Fedor losses to Werdum: Aftermath

Last night something happened many Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) fans believed was nearly impossible: Fedor Emelianenko lost a MMA match for the first time in ten years. He had fought 29 times since his first career loss in December 2000 and the only fight he did not win was ruled a "No Contest" because of an accidental Head Butt. Saturday night Fedor was caught in a Triangle Choke-Armbar by his opponent Fabricio Werdum. Werdum, a Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu Black Belt, was a heavy underdog coming into this fight.

This fight showed that even one of the best fighters ever can loose if he gets caught in a bad situation. For many years people had assumed that the only way to be Fedor was in a stand up war because of his background in Sambo and Judo. Sambo was considered the Martial Art that had the best defensive positioning to foil the submission moves of Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu. For a decade Fedor took on men of numerous fighting style backgrounds such as Kickboxing, Muay Tai, Wrestling, Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, and even Boxing; yet for 29 straight fights Fedor found a way to not loose.

This loss doesn't diminish Fedor's legacy as one of the greatest MMA fighters of all time, just like the bad last season of Babe Ruth's career or the last couple lackluster season's of Michael Jordan's career doesn’t diminish their legends. Whether one is a fan or not of Fedor, he is definitely a legend in Mixed Martial Arts.

So the man who was considered the best Heavyweight MMA fighter in the world has finally lost, now what?

*Well for starters this is a great day for Dana White and the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC). The UFC is widely recognized as the premier MMA organization in the world. The UFC has positioned itself as the place where the best of the best fight in the same way the NFL has with football and the NBA has with basketball. Werdum is a fighter who use to fight in the UFC and had a 2-2 record before leaving the UFC. Dana White (who is the President and promotional front man of the UFC where he appears to be a combination between NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and Boxing Promoter Bob Arum) has said that Fedor was avoiding fighting the Best of the Best since he would not come to the UFC. Fedor has fought for every other recognizable MMA entity except the UFC. So now that Fedor's first loss in ten years was to a guy who won two out of four fights in the UFC gives credibility to White's claims of UFC superiority with MMA talent.
Also, the UFC can now promote their upcoming Heavyweight matchup as the fight to crown the next top Heavyweight fighter in MMA. UFC 116's main event matches current Heavyweight Champ Brock Lesnar and Interim Heavyweight Belt holder Shane Carwin. With Fedor losing to a former UFC fighter, White can say that whoever wins the fight between Lesnar and Carwin will take Fedor's place as top heavyweight in the world.

*One the other hand this is a major low point for M-1 Global, the official promoter for Fedor Emelianenko. The organization has held MMA competitions while acting as the agent for Fedor (who is a part owner of M-1). Fedor's invincibility was M-1's meal ticket. They positioned themselves in a way that they could drive a hard bargain for the top Heavyweight fighter in the world. But now that he has lost, that image that was portrayed of Fedor has been damaged and their ability to play hardball is gone. While Fedor said after the fight he has one more fight in America because of the contract he signed, M-1 cannot make any demands on who he will fight next.

*Interestingly enough, Strikeforce comes out of this with a positive. Strikeforce has been viewed as that "other" MMA organization where guys who do not like the UFC or may be UFC cast offs go. A simple analogy would be to say Strikeforce is to UFC what the USFL in the 1980's was to the NFL or what the ABA was to the NBA in the 1970's. Strikeforce made a hard push to get a deal signed with Fedor. The fact that Fedor lost to one of Strikeforce's own guys, Werdum, shows that Strikeforce has some high level MMA fighters in their organization. But the issue will continue to be that Strikeforce does not come close to the UFC in terms of talent depth or visibility. Strikeforce's best bet from here on out is to position themselves as either the alternate in MMA to the UFC or eventually be absorbed in the UFC just like the ABA was by the NBA.

