The trouble with moving up the “big day” was that the 11th president, James K. Polk’s term expired on March 4th. Essentially then it left a 24 hour period in which the U.S. lacked an elected president. What about the vice-president you ask? George Dallas, Polk’s VP had resigned as president of the Senate on March 2nd, which along with the end of Polk’s term, ended his constitutional right to the presidency.

So with the president and vice-president’s legal terms ending on March 4th and Taylor refusing to be sworn in until the next day, someone technically had to be in charge of the executive branch. At the time the line of succession was different. Unlike today, if the president cannot perform his duties and there is no VP, the speaker of the House is next in line for the presidency. But in 1849, the president pro tempore of the Senate was next in line and guess whom it was? That’s right, it was David Rice Atchison. But again, there is more controversy. He was the president pro tempore for the 29th Congress, but Congress had already let out for the session.

But he was elected president pro tempore for the 30th Congress, but he had not been sworn in yet as of March 5, 1849. When asked what he did on that fabled day, Atchison, being the hardworking politician he was had a long night closing out the 29th Congressional session; so he slept all day. But sadly this story is not “that” true. Legally he was not president for a day, but he was president for about 7 minutes. Before Taylor was sworn in, Atchison was sworn in as president pro tempore; so he technically had power for a few minutes. If that happened today, I would wager that the media would collectively have a heart attack and World War III would break out.

2007-03-06T05:30:00.000-06:00

A Gap in the System

On Monday witnesses testified of the abysmal conditions at Walter Reed Army Hospital, as well as the thick bureaucratic red tape that delayed the recovery of countless soldiers wounded in battle before a congressional panel. News of the horrid conditions in building 18, a building where recovering soldiers and their families reside came to the attention of the media and since then the outcry has been loud and to the point. So much to the point that the army’s top civilian, Francis J. Harvey, Secretary of the Army resigned this past Friday. Defense Secretary Robert Yates had already fired the Walter Reed’s commander, Major General George Weightman before Friday, but the damage has already been done to the Army’s reputation for medical care.

More fallout may occur due to the scandal, as Lt. General Kevin Kiley, the Army Surgeon General seemed to be testifying for his job on Monday. He essentially admitted that the Army dropped the ball, but in so many words as not to make it appear that things were as bad as the media would lead us to believe. Besides the conditions of the hospital, witnesses also testified to the fact that extreme gaps exist in the system. One witness testified that it took months for a vital test result to come back, which typically only takes a few days. Others testified that the wait for services and support took months, sometimes appearing as if the Army did not know that these people existed. Lt. General Kiley acknowledged that gaps existed and that they would be fixed.

It appears as if the Army hasn’t exactly been prepared for the sharp influx of severely wounded troops to enter their facilities. In turn this has led to a sharp decline in the quality of care that some of our wounded soldiers are getting, which is inexcusable. I may disagree with the war, but I do not disagree with the troops. The troops deserve the best care available, no matter what the situation may be. A Congressman asked Lt. General Kiley is he had the appropriate funding in order to ensure that this would never happen again. Kiley responded yes, but the Congressman reiterated that Congress is fully behind supporting the medical care of troops, damn the costs. If Congress is behind the funding of the medical system and the funds are there, one must ask, what in the hell went wrong?

2007-03-03T03:43:00.000-06:00

We Did It Again: Damn Liberals!

As I was viewing time’s blog, specifically a blog by Joe Klein exclaiming the characteristics of “left wing extremists.” These are not just characteristics of say, Fidel Castro or Tito, but characteristics that seem to resound in our current political system. These are the type of comments that infuriate me, as it is ludicrous to believe that anyone would buy into such blasphemy. Allow me to address a few of Mr. Klein’s claims.

In the realm of foreign policy, we have these comments:
--believes the United States is a fundamentally negative force in the world.
--believes that American imperialism is the primary cause of Islamic radicalism.
--believes that the decision to go to war in Iraq was not an individual case of monumental stupidity, but a consequence of America’s fundamental imperialistic nature.

A lot of these comments are going to be blown out of proportion and “misread,” but it is the opinion of many that the US is an increasingly negative actor in world politics. I would not say that America is again an imperial power, such as England was throughout much of the 18th, 19th, and some of the 20th centuries. But needless to say, it is a terrifying prospect and could soon become reality, especially if our war monger president decides to pick another fight. America is not the cause of Islamic radicalism, but in essence our current activities in the Middle East are pissing off a lot of Islamic fundamentalists, which could lead to perpetual terror in our nation.

In the realm of domestic policy, we have these comments:
--believes that eternal problems like crime and poverty are the primarily the fault of society.
--believes that America isn’t really a democracy.
--believes that corporations are fundamentally evil.
--believes in a corporate conspiracy that controls the world.
--is intolerant of good ideas when they come from conservative sources.
--dismissively mocks people of faith, especially those who are opposed to abortion and gay marriage.
--regularly uses harsh, vulgar, intolerant language to attack moderates or conservatives.

I disagree that our society has caused poverty, but it is the fault of the individual. Remember, we all have a little thing called free will, which we can think how we want, hence we can motivate ourselves to work anytime that we want. I have news Mr. Klein, America is not a democracy. America is a federal republic with democratic tendencies. It does not take a scholar to figure that one out. The founders did not want to create a democracy, but a republic. Democracy in its own right is one of the worse forms of government on the planet; nothing would ever get done, just ask the Greeks.

Corporations are really not a bad thing, they help to drive the economy and make the U.S. a world power. Corporations just add to income inequality and such minor pains in the side. I am not going to even address the comment about corporate conspiracies, which is simply not even true. I cannot speak for my fellow liberals, but I personally look at new ideas without filtering them through my party ID. I give the ideas careful though and if it is a decent idea, I am game to listen more. If not, chances are it was a dumb idea. I do not dismiss those who are opposed to abortion and gay marriage, I simply disagree with them. I am sure that they have their reasons for their beliefs, as well as I do. Did I use intolerant and vulgar language to express myself? Nope!

2007-02-26T20:51:00.000-06:00

And The Debate Rages On

It has been a bedrock principle of Christianity for the past 2000 years that Jesus Christ died a single man and rose from the dead in order to save man from his sins. But a recent documentary produced by James Cameron entitled ‘The Tomb of Christ’ presents a challenge to the paradigm that has guided man for two millennia. The documentary, which is to air on the Discovery Channel on March 4, is based around ten ancient stone boxes (coffins) discovered in Jerusalem in 1980, which carbon date back to the time that Jesus lived. Within those ten boxes were believed to be the remains of Jesus, Mary Magdalene (his supposed wife), and remainder of his family.

