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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Population Growth! Kind of...

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

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

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

More Confusion: Visual Tech.

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

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

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

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

A Word about Visual Tech

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Due Caution Must Be Observed

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

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

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

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

Review: “I Am Legend”

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

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

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

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

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

I Told Ya’ So

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

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

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

Who Likes Hydrocarbons?

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

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

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

The Decline of the American Auto

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

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

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

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

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

Fall From Grace

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

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

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

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

So Long #4

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

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

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

Finally, Empirical Evidence

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

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

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

Economic Stimulus Plan: I Beg To Differ

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

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

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

Never Underestimate The Predictability of Stupidity

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

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

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

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

The Power of an Idea

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

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

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

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

The Price of Our Actions?

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

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

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

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

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!