The Voting Booth, Volume II

Welcome to the next exciting edition of The Voting Booth. In today's episode, we'll discuss the debate that just ended in Maryland between all of the GOP candidates known as "I'm sorry, your name again?" and "I didn't know he was running." And let's not forget "I wish he actually had a shot." (in fact, as I search the Internet for articles regarding this debate, I find that I may be the first to respond!)

Those present were: Sen Sam Brownback of KS, Rep Ron Paul of TX, Form Amb Alan Keyes of MD, Rep Tom Tancredo of CO, Rep Duncan Hunter of CA, Form Gov of AR Mike Huckabee. Those missing (conspicuously signified by an empty podium for each candidate) Mitt Romney, Rudy, McCain, and Fred Thompson.

Allow me to attempt to highlight the main talking points of each person:

Form Gov of AR Mike Huckabee: (He should absolutely be using the movie I <3 Huckabee in his campaign!) Definitely the most gentle spirit on the stage. Which means I don't remember much of what he said. He's not a fan of the death penalty, but sees it as a necessary evil in our society. He's very against the three strikes and you're out law, calling for more alcohol and drug rehabilitation rather than prison time. Oh yes, and when the question was about the Sudan, he managed to get in an anti-abortion sound byte.

Rep Ron Paul of TX: He is clearly the Libertarian in Republican clothes. He spoke most of allowing people to "keep the fruits of their labor," questioning our "world cop" mentality, arguing against the war on drugs, and tightening up our boarders. He sounded like Kerry when speaking about the war, how we needed to simply get out, we went in on false pretenses and now were mired in a five year battle with no end in sight. He said that when we fight wars, "They should be declared, we should go in with strength, with the thing and get out." He seems to be waaaay right in regards to the economy and waaaay left when it comes to the war. Good luck with that.

Sen Sam Brownback of KS: Somehow, on a stage of nearly all white candidates, Sen Brownback looked the whitest. I don't know what that means, but he seemed most out of place at this debate that was targeted at the African American voter. He proposed a reform to drug laws, said that we should support the people of Darfour with food and medical supplies, but not boots on the ground, and he had a solution for Iraq: Split it into three sections. The North for the Sunis, South West for the Kurds, and South East for the Shiites with Bagdad everyone's (or no one's) right at the hub where the three meet.

Rep Tom Tancredo of CO: It's unfortunate that ___ thinks so much faster than he can speak. He had many good things to say, not the least of which was regarding actually enforcing our laws against the hiring of illegals, questioning why it is believed that a black student would learn better if he were seated next to a white student, and his plan to "bring back the family doctor" through tax incentives. However, frequently, he "pulled a Mammet." (Watch Oleana, Glen Garry Glenross, State and Main, Heist, or Spartan and you'll understand.) Every time he answered a question, he began a sentence, then changed his mind midstream and would began an new sentence before the previous one had been completed. It was sadly distracting from many of the excellent points he had to make. Not the least of which was how illegals hurt workers at the "lowest rung" of our society by working for less than minimum wage.

Rep Duncan Hunter of CA: While he was the most personable debater, the "Friendship Ditch" from Speechless could have been the brain child of this candidate. He proposed a 800+ mile fence along our southern boarder stretching from Texas, through Arizona & New Mexico, ending in California. However, he also raised the solution of soaring health care coverage as capping malpractice suits in order to lower the insurance that doctors have to pay simply to practice what they spent 12 years learning. He also had a viable (though somewhat scary) plan for "leaving Iraq in victory." He proposed that we cycle the Iraqi soldiers through the most dangerous places in order to make them "battle tested." Once they are battle hardened, we can leave knowing they can handle the security of their country. Oh, yes, and he actually quoted Jack Kemp when he said, "A rising tide lifts all boats."

Form Amb Alan Keyes of MD: The only African American candidate at this debate focusing on "black issues." His primary focus was on the disintegration of the African American family and how that's lead to the high drop-out rate, high unemployment, high prison population, etc. Keyes was without question the most talented and passionate speaker. (If I call him eloquent, am I being racist? congrats to those of you who caught that reference) It seemed to me that the moderator always gave him less time than the others, maybe that's just because I liked hearing him talk.

Some of the topics that were discussed were:

The War: Everyone talked about getting out, some sooner than others. Paul and Hunter held the farthest opposing views on this one, with Paul playing the cut and run card and Hunter the stay till the job is done, then get out. And let's not forget Brownback's dividing of the country. (Just imagine if England made such a demand on us! We'd be outraged!)

Illegal immigration: No amnesty here! One of the topics they agreed on. Some delved into their plans more than others, including Huckabee's fence (which he mentioned after saying, "we should be thankful that we still live in a country people are trying to break into, rather than trying to escape from!"), Tancredo's "enforce the laws we have," and Keyes' "illegals help raise the unemployment level of blacks."

If DC should be allowed to have representation in Congress: More dissension ranging from Hunter's "if they want to be represented, give the land back to the states it came from and they can be represented." to Brownback's give them a representative. Most discussed the need to alter the Constitution to make this happen.

Photo ID cards for voting: No one really seemed to be against this one. Huckabee suggested a "voter photo" card, when you register you get your picture taken. Paul liked the idea of photo ID to vote but was obviously afraid of a "national ID card" saying he would veto any such measure (what exactly is my passport then?) Almost all of the candidates tied this into illegals voting and the need to prevent that.

The Death Penalty: Very split. Hunter did try to claim it was a deterrent. Tancredo wanted to reserve it for treason. See Huckabee's comment above. Paul's answer was not memorable, but I think he was against it. Brownback wants a "culture of life." Keyes had an interesting take saying that it was necessary so that when the crime was black on black, the perpetrator wouldn't think that the life they took was any less valuable than any other, he was for it.

Integration of Schools: Hunter said the population of the school should reflect the population of the community and shouldn't be too far for mom and dad to come in if necessary. Tancredo talked about needing more options and a voucher system.

Welfare/Unemployment: Paul somehow tied minimum wage into the reason that there are more unemployed African American High School graduates than there are unemployed white High School drop-outs, but not very well (I didn't get the correlation). But he also suggested making certain professions tax exempt if someone is taking it to "get back on their feet." He specifically mentioned waitstaff. Huckabee and Tancredo both blamed racism in the workplace and Keyes blamed the down fall of the black family unit and the fact that the welfare system pays people not to work.

Healthcare: Hunter wanted people to be able to purchase healthcare "across state lines" similar to car insurance. "A CA policy might cost $90/month and an NJ policy might cost $300/month but the NJ resident can not purchase the CA policy." Huckabee wanted federal assistance for healthcare to be equal to the percentage of the ill in each people group. For example, if 60% more black have heart disease, then they should get 60% more assistance.

Economic Growth: This was tied into the welfare and unemployment section but there were some interesting ideas that were shared. Paul, of course, had somewhat of a laize faire attitude. Hunter sounded a bit like Reaganomics. Brownback suggested location specific tax breaks. So the places that need the economic growth would benefit from exemptions for their town/city/zip code.

So, I know you are dying to hear you I would support. This is a tough one. There were aspects of each candidate that I really liked. I suppose, overall, I'd have to choose Alan Keyes. He's very likable. I think he could win votes from across the ailse. His statements make sense, they are well thought out, and not so much of an emotional appeal as they are simply logical solutions. I really liked a lot of what Tancredo had to say, and if Paul weren't such a leftist kook when it came to the War on Drugs and the war in Iraq he might have taken my #1 spot. Alright, just because I've been posting on sports so much, here's my "power ranking" for the candidates who debated tonight:

1)Keyes
2)Tancredo
3)Paul
4)Hunter
5)Huckabee
6)Brownback

Don't miss our next installment of "the Voting Booth." Coming soon to a blog near you!

NFL Power Rankings Week 3

Lots of movement this week including the biggest fall in JMO:JTF history!

1)New England (3-0) Last week: 1

Big wheels keep on rolling! Three games, three wins, three times 38 is on the scoreboard! Some are prematurely saying 19-0, but I'm pretty comfortable saying "Look out Post Season!"

2)Dallas (3-0) Last week: 5

Go go go Romo! What evasive techniques against a typically crushing Bear's D! Has America found their team again?

3)Indianapolis (3-0) Last week: 2

Hobbling over a hurt Houston? Not the powerhouse of years past, yet you still find ways to win.

4)Green Bay (3-0) Last week: 6

Sit down San Diego!

5)Pittsburgh (3-0) Last week: 4

yeah, yeah, yer three and oh, but you've beaten KC, Buffalo, and the 49ers. Granted convincingly (which is why you're number 5) but the only team that even had a shot was SF. The key to your power ranking is the number of TDs scored against you: 1!

6)Tennessee (2-1) Last week: 9

As I expected, defeated the Saints on Monday night. Nearly handed Indy their first loss, you are on the way up!

7)Houston (2-1) Last week: 8

You almost handed Indy thier first loss. They handed you your first tally in the loss column, but you'll pull out of it. I expect a second place finish from you!

8)Jacksonville (2-1) Last week: off

Surprising surge. Surprised Denver as well, I'm sure. Keep it up and keep climbing!

9)Seattle (2-1) Last week: off

Sent Cinci packing (just like Cleveland) Not sure that it will last (hence the 9th ranking) but it looks like you should be able to handle most of the teams coming your way... There just not very good.

10)New York Giants (1-2) Last week: off

What a comeback against Washington! So you DO have some life left! Let's see it next week to, you've gotten back on JMO:JTF, now let's see you get higher than 10!

Notable removals: Chicago: Talk about a fall from grace! From the third spot to off the top ten. At 1-2 if you wanna get back on, maybe a new QB is the answer. San Diego: 1-2? 1-2? Ok, you beat Chicago (the team which has the opposite of your problem.) Where's your D? (of course, the Bears gave up over 30 against Dallas..) I'm really disappointed in you. What are you gonna do to come back from this terrible start? Cleveland: Props for getting on, but no one really expected you to stay. Maybe if you'd handled Oakland with ease, but not if you lose to them. Sorry.

Here's my free speech

Alright! Finally something non sports related that has captured my interest!

Florida State Student Tasered by Police!

