Congressman Dan Benishek

It's 10:50 PM on Election Tuesday, and Gary McDowell conceded the race for MI-01. Dan Benishek wins! I'd like to congratulate Dan, as well as his Alpena campaign team, notably Jesse Osmer, Casey Hill, and Rich Anderson.

Other notable races that have been called: Rick Snyder for Governor, John Moolenaar for State Senate, Peter Pettalia for State Representative, and Bill Schuette for Attorney General.

Congratulations to all of the victorious candidates, and expect a recap of the midterms and consequences of gains and losses soon!

Rapid Response Team

This issue is still unfolding as I type this, and this may be the first time I've written about something the same day it happened, but this is just too much. I watch The O'Reilly Factor. Sure, throw whatever you will about Fox News in the comments section, I've heard it all before. I watch Fox, and I listen(ed) to National Public Radio in order to diversify the sources from which I obtained my news. No longer is that the case.

One of my favorite people on both Fox (every so often as a contributor) and NPR (where he was employed for 10 years) was Juan Williams. The guy was a common sense, rational, reasonable, honest liberal that Bill O'Reilly liked to bring on because he was a guy you could have an intelligent discussion with, and at the same time expose the broadcast to varying points of view. On Monday, Williams said the following:

"Look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous."

Williams went on to caution O'Reilly about classifying an entire group of people as "extremists", such as Christians for Timothy McVeigh in the Oklahoma City bombing.

To sum it up, "I feel this way, but it's not right for me to feel this way, and in no way are all Muslims hateful and terrorists."

On WEDNESDAY, not immediately after the program, or the following morning at work, or even the FOLLOWING morning, Williams was notified of his release via phone call after being employed for 10 years with NPR (which tells me that it wasn't a big deal until someone threw their left-wing weight behind the idea). Reason for the contractual termination was that as an analyst at NPR, public expression of opinion is forbidden and Williams should have kept his feelings about Muslims between himself and "his psychiatrist or publicist". NPR analysts are also forbidden from going on shows that "feature punditry or commentary", which was a second reason given for his firing. The thing is, Williams has been going on The Factor, Fox News Sunday, and Special Report With Bret Baier for MONTHS now, and has even guest HOSTED the show in O'Reilly's absence. That's how much he was trusted and valued, even as a notable liberal personality. So is this timing a coincidence? Not a chance. This is a liberal radio station that is funded with TAXPAYER dollars (and donations from George Soros, the AFL-CIO, MoveOn.org, The Huffington Post, MediaMatters, and the elitist arm of the left wing) becoming even more rigidly entrenched as a leftist organization while sucking up tax dollars. To all of you that think "Hey, well what's wrong with that?": Imagine all of that money that gets withheld from your paycheck and sent to the federal government being channeled to Rush Limbaugh. That's the same thing. It's simply disgusting, and if Jim DeMint passes the proper legislation, NPR will go bankrupt and we'll be one step closer to a balanced budget.

Was the firing of Williams racially motivated? Maybe NPR didn't agree with where an African-American like Williams stood on the political spectrum. Maybe every African-American should be 100% liberal and detest Fox News. Maybe, because Williams wasn't white and a loony lefty like Nina Totenberg (the same Nina Totenberg that, in 1995, "hoped" that a Republican member of Congress, Jesse Helms, contracted AIDS through a transfusion), George Soros and his 1.8 million dollars didn't want him around his radio station.

I digress. NPR's "Contact Us" page is down due to an "unusually high user volume", and 13,431 REGISTERED USERS of NPR have commented on articles relating to Williams. I think if they're going to fire hardworking, honest, reasonable people like Juan Williams, they should give every cent back of those public grants they accepted and used on the stationery that Williams resignation notice was used on, as well as those left-wing broadcasts that just lost the only reasonable person on them. Juan Williams, best of luck at Fox News.

Vivian Schiller, President/CEO of NPR: Shame on you. Take your "ethical journalistic practices" back to the elite left with George Soros, and stop taking my money.

On an unrelated note, the National Football League has implemented a rule that allows players to be suspended for helmet-to-helmet hits. People are up in arms about the new rule, players and former players alike. From the best standpoint that a fan can have, I like the rule, so long as it is used properly. Inadvertent hits should not be punished, but direct, brutal, unwarranted massacres should receive a suspension. Something has to be done. I realize it is a contact sport, but safety standards are necessary.

Ending on a light note, here's a list of things I hate about winter:

-Cold
-Snow
-Wet entryways and shoes
-Shoveling
-Snowblowing
-Shoveling
-Slipping
-Snow in my shoes
-Short days
-Cold floors in the morning
-Getting all wrapped up to go outside
-Cold cars

Things I like about winter:

-Christmas
-Break
-Driving

So, to sum up the wall of text above: Juan Williams got shafted, the new NFL rule has potential to be a good one, and I hate winter. Leave a comment or something. I'd really appreciate it.

Good luck at Fox, Juan.

With Rod, We're Busts

This might not hit my target audience directly on the head, but I have watched my beloved Michigan Wolverines underperform and embarrass themselves for too long. Rich Rodriguez was a terrible hire. The program has sunk to new lows, and there is not an end in sight. There are several pathetic statistics that have surfaced in the Rich Rod era; some are firsts for a program with a storied history dating back to 1879.

-2008 season record of 3-9, the worst in school history.

-Failure to make a bowl game in 2008, the first such failure in 33 years.

-A 1-7 conference record in 2009 (2008 saw a 2-6 record), with the lone win being a 36-33 win over Indiana.

-0 wins in the two biggest games of the year: Ohio State and Michigan State (0-5 combined).

-3 separate 3-game streaks involving giving up 33 or more points (once each season). Prior to 2008, it had NEVER occurred.

-A current pass defense that ranks last in the Big 10 and 120th out of 120 FBS teams.

-Formal charges before an inquiry board involving serious rule infractions (first time in school history).

-Current Big 10 career record of 4-15 (Wins against Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Indiana twice).

Not only are the above statistics appalling, but I have issues with his schemes. He runs the spread offense, which is based around speed. It's high octane and when it works, it's electrifying to watch. But it's such a gimmicky offense in the sense that it doesn't work if "it's rainy", or "windy", or "cold", or you don't have the right personnel. Denard Robinson is a star, don't get me wrong. But it's dangerous to base your whole scheme on one player, and as you see against MSU and Iowa, when that player doesn't have a good game or gets shut down, the offense doesn't score as much as it should. Which leads into my next point:

If you have a decent defense, not scoring isn't a major deal. Rich Rodriguez is an offensive genius, no doubt. But he doesn't know a damn thing about defense, and he set a scheme and forced his defensive coordinator to run said scheme without the proper players. By that token, if our offense doesn't score 45 points a game, we don't win.

It's obvious that against defenses that know what they're doing, Denard can be stopped. It's happened two weeks in a row. Thus, don't beat your head against a wall and leave him to the dogs, throw Forcier in. He opens defenses up with his arm, something that Denard is incapable of.

The special teams are another story entirely, an arguably more infuriating one than the defense. Kickoffs out of bounds, missed/blocked field goals, botched punt returns... the list goes on. Tony Gibson, the special teams coach, should have gone way before now.

The players are a direct reflection of the coach. All of the stupid mistakes and fundamental breakdowns are all coaching, and I don't care what Rich Rod fanboys say about it. It's a lack of focus, intensity, and discipline. There is no sense of urgency from Rich Rodriguez.

I'm going to compare Mark Dantonio to Rich Rodriguez around the time of the Michigan/Michigan State game each year:

Dantonio: Clock that counts down the months, weeks, days, hours, and minutes to kickoff. Awards gold pins to those players on a team that beat a Wolverines team. Upon beating said team, purchases a billboard congratulating his team on the win, and resets the clock. The whole season is predicated on beating Michigan.

