Rants and Rumblings

The Boss's Last Stand(tm)

2005-07-06T14:15:00.000-05:00

Just read Bill Simmons' recent article. Non-Yankee fans have always despised George Steinbrenner, but grudgingly given him some respect, but mostly just plain hated him. For Yankee fans the situation is far more complex. We love him AND we hate him. We respect him AND we think he's a joke. We wait for his eruptions with fear AND expectation. All of this is simulataneous.

Mr. Simmons notes that The Boss is fading and he points to several things as proof. I'd say that effectually, The Boss is already retired and not calling the shots. I look back over the last several years and I see what baseball historians will probably call The Boss's Last Stand(tm). To my thinking, this period began after the 2001 World Series loss to the Arizona Diamondbacks. Some might say it predated that and goes back to the '00-'01 off-season with the signing of Mike Mussina, but I disagree. Signing Mussina was a shrewd deal. One that almost EVERY owner in baseball would have done themselves. No, The Boss's Last Stand(tm) began after that 2001 World Series and ended with the start of the 2005 season.

Let me list some of what I see as The Boss's moves during this period:

1) The Boss signed Jason Giambi. This is a serious error because it lead to two additional moves: it banished Tino Martinez an integral piece of the recent championship run; and it made Nick Johnson expendable. Thus he was traded for Javier Vasquez following the 2003 season. A pity because Johnson is a superior defensive firstbaseman to Giambi. Johnson's offensive numbers this season are much better than Giambi's. And Johnson would not have brought the Balco soap opera into the dugout. Keeping Martinez for the ensuing years and transitioning the first base duties to Johnson would have provided stability and solid defense. Both lacking following the Giambi signing.

2) Trading for Javier Vasquez was another of The Boss's last ditch efforts. And as if the trade for him wasn't bad enough, giving up on him after one season in order to acquire a 41 year old pitcher only compounded the problem.

3) Ignoring Andy Pettitte following his announcing for free agency. Or backing up further....not re-signing him in the first place! The most stable pitcher during the entire championship run and you can't even call to tell him how important he is to you and your team? This was a compound problem as well, because resigning Andy would have meant that when Roger Clemens decided to un-retire, he would have called The Boss. Having Clemens last October would have likely prevented The Collapse(tm) and would have also prevented the overwhelming urge to trade for Randy Johnson.

4) Signing Gary Sheffield. This hasn't been a big boondoggle. At least not yet. Sheff has been productive and hasn't been the clubhouse distraction he's been elsewhere. At least not yet.

5) Not resigning Jon Lieber this past off-season. Proven post-season winner and you pass on him for Carl Bleeping Pavano? Or was it Jaret F'n Wright?

6) Trading for Arod. In my mind this was done simply because he could afford it, and John Henry couldn't it. Which is a lousy way to run a ballclub. Yes, Aaron Boone was lost for the season, but you didn't need the highest paid player in the game to fill the spot. This was a classic Steinbrenner move. His attempted manipulation of the Arod-Jeter relationship with off-season meetings demanding more leadership from Arod, tells me he was trying to re-create the Reggie-Thurmon situation of the mid-70's. While Arod and Jeter still probably have to square things up once and for all, I don't see a redux of Reggie-Thurmon. It should be mentioned that the trade for Arod also cost the Yankees one of their best homegrown players, Alfonso Soriano.

This list is hardly inclusive, but it covers six of the biggest moves made by The Boss since the loss to the D'backs in 2001. You'll also note that some of the moves created compound problems that were only compounded further by additional moves.

Now, when you look at the stumbling start the Yankees have had to this season, look at the responses: promotion of two rookies, the benching of an ineffective veteran centerfielder and the release/trade of two ineffective relief pitchers and the promotion of two-three more rookies. These decisions are clearly not being made by George Steinbrenner.

Sure some would say that his moves the last five to six years to try to keep the team competitive have stripped the cupboards bare. And there is definately a strong dose of truth in that notion. However, the chips the Yankees DO have to trade (Chien Ming-Wang and Robison Cano) are reportedly not on the market. I think some trades will be made. Tony Womack is likely to be moved for another pitcher or a legitimate centerfielder. But I believe that Cashman or whoever is actually running the show now will keep the two big rookies, and I believe that's a wise choice.

This will likely mean that the Yankees run at the top of the division will end this season. It may even mean that they miss the playoffs this October for the first time in a decade. But in the long run, going back and building up homegrown talent instead of trading it away for fading veterans will have a much longer lasting impact on the long-term success of the franchise.

To The Boss, I say: it was one hell of a ride. Thanks for the memories AND good riddance.

Why I think Michael Schiavo is full of it.

2005-03-17T11:28:00.000-06:00

I watched most of Mr. Schiavo's interview the other night on Nightline. My first impression of the man is that he blinks an awful lot. I don't know, maybe he wears contacts and they were a bit dry or something. However, it seemed as though, despite years of repeating the same lines, they are still lies and he knows it every time he uses them.

That's how he appeared. In my opinion, the bigger problem for him is in what he said. A copy of his transcript can be found on ABC's website. There are a few things I want to focus on.

First is this exchange with my emphasis added:

BURY: Michael, in the heated rhetoric that's swirling around this case and has been for a number of years now — all kinds of charges have been flying back and forth.
First of all, do you stand to benefit financially in any way from your wife's death?

SCHIAVO: There is no money. I will receive not a penny.

BURY: You did receive something of a malpractice settlement north of $1 million at one point, is that correct?

SCHIAVO: Yes.

FELOS: Well, no.

BURY: And what happened to that?

FELOS: Michael didn't receive those funds. Those were received in Terri's guardianship and it was a bank who was her guardian of the property that administered those funds.

BURY: But the question remains: What happened to those funds?

FELOS: Well, those funds have been used for Terri's medical care and guardianship expenses and costs and fees over many, many years.

Those funds are virtually gone, and Mr. Schiavo is not going to inherit or gain one penny by the result of Terri's death.

BURY: And so, Michael, who is now — and let's get the camera over to Michael if we can — Michael, who is now paying for Terri's case?

SCHIAVO: Actually, right now, she's listed on the indigent list for hospice. They were taking care of her. They take very good care of her.

BURY: It's got to be very expensive.

SCHIAVO: She had — I haven't received any bills from it, so I couldn't tell you how much it would cost.

What Chris Bury didn't ask is exactly what the guardianship expenses and costs and fees are. And if he had asked, I'm certain Schiavo and/or his attorney would have squirmed and avoided answering the question becuase it most likely means "attorney fees". So, picture this situation if you will, Michael Schiavo on behalf of his incapicitated wife wins malpractive suits with awards in excess of a million dollars. The awards were to be applied to caring for Terri. Shortly after receiving these awards, Michael began his current crusade. Now, the entirety of the awards is now gone, in large part because Michael Schiavo has been trying to make his wife die.

Notice I didn't say he was trying to let her die, nor did I say he was trying to overtly kill her. He is currently trying to set up conditions that will make her die. There is no arguing this point. It is reality. He can try to dress it however he likes, but that is the cold hard reality of it.

The next exchange is this one:

BURY: Your wife's family and their supporters have been arguing in the most graphic terms that what you are going to allow happen on Friday, in their words, is in effect condemning your wife to a cruel death by starvation.

I'd like you to address that charge from them.

SCHIAVO: That's one of their soapboxes they've been on for a long time.

Terry will not be starved to death. Her nutrition and hydration will be taken away. This happens across this country every day.

Death through removing somebody's nutrition is very painless. That has been brought to the courts many of times. Doctors have come in and testified. It is a very painless procedure.

So if he's so convinced it is painless, why doesn't he give it a shot. Or how about "removing somebody's nutrition" from one of his children. Strangely, the State of Florida probably wouldn't like that one very much and would step in and remedy that situation.

The next thing is this comment from Schiavo:

SCHIAVO: Terry does not respond to anybody. She makes noises. She moans. She's been doing the same things for the past 15 years.

And they talk about their bona fide doctors. They have a list of doctors that signed affidavits from looking at a picture of Terry. That's where they get their information from, by looking at a picture.

And then they sign an affidavit swearing that she's not in a vegetative stage.

I'll tell you. That's a doctor you really want; they can look at a picture and make a diagnosis.

Again, Chris Bury drops the ball here. Had he done any research into this matter he'd have known that the reason why the Schindler's doctors have to rely on pictures and videos of Terry is because Schiavo won't let them examine her in person.

To me, this next exchange is where Michael Schiavo lost whatever credibility he had left:

BURY: The parents also argue that you have moved on with your life, that you now have children that you're with, another woman, and that you could, essentially, divorce Terri and relinquish guardianship to them. Why don't you do that?

SCHIAVO: If I moved on with my life — and I moved on with a portion of it — but I still have a big commitment to Terri. I made her a promise.

And another reason why I won't give Terri back is that Mr. Schindler testified in court, at the 2000 trial, that he would — to keep Terri alive he would cut her arms and legs off and put her on a ventilator just to keep her alive.

So why would I give her to a man that would do that to you?

He has "moved on with a portion" of his life? That's ridiculous. He's moved on entirely. Then this notion of making Terri a commitment and/or promise. Apparently we are to believe that Terri was so adamant in her desire not to be kept alive that she felt the commitment she wanted from Michael was more important than their wedding vows. Hey Michael....what happened to " in sickness and in health, till death do us part"? Or do you selectively chose which commitments you make to your wife and feel are worthy of honoring?

I'm sorry. This is a pile of mularkey. Michael Schiavo expresses later in the interview that it isn't about money. Well hooray for him. It's obvious to anyone with an ounce of commonsense that it isn't about money, it is about self-preservation, and for whatever reason we can only guess.

Though Schiavo provided no context for the quote of Mr. Schindler's testimony, I believe it would be safe to assume from the comment itself that it is hyperbole designed to demonstate the lengths to which a father will go to to keep his child alive. But that actually diverts us from the absurdity of the comment itself, and that is how he rationalizes that he, the man who will make Terri die, thinks it is irresponsible to "give Terri back" to a man who wants to do anything to keep her alive. Hello?!

I mean look at the stupidity of his position:

BURY: I understand that that's your feeling about what your wife wanted, but knowing that you believe she is in a vegetative state and knowing that her mother and father have said they're willing to pick up the burden and carry on the cost, what is the harm to you if you agree to their wishes and relinquish guardianship to them?

SCHIAVO: Basically what I just said. Her father stated in court he would cut her arms and legs off. I'm not going to turn over Terri to a person that would do that to you.

"No, I'm just going to make her die." Sheeeeeesh. The fact that Bury throughout this interview didn't press the issue with him makes me wonder what the real agenda was for Nightline to air the interview in the first place. (When you factor in the "polling" they reported on this issue, you really begin to wonder.)

There's more proof of Schiavo's heartlessness in this next exchange:

BURY: I understand fully the legal question here, Michael.

But let ask you in simply human terms. Can you understand the parents' contention, the bond that they have with their daughter, and their reluctance to let her go? Do you understand that?

SCHIAVO: You know, I have children and, you know, I couldn't even fathom what it would be like to lose a child. But you know, it's been 15 years.

They know the condition Terri is in. They were there in the beginning. They heard the doctors. They know that Terri's in a persistent vegetative state. They testified to that at the original trial.

Fifteen years — you've got to come to grips with it sometime.

So for him, a parent's love for their child should terminate after some period of time after which that child can not actively demonstrate love for the parent(s). Apparently he hasn't fully grasped what it means to be a parent yet. Maybe he's been too distracted by trying to make his wife die, to actually contemplate parenting the children he has with a woman who is not his wife. Again, I come back to his "commitment" to Terri, somehow he's managed to get a Judge to believe that some promise that no one else heard, is more important than the one made before God and the assembled witnesses on their wedding day.

