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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

#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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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…

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.

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.

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)!

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.