One box even has an inscription stating, “Judah, son of Jesus,” which could signal that Jesus had a child, which would refute the basis of Christianity. But of course there are those that refute the evidence, especially scholars and those in religious community. It is believed that Jesus and his supposed family would have no business being entombed in an area that was of middle class status in Old Jerusalem, as Jesus is referred to as a poor man in scripture. Plus, it is widely believed that he spent three days lying in “state” at a temple across town, far away from the middle class area.

Others all calling the documentary propaganda aimed at misleading people and making money. Other say such names like Jesus and Mary were rather prominent during the time period the boxes were entombed. It is not even known if the boxes actually state the name Jesus, as the language of the time period (Ancient Semitic) is rather hard to decipher. Never the less this is another potential dent in the armor of Christianity. Other evidence has come to prominence that possibly disproves the legend of Jesus, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls found from 1947-1956.

The scrolls include what is referred to by religious scholars as the Gnostic Gospels. These particular gospels were not included in the New Testament (completed around 300AD) and include the gospels written by Judas (the apostle who betrayed Jesus) and Mary Magdalene herself. In a historic sense, we do know that Jesus did exist (unlike Abraham or Moses, which is in doubt) from 4-33AD. But the trouble is that he is only written about in an external source once, a book of Antiquities composed in 90AD. It is obvious that Jesus existed, but it is not so obvious of what context he existed in.

2007-02-23T18:43:00.000-06:00

The Loophole America Has Been Waiting For?

A Senate resolution to revoke the president’s ability to wage war in Iraq is currently in the works. Senators Carl Levin (D-Michigan) and Joseph Biden (D-Delaware) are working towards drafting a revised version of the 2002 resolution that gave President Bush the authorization to wage war in Iraq. The draft resolution will call for the removal of all US troops from Iraq by March 2008, with a select few being left behind to assist Iraqi forces in counterterrorism measures. Whether or not the resolution will have the number of votes to pass the Senate and House remains to be seen. But this is by far the most aggressive piece of legislation that has been discussed in Congress to date.

Last week the House failed in passing a non-binding resolution that condemned the surge of 21,500 more troops to Iraq, which is a strong signal that Democrats do not have the necessary votes to pass the new potential restrictions on the president. The revised resolution will be presented to the Democratic caucus and some Republicans on Tuesday and then the “politicking” for votes will begin. Even if enough votes are garnered to enact the resolution, there still remains the question of whether the resolution will interfere with the president’s constitutional commander-in-chief powers. Like many presidents before him, Bush has always been protective of his war making power.

Constitutional scholars will be debating the issue for weeks to come, but I believe that the issue is cut and dry. The president will contend that Congress never declared war on Iraq in March 2003, which they did not. Instead the original resolution granted the president the authority to dispatch troops to Iraq in order to halt Saddam Hussein’s production of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and other assorted issues that deal with terror. The original pretext of the resolution was debunked when no WMDs were located, which in theory deflates our whole reason for being there. Yes, the president can command the troops, but if his basis for commanding the troops is revoked, he should in theory not be able to continue to run his personal war.

2007-02-22T16:34:00.000-06:00

Does the News Still Exist?

It has become apparent over the past few weeks that the media has overstepped the bounds of what one would consider news. The news has been a firm part of the American psyche since the advent of radio and more recently, television. The modern news media is a questionable institution based on the fact that news conglomerates do not give us the whole story of the events that pervade our lives. Never the less, at least they were giving us the scoop on matters that we concerned ourselves with, that is before CNN became the E! Channel.

There are three things that sell news: sex, scandal, and controversy. Besides Bill Clinton, the media market has a severe lack of attention gathering stories, besides the lives of celebrities. The most recent binge that the media has been on has been in concern to the death of Anna Nicole Smith and the less than reputable behavior of Britney Spears. Even reliable news networks like CNN and MSNBC ( I enjoy their point of view) cannot get enough of these people. Personally, I would love to hear about real news, no matter how disturbing or "honest" it may be.

But instead, the news directors of these conglomerates subject us to live feeds of the trial for custody of Anna Nicole Smith’s body; her body. Who wants to hear a blubbering judge decide who gets the decomposing remains of a blonde bimbo who fancied herself a modern day Marilyn Monroe (she was far from it). Sadly, that is not all that the news can get enough of. Who can forget Britney Spears? I enjoy turning on CNN at 9AM to hear that she has no business being around kids, much less her own, shaved her head, and checked herself into rehab, again and left, again. Honestly, who in the hell cares?

I am firmly aware that the American infatuation with the lives of celebrities is a multi-billion dollar (my net worth) a year industry, but how much can we really take? I would like to assume that celebrities are human and enjoy the right to privacy like the rest of the civilized world. Yet we have to place these people on a pedestal to boost our own egos with the fantasy that famous people are human just like us. If I want to stalk these people, I will buy the National Enquirer or turn on the E! Channel. If I want to enlighten myself about the events of the world, I will turn on a reputable news network; get the "scoop" straight.

2007-02-17T01:07:00.000-06:00

It’s Over: Take A Seat, Scottie

In keeping with the annual tradition of a great player past their prime wanting to relieve the “stresses” of retirement, Scottie Pippen has declared that he would like to return to the NBA. The 41 year old Pippen believes that he still has the ability to assist a play-off caliber team, as he has been training throughout the winter in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. He is hoping to strike some sort of deal this weekend at the annual NBA All-Star game, which is being held in Las Vegas this year. Taking any player past their prime and especially those past the twilight of their career is risky business, especially if the team has to depend on them. Pippen last played in the NBA in 2003-2004, averaging 5 points and 3 rebounds a game.

Pippen is one of the NBA’s 50 greatest players of all-time and being a Chicago Bulls fan, I would have to concur he was once a phenomenal player. I would hope that he learned his lesson from former teammate Michael Jordan that making a comeback in you’re forties is not exactly a logical decision. Not to downplay the role that Pippen played while apart of those great Bull teams, but Pippen is not exactly a basketball god when Jordan is not by his side. Many of his stats declined monumentally after Jordan retired after the 97-98’ season. His most prolific and most known role will always be that of Michael Jordan’s side-kick whether he likes it or not.

Pippen may not have been a scoring god like Jordan, but his tough defense was renowned across the league. But is there a chance that a 41 year old man can keep up with a mid twenties man like Dwayne Wade? There comes a time and point in all of our lives when we are unable to compete in a sport at a level that we once played at; it is called aging. An individual can still be in monumental shape in their 40’s, but a 20 year old in monumental shape has the upper hand. Plus, there is the humiliation factor that Scottie needs to worry about. I am not saying if he were to comeback he would drag ass all over the floor. But it would be in the interest of his legacy not to comeback; he has nothing more to prove.