Rodriguez: "We want to beat Michigan State. But that said, we want to beat Iowa, and Illinois, and Penn State, and UMass. We're out to beat whoever we're playing."

That shows me no intensity, and that Rich Rod doesn't understand the rivalry. The two red-letter games are MSU and OSU. You have to put a team together for those days, not whatever you've tossed on the field the past two years.

Bring on Jim Harbaugh, Dave Brandon. That guy knows what a rivalry is.

Fight or Flight

With election day a bit over a month away, I feel this is an an appropriate time to urge all of my eligible readers to get out and vote for Dan Benishek for the U.S. Representative seat in Michigan's 1st Congressional District. Here's the way I look at it:

This is a purely independent viewpoint that I'm using to explain this. Yes, I'm a conservative. Yes, I agree with Dan's political views, social and economic. However, I know not everyone does, so here's how I look at it from an unbiased independent standpoint. If I'm neutral on the social views, neutral on the economic views, it means it comes down to the personality, ethics, and professionalism of the two candidates. This isn't to say that Gary McDowell is a slimeball. I'm sure he's a class act and an upstanding member of society. All that aside, it comes down to constituent service.

Gary McDowell is a career politician; a current State Rep. If things start going south, he gets concerned with re-election and making the decision that is the most popular, not necessarily what is best for the average American. He becomes concerned with party lines and keeping support on his side, no matter the consequences, because hey, it's fight or flight. He's got a family to take care of, and the survival instinct kicks in. It does with all career politicians that pass through the halls of our Congress.

Dan Benishek, on the other hand, is not a career politician. More like a concerned patriot that has the right ideas and morals to turn this country around. No special interests here, no games, no innate survival instinct. He'll tell either party to turn around and get it right if it's not satisfactory, or in the country's best interests. He'll stand up and say "enough is enough". He's not worried about reelection, because hey, he's got the medical practice to fall back on. Supporting a family is not his primary concern, his country is.

Vote Benishek for Congress in November.

The "Ground Zero Mosque"

Yup, it's about that time.

I've carefully tiptoed around this issue for a while now, ever since it came up in the media. The initial accusation (from both sides) was that the former site of the World Trade Center (Ground Zero) would be turned into a mosque, or house of worship, for those of the Islamic faith. For those who are unsure, radical Islamic extremists were behind the attacks on the Trade Center on 9/11.

Here's the reason for the quotes in the title - by "Ground Zero", the media MEANS to say "two blocks away from Ground Zero", and by "mosque" they MEAN to say "Islamic Community Center with a mosque inside of it". It is not, as commonly portrayed, a golden-domed mosque going up on the very spot the Towers stood. It will resemble the surrounding architecture of New York in every way, at least on the exterior.

So why the issue? Well, in the 9 years since the attacks, the area of lower Manhattan where those iconic symbols of American might once stood has become, more or less, sacred ground. I've been there. Seen the memorials. Entered the closed-down chapel across the street that now serves as a sobering reminder of that tragic day. Observed the cracked and shattered gravestones outside said chapel. This is a Christian house of worship that, out of respect, declined to rebuild and instead dedicate the site to the Americans who died on that day, and those who continue to die overseas as a direct result of that day.

One of the "pro-mosque" (if I may) arguments is that "it was there before". So was the church, and they have enough respect to say "We'll take it elsewhere". Now, I'm a fan of religious tolerance. Big fan of religious tolerance. But in this case, I place the interests of my country over that of a generally foreign religion that contains the fringe groups that have continually attacked this nation, physically and verbally. I'm not stereotyping, before anyone has a chance to toss that at me. There are good, peace-loving Muslims out there. Maybe if the Center was headed by someone other than Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, I'd be slightly less critical of the plan. But to show you my issue with Rauf:

Rauf, Sept. 30, 2001: I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.
Correspondent Ed Bradley: OK. You say that we’re an accessory?
Rauf: Yes.
Bradley: How?
Rauf: Because we have been an accessory to a lot of — of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, it — in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA.

Calling the U.S an accessory to 9/11 is typical radical Muslim. Add to that the fact that Rauf not only refuses to speak out against the terrorist organization Hamas, but actually condones them, and you have a shrouded figure with ties to enemies of the State that's operating a high-profile building with a possible anti-American agenda. That doesn't sit right with me.

I'll close this part of the post by saying that I am against the building of the Center. I respect the victims of the 9/11 attacks, our soldiers overseas that are fighting Islamic extremists, and the families of the 9/11 victims.

Next, we move onto everyone's favorite American icon: Rosie O'Donnell. Yes, Rosie O'Donnell. The same Rosie O'Donnell who said, in support of the mosque, "Radical Christians are just as dangerous as radical Muslims".

Whoa. Whoa. Hold the phone here, Rosie. "Radical Christians" are "just as dangerous" as radical Muslims? "Radical Christians" don't bomb people who don't share the same ideals they do. Radical Christians don't take a symbol of an Islamic country's power and glory and kill 3,000 people in an act of war.

Taking it a step farther, when asked the very same things I just pointed out, O'Donnell replied "We're over there killing people right now in a war that's been going on for 6 years."

Congratulations, Rosie. You just called the United States government a "radical sect of Christianity". Do I even need to point out the flaws in that statement?

An Era of Political Partisanship

It is painfully clear that there is a canyon-sized rift between Republicans and Democrats everywhere today. Turn on a lamestream media channel, and you'll see it from the likes of Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Rachel Maddow, and Ed Schultz. They hate the other end of the spectrum more than they hate the insurgents we're fighting overseas. Republicans are fear-mongering, scare-tactic using, bigoted racists. Democrats are spineless, hippie-loving, money-hounding, anti-American anarchists. It's a "fact of life". You're bred to have a strong distaste for the other side. However, it wasn't always this way. Believe it or not, up until 2000, divisive partisanship wasn't nearly as prominent as it is today.

The event that sparked the atmosphere in Washington today is the 2000 presidential election. Election Day and the 36-days of Hell that followed (as described by Karl Rove in Courage and Consequence) set the tone for the G.W. Bush Era, and that tone carried over into the Obama Era. You see, Democrats were so sore over the embittered Al Gore winning the popular vote and losing in the Electoral College because of Florida, that they never accepted Bush as a legitimate president. The love-him-or-hate-him Harry Reid was a rejector of Bush's legitimacy, as were Tom Daschle and Dick Gephardt.

Now, in no way am I blaming the entire descent into name-calling and mutual degradation entirely on the left. If it was all them, the country would be dominated by the GOP once voters realized their immaturity. No, it takes two to tango, and Republicans have made two mistakes for every one the Democrats have.

I digress. The bottom line is, everything needs to change. Compromises need to be made. Critical legislation is being delayed or shot down because of a lack of cooperation. I disagree with the decision to block benefits to 9/11 aid workers. That was Republicans shooting it down because Democrats wouldn't compromise. Benefits for the unemployed took months to pass, again Republicans blocked them because of a lack of compromise. This is on both sides of the aisle, and it needs to change fast. It's been happening for 10 years, and instead of blaming the financial collapse on President Bush, let's blame it on that. It's because of the bitterness that the proposed regulations on Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae fizzled and died, leading to the collapse of the financial market after bad nonprime and subprime mortgages were given.

For the good of America, please, put the differing views and petty games aside.

The Fifth Season

What's up, everyone? Sorry I haven't written a blog with any substance lately, but it turns out summer is keeping me busy after all!

So to answer the multitude of questions I'm sure arose with the title, allow me to explain: the Fifth Season of 2010 is actually Primary Season, and it's right around the corner. Tuesday, August 3rd, to be exact. I'm here to give the run-down on my choices for office in 2010. I'll give a brief explanation on why the candidate I chose is the best one for the job, and if there are any questions, there's a handy little comment box at the end that I do read.

