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

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?

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?

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!

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.