*Fedor has a few options for the final fight of his contract. Strikeforce needs to take full financial advantage of its last opportunity to market Fedor since he might retire after this next fight. They cannot rationalize having Fedor fight their current Heavyweight Champ Alistair Overeem after a loss, so they could have Fedor fight Antonio Silva. Silva has one loss in his last eight fights and it was to the man who just beat Fedor, Fabricio Werdum.
Strikeforce could also try to set up a "super fight" with one of their other star fighters. Dan Henderson (who recently lost to current Strikeforce Middleweight Champ Jake Shields) is an option. Henderson (a former UFC fighter) use to fight as a light heavyweight and has had issues in the past cutting weight to fight at 185 lbs. Fedor is considered an average sized heavyweight fighter so Henderson would only have to give up a couple inches height wise in a fight with Fedor. Also the option of not having to cut weight for Henderson would be a definite appeal. Strikeforce could market the fight as "USA versus Russia" since Henderson represented the US in the 1992 and 1996 Olympics as a wrestler.
On the other hand Strikeforce could set up a "Super Fight" between Fedor and their current Light Heavyweight Champion Mohammed "King Mo" Lawal. Lawal dominated Gegard Mousasi for five round in his last fight in which he won the Light Heavyweight Strikeforce belt. Lawal does not have a clear cut opponent to defend his belt against in Strikeforce's light heavyweight division. A matchup with Fedor could be viewed as an informal passing of the MMA torch between legend and up-and-comer. In this fight both guys win no matter the result. If Fedor wins it would be pointed out he is one of the greatest MMA fighters ever and he went out on top while Lawal is young yet. If Lawal wins it would be rationalized that Lawal can now be labeled a real MMA Star in beating a legend while people can say that having over thirty fights in his career has worn down Fedor.


As a side note, I was never a big fan of Fedor Emelianenko. I was tired of him always winning and wanted to see someone beat him. In 2005 Fedor was set to fight Mirko "Cro Cop" Filipovic. In my mind I thought if anyone was talented enough of a fighter to beat Fedor it was Crop Cop. But Fedor beat him by Unanimous Decision. Crop Cop was the last fighter who was able to go an entire fight without being finished by Fedor. After that Fedor rattled off 8 straight fights in which he finished his opponents. So it seems only fitting that a fighter who stopped 21 out of 29 opponents by either submission, Technical Knockout (TKO) or Knockout (KO) over the course of a decade would be beaten by a fighter who submitted him.

Ultimately it is the way that Fedor handled the loss is what gave me a new level of respect for him. He handled the loss graciously and professionally. He didn’t make excuses, he didn't complain, he wasn’t even mad. It was as if a burden was taken from him. He is allowed to be human again. I cannot imagine the pressure Fedor was under for so long because people viewed him as invincible.

No matter what happens from here on out, it should be recognized that Fedor was more than just a legend, he is a fighter who changed MMA. He didn't just beat six different champions of different MMA organizations, but it is how he defeated fighters is what made him unique. The old mantra is "styles make fights". Fedor never tried to exclusively use his skills as a Sambo and Judo fighter to his advantage over his opponents. Instead he won by beating his opponents at what they do best. If you were famous for knocking people out, Fedor was not afraid to exchange strikes with you and then he would knock you out. If you were known as a great wrestler or grappler, he would submit you. If you were known to be able to outlast your opponents and beat them by outscoring them, Fedor would beat you that same way. His style of fighting forced people to see that MMA was not suppose to be about brute force or being super skilled at a specific martial art discipline, but to win you must be all around skilled fighter who knows how to use your talents and martial art acumen to beat your opponent. And above all, how he handled himself and how he respected other fighters raised the bar for sportsmanship. Fedor changed MMA forever; he put the "Martial Arts" back in MMA.

The Big 12 stays intact: Reaction

So after the drama of the last couple weeks, officially the Big 12 Athletic Conference will stay in existence. There were rumors that the top football schools who are members of the Big 12 (University of Texas, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Texas Tech) would leave to join the Pacific Athletic Conference (PAC-10).

So instead of rehash everything that has happened to the college sports landscape, I’ll do a quick overview and then my thoughts:


*University of Nebraska leaves the Big 12 and joins the Big Ten Conference

-Nebraska left the Big 12 because they wanted a better share of the TV revenue from the conference and they wanted more media exposure. I know some experts say this is a good move for them but I am still scratching my head about it. They leave because of money, yet they will not be a major player in their new conference. They were one of the top three football programs in the Big 12, while in the Big Ten they are maybe the 5th best football program. Since college football is the biggest money maker for college athletics I do not see how Nebraska benefits except that the Big Ten has their own TV Network so their school’s other athletic programs will have more exposure.