-U.S. House of Representatives MI-1, Dr. Dan Benishek (R)
Dr. Benishek is an excellent choice to fill Stupak's seat. He's not a career politician, he's a career surgeon, so he really has nothing to gain by running for political office. He's in there for real change, and if it doesn't get him re-elected, he's a medical doctor. Not like he's out of a job. He's campaigning under a promise of repealing the new health care overhaul that was helped through by his predecessor. He's an ideal, traditionally conservative candidate that realizes how damaging this out of control spending is, and how tragic the health care law is. Top challenger Jason Allen is conservative on first glance, but down deeper he supports close to the same spending that the Obama Administration loves, and avoiding that is critical in this midterm.

-Michigan Governor, Attorney General Mike Cox (R)
The problem I have with the Republican Party's official endorsement of Mr. Pete Hoekstra for Governor is that I'm not totally sold on his fiscal stance. Record shows he likes to spend, something that Governor Granholm used to run this state to the bottom of the pile, economy-wise. Cox has shown strong leadership as our Attorney General by immediately filing a lawsuit against the health care overhaul, and by filing a third-party brief in the lawsuit by the federal government attempting to block Arizona's new immigration law, SB-1070. Cox is siding with Arizona. I firmly believe Cox is the correct candidate for office, despite the official endorsement of Hoekstra.

-State Senate, 35th District, John Moolenaar (R)
John Moolenaar is against the wasteful spending that has been oh-so prominent in Michigan and nationwide. I don't want to become redundant, but it's critical that ceases as soon as possible. Moolenaar is pro-life, pro-second amendment, and will focus on revamping/eliminating the Michigan Business Tax, something that cripples the small-business environment in this state. It's time to put a fresh face in Lansing with actual plans to bring change. Moolenaar is the guy.

-State Representative, 106th District, Peter Pettalia (R)
Pettalia is the same fiscal conservative that I have mentioned three times above this. Challenger Patrick Pokorski is fighting a recall effort as Presque Isle Township Supervisor; a recall that cites unethical management and wasteful spending overbudget as reasons for removal. We don't need that in Lansing. Pettalia shares a stance with Moolenaar on the MBT, and that it needs to be changed or removed completely. He knows how to foster small business growth, and he's the kind of lawmaker that Michigan needs.

Now that I've spelled out my picks, I feel the need to comment on Arizona's current conflict with the federal government. The decision to file by the Obama Administration was absolutely ludicrous, and I'll tell you why. The increasingly incompetent federal government has clearly been so soft on illegal immigration, that the governor of Arizona (Jan Brewer) felt it necessary to protect her state.

In that particular state, 460,000 illegal immigrants (est.) cost the state $1.3 billion per year and take jobs away from hardworking American citizens who are here legally. This law will not lead to racial profiling, as you can only be asked to prove citizenship if you have been stopped for breaking a law.

The federal government feels threatened and embarrassed that it was "undermined" by Brewer, and had attention called to it's inadequacy. Eric Holder is categorically clueless about what the law entails, only that it's somehow right to waste taxpayer dollars on a frivolous lawsuit.

This is racial politics being played by the Obama Administration in a key election year. They're appealing to the minority vote, because they seem to be losing support on a large-scale basis.

This is the kind of garbage that needs to stop.

Here are each of the websites for my personal choices. Check them out. Make a donation. Get involved.

Dr. Dan Benishek for U.S. House
Mike Cox for Governor
John Moolenaar for Michigan Senate
Peter Pettalia for Michigan House

Happy 234th, America

Happy Independence Day, readers. Let us take a momentary break from the flag-waving and miniature explosions in the sky to remember those who fought and died to keep our great nation free from those seeking to destroy our way of life. Join me in a moment of silence.

...





...





...





...





...





...

My fellow Americans, let us also remember the troops in the Middle Eastern conflict, those stationed elswhere around the world, and those listed as POW's and MIA.

God bless America. Have a safe and happy holiday.

A Message to the Class of 2010

For starters, I wasn't a commencement speaker. I didn't even try out. Amberly and Rachel both did a fantastic job, and were a real credit to the overall ceremony. However, let's imagine for a second that this page is a commencement ceremony, and this post is my speech.

"Well, Class of 2010 - we did it. Four long grueling years full of finals, homework, and standardized tests are finally over as we sit here on the biggest day of our lives. I could sit up here and thank people in a cliche fashion; people like our teachers, our parents, our families, and our administrators. But I won't. I want to thank the rest of my class.

For a minimum of four years (some of you all the way back to 2nd grade, 1st grade, and earlier), you have been my brothers and sisters. From the day we all walked in the gymnasium for freshman orientation, we have drawn closer and closer together. Mr. Poli described us as "stellar". I don't think that's a strong enough word. Webster himself couldn't use the proper word to describe the rest of my class. No word in any language can describe the immense sense of pride I write this with.

9 perfect 4.0's. 3 perfect attendance records. 158 3.0's or higher. These statistics are mind blowing, but they're nothing compared to the enormous social effect the Class of 2010 had on Alpena High. Some of my best memories were Spirit Weeks. If anyone remembers freshman year, the "Spirit Weeks" were lame. 10 percent of the seniors participated, and no one else really cared. That all changed in our junior year, when this class put up such a fight at Homecoming that we actually knocked off the seniors, and forever shook the foundation of the school. Underclassmen suddenly had a chance, and from then on, every Monday through Friday of Spirit Week, one would walk into a school full of pirates, ninjas, cowboys, rock stars, and people dressed head to toe in the good ol' Green & White. The gym was so loud during pep assemblies that I thought the basketball hoops were coming down. The electricity in the air made your hair stand on end.

This year, the Senior Planning Team did one of the most monumental projects this school has ever seen, and was really a credit to our class. The food drive was indeed phenomenal, and both that and the campus cleanup were motivated by a selfless drive that I'm proud to have been a part of.

All in all, thanks ladies and gentlemen. I wish I could say this class is going to do great things. I wish I could say we'll turn the world around. But I can't. One thing I can say, though, is that this class will not go into the world quietly. In a few years, maybe even next year, the sheer magnitude of our greatness will become apparent.

Thanks for a great 4 years, Class of 2010."

The Birther Movement and You

This piece of writing is about one of the biggest conspiracy theories ever put out by political fringe groups and extremists ever, hands down. It was undoubtedly proposed by right-wing extremists, and is quite honestly one of the most nonsensical theories I have ever heard.

The Birther Movement (www.birthers.org) centers around the idea that President Barack Huessein Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States. Fine and dandy to be suspicious, but let's not scream foul in the face of amazingly overwhelming evidence that your theories are false.

One header on the Birther's website has 4 pages on why Obama's Birth Certificate, Selective Service Documents, Birth Announcements in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin, and Letter from the Hospital are all forged.

-The Birth Certificate section links you to "Atlas Shrugs", a blog from right-wing crazy Pamela Gellar. So that's not reliable.

-Click on Selective Service Documents, and it takes you to Debbie Schlussel, a staunchly conservative commentator. While typically reliable, the article proves absolutely nothing.

-Go down to Letter to the Hospital, and it takes you to World Net Daily, the conservative version of "Enquirer" or "Star". Automatically not reliable, as it is a gossip tabloid.

-Finally, "Birth Announcements" teleports you to Western Journalism, and an article that says a "Certification of Live Birth" does not confirm that a person was born in that area. Where would The Honolulu Star get that, then? Japan? A phone call from a remote mountain village in the Tibetan wilderness? They also cite World Net Daily as a source, which is not reliable.

This whole movement is based on nothing more than conspirical speculation, and is honestly not a movement at all. A movement has to MOVE for something. These theorists are loosely banded together under an unfounded belief.