I'm sure we've all seen the video by now. A FSU student at a John Kerry speech confronts Kerry on why he hasn't impeached President Bush and tosses a query regarding Kerry's membership in Yale's Skull and Bones club (of which Bush is also a member). Then proceeds to not allow the Senator to answer the questions. Apparently he sees the 15 seconds he's been given to pose his questions as a soapbox for the spewing of his own political agenda. Once he exceeds his time limit, the AV folks cut his mic. He becomes livid. Irate. After watching his erratic behavior for several moments, the campus police begin to attempt to escort him from the room. He resists. Finally, about seven officers have him pinned to the ground where he continues to resist. One of them gets out the taser. The student sees this and, while still resisting, admonishes the officer that tasing him is not necessary. The officer disagreed and we got the above headline.

So questions arise: What about free speech? Why didn't Kerry demand that the police unhand the poor boy? Did they use excessive force? I read one person refer to this incident as "the death of freedom in America."

Are you kidding me?! The death of freedom in America? Look, if you are going to ask a question, let the subject of your inquest answer it! If you are going to attend a function that has specific rules and regulations, follow them! If you are going to make an ass of yourself and the police think that you're behavior is too erratic for public safety, obey them!

Look, if the kid wanted to spout off he should have found some other way to do it. Stand outside with a megaphone. This way you aren't subjecting yourself to their rules. Get a column published in your school paper. There's no way you can be too left in a state university! Or do what some other intelligent people do: Blog it!

Kerry had no jurisdiction there, either. I've heard a few people talk about how weak he looked that he didn't say anything. He'd have looked even weaker (and foolish) if he were demanding that the police let him go and they were ignoring him. These weren't his secret service (not that he has any, and even if he did, they probably wouldn't listen to him either) they were campus police. Kerry made the right move by remaining silent during the incident.

Oh, and about those charges that have been levied against the boys in blue regarding "excessive force," they're ludicrous. I'd like to submit two questions for you:

1) What if the student were a Republican asking why Kerry thinks the government knows better how to spend our money? Or if he had been the descendant of a swift boat veteran, asking why Kerry choose to aggrandize his service record? What if someone with that type of worldview began acting in a similar manner? Would the tasing have been excessive? (I still say "no" by the way.)

2) What if (God forbid) the student went Virginia Tech on the audience? Would we not be saying, "Why didn't they stop him? Why did they allow him to go over his time limit? Couldn't they see he was losing control?" Aren't way too many people trying to blame VT's decisions of that day for the tragedy? Seems to me the police would be the favorite target if they didn't do anything as well. Sorry people who daily put their lives in jeopardy so that I can feel safe while I sip my $8.57 (not including tip) grande mocha latte complaining about the war in another country that I'm not really feeling the effects of while I offer zero solutions to solve it, you're wrong no matter what you do.

So, children, what can we learn from this? ("And so what we have learned applies to our lives today...") Read my lips: Never resist arrest! He wasn't tasered for his political opinions. He wasn't tasered because he went over his time limit. He wasn't tasered because he was disrespectful to an elected official. He wasn't even tasered because he started acting like an idiot. He was tasered because he resisted the authorities. Look, if you're right and their wrong, you'll look like even more of a martyr when the truth comes out and people see how compliant you were. This kid has some sore wrists and two red welts somewhere on his body right now. He could have avoided them, but he asked for them and he deserved them.

(And on a totally unrelated side note: If a "politicians" job is to make laws. Why don't we just refer to them as law makers? What's the difference between a "politician" and a "law maker?" Seriously, I want to hear the connotations that those words carry for you)

A Brief Memo to Terry Francona From Every Citizen of Red Sox Nation Who Bleeds Boston:

For the love of all things good and pure, and for the hope of the playoffs and winning the division: Cease and desist putting Eric Gagne in the game close and late!!

Thank you.

NFL Power Rankings Week 2

Some new faces and some fall of the chart entirely on this weeks JMO:Just the facts! No one is safe!

1) New England (2-0) last week:2

Who needs cameras?! They made SD look like KC! And how many times did LT see the zone? Zero! Granted, this was at home, but it was an amazing show of power. Indy better watch out!

2) Indianapolis (2-0) last week:1

Almost toppled by a tepid TN? Perhaps the strong showing against NO last week was because they're pretty bad, not because your D has suddenly arrived.

3) Chicago (1-1) last week:4

Winning because your defense can score. You do what you gotta do. This isn't the offensive power rankings, it's the whole team that counts. Keep finding ways to win and maybe Rex will contribute as well.

4) Pittsburgh (2-0) last week: off

Two games, 10 points against! That's not something to sneeze at. Plus, convincing wins both weeks. Now let's see if you can continue against teams other than KC and Buff...

5) Dallas (2-0) last week:5

Looked like you could have used TO's recording of MIA's D! Looked like you struggled a bit against a pretty poor team. I've no doubt you'll climb as the weeks roll on, but there were other's better than you in week two.

6) Green Bay (2-0) last week:7

A surprising win against Eli and the G-men sending them to 0-2. Special teams getting it done as well. Favre looked superb. I guess it really is age before beauty.

7) San Diego (1-1) last week:3

Chicago held you to 10 points at the half. NE held you to 14 for the game and LT has 1 rushing TD over two weeks. Where's the offensive powerhouse we were told to expect? (And why does LT get to wear a tinted visor? Is it migraines? I'd think six 250+ lbs men slamming into you at full speed would cause more migraines than a little light. Or is it so that the D can't see your eyes. Just wondering, because it didn't seem to matter last week.

8) Houston (2-0) last week:10

Looks like ATL should have let Schaub play last year! They might have done better than the sub .500 season they had. Off to a great start and defeated a not-too-shabby CAR! What's next? Indy?

9) Tennessee (1-1) last week:off

Two points. Two points from beating Peyton and the Colts. An excellent showing, welcome to the top ten.

10) Cleveland (1-1) last week:off (32)

Yes, Cleveland, I had you pegged as the worst team in the NFL and no one is more surprised than me that you've made it on to JMO:JTF. However, I cannot ignore 51 points scored against the Bungles. Sure, you gave up 45, but you still won! Because of this, I now vow never to bet on football, ever!

Notable removals: NO (0-2) last week: 9. Tampa Bay?! You lost to Tampa Bay? I'm disgusted! Cincinnati (1-1) last week: 6. No. seriously. That's not funny. You were my lock of the week. I will never trust you again. New York Giants (0-2) last week: 8 Hurt or not you've gotta find a way to win or I'm going to have a very sad brother-in-law!

Honorable Mention: New York Jets (0-2) Hey, New York has a Clemens that can throw! Too bad they don't have receivers who can catch. The rookie tied the game three times against a tough BALT D, only to have his wide outs drop the touchdown passes. Whoops, next time he won't hit you in the hands.

Patriots Caught Spying?

Has JMO become solely a sports blog? It may appear as much, but fear not, the other topics will return shortly. In the meantime, we do have other sports topics to discuss.

I have a few other thoughts regarding the way that Major League Baseball records the stats for pitchers. For starters, in the 30-3 win that the Rangers celebrated over the Orioles, a Rangers pitcher recorded a save! Yes, a save was awarded when the pitcher had a 27 run lead! Why? Did he somehow allow the tying run to come to the plate without allowing a run to score? Nope, it's because he pitched the last three complete innings. How ridiculous! Also, if it's a pitcher's fault, a save shouldn't be awarded if the pitcher allows the tying run to come to the plate. I'm alright if the pitcher comes in with a four run lead and the bases loaded, but if he allows the runners and then saves the game? You gotta be kidding! It's almost a way for pitcher's to pad their stats. "Let's see, it's not a save for me with a four run lead unless the tying run gets to bat. So I'll get these two outs and then load the bases..." Additionally, if a pitcher allows a runner to reach and then is pulled from the game, if that runner scores because of the performance of the reliever, it's charged to the pitcher who allowed him to reach! So if Petit walks the bases loaded in the ninth after pitching a no hitter, Rivera comes in, allows those three runs to score and then gets three outs. Rivera's ERA for the game is 0.0, Petit didn't allow a hit, gave up three walks, yet his ERA increases by 0.33 and if his team scored 2 or fewer runs, he gets the loss! Some statisticians have begun to record "inherited runners allowed to score" and "holds" (which is when the pitcher prevents inherited runners from scoring when it's not a save situation), but they still score ERA the archaic way. Add these thoughts to my previous ones regarding MLB Pitching stats and you'll see that something really needs to change!

Ok, now for the main reason for this post: The Patriots seem to be in some hot water. It seems that a Patriot's lackey (Matt Estrella) was caught videoing the Jet's Defensive Coordinator as he sent signals into the Jet's D. (Didn't the Patriot act allow this type of activity?) The punishment has already been handed out. $250,000 fine for the Patriots, $500,000 fine for Belichick personally, and the Patriots lose a first round draft pick! (1st round if they reach the playoffs, 2nd and 3rd if they fail to make it to the post season!) This is a huge fine for something that's nearly useless! How is it useless? Allow me to elaborate:

Vous parlez francais? Si vous ne parlez pas francais, cette mots vous n'aide pas. Si le Patriots ne comprend pas le signifacations le Jets avont pour lui "D", le video est aussi inutile! Basically, what I'm saying is that unless the Patriots have the Jet's defensive play book and know what each gesture means, the video is pointless. Our little Full House is learning sign language, his grandmother isn't. She was baby sitting one night and our little guy was trying to tell her that he wanted his stuffed elephant. Grandma didn't know what he was saying and he got his stuffed lamb instead. It's the same situation here. If New England doesn't know what it means when the coordinator bangs his fists together, then videoing him doing it is pointless.

I heard an insider who knows what goes on in the NFL say, "It's no big deal. It's kinda like Bonds: It's not like the Patriots are the only ones doing it." (So where is the punishment for the baseball players who cheated?) Apparently, the flying Elvises on the side of the Patriot's helmets are actually targets (which we all knew were there anyway. You'll notice the only difficult team they play at home is the Chargers, and it's on week 2! (Anybody else remember that Shawn Merriman tested possitive for steroids last year? I guess that means it'll be the New England Stealers vs the San Diego Juicers.)) I bet it stops now. You'll not hear about another team doing this. It's just too bad the Patriots had to be the example.