*University of Colorado leaves the Big 12 and joins the PAC-10

-The PAC-10 is well known for having high academic standards. The Universities of Washington, University of California, and UCLA are all well known research schools while Stanford University has some of the toughest academic standards among major universities in the nation. So the PAC-10 invited a university that has been cited four times by NCAA for multiple violations of collegiate athletics rules in the last thirty years. Some of these violations have involved academics. So how does Colorado fit in with the PAC-10? Colorado has a decent football program, weak men’s and women’s basketball programs, and their best sports historically are Cross Country and Skiing. The real reason Colorado is a part of the PAC-10 is for the exposure in the Denver media market.


*The Big 12 is staying intact, with ten teams.

-The Big 12 now has ten teams, the Big Ten has twelve teams, and the PAC-10 has eleven teams. My first reaction is why don’t these “smart” people who run these conferences come up with better names? Universities are places where students go to be educated and enlightened, obviously such education and enlightenment does not extend to those who come up with the names for such organizations. Furthermore, the Big 12 has been weakened in their athletics with the departure of Nebraska and Colorado. What the Big 12 should do is invite Texas Christian University (TCU) and the University of Houston so they can revitalize the conference. Both schools have good athletic programs. Then the Big 12 can have a north division consisting of Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Missouri, Kansas, Kansas State and Iowa State and a south division with Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Baylor, Houston and TCU. THAT would be interesting, but I’m just speaking as a sports fan.


*University of Utah is rumored to be going to the PAC-10

-So since the PAC-10 couldn’t get Texas, Oklahoma and half of the Big 12, many experts suspect that Utah will be invited into the PAC-10. I am unsure how they will divide up the conference with the inclusion of Colorado and Utah, but having Utah is a better prospect than Colorado for the PAC-10. Utah has good football, men’s basketball, and women’s gymnastics programs along with a good academic tradition. Utah is a good fit for the PAC-10.


*Notre Dame University Football is staying Independent

-I have had enough of Norte Dame demanding to be independent. The school has not won a major bowl game since 1994 (Cotton Bowl). Schools such as Alabama, Oklahoma, USC, Miami, Nebraska and Ohio State have been football powerhouses for decades and they are not independent from an athletic conference. I cannot wait for the day that Notre Dame Football stops putting their nose into the air towards the college football world and they join an athletic conference.

Yes, they have won eight national championships in the National Poll era (since 1936), but their last championship was in 1988. Alabama has also won eight national championships and they have won two since Notre Dame’s last championship. University of Southern California (USC) and Oklahoma have won seven national championships while Ohio State and University of Miami have won five national championships. Also, since Notre Dame was national champion in 1988 Miami, Nebraska and Florida have won three championships while Alabama, Louisiana State University (LSU), Florida State and USC have won two championships. So Notre Dame needs to get with the times; the other great football schools have.

The case why JaMarcus Russell is NOT the biggest NFL Draft Bust

Ever since former Oakland Raiders Quarterback (QB) JaMarcus Russell was released (basically fired), there has been an obsession with him being the "number one draft bust in NFL history". Such a statement is made by people who seemingly forget history. And the fact I need to make a case explaining what players and QB’s where bigger busts (disappointments) then Russell in NFL history is pathetic.

The reason why Russell was drafted number 1 overall in 2007 wasn’t because he really was the best player in the draft that year, but because Al Davis, owner of the Raiders was infatuated with him. The 2007 NFL draft was not a very deep talent draft. The best players in the 2007 draft were Calvin Johnson, Joe Thomas, and Adrian Peterson. If Peterson was fully healthy, the Raiders might have drafted him while other teams would not have let him fall to the Vikings. The Raiders, because of their interest in Russell, created such hype around him that people assumed that there are high expectations for him.