This was simply a post defending our Commander in Chief. The leader of our great nation, who were are all patriotically obligated to serve regardless of political affiliation. The Birther Movement is a mockery of our intelligence as a nation, and should be disregarded as nothing more than a smear on our image.

Large-Scale Laryngitis

In a perfect democracy, every citizen has a voice. An opinion. A say in what does and does not become law. Unfortunately, this is not a perfect world. In a perfect world, the government is for the people, by the people. Not the abundant ego-petting, image-fluffing, across-the-aisle sniping that is oh-so prevalent in Washington today, and has been since 2000.

Since 2000, every powerful politician has slowly become more and more out of touch with the needs of the American people. They're more concerned with their own career and making more and more money than they are with fixing America so that the average citizen can have food, water, a job, and the materials necessary to live.

The Bush Administration was no better than the current one, at least for the last 2 or 3 years of the tenure. The spending was off the charts, and that contributed to the massive deficit faced today. The Obama Administration, instead of tightening their belts like the rest of America is forced to do during this recession, proposes RECORD spending. They propose environmental reforms that impose unfair restrictions on businesses in times like these; restrictions that will ultimately lead to increased prices and less affordability for consumers. Fixing an ailing economy became the third or fourth thing on their list after they took over, while the unemployment rate rose and the recession deepened. They were more concerned with passing socialistic health care that people didn't want, and still only works some of the time. With more and more of America running on jobless benefits, the GOP filibustered an extension of the benefits (damn you Jim Bunning) that keep food on the table for families. If that isn't a symbol of the rift between Washington D.C and the rest of America, I'm not sure what is.

This goes back to entitlement. THEY got elected to the seat, so THEY feel they can do as they please. They forget that the PEOPLE elected them, and that THEY serve the PEOPLE. There is no accountability today, at either the state or the federal level. Our governor ran this great state into the ground and stripped away college funds from tens of thousands of kids. Our U.S. Representatives are focused on legislative victories in the most minor areas, instead of ensuring the survival of the citizens. Even state governments on the west coast are diverting their attention to some of the most pointless issues, like Los Angeles and parts of New Mexico boycotting Arizona over SB 1070. That is not a pressing issue at this time.

The American people have come down with a widespread case of arrogance-induced laryngitis. Arrogance on the part of our politicians. We have no voice. The only cure here is to, pardon the quote from "Swing Vote", break the cycle. Every election, we remove people who have failed us and replace them with people who are going to fail us. People who have mastered the art of persuasion and image-enhancing. People who make empty promises. People who sit on their government-provided thrones in Lansing, Washington D.C., and state capitals all over the United States and do nothing but pad their resumes for the next election. We need to break this damaging cycle.

While I do not agree with some of their methods, the Tea Party is a great model. A protest group that demands accountability and transparency, the former missing from the government entirely, and the latter from the Obama Administration. In the interest of fairness, on the left side, I'd like to cite MoveOn.org, which was a major leftist player during the reign of the Bush Administration and continues to be a liberal haven.

This is also aimed at my generation. Get out and support someone. Just because you can't vote doesn't mean that you can't help on the campaign trail. Talk to your parents, see if you can influence them. It's primary season as well, and many candidates would love to have your help. This is a call to action. Show them we still have a voice.

A Public Retraction

Earlier this year, I had the fortune of serving a two-week tenure as the Minority Leader of the Republican Party in Mr. Linton's 3rd hour AP Government class. This forced me to take an in-depth look at things on an issue-to-issue basis, from matters ranging from offshore drilling to environmental reform.

One of the more controversial issues that was brought up was nationwide legalization of gay marriage. I immediately adopted a "no way, no how" stance and saw to it that not a single Republican voted for or abstained from that bill. Why? Looking back, I don't have a good reason. It was a staunch conservative viewpoint, and in a split-second lapse in judgement, I opposed the bill. I now see just how "in the wrong" I was. I followed indoctrinating conservative and religious rhetoric with a one-track mind, and just let it chug along. My epiphany is as follows.

All PEOPLE are created equal. Black, white, Hispanic, homosexual, heterosexual, what have you, everyone should have the same human rights. Life. Liberty. The Pursuit of Happiness. Homosexuals should no doubt have the LIBERTY to do what they want with their LIFE and PURSUE HAPPINESS. It doesn't directly affect me or my rights, so there's no legitimate reason to ban it. It would in fact be morally wrong to restrict marriage to strictly heterosexuals. One of my main points was that "there would be a profoundly negative societal and civil effect". Stepping back and looking at it again, I don't see how I ever believed that. What's it going to change? Who cares if two men are living together in a house with a piece of paper that says they're legally together? Not I.

Another main objection is that "it's expressly forbidden in the Bible". So the government should not allow it? From my point of view, that crosses that ever-important wall of separation between Church and State that has guarded our nation from religious tyranny for over 200 years. I'm not fundamentally religious enough to see that infringe upon the way I live my life, so if it ensures that others have every right that is granted to them while they are in this country, then by golly, legalize it.

I was straight-up wrong. This has taught me not to go along with either conservative dogma or liberal rhetoric, but to listen to my own morals and beliefs. This post should stir up some controversy, and I'm more than prepared for it.

Deja Vu for the Catholic Church

The history of the Catholic Church is one full of prestige, glory, power, and pride. It is one of the oldest surviving institutions today, and is currently the largest church in the world with over 1 billion members. The Church dates back to the early 300's, when Emperor Constantine legalized Christianity with the Edict of Milan. After the legalization, practicing Christians sought to reach a unified decision on orthodox and sort out the specifics of Christendom in the first Seven Ecumenical Councils, beginning with the First Council of Nicea in 325 and ending with the Second Council of Nicea in 787. In 382 during the crucial Council of Rome, Biblical canon was established when the accepted books of the Old Testament and New Testament were listed out.

A history as rich and time-honored as that of the Church could not have happened without some cover-ups, and the stepping-on of some toes, right? Right. The Church has ensured that Catholicism was vaulted to the forefront of religious organizations on a global scale. They oppressed those that spoke out against the Church so many years ago, most notably the pagans. When people nowadays hear the word "pagan", they immediately think of a "devil worshipper" and the Satanic church. In reality, the pagans were a peaceful religion that was in tune with nature and believed in the beauty of Mother Earth. However, they weren't Catholic, so a widespread smear campaign was launched, leading to the erroneous assumption that pagans are connected to Satan and the general demise of the religion on a societal basis.

Another more recent example of the aforementioned "vaulting" (although this one is true for most all denominations of Christianity) deals with the suppression of information. Ever hear of the Book of Philip? No? Not surprising. The "Gospel" of Philip was a Gnostic manuscript that was lost to the ages until discovered by an Egyptian peasant in 1945. The book carries a theme of Sacraments, and is also the source of the idea that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. This was also a book that portrayed Christ as not an immortal deity, but a "mere mortal" (one of the main reasons it was kept from publication). This writing would shake the foundation of the Church, as would the release of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The latest scandal involves pedophilia among the highest members of the papacy. It's brought debate concerning mandatory celibacy for priests, and also the members of the Church's hierarchy that failed to report the crimes, despite knowledge. Between 1950 and 2002, there were 10,667 reported cases of sexual abuse by the clergy towards minors. The 149 priests who had over 10 allegations made up for 3000 cases, showing that repeated offenses are common. My question is, where and when was this okay? I don't know what time period these people want to be in, but here and now, what is going on there is not okay. Every single priest, bishop, and cardinal found guilty of this heinous crime should be banished from that church, or whatever it is they do. They already have ultra-conservative sects of the Church such as the famed Opus Dei creating a bad light, and now with this widespread abuse, corruption, and cover-up nonsense, are they really above the law? I'm not sure who's God commands THAT, surely it's unacceptable.