Even former Patriots players said that they never saw this while they were on the team. And they didn't receive last minute changes from the sideline after their opponent sent in their defensive play. If you are going to video in order to study it and use it later, wouldn't it make sense to actually use it? Wouldn't your players notice the changes at the line? You can't radio into the QB once a certain amount of time has ticked off the play clock. How do you use this information? Why don't any players (current or former) have any evidence of this being footage being used? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

Let's say the Patriots were doing this to steal signals. Check out what Mike Shanahan (former head coach of the Denver Broncos) said five years ago: "Our guy keeps a pair of binoculars on their signal-callers every game. With any luck, we have their defensive signals figured out by halftime. Sometimes, by the end of the first quarter."

I think that Aaron Schatz said it best on Bill Simmons column:

"On the other hand ... the negative reaction to this is just completely overblown. The Patriots were breaking rules because they are obsessed with getting every minor strategic advantage, but that doesn't change the fact the strategic advantage is minor. The idea that suddenly all three Super Bowl championships are tainted is ridiculous. If they caught Tampa Bay doing this, would people be suggesting that the Bucs' 2002 championship was tainted? Terrell Davis actually suggested on NFL.com that the league should ban the Patriots from the playoffs for two years. You know, since that's how the NFL became the most popular sports league in America, by sending a message to every sports fan in six states that they should go away and stop paying attention for two seasons."

Here's my final thought on the matter (which is my suggestion that Belichick didn't know that it was happening): The head coach for the Jets is Eric Mangini. He used to be a defensive coach under Belichick. If Bill has been doing this for the number of years that other teams allege, why would he do it against a man who used to be in his inner circle? Mangini would have known that this was something that was a regular practice of New England. Just look at the picture. The guy who's videoing is not trying to hide it! It's not like it's a pen camera! It's a huge shoulder camera! He's on the Jet's side of the field! Why would you do this? Was this a $750,000 practical joke that also cost a draft pick? Mangini was a Defensive coordinator... They only videoed the defense... Was it a gag? Was Big Bill just trying to get into Mangini's head? Did Belichick not know it was happening? (Bill's a big fan of film... was Estrella trying to get into his good graces? Has he been fired?) It just makes no sense.

The Patriots "cheated" in a manner that in no way assisted them for that game. My only supposition (if this were truly strategic) is that they were hoping to review the video of the defensive coordinator with video of the game and try to match them up. It just seems so pointless. I am ashamed that my team acted in this manner and I'm mad that they lost a draft pick. But I also feel that the punishment was way too severe. It didn't help them in that game and didn't guarantee an edge in a future game. (And if they've been doing it in the past, it clearly didn't help last year against Indy in the AFC Championship game.) (Is this why the Patriots don't lose to the same team twice in one year?) All in all, I'm pretty irked.

Don't forget to tune in next Tuesday for week two of JMO:Just the Facts.

NFL Power Rankings Week 1

This (I hope) will be a weekly post on JMO. Some of you may remember my power rankings last year (not posted) as "Just the facts", and so they shall remain. So, let's get started:

JMO Power Rankings: Just the facts
Week 1
1) Indianapolis (1-0):

Wow! So there is a "D" in Indy! They held the Saints powerful running game in check and didn't allow them back in the game through the pass. The defending Super Bowl Champions are a force to be reckoned with.

2) New England (1-0):

"Brady to Moss: TOUCHDOWN!" Whew! Get used to hearing that! The Patriots continue to prove that they are a powerhouse. The Jets aren't a bad team but the Pats made them look like one.

3) San Diego (1-0):

They overcame the best D in the NFC. LT threw for another TD. As you can see, there's at good team in SD. Watch out next week, when they play NE!

4) Chicago (0-1):

They held the Chargers to only 14 points! Seven points in the first half! Not many teams will duplicate that feat. Now if they can just find a way to win in spite of Rex.

5) Dallas (1-0):

45 points! And it got to the point where it was as though the announcer would say "And it's third and who cares for the Cowboys." They seemed unstoppable. I guess you have to be if you are going to score 45 points.

6) Cincinnati (1-0):

A come from behind win over a very good Baltimore team. Was it in Ocho Cinco that they were last in the Super Bowl? (Actually, it was Ocho Nueve) Well, Ocho Cinco might just lead them back!

7) Green Bay (1-0):

I'm not above eating my own words. Green Bay held a decent Eagles team in check and managed to pull out a victory. Maybe Favre's hair is actually silver, can they bring the big silver trophy back to Lambeau?

8) New York Giants (0-1):

Nearly came from behind against Dallas. Shrank a 16 point deficit to three. Too bad the injury bug has bitten (and hard). We'll see how you fair with a back up QB and RB. (by the way, when Tiki was on NBC talking about the Giants, he kept saying "we" and "us" and "our." Hey Tiki: You retired! You're not on the team! (Or are you? They don't have a RB, remember?))

9) New Orleans (0-1):

The Colts made them look average! No running game (Bush didn't seem to have an exit strategy on how to get out of the backfield!) and no defense. Better turn it around if you wanna stay on this list!

10) Houston (1-0):

Houston, welcome to your first ever appearance on JMO:JTF! Schaub brings a big victory to the Texans. Can it continue?

Tune in next week to see where your favorite team ends up on Just the Facts!

NFL Preview

Better late than never it's the JMO NFL Preview!

So, with only 1/2 hour to spare before the opening kick-off of the 2007-2008 NFL season, here's what I see happening this year in the NFL:

NFC:

(Let's start with the boring league in the hopes that you'll read all the way through to the end!)

East
Dallas, Philadelphia, New York Giants, Washington
Not nearly as competetive as last year. Watch for a humbled and hungry Tony Romo to lead his team to the top of this division. Without Tiki Barber the Giants will end up cut from the post season. It'll be a close shave, but Philly will edge them out for the wild card spot. There certainly won't be three teams from this division in the big dance like last year.
Winner: Dallas


West
Seattle, San Fransico, Saint Louis, Arizona
This was a difficult division to determine a victor in. Frank Gore impressed a lot of people last year! But Shawn Alexander is still Shawn Alexander and while Hasselbeck is not Brady or Manning, I'd take him if the others were hurt. The Rams and Cardinals remain peranial bottom feeders. That, and how could I pick a team who's star is named Gore?! However, I think the supreme court will hand a wild card berth to the Niners.
Winner: Seattle

North
Chicago, Green Bay, Detroit, Minnesotta
Talk about an easy pick! I submit that there should be a rule that no one with grey hair should be allowed to start at QB for an NFL team. The only reason I think the Packers will finish in second is because Kitna and Bell won't be able to lift the Lions out of the slump and the only name I recongize on the Vikes roster is Ryan Longwell (But I'd hate to have been TE Visanthe Shiancoe in 1st grade! He probably has trouble spelling his name now! "Defense wins championships" is the old adage. It needs to be updated to include a disclaimer regarding the QB. But with their ability to stop the run and the addition of Benson, the Bears will waltz into the postseason.
Winner: Chicago

South
New Orleans, Carolina, Tampa Bay, Atlanta
With out Vick, the Falcons will be Vicktory-less. Tampa may have a Cadillac, but they need a Hum-V. Foster and Smith are still good, but DelHomme is still a toss and hope QB. No question, New Orleans is very happy about one man named Bush as he'll lead the Saints as they go marching into the playoffs.
Winner: New Orleans

AFC

East
New England, New York Jets, Buffalo, Miami
It's tough to not sound like a homer when the rest of your division is so bad. Patriots had no losses they can't over come, and with the Moss threat their WR core is so good they released Caldwell, their leading receiver last year! Don't get me wrong, the Jets will be surprising, not a threat, just surprising. They'll grab a WC spot while Buff and Miami both have sub-five hundred seasons
Winner: New England

West
San Diego, Denver, Kansas City, Los Angeles
LT, Rivers, Gates. If it weren't foolish to have so many people from one team on a fantasy league, I'd start all three of them. Denver's D will lift them over and aging LJ in KC. There's no division where it's easier to pick the team that will finish fourth than this one. The Silver and Black will slither back to LA in last place.
Winner: San Diego

North
Baltimore, Cincinatti, Pittsburgh, Cleveland
I think it's fitting that the Bengals wear orange. That way when the players who are arrested are serving time, they can still show some solidarity with their collegues. Palmer continues to recover and Big Ben's bell's been rung. Watch for Baltimore to sneak into the lead near the end of the season. Cinci snatches a wild card spot.
Winner: Baltimore

South
Indianapolis, Jacksonville, Houston, Tennessee
Even though both Manning brothers were in the top five among QBs with errant passes last year, this brother will still be able to get to the post season. Teams need to learn that the way to stop the Colts is to run the ball. They gave up a league worst 5+ yrd/carry last year, it keeps the clock running and Peyton off the field. (Watch for the Saints to prove that opening night!) With the addition of Shaub to Houston, the Texans will elevate over Young and the Titans. Jacksonville will continue to depress their fans by narrowly missing the post season again this year.
Winner: Indianapolis

Playoffs:
AFC
round 1
NYJ @ INDY winner INDY
CIN @ BALT winner CIN
NE Bye SD Bye

round 2
CIN @ NE winner NE
INDY @ SD winner SD

round 3
SD @ NE winner NE

NFC
round 1
PHI @ SEA winner SEA
SF @ CHI winner CHI
DAL Bye NO Bye

round 2
CHI @ DAL winner DAL
SEA @ NO winner NO

round 3
DAL @ NO winner DAL

SUPER BOWL

NE vs DAL winner NE

(Just in case you missed it, the order in which the teams are listed in each division is the order in which I think they'll finish.) There you have it. So, where am I right? Where am I wrong? lemmie hear your opinion!

The Voting Booth Volume I

I'm not sure why the supposition is that I am hiding my current political leanings. When have I ever been known to not disclose my political views?! The largest reason I've not indulged your queries as of yet is my limited posting time. This, of course, is only one reason why I've not informed my readers of my candidate du jour. A secondary reason is that if I had a candidate du jour, he'd be just that "du jour" (of the day) and he'd change from day to day and week to week. Unfortunately, this year, I am one of the people that political campaigns are aimed at: The Undecided Voter

(For those of you savvy enough to read between the lines will discover one candidate that I will not be voting for: Mrs. Hillary Clinton. Because Condi Rice is not running, if I had a candidate, I can guarantee, that candidate would be a "he.")