I'm sorry, even if Michael Schiavo had nothing whatsoever to do with Terri's collapse, he is still a despicable man who deserves to have his nutrition withdrawn.

And there is that suspicion that he did in fact have something to do with her initial collapse. Near the end of his interview he comes out with this line:

And to sit here and be called a murderer and an adulterer by people that don't know me

Sure Michael, there is no evidence currently available to show you are a murderer. And besides, at best right now you'd only be an "attempted murderer". Now adulterer that's a different story. You are still married to Terri. You do have a live-in lover. You do have children with this lover. That pretty much makes you an adulterer. To me the strangest part of this entire situation is the fact that Judge Greer removed the only Trustee ever appointed to guard over Terri, and Terri's interests alone after the Trustee began to question the very fact of Michael's adultery. A Trustee/Guardian could well have pushed for a divorce on the grounds of adultery.

The reason why a divorce has never taken place either involuntary by a Trustee, or voluntary by Michael simply surrendering is precisely why people continue to question whether or not Michael is an attempted murderer. The question is: Why not a divorce, Michael? What is it about giving up Terri and her medical records that scares you? Is there something incriminating in the medical records? Are you concerned that if she had continued the treatment/rehab program she was in at the time of the last malpractive settlement, she might regain the ability to communicate? Why would that be a problem for you, Michael? What could Terri say that you might not want her to say?

Oh that's right, I forgot, you made a commitment to her, that if you are ever in the position to do so, you will make her die.

Thoughts on commercial software and the Linux market.

2005-03-16T10:40:00.000-06:00

I haven't mentioned it before in this forum, but I am a Linux user, at home at least. I'm probably a half-step above a "newbie", so I'm not quite to intermediate user status. I don't particularly like the command line, but I am comfortable using it.

Fortunately, Linux has reached the point where I almost never have to even use the command line anymore. The distros I use (Mepis and Linspire) both use KDE. As such, KDE provides "point-n-click" administration tools for almost every conceivable task.

I mention all this becuase something I read this morning got me thinking. As noted in that article, the standard Linux/OSS version of a software tool now has a commercial challenger. While on the surface this good news, the deeper issues here are more interesting. Many people have bemoaned the lack of availability of commercial software from third parties, or Independant Software Vendors ("ISV's"). Many have felt that support from ISV's is necessary for Linux to be accepted en masse on the desktop.

I'm not opposed to this belief. However, ISV's, especially in certain areas, are teetering on the brink with regard to their Linux strategy. Many simply don't have a Linux strategy. Others have a "wait till it hits X% and then we'll port our application(s)" strategy. A few have been "early adopters" and have already ported their applications(s) entirely or at least partially. That last group is probably in the best position. They've already established a name for themselves in Linux circles and in some instances their applications are included in base installs of various distros.

The first two groups though are the ones I'm referring to being on the brink. Let me elaborate. The above linked article illustrates that in the absence of available applications from ISV's, the OSS community has undertaken the task of creating their own version of needed applications. K3B is only one of several such projects. The ISV's are teetering on the brink because as that article makes plain, the OSS variants are growing more and more mature and offering more and more features. As the OSS variants gain in credibility their use in Linux circles becomes more and more common. Thus when, as is the case with NeroLinux, an ISV decides to port their application, they are facing an already established product that is.....free of charge, and as in the case of K3B, installed by default in almost every quality distro.

So some ISV's are stuck in a boat, not at all unlike the one Netscape and Real Player found themselves when competing against MS's Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player. (Note: the boat is similar, but far from the same.) The similarity is that ISV's have to convince users to buy their product over the free variant already installed on their system. That's an uphill battle no matter how polished the Win32 or Mac variation of their application may be.

ISV's ought to be examining ways to get on the Linux bandwagon now. As Linux use grows, the demand for certain applications (tax preparation software comes to mind) is only going to increase. If an ISV doesn't port their application to Linux, then the OSS community will begin working on alternatives. In my opinion, Nero is too late to this dance already. I've used K3B and see no reason to switch, and this doesn't even factor in the strange method required to have access to the NeroLinux download.

Hopefully, several ISV's will examine this review, and see the handwriting on the wall. Many ISV's have unique products that OSS has no viable alternative for, (again, tax preparation software comes to mind.) Thus, for some of these ISV's it is not too late to join the party. For others like NeroLinux, sorry you waited too long, and now you've missed the train.

Hot Dogs, Cigars, Beer and Women vs. The Cream and the The Clear.

2005-02-23T14:19:00.000-06:00

If I read this story correctly Barry Bonds believes he is under scrutiny because he is a black man closing in on the homerun total of Babe Ruth who is white? Before delving further deeper into that exact point, perhaps he's missed that Jason Giambi who is white, and not closing in on Babe Ruth's homerun total is also under the same scrutiny.

Now let's look at Barry's point. It assumes that he and his behavior have nothing whatsoever to do with the current scrutiny he's under. It is all about a racist white media putting pressure on him. In today's day and age, we should expect nothing else, and everything else. Barry misses the obvious point that had he taken some charm classes earlier in his career, he'd currently be enjoying a place alongside Michael Jordan. Who BTW, is also black. Barry is partially under this current scrutiny because of the public personna HE has created. However, he's mainly under this current scrutiny because of the drugs HE has been taking for the last half of his career to improve his strength. So seriously exactly WHO is to blame for Bond's current quandry? Yep that guy who stares back at him in the mirror.

Bond's claim that he doesn't know what cheating is......huh?? That's an incredible attempt at explaining away his behavior as "gray" or "not really wrong". The problem is he DOES know what cheating is, and he DOES know that taking steroids IS cheating. How do I know, that he knows this? Because he won't answer a single question about it. For all the flak Jose Canseco has taken since the release of his book, including that he's simply out to make a buck or two. It has become obvious through his openness about the topic, and comments directly addressing this issue, that he believes that taking steroids wasn't cheating, and he'd do it all over again. He's wrong about it being cheating, but at least his position is consistent.

If Bond's truly believed that what he's done is fine and dandy, then he should start answering questions about it. Start talking about it. Start singing the praises of careful manipulation of testosterone levels via synthetic means. He might claim that it would only lead to greater scrutiny, but that's not a particularly convincing argument. Once the beans are spilled, they're out there. In six months, is anyone going to be asking Canseco for an interview? If Bond's told the truth yesterday, don't you think that in a few months when he passes Ruth, it would only be a side story? By refusing to come clean, and refusing to acknowledge that taking steroids is even cheating, he's made that looming event a circus. He's created this situation and no amount of blaming it on racism, or lying reporters is going to change that.

I'll give him this though, Bonds was dead-on when he said this:

"I don't believe steroids can help your eye-hand coordination, technically hit a baseball. I just don't believe it. That's my opinion."

I mean afterall, he followed it up with the proof:

"I don't know Jose. I was better than Jose then, and I've been better than him his whole career. If he wants to go make money, go ahead. ... For somebody who brags about what he did, I don't see any of your records."

Jose Canseco is a career .266 hitter. Taking steroids didn't help him become the next Ted Williams, but they most certainly helped him hit 462 career homeruns. Without steroids, his career likely parellels that of his identical twin brother Ozzie. Bonds has never been a career .266 hitter, so he is 100% correct, he has always been better than Canseco. But, just like Canseco, his taking steroids have boosted his homerun totals. And again, Canseco is "bragging" about it, in part because he doesn't believe it to be cheating.

The thing that gets my blood boiling is when people put Bonds in the same league as Babe Ruth. Bonds has no business being mentioned in the same breath as Ruth or Mays or Aaron. Without steroids he never would be either. Aside from Barry's skin color, he would have had a hard time matching what he is doing now, in Ruth's era.

Yes, Ruth didn't compete against the best pitchers of his day. There is certainly some merit to this argument. However, it should also be considered that in Ruth's era, baseball was the only serious professional sport. So baseball drew the cream of the crop of ALL athletes, black and white. When you also factor in the number of teams in the major leagues in Ruth's era, it is becomes clear that Bonds would face significantly better pitching then than he does now. Bond's would also face pitchers on a taller mound. He would also be barred from wearing all that body armor. Heck, he wouldn't even have a batting helmet. So the first time he walked up to the plate and tried to crowd it like he does now, he'd be brushed back. Next time, he'd catch one in the with his right ear. Barry, backed off the plate is FAR from the threat he is crowding it. Oh and if Barry hit a homerun and pulled that stare and walk act, he'd likely get another one in the right ear. It goes without saying that Barry would have to make due without his steroids, but he'd also be without the video equipment to study pitchers, the weight training equipment and technology he currently makes use of, and the nutritional advances he relies upon. In fact, let's subject him to what Ruth used: hot dogs, cigars, beer and women.

MLB still doesn't get it.

2005-02-10T09:58:00.000-06:00

I've said it before, I'll say it again: MLB is making a mistake by letting Barry Bonds onto the field this season to finish his chase of Hank Aaron's all-time home run record.

I've also said it before that MLB is blinded by the money it thinks it can make from this circus. Well good old Uncle Bud has finally made a tacit admission of that very fact. Read this quote from the end of an ESPN.com article:

"Even though some of the sport's most cherished records are now held by players accused of steroid use, Selig said there were no current plans to put a special notation on those marks in the record book.

Selig also said baseball would have announcements upcoming about its plans to market Bonds' pursuit of Hank Aaron's home run record. After the San Francisco Chronicle reported in December that Bonds testified to a grand jury that he used substances prosecutors believe are steroids, the commissioner's office said it was holding off on plans.

'What Barry has done is remarkable,' Selig said. 'Certainly, one can say this: Barry has done what nobody else has done, including all the players in this generation. He deserves the credit he is getting.'"

You are exactly right Uncle Bud, Barry is doing what nobody else has done. The problem is, you don't have the balls to stop him. Barry has CHEATED. If Barry can find a way to continue to, he will keep CHEATING. Despite your green colored glasses, this is an "integrity of the game" issue. Olympic sports realize that, why can't baseball?

How about you just go ahead and stop making us all read between the lines, Uncle Bud. We know it is all about the money. Stop lying to us, we're not nearly that dumb. You are willing to prostitute the history and honor of the game by willingly allowing a player to cheat his way into baseball's record books and capture the single most cherished record in all of sports. Why? Because you think you can make a buck over it.

Where is Judge Landis when you need him?!

Random Thoughts: Iraqi Election

2005-01-31T08:52:00.000-06:00

Well, the Iraqi people made their voices heard yesterday. They defied the critics and the terrorists (imagine them being on the same side!) and stood in long lines to cast their first ever legitimate elections. Many walked several miles. Which means they were potential targets for the jihadists for several hours, if not all day long. Is it passe to say that we here in the west, especially in America, have taken this "right" for granted for far too long? We've never braved death to cast our vote. We've never stood in a line wondering if the building we were in was about to explode.

The montage video that FNC was showing yesterday was fantastic. The man doing some version of the funky chicken while a line of 30 or more of his countrymen do a line dance locked arm in arm was breathtaking. The one man who in broken english said: "I just voted and I'm happy as hell!" The woman in veil flashing the classic "V" complete with purple finger. The lines. The people walking to the polls.

Here is another spectacular video montage. It includes some of the FNC shots. The last image brought tears to my eyes.

A fabulous piece written pre-election comparing Iraq to Ohio can be found at Ankle Biting Pundits. Never again do I want to hear a lefty complaining about "disenfranchisement".