2007-02-15T12:25:00.000-06:00

“Cheat Me in the Price, But Not the Goods”

Who would believe that NASCAR would be “rocked” by a scandalous tale of cheating on the eve of the sport’s biggest race? Isn’t NASCAR a “good old boys” sport? Evidently our perceptions were wrong in this case, as it was discovered on Sunday that Michael Waltrip’s Toyota “stock car” was in violation of various NASCAR rules. Amongst the violations was an intake manifold (brings air into the engine block) laced with a jet fuel performance additive, which obviously would give the team an unfair advantage over the field. NASCAR reacted by indefinitely suspending and fining Waltrip’s crew chief and team director who were escorted from Daytona International Speedway on Wednesday.

Waltrip maintains that it was the act of individuals, not his team. Like scandals in other sports, this incident will undoubtedly cost Waltrip his reputation and possibly his career. During an interview on Monday, Waltrip appeared rattled to the point of not even plugging his sponsors (something he is known for). He did the admirable thing by trying to pull out of the Daytona 500, but was talked out of it by NASCAR officials and his wife. Is this act of unfair play attributable to Waltrip? Some would concur that he was behind it, as the second year owner-drivers comes into this season after an atrocious 2006 season that included no top 10 finishes.

This coupled with the fact that his lot of cars are three of the cars sponsored by the newcomer Toyata, Waltrip is indeed under a massive amount of pressure. Besides the personal effects on Waltrip, many wonder what the reaching influence will be on the sport as a whole. Will this tarnish the reputation of NASCAR, a sport that has become immensely popular over the past decade? Other instances of cheating have perpetually hampered the images of other sports, such as the Black Sox Scandal of 1917, where the Chicago White Sox (mainly 7 players) threw the World Series against the Cincinnati Reds. This forever changed our view of baseball and pushed many fans away from the sport.

Michael Waltrip and his team have paid the price from an administrative point of view. But the actions of his team have ceaselessly tarnished the very “goods” that NASCAR gives its fans. NASCAR will surely scrutinize the cars they inspect even more so than they do now, which could in theory lead to more instances of botched cheating. NASCAR is a cut throat sport where all of the cars are essentially in the same plane and finding the slight LEGAL edge over the competition is on the minds of all the teams. NASCAR’s rules concerning many aspects of performance enhancing are considered to be dense to the point of being unclear. It appears as if NASCAR has some work to do and the season has yet to begin.

2007-02-14T00:36:00.000-06:00

Dear Mr. Hendry: Give ‘Big Z’ What He Wants

Mid-February: dreary, cold, boring (if you live in Illinois), and nothing on TV in the weigh of sports. Have no fear though my fellow sports junkies, baseball is soon to make an appearance on a TV near you. With those words I can hear a resounding shout of joy, but that is after the fact that we have to sit through two months of basketball and a debunked NHL, sounds like fun, right? Never the less there is news affront in Chicago, specifically with the Cubs. It is no secret that the Cubs were atrocious last season (last century as well), finishing with an NL worse 66-96 record. General Manager Jim Hendry has attempted to make amends with fans by spending over $300 million in the offseason to procure the best and brightest (Ramirez, Soriano, DeRosa, Kotts, Marquis, Floyd, and Lilly). Plus, one cannot forget the luring of Lou Pinella to his grave for $10 million (coaching the Cubs may kill the man).

Hendry’s acquisitions will hopefully end the longest drought in sport’s history between championships, 99 years. Either way, if the Cubs blow it this season they move into triple digits, if not they will produce big numbers to help pay for some of those big contracts. But Hendry needs to shell out just another $15 million. What is $15 million between friends? Hopefully nothing because it is vital that Carlos Zambrano is signed before the season starts. During the annual Cubs convention last weekend, Zambrano stated that he needs to be signed by the Cubs before the season starts, or he is “gone” after the 2007 season. The Cubs offered Zambrano $11 million a year, but that was not enough. I will admit that $15 million is a bit extreme, but Carlos does bring up a good point when he pointed out that Barry Zito was signed for $126 million over 7 years, hence taking the biggest free agent off of the market. If Zambrano is not signed it is obvious that he is going to be the most courted starting pitcher on the market in 2008.
Plus, it is not an intelligent strategy to let the ace of your pitching staff go without any compensation.

Mark Prior and Kerry Wood have proven that they deserve of the title ‘ace.’ But the chances of either one of them staying injury free throughout the season is comparable to me obtaining a date with a super model. With those prospects, it is vital that Zambrano stick around to lead the charge. In my mind he has proven his worth season in and season out. Last season he led a rickety starting staff with a 3.41 ERA, 210 strikeouts, and 214 innings. No one is invincible, but Zambrano is comparable to a thoroughbred horse running a marathon; the man hardly misses any starts. The rest of his numbers are in the top five in the NL. What we have here is a pitcher in his prime and one that Chicago cannot let get away. If history serves as a reference, one cannot forget the Greg Maddux ordeal in the early 1990’s. Look what happened to him? He served out the prime of his career in Atlanta, not Chicago.

2007-02-12T23:50:00.000-06:00

The Bolt of Lightening Democrats Hoped For?

Invoking the moniker and legend of a man named Lincoln; Barack Obama announced his candidacy for president on Saturday in Springfield, Illinois in front of the “Old State Capitol” where the ghost of Lincoln still saunters to this day. Obama served 7 years in the General Assembly before his “prolific” rise to the U.S. Senate and fame, so why not attempt to illustrate the point even more so than by rousing up images of one of the nation’s greatest presidents? The irony between his speech and Lincoln is somewhat amusing, as Obama plans to run his campaign based on two themes, progressiveness and unity. History has shown us that these two ideologies do not mix well in politics, especially during the time of Lincoln (the whole Civil War thing). At some point and time one of these ideas will have to be sacrificed, as the status quo will remain in Washington D.C (even though he wants to change all of that).

Obama is on the verge of toppling over his own two feet at this current juncture in the campaign and it is only the beginning. There is no doubt that as the campaign revs its engines up, Obama will become rather well known throughout the nation and the world. But from what I have discerned from what Obama stands for, I am unsure of what he really stands for. Yes, he rouses up recollections of John F. Kennedy, as he is young (as far as presidential races are concerned), he has a young family, and is progressive, which is why the Democratic Party is absolutely crazy over him. Obama is in essence a well packaged candidate from a political science point of view. But in a race that will have to focus on policy, does Obama have the right ideas? The trouble with the presidential election gearing up so soon is that candidates are not able to show all of their cards at once; they have to wait.