This is "The Voting Booth Volume I" because I completely expect my views to change as time goes on. (Look for further volumes in the future.) For volume I, here's what I'll do: I'll list each Candidate and give my current regarding them as they currently stand:

Dennis Kucinich : I'm sorry, I cannot vote for a man who has a campaign platform that states that all Americans should be required to learn Spanish. How can he campaign on this when he wouldn't even require all immigrants to learn English?! Exactly whose vote is he hoping this campaign talking point will win? This is just one of the several places where I truly believe Kucinich to be a bit nutty. Definitely not Dennis.

Obama: I'm not sure I understand his plans for winning the White House. Especially with his assertion that is military plan is to pull all of the troops out of Iraq and then turn around and send them into Iran! Maybe this is something you say once you've won your primary, but the leftist commie peaceniks aren't going to vote for you if they believe that more Americans will be dying on Vietnamese soil! Sorry, we tried that once and it didn't work too well! Find another way to look tough on terrorism. Just like you look tough on the unborn Americans! No partial birth abortion ban for you! Heck, why not just say that as long as the umbilical cord hasn't been cut we can kill them willy nilly. "Well, Ms. Campbell, I'm about to cut the cord, or should I move the scalpel up a few inches and cut the throat instead?" Sorry Barack, try finishing a term in Congress before running for the White House next time.

Hillary: I've issue with the chameleon. How can I trust someone who speaks with a different accent depending on who she's talking to? Of course, this is just the first of a laundry list of issues I take with Mrs. Clinton. How about how the first lady used to be the loudest megaphone for healthcare reform. Now that she's in Congress, she never mentions it. Could that be because she's second on the list of politicians who receive the most money from the Pharmaceutical and Health Care companies? Lobbyists already own her. Not to mention that her political ambitions have never been hidden. She's had her target on 1600 PA AVE ever since she left (and I'm gonna guess that it's not because of the China set she left behind). How NY was dumb enough to elect her in the first place I'll never know. I'm not blinded to her blind ambition and, frankly, it frightens me.

Edwards: Why wouldn't I vote for a man named John Edwards? He and I share the same view of Gay Marriage, (That's about it though), but if I were to vote for a democrat, this is the one. Too bad he's third in the polls. Get those bumper stickers ready with Edwards on the second line. Get out of the way! Beep Beep, he's running for V P!

Rudy: "America's Mayor" only has a chance because of 9/11. As a libertarian, I have to be wary of a "Republican" who served several terms as NYC's Mayor! I'm grateful for what he did in September 2001. When the Federal Government was hiding in bunkers, he was on the front lines. That, however, doesn't make him qualified to be President. I know the crime rate went down while he was in office, but I need more than that. Without knowing more I'll have to say, sorry, Rudy, you may have to stick with Notre Dame.

McCain: Because he McCan! Here's somebody that nobody owns (which is why he would never win) His seat might as well be right in the middle of the aisle! He so rarely votes with the party line that his party doesn't want him and the other party won't take him. Former P-O-W turned to political W-O-W! Yes, I'd vote for McCain.

Mitt : Here's another Republican elected in the Democratic heartland! And what did he do? Well, nothing fantastic socially, however, he was able to get MA out of a huge budget deficit and I'm all for that! I'd have liked to have seen him run again rather than leaving the state to Duval Patrick who refuses to allow the people he appoints to have background checks done on them. Anyway, for purely financial reasons, I'd vote for Romey, but I don't think the nation would elect a Mormon, man of faith or not.

Others: To be honest, I've had difficulty learning what I have about the candidates that everyone knows about. I know that Tommy Thompson recently backed out (uh, yeah, we'll miss him) Is Sharpton running this year? (what the heck does he do, anyway!?)

If the election were held today, I suppose I'd vote for McCain. Ask me tomorrow, it'll probably have changed. Please feel free to let me know your favorite things about your favorite candidates. Try as I may, I've had great difficulty finding actual substance about most of these people. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, most American's don't vote based on the issues anyway. One of my friends recently told me they were going to vote for Hillary because they thought Bill was "sexy." There you have it: The President of the United States elected because "Jon Bon Jovi told me to!"

Well, there you have Just My Opinion as of right now. Visit again once the candidates have been whittled down a bit more and I'll have more to say.

Bonds: Not too sporting

Faithful readers, I have heard your wishes and I now respond. I'd first like to congratulate Major League Baseball's career home run hitting king: Hank Aaron! I'm somewhat surprised that I was expected to have reacted immediately to the Barry "Big Noggin"'s surpassing his God-father on the all time HR list. Why would I bother to commemorate a non-event? Someone can break the land speed record for a person on a bike, but if he does it with a rocket attached to his Huffy does anyone really care? I suppose my only quandary regarding Barry Bonds is this: Why did anyone pitch to him? Do you really want to be the pitcher who gave up #756? I think so! It is my contention that the pitcher who threw the 756th wanted to go into the record books as well and knew that this was one of the only ways to get there. No one will remember who pitched 755, but 756? That'll be in Trivial Pursuit Genus XXIX! I submit the following: Ben Johnson (Canada) set both a World and Olympic record and won a gold metal - all of which were later revoked when he tested positive for steroids. It's they if he never ran. There was a marathon runner in the 1920s who also set a World and Olympic record until his picture appeared in the paper. Turns out he'd hitched a ride with a motorist who came forward to denounce the cheater. There was no test for him to fail, yet his record was also expunged. Why then, do we celebrate this Bonds? This man who has testified that he not only knowingly took steroids but also took a masking agent to hide that fact. This man who has had countless people denounce him as a cheater, some of whom face jail time for leaking grand jury testimony! Why should his "record" stand? It should not. There should be no asterisk and there should be no "record." The only man Hank Aaron has to be concerned with is the mitt-slappin' A-Rod. 31 years old, averaging 50 HR/year, just passed 500 HRs. "I-Got-It" A-Rod will hold the top spot by the time he's 37. And here is the difference between A-Rod and Bonds. Few deny that A-Rod cheats, but his cheating is for a moment. Yes, he slapped Bronson's glove, yes he called for a pop up while he was running the bases but he doesn't cheat every time he steps to the plate. He doesn't cheat every time he walks onto the field, he hasn't cheated non stop for the past 6 years. In essence, his cheating is far more tolerable than Barry's. But here is the real kicker: The lucky man who caught #756, the random man who suffered a bloody nose for his prize, the "everyman" who had to be escorted from the stadium under police protection, must pay taxes on his acquisition as though it were income! I am not making this up. He will have to pay the federal government taxes on the value of the ball which is estimated at $600,000! Does this whole situation make anyone else wanna puke? I'm just glad it's over.

Speaking of baseball, I think it's time for the equation that determines which pitcher earns and win and which one a loss to be changed! In 2003, Tim Wakefield pitched a 1 hit complete game against the Yankees. The one hit was a home run by Jason Giambi that barely squeaked over the short porch. He lost 1-0 and got the L. Completely undeserved! In 2005, Keith Foulke blew a two run lead in the top of the ninth as the Blue Jays came back to tie the game. The Red Sox scored in the bottom of the inning and Keith, though he earned a blown save, got a W by his name, also completely undeserved. Even though I was livid when he said it, I think Pedro was correct when, after a 2-0 complete game loss, he said, "Tomorrow the papers will say that Pedro lost. But Pedro did not lose. Pedro pitched a game his team should have won." (How's that contract looking now, Mudflaps?) Here is what I suggest: If a starting pitcher allows two runs or fewer he should be ineligible for the L. The worst that he should receive is a no decision regardless of the outcome. It's not his fault if his team can't score (especially in the AL). Furthermore, a starter should not be required to go five innings in order to be eligible for the W if he can get the L as soon as he throws a pitch or a reliever can come in for a third of an inning and get the W! If a reliever blows a hold or a save and his team comes back to win he should be ineligible for the W. Finally, all of these revisions require one major change in philosophy in the recording of the Ws and Ls of each game: It will have to be ok if some games don't have a winning pitcher or a losing pitcher! For all of the cabermetrics that Billy Beanites love, why doesn't anyone but me care about this completely misleading stat?

I turned on the TV tonight and was astonished to see on FOX the following across the top of the screen: "IND 3 DAL 3" As my Yankee friend would say, "Hip hip Jorge!" Football has arrived! It made the fact that it wasn't quite as bright out when I left work today nearly bearable. After settling down and watching about four minutes of this preseason exhibition game I realized that watching 11 scrubs go three-and-out is not my idea of a good time. Bring on the real thing!

Well, you asked for it. Request sports and you'll get nothing but! Now that you've read JMO, what's yours?

Censoring Handy Religion

A new month: a new post (or so it seems). Let's just get right to it:

The Boston Red Sox have an 8 game lead and Eric Gagne! Do you hear me complaining? I think not! Especially seeing as Gagne has agreed to be a set up man! So, now the BoSox have three closers pitching one after another: Okajima in the seventh, Gagne in the eighth, Papelbon in the ninth. Have fun everybody! Bonds still sits at 753 and A-Rod at 499, Clemens gave up 8 runs in the second inning, the Sox have added a game to their lead in August, and Randy Moss is at training camp though currently day to day with a "leg injury." (Belichick just loves leg injuries!) All is right in the world of sports!

Can someone explain to my why the New York Yankees who have a line up with Damon, Jeter, Abreu, Giambi, A-Rod, Matsui, and Posada yet a bullpen that has given up more leads than that of the 2005 Kansas City Royals would trade their only every day reliever for another power bat?! I'm stymied! Buh Bye Proctor, hello Betimit. Buh Bye October, hello golf course!

I realized the other day that I probably haven't ever posted anything that would cause my blog to be censored in China. I thought that was a shame, so here are the top five reasons China should become a republic:

5) What are you afraid of? Do you think the communist party won't win the election?
4) It's done nothing but unite the people of the US
3) One sixth of the world's population can't all be wrong
2) It would be unbearably entertaining to hear American news anchors attempt to pronounce the names of all of the candidates
1) Hilary would have one less country to point to as an example of why her political platforms would be successful

There you go, Reds: Censor away!