Let me note that almost ALL "reporting" coming out of Iraq these days is commentary being passed off as reporting. With that said, when Geraldo stood there next to the pickup truck with the body of a dead Iraqi woman laying in the bed, he delivered the best commentary I've seen come out of Iraq since the close of major combat operations. He put it all into perspective. To the Michael Moore's of the world, watch that video over and over. Your tacit, or even overt, support of the jihadists can't be defended any longer. Your arguments, which were severely lacking in credibility to begin with, have been laid bare and exposed for the anti-American sham they are. You and your ilk have placed yourselves as opposed to freedom and democracy, yet you make use of the rights provided by both to spread your manure.

Hats off to the much maligned Iraqi police, national guard, army and special forces. Your efforts over the last few days, and even several weeks prior have proven your mettle. Your stand will likely only embolden those who have wanted to join your ranks, to finally step up and do so. When they do, your countries future will be entirely in your own hands.

Lastly, Iraqi people.....WOW! While there is much left to do, draft a constitution, ratify the constitution, hold general elections and repeat them etc., you have proven that democracy in the Arab world is entirely possible. You have demonstrated the nuanced (I HATE that word!!) understanding of free elections. You have made your voice be heard and have stood up firm against the jihadists. Welcome to the "free world''!

MLB's new steroid policy: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

2005-01-14T10:16:00.000-06:00

With much ballyhoo Bud Selig announced a new steroid policy for Major League Baseball. The problem with the ballyhoo is that it masks the fact that this new policy is only a slight alteration of the prior policy and is thus useless.

As I've said before, I believe steroid use is on par with gambling. Heck even some front office guy from the Arizona Diamondbacks was on ESPN last night admitting that steroids affect the "integrity of the game". Albeit, he was lauding the new policy and how it restores that integrity. How anyone with half a brain can believe that is beyond me. Someone, may have even been the same guy, admitted that steroid users are cheaters. Got that? Take steroids to improve your performance and in turn sign a huge dollar contract and you ARE a cheater.

To reward you for your cheating, MLB will give you a 10 day vacation. That's important to note. Not ten game, but ten day. Get caught in January, and you'll get ten days to think about what you've done...that's wonderful dontcha think? In the ESPN article noted above it touches on a bit of the now growing sense that this whole thing is yet another sham.

"Still, it wasn't good enough for World Anti-Doping Agency chairman Dick Pound, a member of the International Olympic Committee since 1978.

'Basically, instead of having to hold up the liquor store five times before you get a one-year suspension, you only have to hold it up four times,' he said. 'But at least there's some penalty incurred the first time that you're tested, and that's a step forward.'"

They also note the following: "WADA's code, which has been adopted by most Olympic sports, says the "norm" is two-year bans for a first positive test and a lifetime ban for a second, unless there are mitigating circumstances." To me, this seems to be a very wise policy. The sports that have adopted this policy because they recognize, as the executive on ESPN's camera last night, that taking steroids and/or doping is cheating. However, those sports have chosen to deal with it in a reasonable, yet firm manner.

MLB has chosen to wink and nod at it. Why? Well as in anything, I guess we should follow the money. My guess is that MLB sees Barry Bond's chase of the most hallowed record in baseball, if not all of sports, as a potential goldmine. They think they can sell this chase and make some serious change over it. But my question would be: To whom are they going to sell it to? A casual fan? Even a casual baseball fan looks at Bonds now and sees a cheater. Even a casual fan will see his breaking the all-time homerun record as a farce. Even a casual fan will look at MLB and see it as a farce. The casual fan will wonder why MLB let a known cheater "win". I know what a casual fan will think because I live with one. I'm an avid fan. My wife however, is a casual fan, and she's expressed shock that MLB would let Bonds and Giambi set foot on a field this coming season.

Here's a question: What if a retired executive from Louisville Slugger held a press conference tomorrow. In this press conference he alleges that Hank Aaron used a corked bat for every at-bat he had for the last 6 years of his career. He then proceeds to produce documents to and from Aaron that detail this allegation. Do you think we'd all look the same at his record 755 homeruns?

Someday after Bonds retires, either his personal trainer or the president of BALCO, or both will spill all and reveal how much and for how long Bonds used steroids. What's worse is, in the above hypothetical about Hank Aaron, it would be completely unexpected, with regard to Barry Bonds, it is entirely expected to happen.

How much money does MLB expect to make to justify allowing its most cherished record to be tarnished like that? I have no idea know how much MLB expects to profit from Bonds chase, but I can certainly imagine that the controversy that him setting the record will generate for years to come. Someday, I'd wager that if Bonds does break the homerun record, MLB will regret letting him play in 2005 and pursue that record. That they are so short sighted today is what I find puzzling.

Unreliable and Partisan?

2005-01-07T15:45:00.000-06:00

This story on Yahoo News strikes me as a bit hypocritical. The Good Reverand claims that the 118,000 vote win that President Bush enjoyed in Ohio on November 2, 2004 should be questioned because of unreliable voting machines and partisan election officials. As a result the certification of Ohio and in turn of the entire election, should be held up. For how long, he doesn't say. For the exact reason(s) why, he doesn't say.

It is interesting that leading up to this election, there was a tremendous amount of focus on key battleground state, of which Ohio was only second to Florida. Senator Kerry had a literal army of lawyers "on the ground" in Ohio on Election Day. Mr. Kerry would actually be the aggrieved party here. If he and/or his lawyering army thought they had the slightest grounds by which to challenge the results in Ohio, that suit would have long been filed. Yet....no such suit was filed. In fact, it was widely reported that before conceding the day after the election, he consulted with "his people in Ohio". If any thing was amiss, why would "his people in Ohio" tell him to pack it in?

We ALL know this is nonsense. We ALL know that the loony left can't grasp reality, and has demanded that their representatives go through this farce. We ALL know that the loony left's representatives obliged their "constituents" in order to remain within their good graces. Case in point: Hillary Clinton. For almost a year now, Mrs. Clinton has been positioning herself to appear as palatable to the political "middle" as possible. Yet, the realization has struck Mrs. Clinton that in order to win her party's nomination for president, she MUST appease her party's base. So there was Mrs. Clinton yesterday signing up for the loony farm by objecting to the Ohio results.

But do you know what the height of hypocrisy is on this issue? It is that the same things being "alleged" (that's about the loosest interpretation possible of that word) about the "vote" in Ohio were noted to have actually occured in Pennsylvania. However, the "irregularities" in Pennsylvania tended to benefit Senator Kerry. Senator Kerry won the state of Pennsylvania by a narrower margin than President Bush won the state of Ohio. Despite the "irregularity" of voting machines having several hundred Kerry votes on them before the polls opening. Despite the "irregularity" of the Governor of the state acting in a clearly partisan fashion regarding voter eligibility (military voter eligibilty I might add). Despite the "irregularity" of the somewhat typical rumors of certain Philadelphia precincts reporting over 100% participation of all residents (let that one sink in for a minute or two). Despite other "irregularities" regarding voter registration. Yes, despite all of these reported "irregularities" in the Pennsylvania vote, the outrage of Democrats to see democracy work its course hasn't been extended across the Ohio border into Pennsylvania.

Which once and for all proves that to the loony left, its is only "irregular" or "questionable" or "unreliable" or "partisan" if they lose....

I miss the USFL!

2004-12-31T13:11:00.000-06:00

I'm sure you're saying: HUH?

That's right I miss the United States Football League! The wild league that pioneered spring football and the run-n-shoot offense. The league that wooed two consecutive Heisman Trophy winners and countless other top notch college players. The league that brought us instant replay officiating. The league that fought the NFL in Court and won.....a dollar. (Sidebar: The USFL made the fateful mistake of filing that suit in New York. File it in Memphis, Jacksonville or Birmingham and the damages would have been substantial and likely forced a merger.)

So why am I pining for the USFL today? It's New Year's Eve and so I'm home from work in the middle of the day. Channel surfing lands me on ESPN Classic. They are showing a USFL game between the New Jersey Generals and the Memphis Showboats that was played on April 19, 1985. Given that the recently deceased Reggie White began his professional career for the Memphis Showboats, the choice of teams may be in tribute to Reggie.

The interesting thing for me about the game is that when the league was in existence or its three seasons from 1982 through 1985 my favorite team was the New Jersey Generals. They had Doug Flutie and Hershel Walker. I still have a Generals pennant. Its not hanging on my bedroom wall anymore, but I know exactly where it is and do look at it from time to time.

In the fifteen years I've lived in Memphis, I've come to appreciate the Showboats and their legacy in this community. People here still fondly recall their 'Boats and the fun they brought to this football crazed city. The 'Boats were big time in Memphis. The players were active in the community. In fact, with Reggie White's passing, several stories about the 'Boats and their players have surfaced in the local media. The ESPN Classic broadcast just noted that for this game over 50,000 people were in the Liberty Memorial Stadium and that the 'Boats were near the top of the league in attendence. The 'Boats also provided Memphians with a chance to continue a bitter rivalry that began a decade earlier.

Memphis is one half of one of the most bitter, but least known, rivalries in professional football. In the World Football League the Memphis Southmen/Grizzlies main rival was the Birmingham Americans. When the USFL expanded in their second season adding Memphis, the 'Boats had an immediate rival in the already existing Birmingham Stallions. Later the Canadian Football League would expand with the Memphis Mad Dogs and the Birmingham Barracudas. The XFL brought us the Memphis Maniax and the Birmingham Thunderbolts. In each and every instance, Memphis and Birmingham have been bitter rivals. And with the CFL as an exception, Memphis and Birmingham were near the top in attendence for each (ill fated) league.

The USFL, and for that matter the WFL and XFL as well, provided numerous innovations that were ultimately adopted by the stodgy NFL. The USFL allowed two point conversions. As noted above, the USFL utilized instant replay in officiating. I actually think their system was superior to the NFL's. In the 'Boats-Generals game on right now, the 'Boats scored a late TD. The Generals challenged. The Referee went to the sideline and put on a headset. The replay official upstairs relayed his opinion (it was a TD) and that was it. It took all of about 20 seconds. Quick, simple and easy. No long break. No chance for color commentator John Madden to wax philosphic about anything.

Some of the other ideas/rules the NFL and its fans ridiculed upstart leagues for employing only to adopt after the league(s) disappeared include: moving the uprights to the back of the end zone; kickoffs from the 30 yard line; no bump and run; narrow hash marks; run-n-shoot offense; and the overhead or "skycam". There are other things as well, but I think the point is clear, that the NFL has clearly benefitted from its occasaional competition.

That is one reason that I miss the USFL, and even though it made the point of claiming not to be direct competition to the NFL, the XFL too. They offered a change of pace from the staid, stodgy NFL. They allowed for experimentation at almost every level and the game (meaning American football) benefitted from their presence. Another reason I miss the USFL and XFL was because they both gave "little markets" a chance to enjoy "big-time football". That's something the NFL, outside of Green Bay, Wisonsin hasn't really adopted.

Look at the "other than NFL markets" the upstart leagues have played in and you have the following: Arizona (Phoenix), Baltimore, Birmingham, Charlotte, Honolulu, Jacksonville, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Memphis, Oklahoma City, Orlando, Sacremento, San Antonio and Shreveport. The NFL has since either expanded, or relocated into four of those markets, but the rest remain untapped. That's 10 markets that have accepted and enjoyed football at an "other than NFL" level, yet currently have no professional football being played there. The NFL doesn't really seem to care, and quite frankly given their current revenues, I can't blame them. If they were hurting for cash, then they'd be all over those ten and probably another six to ten markets.