Chicago progressives are worried that Obama has jettisoned his “prophetic” candor in favor for a normal politician; he has gone Hollywood. Opponents will be fast to point out that he won his Senate seat by default because the GOP could not find an admirable contender (Alan Keyes was the best that they could do). Other would say that he deserved the seat. Obama even stated that he would finish out his term in the Senate, but obviously that has gone down the tubes. An article in The Nation described Obama as “so fucking coy,” which reins true at this current moment. Besides garnering the primary votes of Democrats, he has to deal with Hillary Clinton and others. Democrats are renowned for trying to “out-left” each other during primary season, which in this case may not be a pretty staff meeting in the “going negative department.”

The primary debates are to occur in mid-April and I believe that by then both Democrats and Republicans will have a firmer idea of whom they want to support. Up until that time it is going to be a guessing game with most of the candidates. Lincoln once gave the infamous “house divided” speech on the very steps of where Obama stood on Saturday (it kicked off his presidential campaign in 1858) and it is fair to say that our government is divided at the current time. But the real question(s) for Obama is simple, how divided is the Democratic Party and low will the candidates go in order to secure the nomination? Obama wants to fix Washington, we know that, but that is going to be easier said than done; just ask Lincoln.

2007-02-11T17:25:00.000-06:00

Show Me The Money!

The U.S. Mint plans to release a new $1 coin this Thursday to commemorate past presidents. Just like the 50 state quarter program, the $1 coins will be released in one set per year with the first four presidents depicted on the coins (Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison) in 2007. According to the U.S. Mint, the coins will feature the same metallic makeup as the Sacagawea gold dollars, but there are some unique characteristics that include: the name of the president, the year(s) in which they served, and the order of their service engraved onto one side of the coin. The reverse side of the coin will feature a depiction of the statue of liberty with the words “United States of America” next to lady liberty.

But the most unique part of the new coins will be featured on the edge. It appears as if the coins are thick enough to allow the engraving of the words “E Pluribus Unum” (from many, one), the year, and the bank at which the coins were minted on the serrated edge. The new coins will be available from banks that placed specific orders and of course, from the U.S. Mint. The new coins have lead many to wonder if the U.S. Mint plans to phase out the use of dollar bills, which in theory would save the government millions of dollars each year. But more than 3/4th of people surveyed do not want paper money phased out, nor does the government plan to stop making paper money. But no one can doubt that the U.S. Mint has been on a coin craze over the past decade.

The goal has to been to amplify the number of coin collectors the world around. Investing in coins is technically one of the most feasible ways to generate a future profit, but the original capital needed can be hefty. Per se one wants to invest in a set of American Eagle coins (gold, silver, and platinum). The starting cost for a set of four is a petty $1500. Granted, the coins in theory should double their worth over a period of time, but the cost is a bit hefty for the average collector. If the U.S. Mint really wants to stir up sleeping coin collectors, they should use more ideas like the presidential coins. They are affordable and easy to obtain unlike many of their products. The State Quarter Program was a success, but it remains to be seen of the added 75 cents will hamper average collectors.

2007-02-08T00:07:00.000-06:00

A Different Examination of Valentines Day

It is well known by now that I despise “Hallmark holidays,” especially Valentines Day. This sentimental holiday traces its roots from religious figures, more specifically Saint Valentine (there are 3 of them) within the Catholic Church. The St. Valentine that historians concentrate on, at least in this regard, lived during the 3rd century in Rome. Legend has it that Emperor Claudius II decided that single men were prime military material, so he decreed that young men were not to be married. St. Valentine fought the decree and was incarcerated for his attempts to thwart the emperor by still performing marriages for young couples. It was during his prison term that he fell in love with a young woman (his jailor’s daughter) and sent her the first ‘valentine’ in the form of letter, as he signed it, “from your valentine.”

The actual commemoration of the day takes place on February 14th because St. Valentine was eventually executed for his deeds on February 14, 270. Americans literally took the holiday to heart 1500 years later, as home made Valentines were exchanged around 1700. Valentine’s Day became an official commercial holiday in the 1840’s with the mass production of greeting cards. Is it not ironic that we celebrate our “love” for a significant other based on a day that saw a man’s slaughter? Needless to say, Hallmark and other corporate entities have firmly embraced the art of selling chocolate to selling “cute” teddy bears (which have their roots with President Teddy Roosevelt) to help satisfy American’s urge to satisfy “that special someone.”

I took the liberty of reviewing some demographic numbers in concern to Valentines Day from the US Census Bureau and I must say I am now fully aware of why people spend the way they do. For instance, those who fall in the age group of 20-29 are more apt to purchase a gift for someone simply because these are the prime years in which we seek a mate. There are 118 single men for every 100 single women, which spells for mass squandering of capital in order to secure mate. Never mind the principle behind it (which I disagree with), it is all about seeing how low we will go to find someone (which probably leads to our colossal divorce rates). On the Brightside, if you are male and have not found love by the time you are 65, there are 33 single men for every 100 single women (Viagra sales).

So what kind of sales do retailers typically do on the days leading up to Valentines Day? Over 60% of American consumers participate in the holiday and on average spend over $100 each. Last year, over $13.7 billion was spent, with these figures bound to exceed that number this year. Oddly enough, you can say that Valentines Day is a “chick holiday” with the average male planning to spend around $135 and the average female planning to spend just $68. Where do the majority of these funds go to? The greeting card industry of course! 68% of consumers usually purchase a greeting card, with candy in second, and an evening out in a close third. What does all of this mean? For one it means go into the greeting card business. Secondly, it shows how materialistic our society is. Praise the lord I am single, as my valentine to myself this year are tires; practical and inexpensive.

2007-02-06T22:15:00.000-06:00

A Tainted Idol

For the first time in NASA’s history, an active astronaut has run into legal troubles. Lisa Marie Nowak was caught by Orlando Police in an attempt to “confront” a romantic rival (an air force captain) with a four inch blade, a rubber hose, and a BB gun. Nowak, who is a Captain in the US Navy (thats one rank away from admiral), was arrested after failing to assault her rival in an airport parking lot. She followed her rival’s plane from Houston to Orlando by car, not even stopping for bathroom breaks, as she wore a diaper the entire way. I guess she became accustomed to those diapers in space. Why not give them a try in gravity?

Evidently, Nowak and the other woman are “active participants” in a love triangle with a fellow astronaut. The ramifications are already being felt by Nowak, as NASA has grounded her from flight status and put her on thirty day leave. She was allowed to post bail of around $25K this afternoon under the condition that she wear a GPS tracking device around her ankle. It maybe a bit rash, but one of the charges included attempted murder. There is no word yet on the other participants. NASA has yet to officially comment on the story, but chances are their reputation has taken a big hit.