While Russell may have been the biggest bust of the 2007 NFL Draft, he cannot be labeled the biggest "QB Bust”. Russell was not considered the top QB prospect in the 2007 draft. Russell was drafted number one overall because he was seen as a "special talent". Brady Quinn, who was drafted 22nd overall by the Cleveland Browns, was seen as a better overall QB then Russell. But Oakland didn’t like the fact that Quinn was not a very mobile QB so they zoned in and picked Russell.

The biggest QB Bust of all time, in my opinion, is Ryan Leaf. When you look back at the 1998 NFL Draft, both of the top 2 picks where held by teams who needed great Quarterback to be the face of the franchise. The Colts were actually considering drafting Leaf over Peyton Manning. Looking back we see how nuts that idea would have been because Manning is now a superstar QB and is going to be in the Hall of Fame one day. But some people in the Colts organization at the time liked Leaf's delivery and arm strength better then Manning's. Many people in the NFL in 1998 considered Peyton Manning the number one QB prospect but saw Leaf as a very close second. Peyton was not seen as a sure thing because some viewed him as a player who did not always perform under pressure.

Leaf didn’t just not live up to expectations, but he totally imploded. The man who was supposed to be the alternative to Peyton Manning had issues on and off the field. He blew up on reports, was moody, and did lousy on the field. On the other hand, Russell was seen as a guy who was very raw but could develop into "a real good player". Leaf was seen as a possible great QB. So, based purely on expectations, Leaf was a bigger bust then Russell.

Now let’s consider the biggest number 1 overall drafted NFL bust. That title could go to Ki-Jana Carter, drafter in 1995 by the Cincinnati Bengals. He was considered the next "great running back". You look at five of the next eight picks after him were all players who had solid NFL careers while Carter couldn’t stay healthy. The Bengals franchise suffered for the next several years because they invested so much in him. On the other hand, three years after the Raiders drafted Russell, they have a chance at making the playoffs.

So while the Oakland Raiders made a bad pick when they drafted Russell in 2007, it is unfair to say he is the biggest bust of all NFL picks. Russell’s career is still not over but it is obvious he will never be the player the Raiders envisioned he would become when they drafted him in 2007. Russell lacks the work ethic and genuine interest in football to become a great QB. Maybe when Russell sees he is running low on cash he will get himself into shape, impress a team and get signed to a contract and be given a shot at starting again. Until then, people need to realize he should not be labeled the worst of the NFL disappointments.

Del Negro gone in Chicago; where do the Bulls go from here?

Today ESPN reports the Chicago Bulls are going to announce tomorrow the firing of their Head Coach Vinny Del Negro. Back in December of 2009 there was rumors that the Bulls were going to fire Del Negro but then the team won 9 of their next eleven games and reached the playoffs for the second straight year. Then on March 30th there was a fierce argument between Del Negro and Bulls’ Executive VP of Basketball Operations John Paxson. Paxson, who some consider the “de facto” man in charge of the team, has not been happy with Del Negro’s coaching for some time now, even though Del Negro has only been the Bulls Head Coach for two seasons.

Paxson and Del Negro are both former NBA players who played very passionately and that passion translates to their current jobs. Paxson has done a good job rebuilding this Bulls team, stocking it with talented and hard working players. When he hired Del Negro it was viewed as a controversial hire because some viewed Del Negro as too inexperienced to be made a Head Coach. But the problem had nothing to do with Del Negro’s ability to coach; the clashing between Del Negro and Paxson over basketball philosophy was the real issue. Even though some of what Del Negro has done has had good results, Paxson was still unhappy with the fact that he felt that Del Negro was not getting the best out of the players.

The Chicago Bulls have a lot of potential as a team. They have a Point Guard in Derrick Rose who has the ability to be a perennial All-Star, a Center in Joakim Noah who is a great leader, and a talented Forward in Luol Deng who, if motivated enough, can dominate on offense and defense. The problem for the Bulls is that it always seems like they are a player or two short of being a major contender for the NBA championship. They need another Power Forward/Center to play with Noah who can contribute consistently on offense and defense. They also need a player who can play Shooting Guard who can take the scoring burden off of the shoulders of Rose and Deng.