The sad thing for my current home city is that on several occasions, they stood at the brink of being accepted in to the NFL. The first time was at the very inception of the NFL. Clarence Saunders founder of the first "self-serve" grocery store, Piggly Wiggly, not to be confused with the Colonel from Kentucky who founded the first fast-food chicken restaurant, owned a barnstorming semi-professional football team called the Memphis Tigers. It is believed that at the very foundation of the league, George S. Halas himself invited Mr. Saunders and his Memphis Tigers to join. Mr. Saunders is reported to have told Mr. Halas that the money was to be made in barnstorming, not playing in a league. There isn't alot of historical data to back this story up. However, it is known that on December 15, 1929 an exhibition game was played in Memphis between the undefeated NFL Champion Green Bay Packers and Mr. Saunders' Memphis Tigers. The Tigers won the game by the score of 16-6. Prior to the next season, the NFL formally invited the Memphis Tigers to join. Saunders rejected the invitation and a short time later, the team disappeared when Saunder's ran into financial difficulty.

The next chance for Memphis to join the NFL came in the mid-1970's. The NFL was looking to add two teams. Memphis was a finalist and leading candidate for one of the two franchises. However, the Memphis Parks Commission which runs the Liberty Bowl Memorial Stadium decided to offer a lease to the Memphis Southmen/Grizzlies of the WFL. The rationale behind this colossal blunder was that the WFL was willing to sign a lease and the NFL wasn't a "sure thing". The NFL awarded its two franchises to Seattle and Tampa Bay. Ironically, the Grizzlies came and went before the Seahawks and Buccaneers even took the field. After the WFL folded, there was an effort to get the Grizzlies and Birmingham Americans into the NFL with the Seahawks and Buccaneers. Some consideration was given, but nothing serious, and Memphis' place in the NFL was deferred again.

In 1993 the NFL decided to expand again. Memphis was promised following the mid-70's debacle and ensuing push to get the Grizzlies into the NFL that when the NFL expanded again, that Memphis would be given top priority. This promise by the NFL was apparently enough to land Memphis in a group of finalists that included former NFL cities St. Louis and Baltimore, and former "upstart league" cities Jacksonville and Charlotte. The NFL never said it publicly, but it was widely known that to land one of these two teams would require a new stadium. All four of the other finalists agreed to bend over backward for the NFL. Memphis chose to propose a plan that only included a renovation and expansion of the Liberty Bowl. In the end, despite having the strongest ownership group, Memphis was left out in the cold. The NFL went to Jacksonville and Charlotte. Shortly thereafter St. Louis landed the Rams from Los Angeles and Baltimore lured the Browns from Cleveland. The Browns left Cleveland because they couldn't get a new stadium. Once the league brokered a deal to get a new stadium built they expanded again to replace the Browns.

Memphis is the lone city from that group that remains without an NFL franchise. Well and Los Angeles also refused to build the Rams a new stadium, and to this day have resisted the NFL's efforts to get them to build a new stadium in order to get a replacement team. The ultimate indignity to Memphis was when out of the blue, the Houston Oilers moved to Nashville. Why? Because Nashville agreed to build them a new stadium of course! Then....the NFL thinking they were giving Memphis a "treat" decides the Oilers should play in Memphis while their new stadium is built for them in Nashville. Memphians to their credit saw that the NFL only wanted Memphis when it needed Memphis, and thus Memphians avoided Oiler games here in Memphis. As a result the league worked out a deal to let the Oilers play the next season at Vanderbilt Stadium. Memphis took a bunch of flak in the sports media from people who were either: blinded by the NFL's glare; or didn't know or bother to examine the history of Memphis and pro football and its recent twists and turns. It shouldn't be any surprise that the NFL expanded back into Houston after they decided to build a new stadium.

The message the NFL sends out is clear: build us new state of the art stadiums for free, give us sweetheart leases and we'll come to your town. And you know what....that's the biggest reason I miss the USFL!

Progressive?

2004-12-29T09:58:00.000-06:00

In the last election, the Democrats sought to avoid the label of "liberal" and actively sought to euphemize themselves as "progressive". According to Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary Here's the definition of progressive:

Function: adjective
1 a : of, relating to, or characterized by progress b : making use of or interested in new ideas, findings, or opportunities c : of, relating to, or constituting an educational theory marked by emphasis on the individual child, informality of classroom procedure, and encouragement of self-expression
2 : of, relating to, or characterized by progression
3 : moving forward or onward : ADVANCING
4 a : increasing in extent or severity (a progressive disease) b : increasing in rate as the base increases (a progressive tax)
5 : often capitalized : of or relating to political Progressives
6 : of, relating to, or constituting a verb form that expresses action or state in progress at the time of speaking or a time spoken of

- pro·gres·sive·ly adverb
- pro·gres·sive·ness noun

So the question begs to be asked: Are our current left-leaning politicians and their activist friends "progressive"? Judging from the definition above, I believe the answer is quite clearly a resounding NO.

The lefties in this country have opted for the status quo with regard to the liberation of Afghans and Iraqis. They've opposed the advancement of freedom, democracy and civil rights in the the greater middle east.

On the domestic front, they've opposed: reform of the tax code; reform of medicare; reform of social security; utilizing faith-based charities to provide social services; reform of the education system; and reform of the homeland defense structure of the federal government (read: formation of the Department of Homeland Security).

On issue after issue, the left in the United States has taken the "status quo" position in direct opposition to the actual "progressive" position which advocates reform, change or advancement. They mistakenly assume that because their position on homosexual marriage is different from the majority position that they by necessity are "progressive". I'd argue that their position on that issue isn't actually progressive, but simply anti-establishment, but that's another rant unto itself.

Over the course of American history, we have been blessed with some truly outstanding "progressive" presidents.

- Jefferson was a progressive. Though much of his progressive impact on the nation (authoring the Declaration of Independence and providing guidance to Madison on the Consitution) was felt before he actually became president. The Louisiana Purchase stands as his classic progressive initiative that forever altered the landscape, both literally and figuratively, of the United States.

- Monroe was a progressive. The doctrine that bears his name was bold and provided the overarching guidance for America's initial forays into the international scene.

- Lincoln was a progressive. In fact, in many ways, he may be the pinultimate progressive. Just a quick reading of his Second Inaugural Address shows how revolutionary his thinking was at the time. After comparing the promise not to abolish slavery in the South from his First Inaugural Address to the Emancipation Proclamation and his Second Inaugural Address, I believe that Lincoln grew into a progressive while in office. I reject the idea that he was an opportunist. He could have simply chosen the political issue of preserving the Union and been done with it. He truly believed in the moral struggle over slavery. He chose to make it the central issue of the war, and thus became a truly progressive president.

- Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive. Busting trusts and improving conditions for workers was a distinct change from the past and represented a true advancement for common Americans. TR began a policy of "conservation" for our natural resources. His ideas in this regard have since been corrupted and perverted by the zealous tree huggers. However, his legacy as a progressive is quite clear.

- Franklin Roosevelt was a progressive. Many of his progressive programs were not truly designed for advancement, but instead simply for survival. As such, we no longer have a WPA, or CCC. He is the father of the "welfare state" in this country, and as such is reviled by many conservatives. However, look at things like the WPA and CCC and you'll notice that they weren't so much welfare as they were what we now call "workfare" programs. People who needed assistance were paid by the government and in return the government required productive, or at least semi-productive work. FDR's progressive legacy is that government could provide a safety net for those that need it. Think about that metaphor...it references a tightrope and someone crossing from one point to another.The safety net is there to catch them if they fall. The problem is that the lefties have lowered the rope so low that the net isn't there for safety anymore, its simply a net to catch and trap whoever wanders in. Conservatives should respect and honor FDR's legacy and seek to restore the net to "safety" status.

- Nixon was a progressive. He was reviled by the left. So much so, that they failed to realize how truly progressive his policies were. He implemented Affirmative Action. He opened the Environmental Protection Agency. He instituted Title IX which mandated gender equity in college sports. He opened relations with communist China. The list is long and impressive, yet the left never even acknolwedges that many of their current pet programs or policies were his doing.

- Reagan was a progressive. Reagan is credited with the rebirth of conservatism in the United States, but the idea that the United States could win the Cold War was revolutionary. Few believed it. Most assumed that life would always include a "Soviet threat". Reagan saw the advantage that capitalism had over communism and sought to make it our greatest weapon. He had revolutionary ideas about taxes, and pushed through tax reform that led to a period of growth that we are still enjoying 22 years later. Reagan, perhaps once and for all, proved that modern American conservatism is at its very core, progressive.

- George W. Bush is a progressive. All of the things cited above as being opposed by the current crop of lefties have been proposed and/or enacted by Bush. Their detestation of Nixon is only exceeded by their loathing of Bush. His ideas about spreading freedom, democracy and civil rights to the last portion of the world are revolutionary. Like Reagan before him, few believe it possible and fewer still expected success. Yet it is happening every day. The lefties claim to care about civil rights, yet take little notice of the God-given rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness being given back to the citizens of Afghanistan and Iraq. Despite the lefties best efforts, there is no denying the progress and advancement around the globe being made under the direction of Bush.

Look at this list. Since the election of 1860 and the rise of the current two parties, it is apparent that one party that is committed to advancement, to progress, to finding and implementing new ideas, to expanding opportunties. One party routinely provides a truly progressive outlook and policies designed to enhance and encourage advancment. That party should embrace the word progressive and seek to block to current effort underway to redefine modern American obstructionist liberalism as "progressive".

Rip van Winkle awakens.

2004-12-13T16:37:00.000-06:00

OK, I lived in a small town in the northwest corner of Cobb County Georgia, (read: metro Atlanta) from 1983 until 1988. After moving, I made a few trips back to the area which ended in early 1989. During that time period the population of metro Atlanta began to explode. Over that time I witnessed a massive amount of growth. In Kennesaw, I watched the trees come down and Towne Center at Cobb go up. Nothing though prepared me for what I saw last week.

I was back in the same area to take a training class at Kennesaw State University's Continuing Education building. It was the first time I had spent anything more than a pitstop in this general area since sometime in early 1989. I couldn't believe the amount of growth that had taken place. In some instances, things that I did witness being built were already gone, replaced by something newer and bigger. That's perhaps the most unbelievable aspect of what I saw. The traffic was incredible. I remember how bad it was, and that pales in comparison to how it is now.

For all the awe the trip provided, it also provided a bit of nostalgia. For most of the time I lived in this area, I had one girlfriend. The last year I was there, we were officially broken up, but we still spent an inordinate amount of time together. The difference was, she had begun a relationship with the guy who eventually became her husband. (Yes, it was a bit bizarre....at least from my perspective.) At any rate, she worked at the outlet mall in Kennesaw on the weekends when she was home from school. I spent alot of time visiting her at the outlet mall. In the fifteen years since I've been gone, the outlet mall closed, and Kennesaw State University bought the property/building for its Continuing Education Department. They renovated the interior, but the main corridors are intact as is, the parking lot.

The first morning as I pulled up to go to class, I was struck with an immense sense of deja vu. I was parking in a spot I had probably parked in a hundred times before. I had to laugh at how strange it felt. As the week wore on, I realized a bit of irony. The class I was taking was a computer forensics class which requires a fair amount of digging into the file system of a computer. The ironic part is that when I was an actual student at (then) Kennesaw College, I was terrified of the DOS prompt. I had some reports etc that had be be typed out on a word processor. I tried in vain to struggle through it, but in the end had to call upon the generosity of the aforementioned girlfriend.