One would wonder how a “crazed” individual like this even gained entrance into the astronaut program in the first place. Potential astronauts are put through rigorous psychological monitoring and testing in order to get into the program, much less the other rigors it takes to enter space. Nowak has been an astronaut since 1996 and has countless degrees from the US Naval Academy, i.e. she is not stupid. She even took part in STS-121 last summer when the space shuttle Discovery spent a few weeks at the International Space Station. Astronauts are human like the rest of us, but their aura in our society is comparable to a god; they are idolized the world around.

It has been widely known that the very first astronauts were not exactly model citizens. Yet their acts of disorderly conduct were set aside under the guise of “boys will be boys.” Nowak though is at a disadvantage, as the standards for astronauts both on and off the job have increased since the late 1960’s. What does this mess mean for NASA? It is too early to surmise what the resounding effects will be. But it is fair to assume that the agency has been tainted. At the very least I would expect incredibly tougher standards, even tougher than the present time to become an astronaut.

Damn, there goes that career choice...

2007-02-05T00:09:00.000-06:00

Super Loss

I have finally been had; my prediction for the Super Bowl was immensely off. The Bears suffered their final demise of the season with a 29-17 loss at the hands of the Colts. Let’s face it, Peyton Manning ruled the day again with solid play that thwarted the Bears defense on every level. The Bears did start out strong in an obvious sense, as Devin Hester ran the opening kickoff back 92 yards for a touchdown. That touchdown was then complimented by a Colt’s turnover which turned into a Rex Grossman touchdown pass to Muhsin Muhammad. After that it was downhill. The Bear’s offense turned into an impotent pile of sludge and Peyton Manning ruled the day.

With the offense unable to stay on the field for an elongated period of time which meant that Peyton Manning was on the field. The Colts controlled the ball for a little over 38 minutes compared to the Bears’ 21 minutes. Grossman could have performed a lot better, but he never had the opportunity to find a rhythm. Plus, accruing five turnovers did not help matters, especially two interceptions on the part of Grossman who just did not have the touch on this day. The defense played admirably by forcing three turnovers, but when you are on the field for more than half of the game, it is a futile fight. The Colts garnered 430 total yards, compared to the Bears’ 265, which equaled defeat for the Bears.

Most of the blame for the loss will more than likely have to be shouldered by Grossman, which is an unfair assessment. Like Lovie Smith stated countless times over the course of the season when Grossman was struggling, the team made it to the Super Bowl with him as quarterback. But there will be resounding “what if” statements flying around Chicago until next season. What if Brian Griese was at the helm all season? Would he have been more consistent? Defense and Special teams performed marvelously all season, which leaves the offense as the weak link in the chain. Will Grossman return next year as the starting quarterback?

Either way, the Bears had a great season. They made it to the Super Bowl against all odds, which is commendable on any level of professional sports. They probably should not have made it this far, but defense can only do so much in any sport. A good defense has to be complimented by a solid offense. I am not talking Michael Jordan like numbers here, but something respectable. Hopefully team management can keep the core of the team together in the offseason and even bring in further pieces that will allow the team to finish the puzzle and win the Super Bowl. Wishful thinking? You never know, as the Bears showed us all this year.

2007-02-03T17:35:00.000-06:00

Angry Earth

A group of top climatologists meeting in Paris, France have released a compelling report that officially puts the blame on humans for global warming. The scientists are 90% certain that we are to blame for increasing global temperatures and rising ocean levels. The most haunting aspect of the report states that global warming is a runaway process; there is nothing we can do to halt it. It is essentially like a large train with no brakes speeding down the tracks at 100mph and no one can stop it. What is worse, the climatologists believe that Earth’s median temperature will increase 3.5-7 degrees by 2100. When global temperature increases, ocean levels rise, which by 2100 may rise by 23 inches. This truly alarming report is an eye opener to what mankind is capable of doing; ruining our home.

Of course with any new report on global warming, many conservatives are going to allege that the idea of humans screwing the Earth up is not conceivable. I am not one to take such reports at face value, but I am alarmed by this latest premonition. Some would argue that this is just a natural Earth cycle and that this is just a warming cycle. But the evidence tells the tale for us in this particular case. How can anyone counter the fact that CO2 levels have rose exponentially since 1700; the eve of the Industrial Revolution? With more CO2 in the atmosphere, that means the sun’s rays are forever trapped in our atmosphere, hence warming the planet. One cannot forget the stunning pictures of ancient icebergs breaking off of glaciers due to the increased temperatures at both the extreme northern and southern latitudes.

The damage is already done; there isn’t anything we can do in the short term to repair what we have taken for granted. Obviously there are actions that can be taken to help lessen the severity of the onset of extreme global warming conditions. The U.S. and other industrialized countries are heading in the right direction in concern to lessening CO2 emissions. Following the Kyoto accords is vital in maintaining what we have now. Either way, the effects of global warming are more far reaching than we think. Coastal areas are especially vulnerable, as we have witnessed the last few years with the occurrence of countless intense hurricanes and typhoons. Cities like New Orleans that are already below sea level may have legendary status like the fabled lost island of Atlantis when our children grow older.

2007-02-02T02:01:00.000-06:00

Super Sunday Mania

It is indeed that time of the year, the most prestigious sporting event ever crafted is upon us; the Super Bowl. Who knew that a simple game envisioned and named by Lamar Hunt in 1967, would pit the champion of the American Football Conference (then the AFL) and the National Football Conference (then the NFL) would turn out to be what it is today? The Super Bowl is the most watched TV program of the year, usually garnering 80-90 million viewers with over 140 million people world wide tuning in at some point in the game. Obviously, Americans are enamored with the Super Bowl and the events surrounding it for many reasons, mainly the simple fact that it is the middle of winter. What else do we have to do besides sit on our duffs stuffing our faces with Tostitos?

There is also the added bonus of viewing the countless new and highly “original” commercials. It is the only time of year when Americans are able to experience an onslaught of new material all at once and usually underscored by a comedic twist. Personally, I enjoy the Anheiser-Busch commercials. Who knew that beer would seem more tempting after watching a pilot jump out of an airplane without a parachute to retrieve a cold one? This year 30 second advertisements will cost companies roughly $3 million. Every year the cost goes up, as do tire sales. We even get to witness over 670 pounds of confetti fall from the sky after the winner of the game is decided. If you are lucky and have $5-10K to blow on a ticket, you get to witness it all in person. Hot damn!