Time to show some ownership.

The Enemy of My Enemy

Out of all the topics I've covered, I think I've mentioned the Tea Party the most. To recap, the whole platform that the party is based on revolves around less government spending and lower taxes. Relatively minute taxes. I've also mentioned that, while I don't consider myself a Tea Partier, I agree with most of the fundamental principles that the party is based on, especially in current times. I believe that lower taxes are better in the present state of the economy. I believe that government spending should lower drastically or be cut (minus critical operations) completely until the severe recession is over.

The Tea Party (it shall be referred to by it's proper name, no homophobic slurs here, Countdown) is undoubtedly is a right-leaning party. It is predominantly conservative. That said, it has its share of liberals who also oppose the large spending undertaken and proposed by the Obama Administration. Since the party rose to power, it has been embraced by Fox News, chastised and blasted by PMSNBC, and given neutral media attention by CNN. Go figure. Keith Olbermann, one of my least favorite people (no use denying it), said "How many (African-Americans) have you seen at a Tea Party event?", which was a racist accusation against the party. It is insane to believe that the Tea Party is completely white, even with a large number of African Americans being liberal. There is also the typical "conservatives are stupid" mantra consistently played by the left-wing (again, no use denying it, it's like the right-wing calling the left communists). It's an extremely broad and unfair generalization that all conservatives are stupid. I can find those that aren't, and I can find liberals that are. Same with calling a liberal a communist. This is a dangerous and narrow-minded way of thinking, and it is a problem in society.

To the point, the Tea Party is becoming more and more of a factor in today's politics. 28% of Americans consider themselves a supporter of the Tea Party, 26% oppose it, and 38% "don't mind it". It's a prominent third-party. If the Tea Party leadership decides to put forth it's own candidates in November's midterms, they'll certainly draw away a lot of votes. But from who? Yeah, sure, there are the independents and the moderates that will vote for a Tea Partier over a Democrat, but not as many as those that will vote for the Tea Party over a Republican. Tea Party leadership needs to carefully consider who they're hurting here. Putting their own candidates out there will effectively cripple Republicans in those elections, and ensure the very thing they're set out to prevent - record spending, increased taxes, and more government intervention in the economy- far from the non-interventionist, free market ideals of the Tea Party.

Entitled to What?

Greetings, sports fans.

A lot of people would say that they have a favorite sport, no? Football? Basketball? Baseball? Tennis? Also, if you have a favorite sport, then you most likely have a favorite player. Peyton Manning? LeBron James? Derek Jeter? Roger Federer? All of these athletes are superstars, no question. During their respective seasons, they are endlessly covered by the media. Hyped up. Vaulted onto a pedestal. Sensationalized.

As they should be. These people are great at what they do. They possess an unrivaled amount of athleticism and skill at the game they're paid exorbitant amounts of money to play. Could that money be better used for something else? Yes. But, that's a completely different topic.

Too much hype and spotlight on the wrong people can have adverse affects, however. Plaxico Burress? Gilbert Arenas? Donte Stallworth? Tiger Woods?

The problem is that when certain people are hailed as saviors and worshiped as the second coming of Jesus, they begin to experience a sense of entitlement. They're above the law. They're above the rules that others play by. They're above commitment. The only time anything applies to them is when they're on the court. Field. Course. Whatever suits their sport.

My question is, why do these people think they're entitled to anything more than you or I? Is it because they get paid million upon millions of dollars? Is it because of the radically obsessive, sensationalistic news coverage that ESPN, ESPN2, The Golf Channel, and networks like that provide? Either way, athletes that think that are completely delusional. Just because you can beat me in 1-on-1 does not mean you can pull a firearm on someone. Just because you can "mow the course" with me doesn't mean you can disregard the sanctity of marriage and sleep around. In fact, just because you can beat me at ANYTHING does not give you the right to break the law or do anything that normal upstanding members of society cannot do.

Gilbert Arenas got off easy. Plaxico got 2 years, and Gilbert dodged jail time? The guy pulled a gun on another person. Plaxico shot himself in the leg. Very clear difference here, but the subtle distinction was that there was no proof that Arenas had his gun loaded. Hmph. Justice be damned.

To tie everything together, this false sense of entitlement is damaging the world of professional sports. Even golf is being hit. Perhaps that's why I stick with college football, because that tends to be under the radar of incidents such as those. Let's knock on wood that it continues.

Exceeding the Right

The First Amendment is a wonderful thing. It gives us the freedom to express ourselves, the freedom to choose whatever religion we want, the right to hold a peaceful gathering, and on the topic of this writing, petition or protest the government.

Protest is healthy. I believe I've covered this before. The Tea Party, for example, is a perfectly legitimate organization with a reasonable goal that is currently notorious for protesting. THAT kind of protesting is what the Framers had in mind. Challenging things (laws, measures, proposals, etc) put forward by the government in a reasonable, responsible manner.

Here's a list of things that in no way fall under "reasonable and responsible":

1)Throwing a brick through an office window.
2)Cutting the gas lines to someone's house.
3)Sending a letter to 3/5ths of the state governors telling them to "get out or be removed".
4)Recruiting members to a lunatic fringe organization and issuing semi-automatic rifles intended to be used against government officials.

And so on and so forth. These are things that go far beyond the right to petition the government and approach the definition of terrorism. If you are cutting the gas lines to someone's house or issuing guns to a "patriotic" militia with the intent to shoot up the government, then you can get the hell out of my country because that is NOT how things work here. We vote in change if we want it, or vote to keep the status quo if that's what we want. I don't care how badly you think President Obama is doing, or how much you hate the Health Care bill, or how wrong one side of the spectrum is. You do things respectfully, responsibly, and democratically.

If you don't like the Republicans in Congress, let them hear it through constituent services or in the midterm election. Same with the Democrats. Bricks through the window and other scare tactics are immature and unnecessary.

Today's America has little room for extremism.

Welcome to the Izzone

Tom Izzo is one of the greatest coaches to ever grace a Michigan sports program.

There. I said it. Now, that doesn't mean he touches the likes of Bo Schembechler, or Fielding Yost, or any of the other greats, but he is spectacular. He rivals the Lloyd Carr of recent U-Mich football, only because Lloyd was notoriously great in the season but lackluster in the post-season bowls. Prior to the NCAA tournament, Doug Gottleib of ESPN said the following: "The Spartans are a team that is in disarray right now... they lack polish, and are in for a shallow tournament run". Couple that with the fact that they were a 5-seed in a region with (1)Kansas, (2)Ohio State, (3)Georgetown, (4)Maryland, and (6)Tennessee, and one would tend to agree. The Midwest was loaded with high caliber teams.

After making it past the 12-seed New Mexico State, the Spartans faced (4)Maryland. This is the worst possible time to have a team leader go down, and Kalin Lucas did just that. The Spartans lost their on-court leader and top scorer with one false step. However, State won that game in thrilling fashion with a last-second buzzer beater made by the increasingly clutch Korey Lucious. They went on to play (9)Northern Iowa, which had upset overall #1 Kansas in a shocker that not only shattered my bracket, but millions of others. They beat Northern Iowa in their biggest win of the tournament, winning by a marginal seven points.

The scattered and fractured rag-tag group of basketball players that camps out in East Lansing had just stumbled into the Elite Eight, with a game against Bruce Pearl's Tennessee Volunteers looming. The Spartans again eked that one out 70-69, with another game decided in the closing 30 seconds.

Wait... Michigan State is in the Final Four? AGAIN? Prior to the tournament, this team wasn't even an outside contender. They were struggling to find their identity. Players lacked work ethic, or "weren't good teammates" according to Izzo. Couple that with losing your starting point guard, offensive and defensive star, and overall team leader at the same time, and this tournament run becomes increasingly unlikely.