It wasn't until Friday that perhaps the most painful memory I had experienced in the outlet mall-turned-Continuing Ed building came back to me. It occured during quite probably the last visit I made to the area in early 1989. By this time, the former girlfirend was engaged, yet I still went to the outlet mall for a quick visit and to say "hey". After greeting each other we sat down at a table and began to chit-chat. I noticed that she wasn't wearing her engagement ring. The ring itself is a sidebar story, but nonetheless, I asked what was going on. She said the ring had a loose post and was getting repaired. The painful thing for me was that in its place she was wearing a family ring I had given her as a "promise ring" some years prior. I assume she meant no harm, and I'm sure I took it the wrong way.....but.....this was the woman who I wanted to marry, who was now pledged to marry someone else, and here she was wearing a ring I gave her, while her engagement ring, which I found for her sometime prior, was getting repaired.....

I guess it was because of the specific locale of where I was last week that my mind came back to that one particular scene, and not the numerous others where I'm sure I hurt her. That's the strange thing, I think back to that time period, and I have a sense of being in alot of emotional pain, but I could only really point to that and maybe one other thing (see reference to engagement ring above,) as direct events that hurt me. However, when I think back to my actions.....well.....I see perhaps hundreds of times where I hurt her. I guess time has a way of erasing certain things from our memories. I think of her and how she treated me, and all I see is nothing but good things. Afterall, I had to be standing in the exact spot where we had the "ring conversation" for me to even remember it. But when I think about how I acted in that relationship, and beyond some obvious things, I see countless little things that I did that hurt her in ways she probably didn't realize at the time, and may not even recall today. We remember what we want to remember, so it is a bit curious as to why I can only see my fault when I look back at that relationship.

Another observation I had was how strange it felt to be in the area and to see all the old sights. When we met, she lived one block over from me. One night, I drove up to our old neighborhood. It had changed a tiny bit, but I could still see in my mind's eye the very first time I ever saw her. From what I understand she still lives in the area. While I'm sure she doesn't drive past old houses, or schools, or work places all the time, I began to wonder when she did, if she did not occasionally think about me. I realize that if she still lives there, and see's all these things (relatively) all the time, it certainly wouldn't hold the same type of nostalgic feel that it did for me. As I'm sure if I still lived in the area, I probably would not have felt the same as I did last week.

So what's it all mean? I have no idea! hehe I assume, and sincerely hope that, she's happily married. Even though it was rough emotionally to get through the end of that relationship, I wouldn't sacrifice what I have now with my wife and son for anything. I don't know, maybe I can only see my own shortcomings when I think about that relationship as a way to remind me not to repeat them......

Jason, Barry, Balco and baseball....or how to break a six year old's heart.

2004-12-03T11:33:00.000-06:00

I am an avid fan of the New York Yankees.

For all the things that making that statement might mean, one thing is that I cherish the tradition of the game. I wanted the Expos to be named Senators upon their move to Washinton D.C., but am quite satisfied with Nationals. I want the mound raised again. I want hitters to remove the body armor (helmet excluded). I want the Cubs to stay in Wrigley Field, the Red Sox to stay at Fenway Park and the Yankees to stay in Yankee Stadium. I want players who use steroids to be suspended and/or banned.

What Jason Giambi admitted to before a grand jury was that he cheated. He sought an unfair advantage over the competition for at least three seasons. Barry Bonds has apparently also admitted to doing the same thing although he claims not to have had knowledge of what he was doing at the time. Given Giambi's open discussion before the grand jury about what he took, and how he took it, Bonds claims of ignorance seem especially lame and unbelievable.

Baseball has had a long history of cheating. In the late 1800's gambling was almost as much a part of the game as singles. Attempts to clean up the game culminated following the 1919 World Series and the infamous Black Sox scandal. The core issue of the scandal was that the players intentionally took actions to alter the outcome of games in order to reap direct financial reward. The result of the scandal was the hiring of a Commissioner with vast authority to protect "the integrity of the game", which is exactly what the scandal assaulted.

Since Judge Kennesaw Mountain Landis banned eight of the Black Sox players for life, baseball has always taken "the integrity of the game" issues quite seriously. When Pete Rose was caught gambling on baseball, including for and against his own team, he was also suspended for life. The facts in Rose's case are different than the Black Sox scandal. However, the underlying issue is still the same: as a manager he had the power, and almost certainly used it, to alter the outcome of games in order to reap direct financial reward.

If Giambi, Bonds and anyone else took steroids to enhance their performance the "integrity of the game" rule should apply. Period.

"But....but.....it is just a drug issue, and those never result in lifetime bans," the MLBPA is sure to argue. Or they could also argue "sure it is cheating, but it is no different than corking a bat or stealing signs, and those don't get lifetime bans either." Their last argument might be along the lines of: "OK, but baseball hadn't banned steroids until after these incidents, so it wasn't really illegal in baseball terms at the time." And if they argued those things, they'd be wrong. I'll take them one at a time and explain why.

1) Drugs - In the past, players have been caught using illegal drugs. Some of the more notable ones were Steve Howe, Doc Gooden or Darryl Strawberry. Their drug of choice was cocaine. While it is a stimulant, it can't be conclusively called a "performance enhancer". They probably all played at one time or another, while high on coke, but their point in taking it, wasn't to make themselves better ballplayers, but to feed an addiction that developed outside of the game.

Taking steroids is not at all in this category. The intent of taking steroids is to cheat while playing the game. There's no other way to look at it. Giambi and Bonds weren't taking these things casually to see how buff they could get. They were cheating.

2) Corked bats and stealing signs - Both of these things are "illegal" in baseball and do affect the outcome of games. However, there has never been any situation that I'm aware of, in which either of these things has been cited as violation of "integrity of the game". For Ralph Branca, that's clearly questionable. But my point is, there is no precedent for citing either of those offenses as violating the "integrity of the game". In all likelihood the reason is that proving a link between the action and a direct financial reward is quite difficult, if not impossible.

3) Not illegal in baseball at the time - Try telling that to Joe Jackson, Buck Weaver and the rest of the Black Sox. They received lifetime ban for violating a rule issued by proclamation of the Commissioner almost two full years after they committed their "crime". Another thing to realize is that gambling was illegal in the United States at the time, even if baseball hadn't formally made it illegal within the game. Likewise, the use of steroids without prescription from a medical doctor in the United States is, and was, illegal at the time Giambi and Bonds used them. If an activity is illegal in the larger society, then it stands to reason that it would be illegal in the game of baseball. This despite what the MLBPA might think.

So how does taking steroids affect the "intergity of the game" and thus warrant suspension and/or banishment? First, it is roundly acknowledged to be a form of cheating. Secondly, the player who uses steroid does so seeking one thing.....money. Would Giambi have been given a $120 million contract if he averaged 15 homeruns a season? Would Barry Bonds have been paid $18 million this past season if he hadn't been chasing Ruth and Aaron?

And that's where the tradition I so cherish is being stained. Early this next season Bonds is likely to pass Ruth on the all-time homerun list. With a good year, he'll be within striking distance of Henry Aaron's record of 755. Yes, Pete Rose is baseball's record-holder in total hits. The difference here is, Rose's actions that led to his banishment occured after he stopped playing. Bonds is cheating his way into the record books. That's the difference, and that's why he should be banned.

How does this all relate to breaking a six year old's heart? Well, given my love for the Yankees, my son has developed a similar love. His favorite player, thankfully is Derek Jeter. Jeter in my mind represents exactly what I love about baseball and the Yankees: and unquenching desire to compete and win, but a respect and honor for the history of the game and the franchise for which he plays. To be honest, I always looked upon Giambi as a mercenary. Sure he fights for "my side", but only because he was getting paid to do so. Two of my favorite players were his predecessors at first base for the Yankees: Don Mattingly and Tino Martinez. It should not be surprising that they were two of the people who helped mold a young Derek Jeter during his "call-up" season and the following rookie season.

My son though, took to Giambi. He has a Giambi bobblehead on the shelf in his room. He has a general baseball t-shirt that he proudly wears because it has Giambi's number 25 on it. This past summer when Giambi got sick first with an intestinal parasite, my son prayed for his health each night. Soon Giambi felt well enough to begin playing again. My son was ecstatic that on July 10th, Giambi would be playing and he would get to watch him in person at his first ever game at Yankee Stadium on Old Timer's Day. Later when Giambi was diagnosed with a benign tumor, my son continued to pray for his health. In October, my son wanted to know how come Giambi wasn't playing in the playoffs. I had to explain that he still wasn't well enough.

So there I was last night......watching ESPNEWS and wondering how I was going to break this news to my son. Figuring there was no easy way, I simply decided to tell him that Giambi may never play for the Yankees again. Tears immediately began to fill his eyes as he asked why. I tried as best I could to explain steroids to a six year old. He said he wanted Giambi to be there next summer when we go back to the Stadium. I told him that Giambi probably won't be there. I made a point to explain that Giambi had cheated, and that cheating was wrong. I still don't know if he understood it all.

The fallibility of humanity is a difficult lesson to learn at any age, especially at six.

The scene at Memphis International Airport....

2004-11-22T10:08:00.000-06:00

Yesterday afternoon my wife and I went to the airport to pick up one of her closest friends. This friend has visited us for the Thanksgiving holiday for the last five years. She was flying into Memphis from her home in Minnesota via Atlanta. We arrived only to find the flight was delayed for about thirty minutes. We sat down in the terminal. We each began pursuing one of our favorite past times. For my wife that meant popping out the mobile phone and calling everyone until she got someone willing to carry on a conversation. (Sidebar: I have to say for the record, this is entirely voluntary and not because I won't talk to her!)

The past time I engaged in was one of my all time favorites: people watching. An airport terminal is one of the best places for this activity. I noticed all sorts of interesting people. However, I kept coming back to the growing collection of family members to the seats just to my left. First it was the wife and two children, a daughter probably eight or nine, and a son in the two to three range. They were soon joined by parents, first one set then the other. Shortly thereafter another couple arrived, and one of the children referred to the man as "uncle". Trying not to stare too much, I kept going back to this family. It was apparent the husband/father/son/brother was away on business and would be coming in on the same plane as my wife's friend.

Then I noticed something. The wife, daughter, son, the mothers and sister (or sister-in-law) all had a button on. The daughther and son had American flags. It became immediately apparent to me where the husband/father/son/brother had been for his business. I nudged my wife, who paused her conversation long enough for me to let her know the family was waiting on a serviceman. She nodded and went back to her conversation.

After a few minutes, the arrival board showed the plane had landed. I again nudged my wife and motioned toward the board. She ended her conversation and we stood and walked toward the exit point of the passenger only area of the terminal. It is kind of an odd area. The exit dumps the passengers basically at the top of a down escalator or a narrow area to bypass the escalator and pass into the terminal. The large family gathered in this area. As we settled into our spot in the same area, we noticed a growing crowd: a VERY pregnant woman and her five or six year old daughter; a lone wife; what appeared to be a father and adult son; a young woman; a father, mother and adult son.

I continued watching the large family, but my interest was also piqued by these other characters. The pregnant woman was asked by someone if her husband was coming home for good, or just a leave. She said it was two weeks. She said he hadn't been home in over a year, but that he would be home for good shortly after the new year. At first, that was mildly amusing given her condition, but I realzied her husband was probably in the reserves and his unit was probably activated several months before being deployed. The pregnancy was quite probably the result of her visiting him just prior to deployment. The lone wife stood quietly. She watched everyone much like I was doing. She was smiling and fighting back tears at the same time. The father and son were talking quietly to themselves. The father, mother and son were engaging in conversation with the large family and the pregnant woman. The young woman was just kind of taking it all in.