Finally onto the most overlooked part of the Super Bowl, the game. The Colts are a 7 point favorite, which was bound to happen. But with the success of the AFC in the past 7 of 9 games, there is no doubt that those in Vegas are going to play it safe. But I believe that it should be a classic game of a high powered offense versus a powerful defense. We all know defense wins championships, so it is rather obvious where my allegiance lies. With all of the hype surrounding Peyton Manning, Rex Grossman has been severely overlooked. Grossman has had 7 games with a quarterback rating over 100. Guess who also had the same statistic? That’s right, Peyton Manning himself! As with any Bears game it is a matter of whether the good Rex Grossman shows up and if the defense plays like they are on a planet with less gravity, especially Brian Urlacher’s.

Flem’s Super Bowl Prediction: Colts 10, Bears 21

2007-01-31T17:20:00.000-06:00

Is Vista the End All of Operating Systems?

Microsoft officially released Windows Vista yesterday, along with its new Office system. Most of the “tech crowd” is apprehensive about the new operating system and for good reason. Even though the OS is stable and has an assortment of new gadgets such as Aero Interface, which essentially streamlines the desktop allowing for a glass like appearance. But on the downside, the more technologically sound aspects of Vista are only included in the higher end versions, which comes with the added bonus of paying even more money ($649 for “ultimate”). The other added bonus included the one license that come with any version of Vista. This means that a user can install the product only once on one machine. For those of us who own more than one machine, looks like we are SOL.

Vista took roughly five years to be developed, which led many of us to expect more from Microsoft. The added features are new, but are comparable to what many have called “Windows XP service pack 3.” In sum, the new features are not exactly worth the added cost. Speaking of cost, Vista comes with the joy of having to upgrade your current machine. For example, let’s take a look at my machine. It is a solid machine as far as Windows XP is concerned: 3.2GHz P4 with HT, 1GB of single channel RAM, 160GB hard drive, 128MB ATI Radeon graphics card, and various other aspects. After running a variety of programs that tell a user whether they should upgrade, the results suggested that the “home basic” version was adequate for me, which does not have the new components advertized by Microsoft.

For users with baseline machines like mine, the cost of upgrading the hardware is monumental. To operate the “ultimate” edition, I’ll tell you exactly what you need: either a Pentium D or Duo Core processor, 2GB of memory, at least 40GB of hard drive space, and 256MB of graphics memory. This is a case of false advertisement if you ask me, but welcome to the world of IT. The basic consumer really does not have any of this, unless they have happened to spend a pretty penny on a new computer in the past few months. Dell is already marketing Vista basic and home editions with their new computers, which will open the market up for the new OS. But for those of us who do not need to upgrade, Windows XP will suffice or MAC OS 10.4, which is about the same thing as Vista.

2007-01-30T22:09:00.000-06:00

Hitch-Up The Horses: Tehran Here We Come!

Over the past few days the world has not ceased to surprise anyone, much less myself. In the foreign arena, Iran has been a bit “busy.” The Pentagon is investigating the likely hood of an Iran connection to the January 20th attacks in Karbala, Iraq on a military compound. Five U.S. soldiers died in the attacks which were originally thought to have been the work of Iraqi insurgents. Yet, further review of the attacks suggests that Tehran may have been involved in the attacks. U.S. officials believe that the attacks were far too sophisticated for any Iraqi insurgent group to have carried out, which suggests that the Iranians were involved on some level. Iran is by far the most powerful nation in the Middle East with the most refined military capabilities, especially the Iranian Revolutionary Guard who are a highly trained military force similar to U.S. Special Forces.

If Iran is behind the U.S. deaths, there will be a good possibility the U.S. may aim to punish Tehran. A habitual ground war is not likely due the massive strain the U.S. military is under, but other options are available, including strikes on their nuclear facilities. Even though many of Iran’s nuclear facilities have been relocated underground since the international community has spoke out in defiance, the U.S. does have the capabilities to take out such subversive structures. But the downside is an attack on Iranian soil would disrupt the world’s oil supply, as they have the capabilities for an offensive within the Persian Gulf. If that were to occur, the price of oil could easily make it over $100 a barrel. Oil prices that high could quite literally leave the U.S. “high and dry.” The U.S. has moved more fire power to the Persian Gulf in the form of more warships in a show of force, signaling a possible strike.

Obviously, a military strike against Iran would not be a keen move right now. If we are drawn into a ground battle with the Iranians, we are going to be overwhelmed even more so than we are now. Congress and EU countries have suggested that the Bush Administration engage in diplomatic talks with Iran to work out an understanding. But the Bush Administration refuses to engage in talks with Tehran, which is rather typical of the president. His love of the status quo is even detrimental to his own war with Iraq. It is imperative that we deal with one rouge nation at a time; not the whole damn world at once. Never the less, it would be tidy to deal with the Iranians in specific concern to Iraq. Washington has been accusing Iran of training and arming Shiite insurgent groups, which is why diplomatic talks may facilitate better relations.

2007-01-28T21:09:00.000-06:00

Is Restraint Plausible?

Democrats are considering a revision of the bill that allowed President Bush to go to war in 2002. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (the second ranking Democrat in the House) suggested the revision of the bill to allow more Congressional oversight and influence over presidential policy. Hoyer believes that a revision of the bill is quite plausible because the original language of the bill suggests that U.S. forces were to enter Iraq on a “nation building” mission; not conflict resolution. The solution in these terms would in theory arise out of military spending bills (the power of the purse) for military and diplomatic action in the war torn country.

If this bill is passed by Congress, there is no doubt that the president’s power will be curtailed in a policy making role. Even the president is in need of money these days. But restricting the president’s power as commander-in-chief is not a feasible option. Evidently, the Constitution does not allow for such actions. Congressional hearings about the U.S.’s actions in are to begin in haste. For the first time since 2003, the American public and Congress will finally receive some answers. If more detrimental information comes out of these hearings, there is a good chance that Congress will have more concrete evidence in which to restrain the president’s personal war in his sandcastle known as Iraq.

Stepping up diplomatic pressure on the Iraqi government is another vital part of this proposed bill. It is obvious to both the president and Congress that the Iraqis need to take over their own security operations. Their prime minister has promised more troops to the cause, but one has to question the commitment of the Iraqi people. Just like other human beings, people tend to become irritated when a bad situation does not change in due time. The status quo is not acceptable to those living through this atrocity, much less those with a comfortable view from 3000 miles away. I have stated the answer to this quandary countless time, but like most Americans whose opinions do not count to this administration, I have to ask this question instead: what’s the use?

2007-01-23T22:22:00.000-06:00

Reaction: State of the Union Address

As it is tradition and law, President Bush gave the American public the state of the union before a joint session of Congress. This was Bush’s sixth state of the union address, but his first before a Congress dominated by Democrats. Also for the first time in our nation’s history, the president began his speech with the words, “madam speaker.” Bush spelled out four major points throughout the speech, none of which seem feasible, especially in concern to the operations occurring in Iraq. But he did spell out both a foreign and domestic policy for the next year; a vital year for the president. If Bush is unable to shore up the operations going on in Iraq and follow through on his domestic agenda, he will be spending the last year of his term as a “lame duck.”