The other day in a DVD store, due to a miscommunication with my friend Aquinas, the concept for a new movie popped into my head. Pygmalion vs Predator I can picture it now: (in an uppity British accent) "No no no! A prroperr predatorr rrolls his "r"s when he is announcing whom he will devourr!" "Yes, they met a vile and disgusting death, but he was exceedingly polite during the entire endeavor." "I do believe I am the victorious party in regards to our wager: The Predator is now an absolute gentleman of an extra terrestrial as he mutilates humans for no apparent reason." (Please send me any royalty checks if you choose to advance my concept any further, thank you.)

I recently saw a computer generated children's program called "Handy Manny." It is a Disney show starring a Hispanic handyman named Manuel who has talking tools (also Hispanic) that help him fix things. Harmless, right? Consider the following: There is another main character, a very very white neighbor who doesn't like Manny because the neighbor always wants to do his own handyman jobs. He always fails (and looks like an idiot in the process.) "But that's just one character," you say? Every single person that Manny helps was white. In fact, there was not another minority character in the entire show. Not even the people wandering around in the background on the street. Once Manny is called to a job, his tools hop out of his belt and do all the work while Manny is the one who gets paid. There is no veiled message about how we need "guest workers," right? It's not suggesting that Manny is a legal immigrant getting work for his illegal friends that he's hiding in his crew, right? If I'm so far off base, please supply your speculations as to why every tool is also Hispanic. And why Di(versity)sney suddenly doesn't have an African American, Asian, Inuit or Handicapped person represented in this innocent program. Oh, and did I mention that their oft repeated little song is "we can fix it together"? Need I say more?

And finally, the ever present political commentary: Have you heard? The left has fooouuuund the LORD! Hallelujah! The political party that once asked how it was Constitutional for the government to deal in a close partnership with faith based organizations is now broadcasting just how spiritual they really are! Why this sudden new-found faith? Why now? Because President George W. Bush (#1 on the left's "most hated" list) has served two terms thanks to the blind, one issue voting of the Religious Right (not to be confused with the blind, one issue voting of the Green party or the gay activists). Are we witnessing a revival in the Democratic party? Is the Lord coming down from the stratosphere? Or is the left conjuring up a strategy? If Ms Clinton is so very religious, why is she only declaring it now, after 18 years in the national public eye? How can Mr Obama be a committed believer and not only vote against a partial birth abortion ban but attempt to justify it in the process? Perhaps Mr Edwards is the only one not putting on a new face for this campaign. When interviewed by TIME Magazine he was the only one who didn't select "Amazing Grace" as his favorite hymn. Honestly, the actual action doesn't bother me. Both political parties pull out all of the stops in an effort to steal votes from the other's main base. What saddens me is that I can foresee a large portion of the American public not seeing this for the farce that it is. It is not a change in lifestyle, it is simply a change in strategy.

Have I ruffled a few feathers? Sound off in the comments! But never forget, after all, it's all just my opinion.

All Star Revolution

Once again, it has been too long since I last offered my faithful readers a slice of my opinion. Top my absence off with the fact that I will be on vacation with my family for two weeks, I simply had to post before leaving. Here are a few things that have been on my mind:

Let's start with the All Star Game (because what would JMO be if it didn't start with sports?). A few quick thoughts: No one should be surprised (including a certain Brit I know who probably won't read this) that the American League won for the 10th straight year. I saw something last night that I never want to see again: Jonathan Papelbon pitching into the mitt of Jorge Posada! What's up with a multimillionaire getting a free 2008 vehicle for being MVP? Wouldn't it be a better plan to have a fan of his team win the car? Kudos to the managers of each team for selecting deserving players and not stuffing the remaining roster spots with their own team members (*cough* Ozzie *cough* Guillen). Home Run Derby: Wicked boring. Let's try highlighting some other skill next year. Okajima certainly deserved to be there, Barry Bonds did not. It's the first time I've ever seen someone go to the All Star Game because they lead the league in OBP (which is because no one wants him to break the record so if they don't have to pitch to him, they won't)! He's only got 17 HR (just over half of a truly deserving All Star like A-Rod). Anyone think it was more than a coincidence that he was voted to attend when the game is in his home park? Oh, and did anyone else hear his interview with Peter Gammons? Bonds was saying why the people who really know him like him. He said, "I don't party, I don't go to clubs, I don't do [pause] wild things." Yes, he paused. What would a normal person say there? Probably "I don't do drugs." Sorry Barry, you can't say that.

I've been thinking this for quite some time and have been putting off posting about it because I've always had more pressing, time sensitive matters to comment on. However, as we head into the heart of campaign season, I believe this is the appropriate time to finally make my revelation for revolution public. Here is my epiphany: The United States is too large geographically for a strong Federal government! This is why there is such division between the two parties and the citizens who identify with them. Here is my solution (This probably will not surprise anyone): The role of the Federal government should be limited and three-fold: provide national defense, decide international foreign Policy, and uphold the Constitution. There should be no laws created by the Federal government that cannot be easily categorized in one of those three purposes. In order to fund their responsibilities, the Federal government would be allowed to demand a certain amount of tax from each State government (not individual citizens or businesses) based on the per capita earnings of each state. It would be up to the State governments to determine how they would tax their residents (or non residents, if they choose to tax tourism) in order to meet that obligation and fund their own government and programs. Under my plan, (lockbox) each individual state would make their own laws about everything from the maddeningly mundane to the crazily controversial. This way, if you believe that partial birth abortions should be legal but never want to see a criminal put to death, you can choose to live in MA. However, if you believe that everyone should be presented with a free gun by the government on their 13th birthday and that every felon should face the possibility of dying for their crime, you can elect to live in TX. People and businesses will gravitate towards the states that have the laws with which they most agree. Suddenly, MT is booming and NY is a wasteland. Additionally, this would allow for the possibility of a true Democracy (which we do not have. We live in a representative Republic and anyone who claims that we live in a Democracy should have their right to vote revoked.) We never have any questions on the national ballot because we don't want people in TN telling us in CT how to live. (That's the same logic that will cause the EU to eventually implode. The Czechs, Pols, Brits, etc don't want the Germans dictating how they must live) But if the laws are only created by each state, the people would actually have a chance to have their voices truly heard by choosing which laws will pass and which will fail! Think of the benefits: lobbyists vanish overnight because you can't give every American an all expense paid trip to Greece. If you don't like the laws under which you live, move! People would stop spending in excess of 5 million dollars to win a job that pays $250,000 per year. Sure, there would be some consequences: the birth rate in VT would plummet because homosexual couples can't have babies, and UT's population would explode because Mormons don't believe in birth control. Healthcare would be amazing yet expensive in AZ, and free but terrible in CA. Of course, if Jefferson had fought harder against the Federalists when this nation began, I wouldn't have to be suggesting such a solution. But he didn't and we are stuck with the mess we've got. So who's withme on this? Anyone out there ant to make that which is just my opinion, just theirs?

Not going anywhere for a while?

Welcome one and all. (My all time favorite election season advertisement is the Snickers ad when it was Gore v. Bush. "My dad and I wear the same size pants." "I invented pants." Still makes me laugh way too hard!) As you may be able to guess, based on my moderate absence that I've been gathering blog fodder. What would my regular readers do if I didn't start with sports? (order: Baseball, Fenway, Cable TV, the Presidency, monopolies, Senator Edwards, Sicko)

The thing that drives me most nuts about baseball (apart from players who fill their bodies with illegal performance enhancers in an attempt to break one of the games most sacred records) is the "Proximity out." This play occurs at second base during a double play. For some reason, whether it is the short stop or the second baseman covering, they aren't actually required to touch the bag before throwing to first. Whether they do or not, the runner headed in their direction will be declared (falsely) out. The most grievous of these calls was when the Red Sox were in Atlanta. Edgar Renteria grabbed a ground ball hit by Jason Varitek. He ran toward second base and clearly threw the ball to first before actually reaching second. Mike Lowell was called out at second and 'Tek (who beat the throw that was scooped out of the dirt by the first baseman) was call out at first. So, because of the proximity out, instead of first and second with one out, it was the end of the inning. (if Edgar had actually been required to touch second, there is no possible way the first base umpire could have blown the call as 'Tek would have already past first base before the throw arrived.) Can anyone (Apu) explain this strange exception to the normally stringent rules of baseball?

It's obvious to me that the words "Fenway Park" have gone the way of "Super Bowl." While listening to the Red Sox on WTIC AM 1080 here in CT (Where they break in with a recorded "WTIC" whenever the announcers at the game begin to say "WRKO" or "WEEI Red Sox radio network") I've heard many commercials that reference Boston's home field. However, not one of them mentions it by name. Kevin Youkilis has an advertisement where he talks about his "home park" and "Boston's ball field." Other commercials refer to it as "the home of the Red Sox," "Big Papi's House," and "Boston's landmark stadium." Why is that? Because, in an effort to bleed every dollar they can from the investment that is the Red Sox, the owners now make people pay to say the words "Fenway Park." First Friday Night Baseball, then demanding to own part of WEEI, the Theo issue, now this! How many more ways can the Red Sox front office find to piss off a life long loyal fan like me? Only time will tell.