After a few minutes my wife's phone rang again. It was her friend who reported that they were in fact at the gate, but no one was deplaning as yet. My wife told her we were there and we were waiting. My wife asked if there were servicemen on the plane. The reply was nine or ten. My wife hung up and sort of half announced they would be coming soon. The young woman was standing close by us and she was intrigued by the notion that someone on the plane would call to report. She and my wife exchanged a few brief comments.

And we all waited.

Then utilizing my 6'5" height, I could see two servicemen at the far end of the corridor. They were with a group of three or four other people, but not the type of group you'd expect from a 3/4th full jetliner. They approached and the pregnant woman's daughter ran to greet one of them. He scooped her up into his arms and hugged her. The pregnant woman herself was still in conversation. It took her a minute or two before she looked down for her daughter only to realize her husband was there.

The soldier who walked up with this husband looked at the small crowd searching faces. He passed through and into the main terminal. My wife and the young woman both commented that no one was there to greet him, and if need be they would hug him. He passed back through the small crowd. My wife and the young woman made their offer. He smiled and declined. He was trying to act brave, but he was clearly concerned. He went around and boarded the esclator. As he rode it down, his face lit up. He looked up at my wife and the young woman and said: "There they are!!" and pointed downstairs.

A few more minutes passed. I then saw my wife's friend coming down the corridor. Just in front of her were two more soldiers. As they approached, the lone wife moved up close to the exit. She greeted her husband with a huge hug as tears streamed down her face. The father and son met the other soldier who had walked up with him.

Then my wife's friend came up. We hugged and greeted her. My wife was in tears from watching what was going on. She said we had to wait, we had to watch the large family wait for their husband/father/son/brother. He wasn't too far behind. We stepped to the side and watched. First his children ran up and into his arms. He hugged them for what seemed several minutes. His wife was standing back holding the video camera tears streaming down both cheeks. Each of the family members hugged him, then he made it to his wife. He hugged her before she had a chance to pass off the camera. I doubt she was even able to stop the recording.

We then went downstairs to the baggage claim. We saw the soldier who's family family met him down there. They were a wife, mother and two daughters. As we stood waiting for the baggage belt to begin, we stood near this soldier. My wife asked him how long he was home for. He said: "fifteen days beginning tomorrow ma'am." My wife then asked him where he was stationed. He said he was in Baghdad. She asked him if it was tough. He nodded and said: "yes ma'am, it is, but we're doing our best." My wife thanked him a couple times for all he was doing. He replied: "You're welcome ma'am." You could tell he was a little bit embarassed, but you could tell his response was well used and quite genuine.

I stood and watched this exchange. I noted other similar exchanges going on around me. One soldier, who I had not seen before, went to the belt to pick up his duffel bag. As he reached the belt, two men shook his hand and thanked him. This same thing was repeated numerous times with each of the soldiers.

I feel incredibly honored to have witnessed the homecomings of these true heros. Their service and the sacrifices they and their families have made are at the very foundation of what it means to be an American.

To the soldiers and marines who have made it home for Thanksgiving I say: "we're proud of you, and we're glad you could be home with your families this holiday." To those who didn't get leave for thsi holiday I say: "we're proud of you too, and our prayers are with you." To all the men and women serving in the United States armed forces I say: "THANK YOU!! Without you we'd have nothing to celebrate this Thursday!"

From the "they are REALLY losing it" file..

2004-11-19T09:35:00.000-06:00

Every day seems to bring more and more news about how the Dems/libs in this country are becoming more and more unhinged. Today we have this story. I do note that levelheaded Dems are condemning this bozo. Perhaps they have realized the Crazy Train their party has boarded is headed over a cliff and into oblivion. I kind of tend to doubt it, but hey, we'll see...the mid-term elections are only 23.5 months away.

The overriding issue...

2004-10-19T10:52:00.000-05:00

It is a long read, but it is well worth every minute.

Something About Mary...

2004-10-15T09:28:00.000-05:00

Much of the discusion about Mary Cheneygate has centered on the appropriateness of using her sexual orientation in a political campaign that she is not running in.

Some (read: VERY little) of the discussion has hit on this question: Why should two people who do not know Mary Cheney, and probably have only met Mary Cheney in passing, if at all, be qualified to be her spokespersons?

(Not much) more of the discussion has centered on the issue that one of these new spokespersons feels it necessary to claim she knows: a) the nature of the feelings of Mary Cheney's own mother; and b) how the comments of Mary Cheney's mother in response to John Kerry's initial comments make Mary Cheney feel.

However, NONE of the discussion has centered on the glaring contradiction between Kerry's and Mrs. Edwards' statements about homosexuality.

Read closely what John Kerry said:

"We're all God's children . . . And I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she's being who she was, she's being who she was born as. I think if you talk to anybody, it's not a choice."

And now what Elizabeth Edwards followed with:

"It indicates a certain degree of shame with respect to her daughter's sexual preferences that I'm certain makes her daughter uncomfortable,"

OK so which is it? Are people born homosexual, or is it a preference?

Kerry is so convinced that it is an inborn trait, you'd think there was tons of hard scientific data to back up his assertion. There isn't, and thus Elizabeth Edwards' referring to it as a "preference", is by far the more accurate assessment. I'm sure Kerry doesn't want his gay constituency to hear that, so I suspect the contradiction will be ignored by the MSM.

I am stunned at the consistent ability of Kerry & Co. to shoot themselves squarely in the foot. If the MSM gave just a half-hearted effort at reporting his gaffes, inaccuracies, contradictions and flatout lies, this campaign would have been over months ago.

List of what Kerry won't release:

2004-10-14T13:24:00.000-05:00

1. His complete military record.
2. His complete medical record.
3. His complete educational record, including his SAT score.
4. His wife's tax records.

OK, what am I forgetting?

A nuisance?

2004-10-12T09:40:00.000-05:00

So John Kerry wants us all to return to a time when terrorism was a mere nuisance. I can't sum up this nonsense any better than is done here.

Some people "get it", other people don't. We don't need anyone in the White house right now who doesn't "get it".

Just one question....

2004-10-05T09:27:00.000-05:00

OK, we've been told ad nauseum that Kerry "won" the first debate. Oh really? Then can someone please tell me which candidate is out there post-debate having to "explain" comments he made during the debate?

(Hint: It's not the supposed "loser".)

Again, I believe as time passes, the memory of the slick performance Kerry gave will begin to fade, and people will be left to ponder what he actually said during the debate. The polling "internals", all seem to indicate that most of those who watched weren't impressed with what he said.

Debate thoughts...or...Bush pulled a rope-a-dope.

2004-10-01T13:39:00.000-05:00

Well last night was the first debate in this presidential election season. The immediate response of the punditry was that Kerry won. Some of the more neutral commentators saw quite quickly that Kerry "won on style" and Bush "won on substance". I totally agree. I also agree that the lasting impression will likely center on substance and not style.

The problem Kerry faces here is that going into this debate he was already classified as a "flip-flopper". The immediate analysis of the debate is that he didn't change that opinion. In fact, he probably only emphasized it. When he makes comments about "Saddam being a threat, but..." he only reinforces the pre-existing label. The longer range problem for Kerry is what is going on right now all over the blogosphere. Kerry's answers are being reviewed and checked for veracity, as well as their likely contradiction of a prior Kerry statement or two or twelve.

To understand the reason this is a problem only requires a 4 year trip in the "wayback machine". Think back to the 2000 debates. After Gore "won" the first debate in the overnight polling what happened next? The fact-checkers got to work, and much of the resulting reporting about the debate two and three days later was about the "whoppers" that Gore told. The following debates saw Gore trying more and more bizarre tactics to try to sway voters, while simultaneously trying to consciously review his answers before they spilled from his lips and burned the "serial exaggerator" label further into his forehead. Suffice to say over the course of their debates, Bush let Gore hang himself.

Last night I, like many other Bush supporters, sat stunned that Bush didn't smack Kerry's flip-flopping and "misleading" comments and deliver the knock-out blow that we had so hoped was coming. Instead, Bush seemed to let alot of it pass. In retrospect, it was simply a matter of Bush letting Kerry tie the hangmans noose. The next two debates will likely see Kerry place it around his own neck and kick the chair out from under himself.

First Memogate, now Spamogate?

2004-09-30T10:18:00.000-05:00

So Kerry and Co. are trying to scare young voters with a claim that if he's re-elected, Bush will reinstate the draft. That's typical of Dems in an election cycle: damn the facts, just scare people. What is amazing is that coming on the heels of Rather's Memogate fiasco, that CBS would pick up the Kerry campaign's talking points and do a story around them. The New York Post Editorial page sums it up pretty well.

Smokescreen!

2004-09-24T15:21:00.000-05:00

I have a strong sense we're being misled again, this time by Sumner Redstone. Isn't the Democratic mantra that the Republicans favor "big corporations? Read his comments again. The repeated use of the name of his company is what makes me think it is a giant softball lobbed up there for the Kerry campaign. Their response will likely be: "Of course he supports Republicans, Republicans have made him richer!"

Kerry is officially down to grasping at straws...

2004-09-22T15:15:00.000-05:00

Well it was bound to happen sooner or later, but Kerry is pulling out the script and using the same old tired tactics to try to get senior citizens to vote for him. The only new thing is he has now added a wrinkle designed to scare young voters too: Draft Likely to Return Under Bush. Add in the heinously racist commericials now being run by Harold Ickes' Media Fund designed to scare the Black community, and you've got a trifecta.

How to solve a mosquito problem.

2004-09-22T09:50:00.000-05:00

It seems to me that if you have a mosquito infestation in your yard, you have several options for combating the problem:

1) You can wait until you are bitten and then swat that particular mosquito. You'll notice rather quickly though, that once the word is out, you'll be doing alot of swatting, and in most cases, your swat will be far too late. This option is entirely reactive.

2) You can apply some mosquito repellant. This helps for a while. You have essentially isolated yourself from their attacks, but sooner or later the repellant will begin to wear down and you'll find yourself back to swatting. This option is partially proactive.

3) You can spray the yard to kill the current crop of mosquitos. This too is only a temporary solution, since the eggs of the next generation will soon hatch and you'll be infested again. This option is also partially proactive.

4) You can locate the source of the infestation. Mosquitos breed in standing water. So you need to locate where the breeding ground is, and eliminate it. This option is by far the most comprehensive and most proactive.

The greatest chance for success is to incorporate options #2 and #3 while employing #4.

I know exactly what George W. Bush is doing and wants to continue doing. Do you know which option(s) John Kerry will choose? No? That's OK, I don't think he does either....

More Blather from Dan Rather...

2004-09-21T10:42:00.000-05:00

John Podhoretz nails Dan and CBS's sorry excuse for a mea culpa.

To top it off, now "the source" is claiming that some mysterious woman named Lucy Ramirez called him out of the blue and offered him the forged documents. He the drives from Baird Texas to Houston to meet with her. She doesn't show, but some guy gives him an envelope with the forged documents in them. On the way home he stops and copies the documents at.....a Kinkos of course. (BTW, I'll bet Kinkos is loving all this free advertising!) After making the copies he then burns the documents he received from the mystery guy who got them from Lucy Ramirez.

Uhhhhh.......yeah sure. My money is on Terry McAuliffe citing this fantasy, probably as early as today, as proof of his initial allegation that Karl Rove is behind it all.