Nevermind that they lost to Butler. People forget that Butler is no slouch. They're a physical team with a young, energetic coach, and an easy-to-love star in Gordon Hayward. This game was a grind-it-out style of basketball, with it only ending up 52-50. The Spartans didn't give it away. Butler won it. That's the beauty of Izzo's teams - when they lose, it's because they got beat. They don't self-destruct or beat themselves; they don't lose because they lacked heart or effort. This team stepped up when it counted and provided one of the most memorable tournament runs in history for me.

That doesn't make the loss easier to swallow. People had State favored. After the game, Joseph H. Bedford of "The Bedford Revue" had the following comments: "Gross. I hate Butler. That game was typical Big-10 basketball - first to 50 wins". Spoken like a true Spartan. A phone call to Mr. Bedford was not returned by press time.

Next year, Coach. Next year.

Watergate According to Socialism

Isn't it fascinating how the Administration in power can decide what is right and wrong, for the most part? Scandals that are detrimental to the public image of their agenda can be magically swept under the rug and kept on the down-low, while scandals that benefit them in some way get covered for weeks on end. I'm talking about the latest blow to Barack Obama's political agenda - Climategate.

I would wager that most of my readers have at least heard of Climategate, but know little of what happened, who was involved, what the direct consequences are, and so on. To briefly sum it up, a hacker got into the computers at the Hadley Research Center in England and revealed a whole host of electronic mail that showed leading climatologists manipulated data, forged graphs, and destroyed evidence that did not support their conclusions. As if that wasn't enough, they prevented scientists with dissenting opinions from being printed in peer-reviewed magazines. To oversimplify things - all of the above = BAD.

Now I'm going to relate this directly to the political agenda of the Obama Administration. Anyone remember during the State of the Union Address (after Jobs, Health Care, and a shot at the Supreme Court, of course) Obama mentioned something called a "cap and trade" policy? Cap and trade is also known as "emissions trading", and the general premise is regulating the amount of a specific pollutant a business can emit by forcing them to pay for their own filters, and offering small economic incentives. The whole logical foundation of cap and trade relies on the theory of global warming actually being a sound one. Thus, there's no doubt that it would be beneficial to Obama's plans for the next few years to just kind of "kick it to the curb".

The impact that this blatant breach of scientific practice has on the growing community of brainwashed global warming activists is colossal. This shakes the whole foundation of their beliefs. No longer are the polar ice caps melting, or the temperature increasing so drastically that it has a negative affect on our daily lives. But, the real crime isn't against science here. It's against the taxpayers. This is an enormous case of fraud. Billions upon billions of tax dollars have been devoted to a pure and noble cause that has turned into a corrupt, greed-driven, dogma-spewing fountain of lies.

When Obama took office, he made the following statement:

"Science and scientific process must inform and guide decisions of my administration on a wide range of issues, including mitigation of climate change. The public must be able to trust the science and scientific process. Public officials should not suppress or alter scientific technological findings."

This was a clear shot at George W. Bush, who casually tossed aside all notion of climate change during his presidency. Now, instead of walking around with his nose in the air pretending Climategate didn't happen (which I can tell you from personal experience doesn't work), he should thank whoever broke this story, and then cease work on the money pit that is Cap and Trade, and not put regulations like that on businesses that turn around and raise the cost for consumers.

I've long been a skeptic of global warming. A few degree change either way in temperature doesn't mean anything. It's very obvious that the Earth goes through periods of heating and cooling as time goes by, and I don't think this is any different (for that one person that always says "No it doesn't!", I give you two words: "ICE AGE"). This latest scandal coupled with the refusal to acknowledge it by our governing body definitely doesn't sway me towards this certain point of view.

Honestly, let's hope Obama ditches this "Cap and Trade, Save the Whales" rhetoric. That would be a fraud that far exceeds that of Hadley scientists - destroying trillions of dollars of profit by passing legislation based on an archaic theory that the Earth is baking us alive; legislation that deprives businesses of it's cheapest and most efficient forms of energy.

Ears Open, Eyes Up

This will be the shortest post I write on this blog, simply because it's such a clear-cut, black and white issue. It's one I have carefully tiptoed around, simply because it's a touchy subject in today's world. I'm talking about the signature piece of reform that bears the mark of Obama's face on it: Health Care.

Quite simply, for the first year of the Obama Administration's tenure, they enjoyed a 60-seat Democratic majority in the Senate, and approval ratings that are going to be the highest that Barack will ever see. Yet, they could not pass the bill, despite countless hours of drafting legislation behind locked doors in the bowels of Washington (probably didn't help).

Now, with a 59-seat majority (60 Yea votes are required to pass), Majority Leader Harry Reid can't get ONE MORE VOTE to pass this bill from anywhere he looks, and is even having trouble keeping progressive and centrist Democrats on board (12 pro-life Democrats, Bart Stupak included, are against the current version's abortion language).

So what does he do? Proposes reconciliation. PROMISES reconciliation. Again, for those of you who don't know, reconciliation allows a piece of legislation to be passed with only 50 votes instead of the traditional 60.

Here's the main point I'm trying to get across: right-wing conservatives hate this bill, moderate conservatives hate this bill, independents hate this bill, moderate liberals hate this bill, and America hates this bill. The only ones in favor are Obama fanboys in Congress; the relatively socialistic wing of our government.

This bill has no business getting passed. Period. If some bipartisan agreement is reached, where it is passed by 60 votes (which would, in the current Senate, require only ONE Republican to vote yes, assuming the Democrats all support it), then fine. I'll shut up. But if this bill sneaks through on a barebones vote with absolute minimal support, it would be a complete abomination.

Wrong Place, Wrong Time

Personally, I am probably the single greatest opponent of negative advertising you will ever meet. I am a firm believer in sportsmanship, integrity, honesty, and character. This goes for anything from a state championship baseball game, to a pickup basketball game, to a race for political office. I cannot stand the immature mudslinging that occurs every two years, be it a local/state race, or a national race. If you deserve the position more than your opponent, you'll get more votes. It's a pretty black and white issue.

That said, I am most definitely not oblivious to the slander that occurs. It's as much a part of life as death, taxes, and gravity. It is very unlikely to change anytime soon. So, as people do with things that are frowned upon, but still "necessary", limits must be set. Things like morals and ethics come into play, and certain aspects of a candidate's life are roped off and left untouched. Recent issues that were brought up and viciously attacked (and shouldn't have been) are things like Sarah Palin's pregnant teenage daughter and Down's Syndrome-stricken son. Or, perhaps just as ridiculous, Barack Obama's skin color and ethnicity. Why in the world do either of those make any difference to us, or in any way affect the competency of the aforementioned individuals? Who cares if Governor Palin's son has Down's Syndrome? Does it make any difference if then-Senator Obama is black or white? Absolutely not.

Recently, documents that were sent out to major players in the fundraising of the Republican Party were publicized. These 70-page "summaries" contained a slide entitled "The Evil Empire" that portrayed top Democrats as certain comic-book and cartoon villains. Barack Obama was "The Joker", Nancy Pelosi was "Cruella De Vil", and Harry Reid was "Scooby-Doo".

Left-wingers and the Obama Administration of course blasted these photos, but they were also denounced as "classless" by those on the right. Michael Steele, RNC Chairman, severely reprimanded the junior aide that placed the images in the documents, but will not discipline the parties involved (an action that I do not agree with). Minority Leader Mitch McConnell also admitted the pictures were in bad taste, as did Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT). The DNC is seizing the moment and absolutely ripping into those on the right, and I can't say I blame them. That kind of advertising is despicable, abhorrent, and just plain uncalled for.