Speaking of money suckers... Why are there commercials on cable TV? I understand why they are present incessantly on free TV; someone has to pay for the drudgery that's aired on the six stations I get. But if I'm paying a premium to receive cable TV, and the cable companies are paying the stations to have the right to carry their "crap that comes in better," why are the stations also receiving extra funds by airing commercials? Really, it should be one or the other. If I'm going to pay $60 a month for your "service" and you are going to pay millions to ESPN2 just so you can carry their coverage of the National Backgammon Championships, don't let them air commercials! Tell them you won't pay to carry them and nobody's gonna see their money machines. If they want you, oh mighty cable company (who charges the public way too much), to be their conduit into millions of homes demand they remove the commercials! (**sidenote** has anyone else noticed how the only programming out there that has every commercial narrowcast to the specific audience watching is golf?! Every ad during every commercial break has a golf theme. Doesn't even matter what they're selling! If it's an ad for NASCAR, Jeff Gordon and Rusty Wallace are racing in supped up golf carts. It's crazy! **end sidenote**)

I've been thinking recently, (a dangerous past-time, I know), many times the Queen of Hearts has told me that if I begin a career in politics that she'd leave me. Well, I started to think about the reasons that I'd want to be President. Here's what I came up with. The top ten reasons that I would want to be President:
10) To win a "popular election" because just over 20% of the entire US population actually voted for me. (Another 17% voted for the other guy, and 63% stayed home)
9) To completely embarrass my children
8) To ensure that my every word would be scrutinized by millions
7) To have every detail of my past on display for the American public
6) To hit the entire talk show circuit while campaigning (making sure to get on Oprah twice)
5) To be considered wrong by at least 50% of the US population
4) To have every one of my physical imperfections characterized by political cartoonists
3) To spend $5,000,000 to get a job that pays $250,000 per year with a $100,000 per year pension once I'm done. All the while I get to age thirty years in the course of eight. Sign me up!
2) To know that at all times there are at least four people plotting my assassination and one Vice President who wishes one of them would succeed.
And the number one reason that I would want to be president:
1) To be impersonated on SNL!
Really, we have to ask ourselves why anyone would actually want to be President! I say we ask all the candidates and then vote for the one who tells the truth (IE doesn't say "to help the American people.").

In America, we have laws against monopolies. And, unlike some laws, these are actually enforced! However, there is one huge, massive, gigantic monopoly that no one seems to notice. In fact, they are so oblivious to this monopoly that, not only do they look the other way when it swells, they actually want to bestow it with even more monopolies! And it's not even a successful monopoly! It's a business that loses the equivalent to a moderate nations GNP every year! It holds a monopoly on some of the services that our nation requires and it keeps trying to get more and more! So, if we have anti-monopoly laws that are designed to protect Americans from these very practices, why is it that the US government is allowed to be the largest monopoly in the nation and we want to allow it to control more and more?! If the government were a company, would anyone buy stock in it? Is there a more wasteful entity in the country? Just like politics that the only organization allowed to have a monopoly is the very one that is designed to destroy them.

Senator Edwards was on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno (Probably the only thing that he and I have in common). Of course, he took the opportunity to spew some talking points. While being lobbed pre-discussed softballs from the host, he said "the war in Iraq has been a huge equipping tool for our enemies. The White House even admits that we now have more terrorists and [fewer] allies than we had before the war." (The senator actually used the grammatically incorrect term "less" allies. I have corrected it for his benefit.) His purpose with this statement was that these changes were simply due to the fact that we were in Iraq. When, in actuality, this statement simply proves that the strategy of the democrats has been successful: Oppose the war, convince enough people that it won't work, and it will fail. There weren't idealists flocking to join the Nazis when the US people supported their nation's involvement in "Europe's War." There wasn't nation after nation bowing before the altar of Communism while Americans backed their government's handling of the Cold War. However, the South was emboldened the more the Doves in the North protested the Civil War. The North Vietnamese recruited countless soldiers as our young people treated war vets like last weeks garbage. Of course there are going to be more terrorists when they think the US public is divided against itself! Hundreds of soldiers refused to reenlist after Valley Forge, but hundreds more signed up to serve when it looked like the fledgling Continental Army had a chance against the Red Coats. With the activities of the "we're not against the soldiers, we're against the war" lefties, no one should be surprised by the increase in the number of our enemies. Especially not those who were hoping for it.

Michael Moore's new movie Sicko opens in July. He, too, was on The Tonight Show (soon to be "With Conan O'Brien"). Brace yourselves: I liked most of what he had to say! While, on one hand, in pure Michael Moore fashion: He exposed a massive problem while either offering a completely ignorant solution or no solution at all. On the other hand: he did not make it political. He pointed out how Hilary was once a major stumper for Universal (read: governmental) Healthcare and now that she is a Senator, she receives the second most Pharmaceutical money from lobbyists in the Senate. Anyone hear her talking about Healthcare anymore? He also lobbed his attacks at Republicans as well, such as Bush II and Nixon. But his documentary is more about the problem then it is about his proposed solution. (**sidenote** one aspect of the solution must be a cap on malpractice suits. If insurance companies knew that they'd never pay more than, say, $1,000,000 per suit, they'd be able to lower their premiums. If physicians and hospitals that now had less insurance to pay weren't allowed to simply pocket that money as profit, then the cost of procedures would drop. If the cost of procedures fell, health insurance companies would either be able to offer more coverage, or lower premiums. Hence the cost of healthcare drops for all. But we'd rather just put a company that has a trillion dollar deficit in charge of the nations health. Good plan. **end sidenote**) I am actually looking forward to seeing Sicko.

Once again, I've bitten off a mouthful. And while chewing it all, I must admit that it's just my opinion.

No opinions here

This post contains zero personal opinions. I am adding this post in the hopes that people will use it to comment on my new permanent Global Warming links located directly to the left of this post.

Have you taken the Global Warming Quiz? Comment on this post with your thoughts.

Have you visited the climatologists' website? Leave a comment with what you think!

I'm interested to hear all of your reactions. So, please, use this for its intended purpose:

Comment, comment, comment!

Bonds, Pigs, Mayors...

Hurray! This post won't be nearly as long as the previous one. I've only three subjects to cover: Sports, a suggestion, and a logical conclusion.

Sports: As much as it annoys me, this sports section is yet again regarding Barry "Massive Noggin" Bonds (Anyone surprised he plays for the "Giants"?), however it is not about him. Allow me to explain. ESPN (not my employer) celeb Stuart Scott has repeatedly defended the cheater saying that there has been no proof that he actually has cheated. "Innocent until proven guilty" has been his mantra. Well, to that I would remind Mr. Scott (Who currently attends the church I grew up in) that Barry was suing the authors of "Game of Shadows." This is the book that used sealed court documents that were leaked to the authors who chronicled Barry's use of illegal (in regards to both the law of the land and the rules of the game) steroids and other performance enhancers. Now, if Mr. Bonds did not use these substances, he ought to sue for slander and liable. He did not. He sued because they were using sealed court documents. How interesting. His suit does not lead one to believe that their claims were false, but rather added credibility to them! After Mr. Bonds read my post: Dryer Lint, he realized that to sue for slander (meaning that the book was in error in its accusations) meant that he would be perjuring himself and would face jail time, but to sue for improper use of court documents was proving the book to be true and he faced a Pete Rosian punishment, he dropped wisely his suit. While Mr. Scott can ignore these facts as circumstantial, he cannot avoid the comments of Mr. Dan Parsons of Bellingham Washington who wrote into ESPN the Magazine. He writes, "Stuart Scott seems not to understand that "innocent until proven guilty" applies to criminal proceedings only. And to suggest that proof requires a confession or a "positive test" is ridiculous (many criminals would love that standard.) If Barry Bonds is charged with a crime, he will be presumed innocent until he is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If he faces civil charges, the standard of proof will be a "preponderance of the evidence" (think 51%). But even if he never faces an actual judge, the court of public opinion has seen ample evidence to find that Bonds is a cheater." Said much better than I ever could have. I'd also like to remind Mr. Scott that a "reasonable" doubt is not beyond a "Shadow" of a doubt. Barry should face a judge. I have no idea why celebrities like Barry and Paris get special treatment but it is time for that, and for Barry's career, to come to a swift end.

Reason behind the Rhyme? We are all familiar with the little piggies. This one went to market, this one stayed home, etc. I submit to you that this rhyme is actually an anti-Communist pro-capitalist piece of propaganda. Consider this: What if Piggies 1 and 3 were the same piggy? And similarly, what if 2 and 4 also were not two different swine? The rhyme (which, as I now review it in my head, does not actually rhyme) would take on a much different feel. "This little piggy went to market." "Market," is, of course, a widely accepted symbol of capitalism, the free market, the world market, laise faire market, even the stock market. "This little piggy stayed home." Well, if he didn't go to market, if he did not embrace capitalism, he must have selected an alternate economic theory. Perhaps Socialism, but if this is propaganda, it is more likely to be aimed at communism. Back to Piggy 1-3: "This little piggy had roast beef!" Obviously a symbol of wealth and prosperity. This little piggy did not have Spam or even corned beef. No no, he got roast beef! He is basking the fruits of his decision to go to market. Meanwhile, Piggy 2-4 "Got none." Alternatively, he suffers the consequences of not going to market. He does not get the succulent roast beef that the other piggy so lavishly enjoys. The final piggy, the one who "Cried wee wee wee wee wee, all the way home." Is a piggy who is apparently choosing a stance of isolation, similar to the one that America held in the early days of World War II. He is running far from the other two piggies in the hopes that he can wait it out in the safety of his home.

Politics: The Mayor of New Haven Connecticut needs to be arrested. John DeStephano has gone too far in his desire to shield the illegal immigrants in his city from the law. He has, without question, conducted himself in a manner that is a bald-faced attempt to aid and abet and obstruct justice. What has he done? First, he has forced a bill through the city legislature providing "anyone" with photo IDs so that they can take advantage of the services of the city. While anyone may purchase these cards, they are completely unnecessary if you have a drivers license which means only those who are unable to attain a valid drivers license will be in line to receive these cards. It's been no secret that these cards have been specifically designed for illegals (I'll not even add the term immigrant onto the end of their title as that belittles the efforts of honest people to lawfully immigrate into this country). When the bill was passed, there was much celebration outside the government building with shouts of "Yes, we can!" ~ In Spanish, of course. (Anyone else feel like we are being invaded?) Opponents of the bill don't mention the fact that most of the people who will be carrying these cards are felons, they raise the equally valid concern that, with New Haven being the first city in the nation to offer this type of unlawful identification, illegals will now flock to the city and bleed it dry. These cards do nothing more than attempt to provide a safe haven in New Haven for people who brazenly ignore our country's laws. On count one: Aiding and abetting, Mayor John DeStephano is guilty. A few days following the passing of this law and before any illegals could get their government issued IDs (Which will make it easier to obtain drivers licenses which make it possible to attain other benefits they have no lawful right to) the Feds paid a visit to New Haven and rounded up 32 illegals. The Mayor was outraged, calling this a political move. Pardon? Arresting 32 felons is political? What ought we do with felons, then, Mr. Mayor? Let them roam free? What was your little "ID cards for all" campaign? Altruism? There wasn’t a shred of politics behind it? Well, a day or so later 2 more illegals were arrested. What did the Mayor do then? He demanded that the Feds cease and desist. He announced, "Do not conduct any more raids!" Why not?! And who are you Mr. Mayor of New Haven CT to tell the Feds what they can and cannot do while enforcing Federal laws? Perhaps you might want to look up the term "Jurisdiction." You have none over them. Get out of their way and let them do their job. Count two: Obstruction of Justice, Mayor John DeStephano is guilty. He can join his political buddies the former Mayor of Bridgeport and the former Governor of Connecticut in the big house. You are the Mayor, you are to uphold the law. You don't create it, you aren't over it, and you don't speak it into being!