Let's take McAuliffe's accusation and run with it for a minute or two. Exactly what would Rove have envisioned happening here? Let's say Lucy Ramirez was a Rove "plant". She made the contact with Burkett to see if he would take the bait. Knowing Burkett's abnormal fascination with George W. Bush it was a safe bet. So Rove and his clandestine operatives created the documents and passed them to Burkett. Does anyone else realize that if.......*IF* this were true, this is exactly the point at which Rove would have stopped having control over the outcome? From this point forward, for the story to reach the point we're at right now could never have been foreseen by Karl Rove. He would have had to expect that Burkett would pass them to both a news organization and to the Kerry Campaign. He would have had to expect that said news organization would have been so desperate to pin something on Bush that they'd overlook the fact that the documents were forged and air the story. He would have had to expect that the Kerry campaign would plan an entire ad campaign based on the allegations the forged memos make. He would have had to have expected the rest of the mainstream media to pickup on the forgeries and begin to pressure the news organization to admit its mistake.

In short Karl Rove would have made Machiavelli and Sigmund Freud both green with envy with his shrewd political manipulations and his ability to forecast human behavior.

The notion that Rove is behind this whole thing is ludicrous and not based in any thing resembling logic. The facts are rather (yes a pun) simple:

1) Burkett has a vendetta against George W. Bush, and a history of making up wild accusations to try to further that vendetta. Thus, his motivations are quite clear.

2) Dan Rather claimed just days before airing this piece that a candidates actions during that time were irrelevant. Which would explain why he ignored the Swift Boat Vets charges against Kerry while in Vietnam, and ignored Kerry's own actions and claims after he returned from Vietnam. Yet Rather still aired this smear job against the President and defended it despite the stunningly blatant evidence. We're left to draw our own conclusions about Rather's motivations, but he hasn't left us much choice.

3) Max Cleland and Joe Lockhart both acknowledge talking to Burkett during the relevant timeframe. Both work for the Kerry campaign. Which had an ad campaign all lined up and ready to roll the morning after Rather ran this piece. Cleland and Lockhart's motives are clear, they wish to defeat the President this fall. The extent of their involvement with Burkett and his "evidence" remains to be seen.

Dan, Dan, the party's man...

2004-09-20T23:24:00.000-05:00

Kerry Aide Talked to Retired Guard Officer...and that pretty much solves any remaining doubt about this issue for me.

Here is my email to CBS:

"I am appalled that a supposed "news organization" would willingly allow itself to be used by a political campaign for a fradulent smear of another candidate. The information that is already publicly available showing the ties between the "source", the Kerry campaign and Dan Rather/Mary Mapes is damning. One can only imagine the actual nature of the intertwined relationships.

Unless, or until Dan Rather apologizes directly to President Bush, and is then removed from all CBS broadcasts, I will never again watch a CBS show. Period."

Wake up Al...

2004-09-17T10:01:00.000-05:00

People who are polled are classified as one of three things: general population, registered voters or likely voters. For years polling services have found that "likely voters" more closely matched the outcomes of elections. While it is certainly true that statistics can be manipulated to yield various results, however over time trends and patterns emerge, and they are the best indicators. But that doesn't stop Al Hunt from dreaming. What Al fails to mention in his analysis of the 2000 election is that the polls he cites were taken the week before Election Day. And then the weekend before Election Day, the Dems vomitted up the DUI smear, and everything went haywire.

One event hardly a trend makes. Hey wait a minute....where's Al's analysis of what happened in 2002? You know the one where even the likely voters didn't "trend Republican" enough.

Another thing is that Al is only looking at one piece of polling data, the top line. He is ignoring what they call the "internals". If he would have bothered to look at them he'd have noticed that Candidate Kerry has very little personal support. His 45% polling figures include massive amounts of the ABB (Anyone But Bush) crowd. While the ABB people are motivated to get out and vote on Election Day, Candidate Kerry is doing very little to motivate people to go out and vote FOR him. This is a recipe for disaster.

I've predicted it before, I'll do it again here: Bush will win the popular vote by a comfortable margin and will have an Electoral College landslide.

Peter Kirsanow on Election 2004 on National Review Online

2004-09-16T11:06:00.000-05:00

Peter Kirsanow Has Twenty (More) Questions for Mr. Kerry on the National Review Online site. You'd think serious journalists would be dying to ask Mr. Kerry just a few of the fourty questions Mr. Kirsanow has posed. Instead we've got Dan Rather demanding the President of the United States answer his questions which were based on: forged documents; and/or unsubstantiated testimony from highly partisan sources. Now THAT'S principled journalism, eh?

Remembering

2004-09-11T11:00:00.000-05:00

Perhaps the most poignant words that can be said on this day were said 141 years ago, by another widely despised Republican President who was considered simple-minded and ill-equipped to handle the presidency in a time of great struggle. The words apply to all three "battlefields": the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and in Shanksville, PA.

"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this
continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the
proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in
a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation so
conceived and so dedicated can long endure. We are met on a great
battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of
that field as a final resting-place for those who here gave their
lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and
proper that we should do this. But in a larger sense, we cannot
dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground.
The brave men, living and dead who struggled here have consecrated
it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will
little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never
forget what they did here. It is for us the living rather to be
dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here
have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here
dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these
honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which
they gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly
resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this
nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that
government of the people, by the people, for the people shall
not perish from the earth."

We must never forget!

What a six year old sees...

2004-09-11T10:15:00.000-05:00

On Thursday night (the 9th), I was driving over to my mother's house with my six year old son in the car. We got to talking and he asked me if I knew what he wanted to be when he grew up. I told him that I didn't know, but that I wanted him to tell me. So he began:

"I'm going to be a pilot.....and a policeman.....and a fireman.....and a soldier.....and a daddy."

I was instantly touched that he would say he wanted to be father. I told him that those were all special, but being a daddy is the most special. While I mean no disrespect to pilots, (I have a cousin who is one), to policemen (I have two cousins who are officers), to firemen (my brother is one) or soldiers (my brother and several friends served), it is a sentiment I truly meant. Being a father is a truly special calling, and I was very happy that my young son had seen it as such.

However, as the third anniversary of September 11th got closer, the truly profound nature of what he said dawned on me. We tend to look at those people (except maybe commercial airline pilots) as heroes most all of the year, but it is this time of year that they are all truly hailed for their courage and heroism. I'm very proud that my son sees, and hears of the sacrifice of these men and considers "normal" people as his heroes.

What is even more humbling is that he would include me, as his example of a "daddy", in that group. Suffice to say, my career is not on that list, and I have, in all honesty, done very little that would be considered heroic. However, in someone's eyes, I am a hero. Keeping that thought in my mind should help me avoid self-pity when I have a bad day at the office, or begin to question what I may or may not have accomplished in life.

I am a daddy, and they can be heroes too.

The Question of The Day

2004-09-07T09:08:00.000-05:00

To demonstrate the assininity of liberals and their lap dog media, it is time to ask the tough question:

Why did Clinton have his open heart surgery this past weekend? It was announced right after the RNC. The timing is very questionable....

Bush Opens Double-Digit Lead

2004-09-04T09:56:00.000-05:00

TIME.com: Campaign 2004: Bush Opens Double-Digit Lead. I'm a bit skeptical of Time's poll results. Until I see some additional poll results that confirm this lead, I'll take this one with a grain of salt...

Why Zell Sells

2004-09-04T09:45:00.000-05:00

I like many others watched former governor, current Senator Zell Miller's speech on Wednesday night. I was overtaken by his passion and completely understood his argument. When it finished, while relishing a truly spectacular "old-school" political speech, I immediately realized what would happen next: the talking heads would assault Zell. They'd claim he was too angry. They'd claim the speech was too over-the-top to sell to "swing voters". They might, as they often do with a "fiery" Southerner, even begin to question his stand on racial issues. I knew they'd do just about ANYTHING to avoid discussing the content of his speech or the reasons he gave it.

I avoided writing anything about the speech because I wanted to allow some time to see exactly what would happen. As expected, my predictions all came true. Which is truly sad. Let's overlook the fact that his style was wonderful, and his motives and "history" were all pure just a short twelve years ago, when he spoke, in a similar fashion, from the same stage in support of media darling Bill Clinton. An objective media would report his speech Wednesday night for what it was: a "call to arms" in perilous times. They'd invesitgate the claims he made and report whether they were fact or fiction. Since the media isn't objective, you can bet they DID investigate, and if they had found any of his claims to be fiction, we would be hearing about them.

To the extent an objective media would do "background" on Zell, they'd investigate how and why he reached this point. They'd try to find out and report without partisan spin, why he IS angry. They could begin by reading his book. (Something I admitedly have not yet done.) Our current media isn't going to do this because they are actually afraid to report what they would find in such an investigation.

Zell displayed the type of "straight talk" that most Americans actually respond to. (Note: I won't get sidetracked talking about John McCain's version which the press seems to respond to.) Zell's accent sounds hickish to the elites, who look for any reason to look down on someone. However, to most Americans, I'll bet that Zell's accent sounded just right on Wednesday night.

I was born in Brooklyn. I grew up in Suffolk County on Long Island. After I graduated from high school in 1983 my family moved to metro Atlanta. It was a bit of a culture shock. I initially promised myself I would never use the word: "ya'll". Over time my thick Brooklyn accent gave way, and eventually I did begin to use that word. It was much more economical than: "you'se guys". I began to fall in love with the South. The people, the culture, the way of life, and yes....even the accent! I moved from Atlanta to Memphis, Tennessee in 1989 via a short layover in Louisville, KY. It was smaller still than Atlanta. Unlke many of the people I knew in Atlanta, most of the people I'd meet here, were actually native Southerners. I met my wife here, and am raising my family here. I still love New York, especially my Yankees, but I would never live there again. I am now, for all intents and purposes, a Southerner.

I mention all that to say, that I'm probably not unlike millions of other people who have found "small town America" to be enticing. We have learned to listen to and trust the voices of our older neighbors. Voices with thick accents. Be they from the Mississippi delta, the Iowa farmland, Wisonsin dairlyland, Minnesota lake country, Upstate New York, rural New England, the Rocky Mountains, the tobacco fields of North Carolina, the Southwest Texas plains and yes even Mountain Georgia. Which is why despite the partisan media's apoplectic response to Zell's speech, we out here in the "flyover country" get it. We heard it, we understood it and to us, we see a clear link to another fiery speech:

"It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

Patrick Henry, Philadelphia, PA - March 23, 1775.

+++++++++++++++++

Some good reading about Zell's speech:

Kathleen Parker: The Zell factor

HughHewitt.com

OpinionJournal - Best of the Web Today

RealClear Politics - Commentary by Micahel Barone

New York Post Online Edition: postopinion - John Podhoretz

The mud deepens for Mr. Kerry

2004-08-27T13:46:00.000-05:00

One of the things I've always marvelled at is a complaint of "mudslinging" in a political campaign. The complaints are always directed at the person who raises the "dirt". What is usually lost on most people is that if the candidate crying foul wasn't standing a muddle puddle, almost always of his/her own making, then there really would be no "mud to sling", no would there? Well Mr. Kerry now finds himslef up to his waist in mud, and of course the expected cries of "mudslinging" are bellowing forth from his lips. The real problem for Mr. Kerry though is, its getting "muddier" not the opposite. Thomas Lipscomb outlines the issue of the growing mud pit called the Kerry-Edwards Campaign in: Plot thickens after checking records.

Gas prices

2004-08-25T13:03:00.000-05:00

Here is a nice analysis of how gas prices can be falling while oil prices reach record levels: The Paradox at the Pump - If oil prices are rising, why are gas prices falling? By Daniel Gross. As usual, there is far more complex an answer than the hype and absurd allegations slung around by the left.