The president spelled out a long term plan to reduce our dependence on oil by 20% over the next ten years. He also called for the production of 35 billion gallons of renewable energy sources (ethanol) by 2017 to help cut down on global warming and our dependence on oil from abroad. In theory, this new plan would take roughly 26 million cars off of the road and reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil imports by three-quarters. This new initiative sounds admirable from the president’s mouth, but in theory it will never work. Cranking up the fuel mileage required per company is not going to happen in the foreseeable future, as the American consumer is tentative and the major manufacturers are not going to spend their marginal profits (at best) to develop new vehicles to use alternative fuel sources.

Finally, the president met with silence when he discussed his latest strategy for dealing with Iraq. The past few years he has been met with great applause from the GOP side of the aisle. But this latest escalation has created many doubters in both GOP and Democratic ranks. He essentially begged Congress and the American people to give his latest plan a chance to succeed or the whole Middle East will go to hell in a hand basket. The brightest idea of the night was the potential creation of a Civilian Reserve Corp., or what would best be described as an American mercenary force not under the direct control of the military. He ended his Iraq tirade by giving the Iraqi government an ultimatum of shoring up security, as this U.S. assistance is not an open ended commitment.

In the domestic arena the president proposed more far fetched ideas that will take a complete miracle to work the way in which he envisions. The health care system needs reform; there is no doubt about that. 47 million Americans live without health insurance, which is indeed a big problem. His plan is to turn taxable income into health benefits, but there is no chance that this policy would extend coverage to the countless Americans that need health insurance. Their income is low enough, hence the reason why they cannot afford health insurance. A tax break will not generate enough money to provide adequate insurance premiums and even raise taxes for many more Americans. He even touted his no child left behind agenda…what a success! His approval numbers are the lowest of any president in the past fifty years; this speech is a snapshot of why.

2007-01-23T00:09:00.000-06:00

Will the Real Nominees Step Forward

For the first time in over a half century the American public will not be voting for an incumbent president or vice presidential candidate. The presidential field is wide open for 2008, which signals the changing of the guard in Washington, which many would agree is a much needed change. The list of candidates for the GOP and the Democrats is expanding by the week, which will make for a fierce and highly contested primary season. We are too early into the process, but the front runners for each party will have to distinguish themselves and run away from the pack by late in the year. Undoubtedly, the campaign for the general election will be intense, but the fight for party nomination has already taken on a life of its own, which calls for concern when the primary campaigns kick into full swing.

The first punch was thrown recently by Senator Hillary Clinton (D- NY) towards her chief challenger in the Democratic Party, Barack Obama (D- IL). Clinton’s people dug up some dirt on Obama, which alleged that he had attended a fundamentalist (radical) Muslim school while living in Indonesia from 1967-1971. Originally reported by Insight Magazine, the article caused a stir in the corridors of Washington. But the article was debunked by CNN, which looked into the report and clarified that Obama had never attended such a school during his time in Indonesia. Insight’s editors stated that they had received the information from someone on Sen. Clinton’s staff. Clinton called the reports “a right-wing hit job.” This claim may or may not be true, but it signifies how intense this election is to become.

Clinton is the front runner in the race thus far, with 50% of potential Democratic voters stating that they view her in a favorable light. Obama is second with just around a 24% favorable rating. Clinton officially declared her candidacy last week, which signifies how important it is to declare candidacy early and the effect that such a statement of intent has on potential voters. Obama has yet to officially declare his candidacy, but it is extremely likely that Obama will officially enter the race at anytime. On the GOP side of the coin, former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani leads Arizona Senator John McCain by a 28% to 20% margin of potential GOP voters. The onslaught has already begun on the GOP side as well, with negative ads connecting McCain to President Bush’s plan to escalate troop numbers.

Riding the president’s “coattails” this election season will not be a favorable action by any potential GOP candidate. Bush’s approval ratings are dismal, as only 38% of Americans believe that Bush is doing a decent job in the White House (out of 1500 voters). With an essential lame duck president who has minimal political capital as your party’s leader, the GOP is in serious contention to cede power to the Democrats on the executive level. The reactionary response by voters during the 2006 midterms signals that if the status quo does not improve under the guise of Bush, the GOP may very well be at a disadvantage from the get go. GOP leaders in the Senate are attempting to resurrect their party’s stature by proposing a resolution disagreeing with Bush’s policy of sending more troops to Iraq. I am sure that will get the point across to the president; just like the opinion of American public.

2007-01-22T01:57:00.000-06:00

Super Sunday Here We Come!

It is official; the Bears are not as inept as the “experts” would have us believe. The Bears defeated the Saints 39-14, in what can only be described as a one sided game on Sunday. Rex Grossman played a solid game, even though his accuracy was not exactly dead on (he admitted to it after the game). Thomas Jones carried to offense with two scores and 123 yards rushing (the man runs angry). Oddly enough, it was not the offense that won the game though. The “Monsters of the Midway” returned to early season form by pressuring Drew Breeze throughout the game and the secondary managed to rangle in the speedy New Orleans recievers. A game that was suppose to be one sided ended up being one sided indeed, but in favor of the Bears. Shocking, isn’t it ESPN?

The Bears will face off against the Indianapolis Colts in Super Bowl XLI (41) in two weeks. The Colts defeated the daunting New England Patriots in what can only be described as a game for the ages. After falling down by as much as 21-3 in the first half, the Colts led by Peyton Manning tore back into the game, with power running, staunch defense, and of course, Peyton Manning’s arm. Tom Brady just about rose to the occasion again. But an interception with 30 seconds left in the game sealed the Patriot’s fate (finally). Even though I was off by 10 points in my prediction, the Colts won the game 38-34. Surprisingly enough, my prediction for the Bears game was spot on, but slightly off of course. If I was a betting man, I would be rich. But sadly I am not a betting man.

The Colts are already a 7 point favorite in the Super Bowl, which does not surprise me. Even though the Bears did win one more game in the regualar season. I guess this “under dog status” can be attributed to the AFC’s dominance in the big game, as AFC teams have won seven of the last nine Super Bowls. Needless to say I believe the Bears will be a formitable challenge for the Colts and their sky high offense. If the Bears defense makes another showing like they did on Sunday, I believe that Lovie Smith will become the first African American coach to win a Super Bowl. Either way an African American coach will finally win a Super Bowl, as Tony Dungy is also African American. It is indeed a monumental step in the NFL and society that two coaches from a race that have never won a Super Bowl will simeltaneously be competing for the honor. I guess it is a win-win situation for once.