So now, to use a basketball term, the ball is in Paxson’s court. He first needs to hire a Head Coach who works well with young players and can motivate them to play hard. But it needs to be a Head Coach who is well respected and can be used as a draw to bring in free agents. I suggest either Jeff Van Gundy or Avery Johnson. Both men have experience dealing with a variety of players of different ages, skill levels, and personalities. Both also have shown that their teams play hard, solid defense, and they are respected by their players. The Bulls’ players need a coach who can help get them to play to the best of their abilities as a team and these two coaches have experience doing that.

Paxson also needs to take advantage of the free agent market this summer. The Bulls need another star type player to make an impact on this team. They need to sign a player to say to the core players on this team “We believe you guys can win a championship, here’s the final piece” while saying to the fans “We want to win a championship; just making the playoffs isn’t good enough”. If the Bulls could lure superstar Dwayne Wade from resigning with the Miami Heat to come to Chicago that would be huge. Wade, who grew up in Chicago, has been carrying teams by himself for too long and the players on the Bulls team compliment his style of play. Since winning an NBA Championship with the Miami Heat four years ago, Wade’s team has not gotten close to doing so again. Signing Wade would change the dynamics of how opposing teams have to play the Bulls, causing teams to have to focus so much on Wade it opens opportunities for other players to excel. If they cannot get Wade, I think the Bulls should try to sign either Power Forward Chris Bosh or Shooting Guard Joe Johnson. Both players fit in with the type of players the Bulls have built to be the centerpieces of this team while not disrupting chemistry.

Whatever happens in Chicago, Paxson needs to understand that if he wants to enable this team to have a good shot at winning an NBA Championship that he has the opportunity to make it happen now or he might be fired. Paxson has overseen the evolution of this franchise: from a place where reject type players migrate to play at, into a team that has a lot of potential and a superstar player away from being a major contender. But will Paxson pull the trigger to bring in a great coach and great player(s) to make this team a potential great team for the next five years or will he let this opportunity slip away?

Jeff Ireland asks Dez Bryant what??

Let me ask you a question: if you went to a job interview and they asked you a question about your mother’s job history, wouldn’t you wonder what the relevance is? Now another question: if at a job interview you were asked if your mother use to be a prostitute, wouldn’t you be angry?

Well that is what happened to former Oklahoma State Wide Receiver Dez Bryant in a pre-NFL Draft interview. Miami Dolphins General Manager Jeff Ireland has apologized to Bryant (now that the story has become public) for asking him before last week’s NFL Draft if his mother was a prostitute. Ireland said to the media that “My job is to find out as much information as possible about a player that I'm considering drafting. Sometimes that leads to asking in-depth questions.” So, since it is public knowledge that Bryant’s mother was arrested years ago for drug distribution, in Ireland’s mind this was a valid question to find out about Dez Bryant’s character.

This is disgraceful for any potential employer to ask someone such a question with no formal information that would make it relevant. In a recent interview Dez Bryant called Jeff Ireland an “A-list A-hole” for asking such a question. While some may say him saying that about Ireland was unnecessary you need to put yourself in his position for a moment. Bryant is a guy who has had people question his character and work ethic almost totally based on the fact that he was suspended by the NCAA because he had a get together with Deion Sanders to talk about Bryant’s potential in the NFL. The NCAA claimed Bryant did not fully disclose the details of his meeting with Sanders and cited a NCAA bylaw (which most college sports experts say was loosely interpreted).

Since this suspension Bryant has been overly scrutinized and this story coming to light is an example of how low some people in the NFL will go to pick apart potential employees. Whether its Tim Tebow or Dez Bryant, people who work for NFL Franchises seem to want to find things wrong with potential players then just see these athletes for what they are, positives AND negatives. It should be pointed out that this isn’t a recent issue with NFL executives. NFL Hall of Famers Joe Montana, Jack Lambert, Warren Moon, Deacon Jones, Johnny Unitas, and John Randle were all picked apart by the “geniuses” in the NFL.