However, keeping that in mind, I think the Democratic National Committee is taking advantage of a situation that just happened to spin in their favor. Assuming one playing with a full deck of cards, I would wager that the thought that every major player in elections does some variation of that in private has crossed the threshold of your brain. There is no doubt that this isn't an isolated incident. Similar tactics are most definitely used by Democrats, probably with Obama portrayed as God, Pelosi as Sacagawea (for "guiding in" a new era for Democrats), and Reid as Scooby-Doo (not even the state of Nevada likes him). You don't get donations by showing your opponents as good people, you get them by making them evil in the eyes of the people with the cash-lined pockets. It shouldn't work that way, but it does.

Even though people are super-quick to jump all over the Republicans (and by no means am I defending that behavior or condoning it), I guarantee you the other side is doing the same. Think along the lines of saying Republicans use scare tactics and fear to oppose legislation, and then Senator Reid going and saying if you don't support his jobs bill, you are advocating the abuse of women and destruction of America. Pot calling the kettle black? I think so.

"Conservative" and "Liberal" Are Relative Terms

Even if you happened to be living under a so-called rock for the first month of 2010, you have probably heard the name "Scott Brown" tossed around. Scott Brown is the man that the state of Massachusetts elected to replace the late Edward Kennedy in the U.S. Senate. What made this election such an eye-opener was the fact that the Democratic candidate, Martha Coakley, was very heavily favored to win. She watched over a two-week period as her double-digit lead in the polls shrunk to a multi-point deficit. The most Democratic state in the Union had just replaced arguably one of the greatest Democratic Senators of all time with a Republican. What gives?

Health Care is what gives. Scott Brown campaigned on the promise of the 41st vote against Health Care, and the American people answered. Conservatives across America rejoiced at having a chance to stop this "socialist takeover". What they didn't realize is that Scott Brown is far from the cookie-cutter conservative that he was projected to be.

Monday night, Brown announced that he would join the ranks of four other conservatives in blocking a filibuster of Senator Harry Reid's new jobs proposal. The political world exploded in a hailstorm of harshly negative comments that were slung at Brown via Twitter and Facebook - "RINO (Republican-in-name-only), letdown, sellout, and betrayal" were some of the more popular ones. Conservative activists were shell-shocked, especially since most had helped fund the senator's late-game run to the Capitol. Tea Partiers were outraged and hurt. I'm over here asking, is anyone surprised?

Scott Brown was elected in the state of Massachusetts. On a scale of 1-100 (1 being conservative, 100 being liberal), Massachusetts is a 562. Scott Brown is a Massachusetts conservative, and that makes him the most moderate Republican in the Senate. Do you really think the people of Massachusetts would have elected the likes of Orrin Hatch? John Boehner? John Kyl? Not a chance.

This whole "savior of conservatism" and "Ronald Reagan reborn" rallying cry that claimed Brown could make a run at the White House in 2012 was an image of false hope projected by America; an image that Scott Brown never claimed to be. People saw the red in the election map, and the "R" next to his name, and immediately assumed he'd be a model Republican. Vote on party lines, support GOP filibusters, not hop on board with the Democrats, etcetera etcetera. All Brown did was promise to be the 41st vote against Obamacare. Nothing more. Scott Brown is representing the state of Massachusetts, a state just like the other 49: plagued by unemployment. He knows his constituents put him there, and he's simply taking care of them.

You know, I'm not so sure voting for Reid's jobs bill and against a GOP filibuster is a bad thing. At all. Finally, we have people willing to step over party lines and take a chance. Who knows? Something might get done. Everyone knows the nation is not okay as-is, and nothing has been done so far. We need more centrist Democrats and progressive Republicans to meet in the middle and iron out some bills.

BCS should stand for Badly Concieved System.

One of the largest controversies of the 21st century has begun to make its way to the political world. Sports fans, I bring you the sad tale of the worst ranking system in history; a decision implemented on a whim that is destined to live in infamy: the Bowl Championship Series (BCS).

Most NCAA sports decide on a national champion through a logical post-season playoff (think college basketball with March Madness). College football, on the other hand, uses the illegitimate child of a love affair between a circus clown and a popularity contest.

Here's a breakdown of the current system: There are currently 34 post-season "bowls", ranging from the Roady's Humanitarian Bowl to the granddaddy of them all, The Rose Bowl. Math time! 34 bowls = 68 teams. Division 1 FBS has 120 teams total as of 2009. This means that over 50 percent of the teams make a bowl. If that sounds a little ridiculous, it is. To qualify for the bowl selection process, a team needs to finish 6-6, something my beloved Wolverines have failed to do for two years in a row.

Now out of those 68 teams, ten play in so-called "BCS Bowls" (Rose, Orange, Sugar, Fiesta, and the CitiBank National Championship). These teams are, "logically", ranked #1 through #10. Now in this case, "logically" is a relative term, because next I explain the ranking system.

Fundamentally, the way teams are ranked is sound. Computational algorithms and weighted deviation factors abound, but there is still a human element involved. When it comes down to the barebones system, I'm not going to even attempt to explain it. Honestly, all you need to know is that while it looks good on paper, practically, it leaves a lot to be desired.

Take the 09-10 season for example. The BCS Title game pitted the #1 Alabama Crimson Tide (undefeated) against the #2 Texas Longhorns (also undefeated). Sounds good, right? Not after I tell you that the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl had the #4 TCU Horned Frogs (undefeated and coming out of a non-BCS qualifying conference) against the #6 Boise State Broncos (ALSO undefeated.) Now no matter how these games play out, you’ve got two undefeated teams at the end of the season (in this case, 'Bama and Boise). Now Boise could not have had a better season. They never lost a damn game. But do they win a national championship? Nope, because this convoluted and childish system screwed over yet another team.

I dare someone to look me in the eye and tell me that if a team wins every single game they play, that they don't deserve a national title at the end of the year. All other sports set it up so that you play until you lose. Not so you do the best you POSSIBLY can, and still wind up second best with an undefeated record.

Think of this on a smaller scale. Tiger Woods is going stroke-for-stroke with Steve Stricker. At the end of the 18-hole round, Tiger is 4 under par, and Steve is 4 under par. They both finish out with 68's, but Tiger is declared the winner because he's a perennial dynastic powerhouse. That's one of the farthest things from fair I have ever seen.

A main argument of 'Bama's sole possession of the title is that "they play tougher competition". So? I don't care if they play the 1985 Bears, the 1972 Dolphins, 1962 Packers, and blow them all out of the water. If they lose to Boise or TCU, they lose.

This is becoming such a whined-about and lamented system that people are pushing for government intervention that forces some change. While I think that's a bit much, there is no doubt that this system strongly resembles our current health care system (albeit less urgent). It's broken. It needs a little Italian plumber to bounce on some heads, work with some pipes, and fix it.

The main problem that's keeping a fix in the proverbial committee is money. There is an absolutely unrealistic amount of money that is made from those 34 bowls. Advertisements generate revenue for the networks. Ticket sales generate revenue for the schools and stadiums. The events attract people from all over the nation to certain cities, generating a temporary economic boom from tourism. Schools appearing in the bowls profit from the game as well. NCAA officials are not willing to sacrifice the overwhelming fiscal profit that is takes the form of Capital One Bowl Week.

Don't get me wrong. Bowl Week is a great way to end the year. However, I'll be the first to admit that 34 bowls is pushing the edge of extremity. Who wants to watch Iowa State/Minnesota? How about Houston/Air Force? What about the MAC powerhouse Marshall play Ohio? Not me. I'll stick to the Big Ten, SEC, Big 12, and Pac-10 conferences.

Bottom line: the BCS goes against all value that is held in sports. A common phrase during the season is "Any given Saturday, any team can win". Well, this is simply not true in the postseason. Not any team can win, unless you're from a quasi-power conference and get a title berth. Which is a crying shame for the TCU's and the Boise's of College Football.