Can you tell that I've been fuming over that for weeks?! Well, now that it's off my chest, I must confess: It is all just my opinion.

Marathon post

Guess what? Multi post again! Take a deep breath and let’s go!

Where to begin... Oh, I have an idea. How about sports? (I’m sure most of you will skip ahead... however, this one is more of a trivia question, so maybe you might find it interesting.)

Here’s our order: Sports, movies, theater, politics, controversy, outrage. Intrigued? Read on!

Sports: Any regular reader of JMO is fully aware of my ire with the Red Sox front office regarding the continuous dismantling of the team and the frivolous trading of minor league prospects. Some may believe that my feelings are not warranted, or, at the very least, are a bit out of proportion. Alright, chew on this: There are only six teams in Major League Baseball that do not currently have a former Red Sox player on their roster. Nearly all of the remaining 24 teams have a player on the active roster! Though I did have to delve into the 40 man roster for five teams. 19 teams have at least one former BoSox on their active roster! Here’s the question: Can you name the six Red-Soxless teams?

More Sports: This just in: Jason “The Huge Headed Cheater” Giambi has torn cartilage in his left foot and will not play in the upcoming series against the Red Sox! Looks like it’ll be more of a fair fight now. HGHers playing: 0. HGHers injured: 1. (I won’t mention the, now multiple, cheater A-Rod, who was caught cheating in 2004 when he slapped the ball from Bronson’s glove and is now denying that he cheated by saying “Got it” as he passed between Toronto’s shortstop and third baseman who was attempting to make a routine catch on an infield pop up that would have ended the inning for the Yanks, preventing Matsui from scoring. Mind you it was the shortstop who went after him and had to be restrained, not the man who was called off the ball. Providing some credence that A-Rod actually said something. The third baseman wouldn’t have known who called him off, but the shortstop would have know that he didn’t say anything and heard someone else call for the ball! But I won’t mention that...)

Movies: I recently viewed the animated movie “Happy Feet.” I would say that this motion picture had some hidden agendas if they weren’t so blatantly obvious! Where do I start? The most apparent are the greenie tree hugging themes and the bull-horned anti-religion message. Mumbles, the main character, learned that the penguins shortage of fish was due to large “alien” (human) fishing vessels. He attempted to make the aliens aware of the penguins plight and was “Angered at their indifference.” Puh-Leez! Yes, yes, let’s stop fishing so the penguins can eat. Let’s stop feeding the humans so the animals can live. (Sound familiar?) He goes back to the Elders to let them know of his findings and to offer a solution. The Elders treat him as an outsider (because he dances rather than sings) and say that they must keep faith in their penguin “god” to save them. The lead Elder (Not coincidentally named Noah) shouts, “We must hold fast to our ways!” The underlying continuation of that sentence is that the end result of such a dogmatic stance is starvation. Therefore: Faith = Death. A few lesser emphasized themes were pro-illegal immigration and pro-homosexuality. Before I get a hundred comments saying that I’m reading too much into this; I admit, these are a bit of a stretch but they fall in line with the other viewpoints put forth by the movie makers (this is in no way a “film.”) I’ll support both with various plot points. Homosexuality: Mumbles can’t sing. He’s different. He’s not like the other penguins. So much so that his father basically disowns him (until his dancing saves the penguins, of course). What other type of “difference” are modern parents disowning their children for? I can only think of one... As if to highlight the fact that they had a sexual message, the animators chose to put the two main characters in three blatantly sexual positions as they “tumbled” out of the ocean onto an ice flow. All three position, by the way, could have been formed by either opposite or same sex couples. Illegal Immigration: Mumbles (an emperor penguin) meets up with other penguins (Rockhopper penguins) who accept him for who he is. He brings them to his colony. The colony immediately demands that the Rockhopper Penguins are not wanted and they need to go back where they came from. Oh, did I mention that the Rock penguins all have (again, not coincidentally) Hispanic accents? There was outrage over Jar Jar Binks and the “minority” hyenas from Lion King but this stereo-type manages to slip past those who love to be outraged? Maybe it’s because they like what they were hearing. I can think of no other reason other than a pro-illegal immigrant stance that would make the obvious racism suddenly vanish. (One more thing. Hollywood again promotes the one “ism” it believes in. Coming soon, the completely original “Surf’s Up.” An animated movie about penguins!)

More Movies: The Fantastic Four: The Rise of the Silver Surfer opens soon. I truly hope that I hear the same critique of this movie that Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace received. You see, I heard countless people complain that they like their heroes to be out numbered. The problem they had with SWEITPM was that there were two Jedi against one Sith. This small point was enough for them to discount the entire movie. TFFTROTSS has four heroes against one villain. Not only that, but in this episode, the four heroes have interchangeable powers! At one point, at least one of the heroes has multiple powers, being stretchy and flamey at the same time! Sounds like a crappy movie to me!

Theater: The Hartford Stage in Hartford Connecticut has pioneered a brilliant theatrical experience. They are calling it the “Freeview.” During lunch, people in Hartford can catch a portion of whatever play THS is performing at that time for free. They don’t even have to purchase lunch from the theater, they can bring their own. Hurray for a big theater in a *snicker* “big” town oing a big thing for theater!

Politics: At first I was pleased, but upon a second thought I’m somewhat disappointed that Cindy Sheehan (who was the subject of one of my first posts) has announced that she’s “stepping down from the public eye.” I was glad that I wouldn’t have to hear any more of her inane banter. But then I realized that her stance truly sheds light on the hypocrisy, and honesty, of some of the people protesting the war. In her “farewell address” Ms Sheehan writes: “Goodbye, America... You are not the country that I love.” Hey, tell me something I don’t know! She continues, “I finally realized no matter how much I sacrifice, I can’t make you that country unless you want it.” It’s tough to remain a country if you hate all that the country stands for, which is what would be necessary to be the country that Ms Sheehan would love. She did finally come to the only logical conclusion of her viewpoint. She cannot refer to her son (Casey) as a hero. She wrote, “Casey did indeed die for nothing... killed by his own country which is beholden to and run by a war machine that even controls what we think.” Obviously. It’s been so successful in changing your mind. I hope the family of the former NFL Player (who played for the Cardinals and really was killed by his own country) jumps all over her for this comment! Well, Ms Sheehan, JMO will miss you. One less piece of fodder for my blog.

More Politics: Here’s one I’m just throwing out there as the best of the best when it comes to bill passing! The Dems in CT want to decrease the income tax on the non-wealthy and increase it on the wealthy (And they mean wealthy! $250,000 annually and up get the increase, below, the decrease.). Gov. Rell (R) wants to temporarily suspend the 25 cent/gallon gas tax but doesn’t see why anyone’s tax should be increased as the state has a $9 million surplus. The Dems don’t want to touch the gas tax. Rell is promising a veto of any tax increase. The Dems put Rell’s gas tax suspension on their bill. If she vetoes their plan, she vetoes her own. I sit and marvel. I don’t know how I feel. I agree with Gov., why raise taxes with a surplus? But at least the Dems are true to their word. Unlike Gore and Kerry, when they say the rich, the mean the rich! Ah, politics at their finest!

Controversy: I’m just gonna toss this out there: Many homosexuals like to say that it is genetic; they were born that way. Well, blond hair is genetic. Height is genetic. If homosexuality is genetic that means one of two things: either at least one parent of every homosexual in the world is secretly gay, or homosexuality is a genetic mutation. According to natural selection, nature would choose the mutations that better the species. If all homosexuals were true to their identity, none of them would reproduce, effectively removing the genetic mutation from the planet. Hence: Homosexuality cannot be genetic.

Outrage: On the national news today I saw a story about a woman who had HG. This is a “debilitating morning sickness” condition. Mind you, however, this is a treatable debilitating morning sickness. This woman didn’t want to be sick any more so she chose to abort the baby. You read that right. Her selfishness went so far as to put three months of illness ahead of the life of her unborn child! I think what made it harder for me to understand is that this woman was already the mother of two other children! Her husband stood beside her in this decision. How can a woman who already knows that blessing of child birth and the joy of child rearing and the unbearable love that one experiences the first time your child smiles at you, or reaches for you, or says “Mama” and knows that you’ll come running; how can that woman terminate a life because needs to care for it before it’s born? I simply do not understand!

Alright... so all of that is out of my system (And see, it wasn’t all bad stuff! It was, however, all just my opinion.

Buffet Post

I should simply begin all of my posts with "are you seated? Because we're in for a loooooong ride!" So let's start the engines. (Here's the break down: Sports first (as always), Movies, TV, Politics, closing with Potent Potables (Kudos for you if you get that joke). Actually, it's more of a Wild Card closing)

How about dem Sox?! 10.5 as of May 26th! I'm loving it!

Bret Favre is very upset that the Packers did not do everything in their power to get Randy Moss into Green Bay. So upset, in fact, that he's demanded a trade. No really. A trade! As though, somehow, Randy Moss would alleviate Favre's need for a walker! The man who should have retired two seasons ago demanded a trade. I'm sure that the front office is terrified that some team that needs an aging QB on the decline will offer them something more than that net that catches the field goals and extra points. Of course, he couldn't threaten to retire. The Packers might start firing people just to make him follow through!

Jason Giambi has finally admitted that he took steroids. Of course, delutional people will still try to claim that he didn't say the words "I took steroids." However, I'm not sure what "Everyone was taking them, so was I." Could be referring to if not the juice. Why is he still playing? Your guess is better than mine.