But what Miami Dolphins General Manager Jeff Ireland asked Bryant was more than just picking at him. To ask a man if his mother is a prostitute is unprofessional, disgraceful and disgusting. Just because someone has a parent with a history of bad behavior does not mean that reflects onto the child’s ability to do a job. I do not blame Dez Bryant for calling Ireland an “A-List A-hole”. In fact I have a new level of respect for Bryant because he sat there and said no instead of lashing out at Ireland. The fact he stayed under control during the interview shows me he is more professional and controlled then the man interviewing him, Jeff Ireland.

If NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell cares about the conduct of those in the professional league he oversees he needs to discipline Ireland for his crass behavior toward a young man in his early 20’s. Goodell suspended Quarterback Ben Roethlisberger 6 games for violating the NFL’s personal conduct policy for bad judgment and a history of making bad decisions off the field. Shouldn’t Goodell use the same standards in dealing with NFL team executives he uses with the players in the NFL? Ireland’s unprofessionalism is what has been revealed in the media happens behind closed doors in the NFL. It is slowly coming out about what else gets asked and said to potential NFL players in these interviews. This has gone beyond finding out about someone’s character, this is disgraceful. When former Stanford Running Back Toby Gerhardt is asked by an NFL executive if he feels “entitled to play” in the NFL because he is white then it’s safe to say that the people who really need to be scrutinized may not be the athletes as much as the executives in the suits.

Needless to say, Dez Bryant must be very happy he was not drafted by the Miami Dolphins. I certainly wouldn’t want to work for a company where one of my bosses asked me if my mom was a prostitute.

Ryan Howard: the 2nd highest paid player in baseball?

Today the Philadelphia Phillies signed their All-Star first baseman Ryan Howard to a five year, 125 million dollar contract extension that makes him the second highest player in baseball. This move keeps Howard in a Phillies uniform through at least 2016 while allowing the Phillies the financial flexibility to sign their other key players to keep their best players.

This contract has me scratching my head because it seems like the Phillies overpaid to keep Ryan Howard in Philadelphia. First I view Howard as the second best player on the Phillies. Chase Utley is right now the best overall player on the roster and Jayson Werth is a very close third behind Howard. Howard has not made it clear that he really should be the second highest salary in baseball, especially when he isn’t that much better overall then Utley or Werth. Utley is a better overall hitter and Werth is a better all around player then Howard. So then when it comes time to re-sign Jayson Werth at the end of this season and Shortstop Jimmy Rollins (a top 5 talent at his position) at the end of next season, how much do you have to pay them to keep them in Philly? Will they be willing to take a “hometown discount” or will they during contract negotiations point to what Howard is making and say “Why cant I make close to what he is getting?” It’s a dicey situation the Phillies have put themselves in.

Secondly it should be considered the fact that Ryan Howard is considered by the so-called experts to be the fourth best 1st baseman in Major League Baseball (MLB). The top player at the 1st base position is Albert Pujols of the St. Louis Cardinals hands down; Pujols is the best overall hitter in baseball and is a very good fielder too. Pujols could end his career as one of the top three players in baseball history. So why is Howard being paid right now 6 million more dollars then Pujols? I wonder what the Phillies logic is paying him this much money.

As for the other players who are labeled as better then Howard is more so debatable. “Experts” claim that Mark Teixeira of the New York Yankees and Adrian Gonzalez of the San Diego Padres are better overall 1st basemen then Ryan Howard. Well let’s look at the numbers because they don’t have any bias. Look at the averages for Howard, Teixeira, and Gonzalez over the last three seasons:

*Ryan Howard – HR: 46, RBI: 141, Batting average: .266, fielding percentage: .989
*Mark Teixeira – HR: 34, RBI: 117, Batting average: .302, fielding percentage: .996
*Adrian Gonzalez – HR: 35, RBI: 106, Batting average: .282, fielding percentage: .995

In the home runs and runs batted in categories Howard dominates the other two players. But the other two players are much better then Ryan Howard in batting average and fielding. But this discussion is suppose to be about the best overall player. Yes Howard strikes out much more than most players of his skill level, his production is top notch. Also most of his fielding errors are on throws while he does a great job receiving the ball at 1st base so having his fielding percentage is a bit relative. Yet Teixeira is making now 2 million dollars less then Howard.