The Rise of Tea Party Activism

December 16, 1773. Bostonian Governor Thomas Hutchinson allowed cargo-loads of overtaxed tea to come in to Boston Harbor, and refused to send them back. Later that night, a rag-tag group of colonists boarded the ships and destroyed the shipment by throwing it into the ocean. Hutchinson did not believe that the colonists would choose to go without tea, a popular beverage of the day, instead of concede to the rule of a government where they had no representation in the legislature. Since then, the Boston Tea Party has become an icon of American Independence, as well as a symbol of protest in countries ranging from Britain to India.

Fast forward a few years. March 2009. The American economy is suffering greatly. Our great nation is on the verge of dropping like a stone from the ranks of economic world leaders, and there are doomsday predictions of a second Depression. Dramatic revelations have just come to light about AIG (American International Group) is paying $165 million in executive bonuses, $450 million in bonuses for the financial department, and company wide bonuses of $1.2 billion. This is AIG. The same company that had received a Federal Reserve bailout of $122 billion the year before, and promptly blew almost $1 million of that on a company-wide, all-inclusive retreat.

Let's go over the things wrong with this. In the first 6 months of 2008, AIG reported $13.2 billion dollars in losses. Shares in the company dropped like a stone from a 52-week high od $70.13 a share to a measly $1.25 a share; barely enough to buy a Coke in today's world. Wall Street and the Federal Reserve agreed that while executives of the company should not be rewarded, the economy could not afford to lose AIG. A bailout was proposed.

Then-Senator Barack Obama voted for the package, as did Senator Chuck Grassely (R-Iowa). As with most government bailouts, a large portion came from the pockets of the American taxpayers. For the time, it appeared AIG was safe.

Jump back ahead to March 2, 2009. AIG reported record losses. In the fourth fiscal quarter, the corporate conglomerate lost $61.7 billion, and announced a -$23.7 billion dollar revenue for the final 3 months of 2008. Some bailout. That's when it came to light that a lump sum of the stimulus injection was used for rewarding frivolous investing on the part of executives. Give a heartwarming round of applause to the single largest growth in the Tea Party Movement in history.

The Tea Party movement is a taxpayer protest movement built around resisting government spending as a way out of the recession, using the symbolic name as a method of invoking strong feelings. The movement is less than pleased with the proposed budget (3.8 trillion) by President Obama, which is the largest single-year proposal in history. Protest leaders also admit to being unhappy with former-President George W. Bush's "socialistic spending". See, the movement has existed since early 2007. However, it lacked support, simply because spending had not gotten us into trouble at that point in time.

I'll say it again: it's a TAXPAYER PROTEST movement. I can assure all of you that the Tea Party Movement is NOT a cover for racism and hatred for blacks. As ridiculous as that sounds, it's what PMSNBC's Keith Olbermann and guest Janeane Garofalo spent almost 9 minutes talking about on The Countdown. Some of the quotes from Garofalo range from calling Tea Partiers a "bunch of teabagging rednecks", even going so far as to say "this is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up". Quite simply, no, it's not. It may be about hatred, but it's nothing more than a hatred of Republicans wasting money, and a hatred of Democrats wasting money.

I think the Tea Party Movement is healthy. It keeps Washington honest, a city driven by greed, corruption, scandal; a city so divided by partisanship that it has party lines so thick it makes Johnny Cash jealous. The movement is a strong organization with a mindset that goes against the agenda of President Obama, and is thus labeled as racist. Interesting. And I thought Republicans were accused of playing the race card in 2008...

Pro populus, per populus.

Reality Check

This is, to put it delicately, a message to Washington Republicans. Ever since the Obama Administration steamrolled ahead with Health Care, and put its astoundingly large, filibuster-proof majority (essentially 60-40) to "good" use, I've been right with the Republicans on Capitol Hill: screaming for a bipartisan bill. The idea of 12 members of either party locked behind 5 sets of doors locked down by armed guards, toasting each other and writing a bill that determines my future medical coverage does not remotely appeal to me. This needs to be a bill that has ideas from both parties, both ends of the political spectrum, both sides of the aisle. People viewed the Republicans as the "Party of No", citing their close-mindedness. I said the same for the Democrats. Their unwillingness to cooperate with their proverbial "little brother" was unnerving to me, seeing how Republicans were constantly pushing their ideas.

Finally, a break. The filibuster-proof majority was history. Scott Brown of Massachusetts had just been elected in the upset of the century over Democrat Martha Choke-ly (thank you, Joe). Finally, a chance for Republicans to get their provisions in there; to make Democrats listen. There was now a chink in the armor. President Obama, in a move that surprised me and struck me as open-minded, invited the GOP to a Health Care Summit on the 25th of February, where he would listen to their ideas.

How does the GOP respond to the offer? Well, John Kyl, House Minority Leader John Boehner, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and other top Republicans are already crying foul. The general consensus among them is this: "We're walking into a trap up there."

A trap? A TRAP?! Listen, the only way this bipartisan summit is a trap is if you ain't got shit for plans. Since day one, you've been pleading for your ideas to be heard. All the way up here in Alpena, Michigan, so was I. I'm against complete partisan control of anything by either Democrats or Republicans, and Health Care is not an issue to put my fears to the test on. So, I went around apparently making a liar of myself and spewing the same message as you: "Hey, come on now, at least LISTEN to their ideas!".

So, Senator McConnell and Representative Boehner, come February 25th, you better come out guns blazing. If I find out you've got nothing to back up that mouth, I'll be one unhappy conservative.

That said, I am still against Obamacare, for my own reasons. I think the American public sent a message in various gubernatorial elections, and on a national stage in the Massachusetts Special Election. They wanted the 41st vote against Health Care in the Senate, and they got it with Senator Brown. Nancy Pelosi is proposing reconciliation (passing the bill with only 50 Senate votes instead of the usual 60), and other Democratic senators are pushing legislation to change the rules of the filibuster. I think both of the above actions are extremely unethical and a complete abomination of the democratic process, and both are simply a ploy to get a legislative victory on the left side of the aisle, one which polls show most Americans are against.

However, I digress. The point of this post is general unhappiness with the Republicans in Washington. They are on track to put a large dent in the Democratic congressional majority (My current prediction for after the 2010 Midterms is 53 D - 47 R, pending consideration of Independents).

Let's not ruin it by talking needless smack.

Pro populus, per populus.

Good Intentions

In the past few months, I've had several posts on Facebook that have turned into heated political discussions. These topics ranged from Haitian relief after one of the worst natural disasters on record in the Western Hemisphere, to controversial conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh attempting to buy the St. Louis Rams.

This is my attempt to insulate those who really don't care about anything I have to say from having to read those. If people are genuinely interested in my opinions, they'll come here. Since you've gotten this far, now seems like a good time to throw in a disclaimer: I'm going to be about as fair and balanced as Fox News on here. Hopefully even those of you who stick to newspapers caught the sarcasm and understood that means "not at all". I do have opinions on issues, and will most definitely be basing most of my posts around things that I believe, and presenting that opinion to you. That said, I can guarantee you that they will be presented in a tasteful and respectful manner.

I also am open to topic suggestions. Send me a Facebook message, SMS message, tell me in the hall, or ring my doorbell. Whichever you prefer. As for what I'll typically be covering, my topics of interest range from politics to sports. Most of my writings will be over the colossal circle-jerk that is our nation's capital, but others will be from the world of professional sports. (Golf, Tennis, Football, and Baseball to name a few.

If you managed to get this far, I commend you. There is perhaps a cookie in your future. Here's hoping you'll come back for more. I would definitely love any and all feedback. It helps assuage my fears that I'm typing to myself.

Pro populus, per populus.