Yoo-hoooooo Big Media......where ARE YOU?!

2004-08-25T12:55:00.000-05:00

Title says it all: NewsMax Uncovers Kerry's Ties to Anti-Bush Groups. So where is the media outrage over these links? About the same place as their objective look at Kerry's war v. anti-war records and his own slander of W's ANG service and.....oh what's the point?

Another oddity about Kerry's service...

2004-08-24T12:10:00.000-05:00

Matt Drudge's world exclusive KERRY PHONES SWIFT BOAT FOES relayed the following bit of info: "Kerry and Brant slept in the same quarters, and Brant used to put Kerry back to bed at night when Kerry was sleepwalking." What I find a bit interesting, and admitedly it may be entirely coincidental, is that the Swiftees have alleged that Kerry intentionally sought to use self-inflicted wounds to get out of service. (Re-read that carefully before jumping to conclusions.) Basically the allegation is that Kerry was taking a different path to the same location as Corporal Klinger.

Now, why is the sleepwalking thing interesting? I had a close friend who was in the Navy in the early 80's. He was "asked to leave" because he was a sleepwalker. I have no idea if in 1968 and/or 1969, you could receive a discharge for sleepwalking, nor do I have any idea if Kerry had a legitimate sleep disorder.

Again, it just strikes me as......odd.

Kerry's Viet Nam quagmire in a nutshell..

2004-08-24T11:03:00.000-05:00

Ralph Peters: Heroes Don't Shout covers all the bases. This is a problem 30+ years in the making of Kerry's own doing. Unless he publicly renounces his Senate testimony and apologizes this will never go away, and even then it is only a chance.

More Kerry crying...

2004-08-23T10:59:00.000-05:00

Another day and more whining and complaining from the Kerry campaign. I guess it was to be expected....afterall the sun DID rise in the east this morning. So let's recap for those who have just joined us:

1) Kerry threatened suits against TV stations who aired a paid for ad by the Swift Boat Veteran For Truth (SBVFT). Adam Sparks in the SF Chronicle points out the absurdity of this position. The Jig Is Up For Kerry / VIEW FROM THE RIGHT: "This very unusual tactic of threatening TV stations with legal action is very aggressive, but it shows Kerry is fearful of an examination of his Vietnam record. The threats are not real, though; Kerry has no intention of suing anyone. Does he really want a libel trial in which all his exploits will be cross examined? Unlikely."

As I have mentioned before, the more serious threat would be to sue the SBVFT themselves. There is no corporate veil. These guys have placed themselves out there. Kerry's refusal to attack the source shows he's scared to death of what may come out if he is forced to follow through and sue the SBVFT.

2) After the ads began airing and polling data suggested they were having an impact, Kerry filed an FEC complaint alleging that the SBVFT ads are a front for the Bush campaign. Loose knit links does not a conspiracy prove. It may well somehow someday prove to be reality, but simply saying it, doesn't make it so. Then there's the issue of whether Kerry really wants to head down this road or not. In a column today Thomas Sowell states: "Liberal columnist Albert Hunt, for example, has said that the efforts of the veterans are backed by a 'fat cat' who is making their book -- 'Unfit for Command' by John O'Neill -- and their television ads possible.

This charge is wholly circular. When people like billionaire George Soros back liberal causes they are never called 'fat cats.' So anything on the other side that requires money will be backed by 'fat cats,' as the liberal media will call them, even if these cats are a lot leaner than George Soros."

But it actually goes a whole lot deeper than George Soros. Blogs for Bush: Web of Connections details the far more extensive ties of the Kerry campaign to many of the left-leaning 527's. Again, Kerry should be very careful what he asks for....he's quite likely to get it.

3) Kerry releases a new ad using John McCain to claim Bush is behind the SBVFT ads. This after McCain specifically asked not to be used in any of Kerry's advertising. Apparently lost on the Kerry campaign is the sublte underlying message that is conveyed by his own ad, that Kerry can't stand the heat and will whine and complain when the going gets tough.

So please elaborate Mr. Kerry, what would you do if Iran threatened to use nukes against us? File a complaint with the U.N.? Have a press conference to complain about how unfair it is?

4) Kerry derides the criticism of Senator Bob Dole. Claiming that Dole has bought into the lies of the SBVFT. But this quote in particular is quite damning: "One day he's saying that we were shooting civilians, cutting off their ears, cutting off their heads, throwing away his medals or his ribbons, the next day he's standing there, 'I want to be president because I'm a Vietnam veteran.' Maybe he should apologize to all the other 2.5 million veterans who served. He wasn't the only one in Vietnam,"

It is clear that Dole isn't talking merely about the medals, or is it ribbons? Instead it is obvious he's talking about Kerry's Senate testimony in 1971. And unlike the differing 35 year old recollections of battle by various participants, this is Kerry himself, in his own words. Futhermore, Dole is right, Kerry ought to apologize. The comments in the latest SBVFT ad by Paul Gallanti strike at the very core of why these, and many other Vets are upset with Kerry. An apology for those comments would go along way. Here's to my hope that Kerry's arrogance continues to rule the day.

5) Kerry's campaign continues to use some sort of variation of this phrase: "official navy/military/goverment documents/citation should to be enough proof that Kerry isn't lying". In the article cited above, Thomas Sowell states: "Some have argued that an official government citation ought to be conclusive proof that Kerry is telling the truth. But what was that citation based on, other than Kerry's own report? Others who were on the same scene say that there was no enemy fire and that none of the other officers filed any report of enemy fire.

The same people who now say that an official government report should be conclusive proof did not regard George W. Bush's honorable discharge from the National Guard as conclusive at all as to whether he had fulfilled his service obligation."

Hmmm, yet another example of rank hypocrisy by lefties....who would have thought it possible?

6) The entire reason we're even having a "discussion" (a very loose interpretation of that word to be sure) about whether SBVFT is a front or not is because of McCain-Feingold. OpinionJournal - John Fund on the Trail highlights this, while also hitting on some of the issues addressed in #2 above.

One more time for the official record, W has stated repeatedly that all 527's should stop running ads. Kerry agrees to a point....he only wants the ads critical of him to be pulled. Again though....can ya blame him, without the cover of "I'm a Viet Nam war hero", he will be exposed for the anti-military lefty that resides beneath the neatly coiffed hair.

So....what can we expect from Kerry tomorrow? I would not bet against more whining and comlpaining.

Kerry's Dilemma, part drei

2004-08-22T13:01:00.000-05:00

A nice listing of some of the questions Mr. Kerry ought to be answering, as opposed to filing FEC complaints appears in Investor's Business Daily: We are Waiting. They pretty much hit all the bases.

Kerry's Dilemma, part deux

2004-08-22T12:50:00.000-05:00

Another column that illustrates Kerry's current conundrum: Michael Barone: Winter in Cambodia (8/30/04)

BTW, has anyone else noticed that for all the Kerry campaign's bluster about the Swiftees being liars.....it is Kerry who is changing his stories, not the Swiftees.

The "overlooked fact of the day" is that the SBVFT PAC is unincorporated. Why is that important? Because if they are lying, then Kerry has the recourse of suing them....all.....individually. The fact that he filed an FEC complaint against W's campaign and not a district court complaint against the Swiftees for defamation and/or libel is actually quite telling. Is it any wonder the mainstream media doesn't seem to want the unincorporated status of SBVFT to be passed on the to the masses?

Kerry's dilemma

2004-08-22T12:19:00.000-05:00

An excellent article by Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard, titled: The Bloody Shirt Is Back.

Given Kerry's complete public personna since returning from Viet Nam, he had little choice but to make his 4 months there a centerpiece of his campaign. He's running for president in the middle of a war. He knows what happened to McGovern, so he has to try anything to portray himself as a strong leader for these times. His use of his military record is a clear acknowledgement that his public service record as Lt. Governor and U.S. Senator is far too dovish for today's electorate.

Sooner or later the "debate" won't be about his four months of service 35 years ago, it will be about what he's done the last two decades as compared to W's performance as Commander in Chief. Kristol is dead-on in the above article, Bush's service in the TX and AL ANG is irrelevant to his campaign. He HAS a record as Commander in Chief to run on....Kerry doesn't.

Kerry's imending implosion

2004-08-20T16:14:00.000-05:00

It appears that the meltdown is now well under way. Senator Kerry's campaign has demanded that Unfit for Command's publisher pull the book. (Note to self: make sure to always remember that "free speech" is only tolerated when it criticizes Republicans or Conservatives.) Hey John, why not just answer the charges made in the book instead of trying to prevent its distribution. A serious refutation will pull the rug out from under the Swiftees and their claims. Why not give it a try? Or is there some reason you won't? I wonder...

You claim you want to talk about the issues facing America. Why didn't you do that when on the stage back at the Fleet Center? Instead you made a grotesque spectacle of your service. You wanted people to look at your service, or at least your version of your service. Like they say: be very careful what you wish for....you just might get it!

From Blogs for Bush: "Kerry's campaign strategy of talking about his 4 months in Vietnam to no end is backfiring drastically. Perhaps now Kerry will want to talk about the real issues of this campaign." but, I'm not so sure he even wants to talk about the issues now. Let's remember, he chose to make his service in Viet Nam his chief qualification for office. The reason for that is quite likely that he knew he couldn't base his campaign on a very forgettable 19 year stint in the U.S. Senate. A career in which he took both sides on nearly every issue, and the only exceptions would have been stands taken well to the left of the American mainstream. (Read: nuclear freeze.)

Well folks, pop some popcorn top off your soft drink and get comfy, this is going to be fun to watch!

Some thoughts about the Electoral College

2004-08-20T11:23:00.000-05:00

I have always been a fan of the Electoral College. If we are a republic, then the system makes perfect sense. If however, people wish to have our political system changed to a true democracy then by all means, let's dump the system in favor of a strict popular vote. Paul Greenberg: What's right with the electoral college touches on a few of the issues in the debate. I believe he is dead on when he says that a popular vote election would end up being a giant fiasco.

Many people complain that Bush, and before him Clinton, did not win a majority of the vote totals. What they mean is that for the last 3 elections, the winner has not received more than 50% of the vote. (sidebar: I believe that will change this go 'round, but we'll see.) While it is not required to have more than 50% of the vote, it is important for a president's ability to claim a mandate and govern effectively. Scraping the Electoral College would allow someone to campaign only in say 10-12 states and win the election. Imagine the complaints we'd be hearing then!

The Founding Father's understood the pitfalls of an open and complete democracy. The Senate exists as a counter-balance to the House of Representatives, which the Founders understood could be easily swayed by passions and popular sentiment. If the Senate and Electoral College didn't exist, imagine how easy it would be for a (true) demagogue to stir up passions, get himself elected with significantly less than a majority and bring with him a slate of new legislators.

Sound far fetched? Consider that Germany in the early 1930's did not have a Senate or an Electoral College. Despite the hyperbole from many on the left, George W. Bush isn't an American Hitler. The Constitutional structure our Founding Father's put in place prevents that from happening. All you need to do to refute that idiotic sentiment is ask this question: "Did Bush get all his judges appointed?" Clearly the answer is no. The reason why is because even a minority party in the Senate wields a fair amount of power in the "checks and balances" arena.

The Electoral College is part of the "checks and balances" we need to continue to function as the greatest nation on earth.

Day one...

2004-08-20T09:20:00.000-05:00

Well this ought to get interesting folks. Seventy some-odd days and Kerry is just entering full meltdown mode.

Fearless prediction time......W wins in a cakewalk.