But the player who I think might be better than Ryan Howard but doesn’t get much recognition is Prince Fielder of the Milwaukee Brewers. Just take a look at the three year average of the same statistics:

*Prince Fielder – HR: 43, RBI: 120, Batting average: .287, fielding percentage: .990

As you can see Fielder’s home run numbers are closer to Howard while his batting average and fielding percentage statistics are better. Also Fielder has better RBI and batting average numbers then Adrian Gonzalez. But Fielder is making only 2 million dollars more than Gonzalez while making 15 million dollars less then Howard.

So while Howard is one of the best power hitters and a top 5 1st baseman in MLB one should question if he really worth 25 million dollars when better overall 1st basemen like Pujols and Fielder are making much less money than him. I think the Phillies hit the panic button and overpaid to keep Howard happy. A Phillies fan has to be concerned if the team will cry “poor” when going to re-sign their other great players like Chase Utley, Jimmy Rollins and Jayson Werth. The Phillies said they couldn’t afford to resign Pitcher Cliff Lee then acquired Pitcher Roy Halladay and signed him to a 3 year, 60 million dollar contract extension. It seems like to me the Phillies are not being smart with their money. They can’t afford to be the New York Yankees, especially when they showed in last year’s World Series they don’t play better then them.

NFL Draft Round 1: Analysis

The first round of the NFL Draft last night was certainly interesting; it left some people excited, some indifferent and others angry, depending on what team you cheer for. I ‘m not going to be excessive and breakdown EVERY pick of the 1st round, instead I will go over the winners, head-scratching moves, and picks I refer to as “the jury is still out” from last night.

WINNERS

-Detroit Lions: After years of NFL mediocrity and being the laughing stock of most drafts, the Lions under new Coaching and Management have now had two straight years of solid picks. With the 2nd overall pick the Lions drafted University of Nebraska Defensive Tackle (DT) Ndamakong Suh, the man who I consider the top player in the draft. He can have an immediate impact on defense for this team and will be a force to be reckoned with. Then the Lions traded up for the 30th overall pick and took University of California Running Back (RB) Jahvid Best. Best is a dynamic player who has the potential to be a superstar and can fill a major need for Detroit on offense. The Lions need a RB who can carry and catch the ball, relieving pressure off of QB Matthew Stafford.

-Seattle Seahawks: New Head Coach Pete Carroll got lucky (for lack of a better term) when Oklahoma State University Offensive Tackle (OT) Russell Okung was still available. Many experts consider Okung the best offensive lineman in the draft. Okung has all the tools necessary to be a solid NFL caliber OT. Then the Seahawks got another fortunate break when the Philadelphia Eagles left University of Texas Safety Earl Thomas available for Seattle to draft at the 14th overall pick. Thomas is the best pass defense Safety in the draft and has great instincts. Seattle has everything going their way so far in this year’s draft.

-Arizona Cardinals: For whatever reason team after team let talented DT Dan Williams from the University of Tennessee stay available. When the 26th pick came around, the Cardinals had to be surprised one of the best defensive players in this year’s draft was still out there to be picked. The Cardinals get a solid all-around player who can make an immediate positive impact for them on defense. Williams is everything talent-wise a team could want in a Defensive Tackle.

-Dallas Cowboys: Owner Jerry Jones still regrets he did not draft future Hall of Fame Wide Receiver Randy Moss in the 1998 NFL Draft because of off the field issues. So when the Cowboys saw that Oklahoma State Wide Receiver (WR) Dez Bryant was passed over by four teams that need a WR for the same reason the Cowboys passed over Moss in 1998, they had to go get him. Dallas made a trade with the New England Patriots to get the 24th overall pick and grabbed Bryant. Dez Bryant’s off the field issues are subjective in nature and his abilities as a football player make him a steal for the Cowboys. As I explained to someone today: “Dez Bryant has Randy Moss’ leaping ability, Larry Fitzgerald’s hands, and Miles Austin’s agility”.