I finally say The Da Vinci Code. I liked it better the first time when it was called National Treasure. The only difference between these two movies is that in NT, they actually had to go places to figure out the clues. They both get to the destination only to learn that the "treasure" (if you will) is not there. Then (Surprise, surprise) it's one step further. In DVC the hairdressing mistake that was Tom Hanks along with Amalie only had to go to three different paintings in the Louvre, then to a bank... and that was basically it. Everything else could have been figured out right there if there weren't a crazed albino monk trying to kill them. There was one potential moment for redemption with DVC. At the end Hanks says, "There's been so much debate over whether [Jesus] was human or divine." I thought, perhaps? Maybe? Could he really be about to say "Why couldn't He be both?" No, no. He says, "Maybe human is divine." So blatantly New Age I wanted to vomit.

I'm already hooked on On the Lot. Part of me is afraid to watch thinking it will expose me as a fraud of a filmmaker. Another part can't tear my eyes from it in the hopes that I might consider myself an equal with the contestants. More to follow in future posts.

In Iraq, Al-Qaeda has claimed responsibility for the disappearance of the four missing soldiers. They must be lying! I have been told over and over by the media and countless politicians that Al-Qaeda is not in Iraq! So the real mystery is who really has the soldiers and why would Al-Qaeda lie about their activities? I look forward to Al Gore's answer.

Speaking of Al Gore (Hmmm Al Gore, Al-Qaeda???): He was on The Late Show with David Letterman and said that Iraq was "The worst strategic mistake in the history of the United States." What did David do? He sat back and let him rail on. He did not challenge him. He did not assert that absolute statements like that make the speaker sound asinine. He simply listened like a puppy being taught to fetch the paper. Al also said thank you to the soldiers. For what? For being part of "the worst strategic mistake in the history of the United States?" Funny, I would have thought that Bay of Pigs might have ranked up there. Maybe the Isolationism during the destruction of the Jews. How about the strategy of "separate but equal?" Or, wait, those were Democratic ideas. How foolish of me, those don't count! He went on to discuss how this administration takes the facts and tries to squeeze them into their "Preconceived notions." Is anyone else double over with laughter at the double standard? What exactly are global warming "Scientists" doing? Are they not taking the facts and squeezing them into their own preconceived notions? Anyway, Gore remains irrelevant until he announces that he's running again.

I'm so sick of the Gardasil advertisements. There is a completely veiled agenda hidden in their "get vaccinated" message. Gardasil prevents only one type of cervical cancer. The one that is a sexually transmitted disease! That's it! Politicians in my two states (MA, CT) are calling for all high school females to receive this shot! (Some are requesting that the age be lowered to Junior High.) Why?! We can't teach abstinence, but let's make sure we vaccinate the girls against the STD! And just to be safe we'll give them some condom's too. We don't want our kids to smoke, so you have to be 18 to buy them. Guess what? Kids do it anyway. Let's just hand out the packs in "health" class. We don't want them to drink so you have to be 21. Guess what? Their gonna do it anyway. Maybe Math class is a good place to hand out the twelve packs. How does this make any sense to any logical adult? We attempt to deny teens access to all of the things we don't want them to do, save sex. Please, please, someone explain this to me.

And speaking of teens: There's a town in Connecticut that is requiring students to take a breathalyzer test before they are allowed to enter their prom. If they fail, their parents are called to take them home. What are the students saying? They are outraged! It's not over any feelings that the school doesn't trust them. They feel like it is their night to "have fun" and the school is attempting to take that from them. Pardon? You are 18 (if that!) You have no business having alcohol period! Let alone at (or before) a school sponsored event! And you still have the nerve to be upset?! Is anyone else concerned about the future of this nation?

And speaking of the future of this nation: Our little Full House is almost a year old. He's beinging to sign and he understands much of what we say! He walks when we hold his hands. Take it from me: Parenthood is cooler and more fun than I ever dreamed it would be!

So... there you have it. My musings for the past few weeks. I've said a lot, but all in all, it's all just my opinion.

Hodge Podge

Well, once again I have lots to post about. I’ll do my best to remember it all and make it interesting... I’ve put the major point in bold so you can skip around and read only what interests you. This is going to be a long one so let’s get right to it:

We’ll start with sports:

(Apu, this one is specifically for you!) So how about those Smallball Red Sox! Bunting for hits, stealing bases, actually winning games by less than three runs! I can’t help but wonder what their current 22-10 record would look like if they were still playing that out-dated Moneyball game! I’m so glad that the Red Sox brass have seen the light!

Barry Bonds is steadily closing in on Hank Aaron’s all-time home run record. Now, in the past I’ve advocated beaning Mr. Bonds every time he comes to the plate. However, that would result in suspensions for pitchers and might stir up some sympathy for Barry. I suggest a new strategy. Just walk him. Every single time Barry steps up to the plate give him first base. If the bases are loaded, it’s better to allow one run rather than four. Besides, with Mr. Head Growth Hormone on first, turning two suddenly becomes three times easier. There is no way he is going to steal and the rest of the lineup is having major issues with the bat so force them to bring him around to score. If the manager puts in a pinch runner, good! Less chances for the man of the massive head to completely defile the game. I would love it if he didn’t see another strike all year.

Roger Clemens is a Yankee. Let’s be honest is anyone really surprised? Allow me to break this down if you will: Roger has said that he will make his decision taking into account team loyalty, family, a chance to win it all, and the history of the game. And what did he actually base his decision on? Money. It’s a simple process of elimination. Loyalty and family both point to the Astros. He already has a contract to work for them once he retires from actually playing the game (It appears that will be sometime between 2012 and 2022). Also, he spent more years with the Red Sox than he ever did with the Yankees. Family clearly is not a factor as his son is a minor league catcher for Houston (Also tying into the history of the game: As far as I know, if his son were to be called up, it would be the first father/son pitcher/catcher tandem in the history of MLB). As for a chance to win it all: The Yankees were struggling when he made his decision. Mired in last place in the American League East they were seven games behind the soaring Sox. Even though it was May, the Yankees have a tough road ahead of them (especially if they keep losing by 12 runs to the likes of the Rangers!) And the History of the game? Roger Clemens is tied for the most wins as a Red Sox pitcher with Cy Young. You may have heard of him, there’s some unimportant award given out every year that bears his name. One more win as a Red Sox pitcher and Clemens would sit alone as the winningest pitcher in Red Sox history. So what could he have based his decision on? The Yankees offered him the most money. That’s it. So what type of difference will he make? Well, he struggled last year against the National League, never pitching more than six innings (often leaving the game after the fifth) and he’s not going to being pitching until June. So what the Yankees have done is rented an aging mercenary who will, without a doubt, tire their faltering bullpen every five days. Clemens is expected to receive approximately nine million dollars per start. Assuming he throws 100 pitches per start (which is an exaggeration. The Yanks will be lucky if they can squeeze 90 out of him twice this year) that would be $90,000 per pitch. That is a very very expensive gamble! I can’t wait till we face him in Fenway!

Moving on: Imus is suing CBS. Good for him. I hope he wins big! Oh, and I have it on good authority that it was actually pressure from Hilary Clinton that forced him out! You heard it hear first! (More on her later).

The "reverend" Al Sharpton had more "intelligent" things to say recently. This time regarding Mit Romney (former Gov. of MA, current Presidential Candidate for the Republican Party and unashamed Mormon.) Sharpton said, "And as for the only Mormon candidate running for office, you don’t need to worry about him, the people who truly believe in God will defeat him. He is only temporary." Don’t get me wrong. I’m not defending the Mormon faith. However, this is a public figure who screams bloody murder when anything is said that even appears to be anti-black opening insulting someone of a different religion. When Romney stated that the comment saddened him in it’s bigoted nature Sharpen’s response was not an apology, it was an excuse. He said that his comments were taken "out of context" because the Mormon church "has a history of racism." Well, if that isn’t a reason to slander someone’s religion, I don’t know what is! I’ve got news for you, good luck finding a religion that doesn’t have a history of racism! (You may not be aware of this, Al, but any favortism or prejudice based on race is racism.) Oh yeah, and apology not accepted because it wasn’t offered and I think you should lose your job (what do you do, anyway?) until Imus has his back!

Paris Hilton is trying to escape the slammer. This would be a huge mistake if the Govinator decides to pardon her. The petition on her website talks about the indecencies that she’d face. That other criminals just like her face every day. Why should she receive special treatment? Because she’s rich? Famous? Innocent? (Well, two out of three ain’t bad.) Martha served her time. Paris should too!

Global Warming remains a hot topic today. I’m only going to briefly touch on the fact that the loudest "chicken little"s who squak about how it will kill us all are the ones doing the least to prevent it! Gore’s Tennessee electric bill for a month was equal to that of what the average Tennessian’s bill is for the year and Ms Rodham-Clinton used three different private jets to fly around the state of South Carolina in one day! Not only that, but one of the jets wasn’t big enough for her so she sent it away and had another fly in from a different part of the state! (That’s four flights for three trips in one day, for those of you who are keeping track.) Then to hide her private flight, she had the jet taxi to where the commercial flights arrive so she could appear to have taken an "everyman" flight, rather than walk into the airport through the private jet area! Anyway...now that we are outraged about that, I have to tell you it’s not really what I’m ranting about... I think that there are things we need to concern ourselves with before we bother with Global Warming! For example: Acid Rain. This was going to destroy our environment in the 80’s! What have we done to stop it? Nothing! It must still be a silent killer waiting to strike! Oh, but wait, before we consider that, we have to be worried about Global Cooling! In the 70’s all the scientists could talk about was the coming Ice Age! There was tons of evidence of both potential catastrophes! Perhaps our efforts to avoid the coming Ice Age have gone too far and that is what’s causing this warming?! No, that can’t be true, because GW pundits are claiming the upward trend has been occurring for 115 years! That means that while we couldn’t send letters any way other than by pony, and before we had that new fangled horseless carriage, and prior to man’s flight, and before slavery was abolished we were able to accurately pinpoint the temperature around the globe! Amazing! Remember this post. In 12 years, we’ll be looking back at the Global Warming hysteria and chuckling about how it went the way of our fears of the Russia’s dropping a nuclear bomb on us in the 50’s.

Thanks for wading through all of that. I’m hoping to be able to post more regularly now. (the play has stalled, but I’m still plugging away at it.) And, always remember, everything you’ve just read is nothing more than just my opinion.