2007-01-19T01:37:00.000-06:00

Ass-Backward Nation

I recently read an article in Time Magazine about how Americans tend to “live dangerously,” which in retrospect makes you really think about how blind we are to the world around us. Americans and people in general (especially those in the industrialized world), tend to weight short term risks in higher standing than long term risks, especially risks that have a direct bearing on our health. The article does indeed raise some incredibly valid questions about our life styles and why we as people, tend to self destruct. Now I am not saying that every American is guilty of this habit. But I would bet a fair amount of money (which I don’t have) on the fact that some of us are guilty of these habits.

According to this article, the cause of our lapses in judgment occurs because of how our brains are wired. The brain is wired in what the article calls a “prehistoric” manner, which was a vital asset to our ancestors. These individuals weighed risk in terms of survival, hence being able to pass their genes along to the next generation. That does not mean that prehistoric humans did not take risks; most had to. How would you feel about killing a mammoth with a spear instead of your trusty elephant gun? Chances are that no competent individual in the modern world would attempt such a feat without the assistance of alcohol (mammoths are extinct by the way). The question is then, how does out prehistoric brain wiring effect us in the modern world?

Gamblers are masters of calculating probabilities. They know their exact chances of success and failure based on what cards they received in the deal, for example. Your average Joe, on the other hand is not exactly a Vegas casino attendee. Take smoking for instance. Over 30 million Americans smoke or use some form of tobacco, which results in over 1200 deaths a day and over 650,000 in a year. In the short term, yes, smoking will probably not kill you, hence why people start in the first place. Fast forward 20 years later, that very person is still smoking (if they made it that long). There is a good chance that their health is suffering immensely from smoking in some form. That first cigarette did not kill the person, but the 6,000th very well may put that person in the lung cancer category.

A better example in this case is AIDS and diabetes (or some other nasty disease). I am not saying that AIDS is something that everyone should go out and get, because it will kill you eventually. But if treated in its early stages (HIV), there is a good chance that the individual will go on to lead a normal life span. Diabetes on the other hand is a bit different from AIDS. I understand that some people inherit it or are simply unlucky. But what about those that cram thousands of calories of pure “crap” down their gullets each day? Are they not thinking about the risk that unhealthy foods will pose to them down the road? It is a fact that better nutrition reduces the likely hood that someone will develop a degenerative disease down the road.

The article pointed out that after 9/11; more people were driving to their destinations instead of flying (which was understandable). But what many people did not know is that even though countless people perished in the attacks, especially aboard the planes (in this case), that the likelihood of perishing in a plane crash were still considerably less than being killed in a car accident. You still have a better chance of being struck by lightening that dying in a plane crash. The simple fact of the matter is that we are more concerned with short term risk and not the things in everyday life that will affect us down the road. Steroids may help an athlete right now, but liver tumors are not exaclty a pleasant thing to deal with down the road.

2007-01-18T18:56:00.000-06:00

Let the Predictions Spur Forth

Championship Weekend looms; the Bears will play the New Orleans Saints this Sunday in Chicago at Soldier Field. The Saints have never made it this far before, as the organization has been one of the tragic stories of the NFL since they first joined. The Bears on the other hand, after fighting through a largely disappointing decade of the 1990’s, return to the NFC Championship for the first time since 1989. On the AFC side of the coin, it will be a rematch of an ever evolving rivalry; Peyton Manning vs. Tom Brady. Surprisingly, these two teams defeated the top two seeds in the AFC (Chargers and Ravens) with convicting victories in two games that were rather close. Being that everyone and their mother is making a prediction about Championship Weekend, I figure that I might as well join the club.

New Orleans Saints (11-6) vs. Chicago Bears (14-3)
The Bears are the favorite in this game, at least as far as the Vegas’ bookies are concerned. But many of the “professional analysts” and the Saints themselves argue that they should be the favorites. I would beg to differ on that point. Somehow the Saints lost 6 games during the regular season; I wonder why? The Saints are not the “hulks” of the football world, as many “analysts” would argue. The team is on a collective roll, which was confirmed over the course of the last few weeks of the season. Drew Brees, Deuce McCallister, and Reggie Bush are all at the top of their respective games right now. Drew Brees is the real deal in my opinion; the man knows how to pass with great efficiency and explosiveness. McCallister is running over everyone in his path and Bush is running all over the field like he did at USC.

Plus, the Saints have the collective moral support of the nation, as they hail from the devastated New Orleans. I completely agree on this aspect of supporting the Saints. It would be an awesome sight to see the Saints go to the Super Bowl after enduring a year away from the Super Dome and giving more hope to the begrudged citizens of New Orleans. I believe that the “analysts” are on board the “moral support train” as well, which has a tendency to cloud judgment. I agree that the Bears are not the team we witnessed during the first half of the season, as injuries have decimated the Monster’s of the Midway. But the Bears did win 13 games during the regular season, which to me shows that they did something right. Even with the train wreck of Rex Grossman at the helm, the Bears managed to put a high-quality season together.

With any game that the Bears have played over the second half of the season, the first issue to come to mind is whether the superior or ghastly Grossman will show up on Sunday. Grossman proved himself last weekend with solid play and poise. He did not make any mistakes that took his team out of the game. Basically, he shone through when the game was on the line. I believe the Grossman of weeks one through seven’s past will show and rise to the occasion. The defense is due for a superior game, as they have been giving a lot of points up over the past five games. I smell a Brian Urlacher-Lance Briggs domineering effort on Sunday. I also smell a Devin Hester run back at some point. He did it last weekend, but was called back after a poor call from the officials. Contrary to belief, I believe the Bears will win the NFC Championship.
Flem’s Prediction: New Orleans 17, Chicago 34

New England Patriots (13-5) vs. Indianapolis Colts (13-5)
The AFC Championship game relights the most recent and entertaining NFL rivalry between two of the league’s top quarter backs. It has been recognized that Peyton Manning has been unable to win “the big game” to solidify his place as one of the game’s all time greats.’ On the other side of the coin, he faces the current reincarnation of greatness itself, Tom Brady. The Colts destroyed the Patriots earlier in the year, but like the Bears, the Colts were a different team then. The Patriots have been the same old’ Patriots throughout the playoffs, as they have shown the resilience of a coach and a quarterback that have won three out of the last four Super Bowls. Manning has been haunted by “big game” losses to the Patriots throughout his career, but I have a feeling that he is due. He is too damn good not to ever make it to a Super Bowl.
Flem’s Prediction: New England 24, Indianapolis 28