HEAD SCRATCHERS:

-Jacksonville Jaguars: Defensive Tackle Tyson Aluala from the University of California was a good college player. But is he really worthy of being drafted 10th overall? I’m not the only person who doesn’t think so. When you take a player most people don’t even know, you are doing your franchise and fans a real disservice. The Jaguars are a team that has had trouble with attendance in recent years and taking with your top pick a guy who may not make a real impact on your team this coming season really makes me wonder what they are thinking down in Jacksonville. Let’s also consider the fact that the Jaguars last several 1st round picks have not worked out: Matt Jones, Reggie Williams, and Derrick Harvey to name a few.

-Philadelphia Eagles: So the Eagles traded up to make a top talent pick to help their defense. They need a Safety with the ability to start now and also a lot of upside. So what do they do? They draft a player who played Linebacker in college to play Defensive End for them. Right, that makes so much sense (sarcasm). Brandon Graham played outside linebacker at the University of Michigan and was their best defensive player last season. But when one of the top defensive players in the draft is available (Safety Earl Thomas) and you pass on him for a player you could have waited a few more picks to try and grab is a questionable move. Now I think Brandon Graham can be a solid NFL player and is a hard worker who can make a good impact for the Eagles, but the Eagles seem to always pass on the players who are almost guaranteed to be successful in the NFL for guys who have raw talent and need a bit of development.

-New Orleans Saints: The reigning Super Bowl champions picked a player who plays a position they are very deep at right now. The Saints drafted Florida State Cornerback (CB) Patrick Robinson with the 32nd overall pick. The Saints already have four cornerbacks who could start on many NFL teams, so why draft Robinson? Robinson is a good CB but isn’t great at anything. Maybe this was just a safe pick for the Saints. They could have drafted a linebacker who could help them this year instead of a guy who will probably be buried on special teams for a few years.


THE JURY IS STILL OUT

-Buffalo Bills: This is a team that has a plethora of needs at positions such as Quarterback, Offensive lineman, Tight End, and Safety. So the Bills decide to draft at the 9th overall pick a player who they thought was the “Best overall player available”: Clemson University RB C.J. Spiller. Even though this team already has two RB’s on their roster who are talented enough to start, the Bills picked Spillers because of his great overall skills as a RB in comparison to the Running Backs the Bills currently have. Also, the Bills may have made this pick so they can trade RB Marshawn Lynch, who has had legal issues outside of football.

-San Francisco 49ers: The 49ers drafted two players last night that have good upside. Rutgers Offensive Tackle Anthony Davis and University of Idaho Offensive Guard Mike Iupati are good, safe picks for the 49ers. But it is surprising that a team whose Head Coach is Mike Singletary would not draft one of the many talented Linebackers, Cornerbacks or Defensive lineman that were still available at the 11th and 17th overall picks. Singletary is a defense-minded guy because of his background as the leader of the great Chicago Bear defenses of the 1980’s. But the 49ers choose instead two big, strong offensive linemen. Davis of Rutgers has had some question his character because he was suspended in college and others question his work ethic because he twice showed up to August Rutgers’ training camps overweight. On the other hand Iupati of Idaho is the best overall Offensive Guard in the draft and could start this coming season for San Francisco.

-Denver Broncos: Head Coach Josh McDaniels has become a polarizing force among Broncos fans. He traded away Pro Bowlers Jay Cutler and Brandon Marshall. He says he wants dedicated, character type players on his team. So the Broncos drafted Georgia Tech Wide Receiver Demaryius Thomas and University of Florida Quarterback Tim Tebow. These picks seem to be McDaniels way of saying he has a plan for the future of the Broncos, but will he be around to see the fruits of his master plan? No matter what your opinion is of Tim Tebow the reality is that he is a hard worker with many physical skills. Even if he doesn’t become an NFL star at QB he could become a solid contributor on offense whether as a QB or the man who runs the “Wildcat Offense” in Denver. Thomas is a guy who was never able to show all his abilities at Georgia Tech but he has all the skills needed to be a good NFL starting Wide Receiver. He has good hands, can block, and has great speed and agility. Only time will tell if Broncos fans and ownership will be patient enough with McDaniels through the growing pains of rebuilding this team into what he wants it to be.

Roethlisberger suspended: Analysis and what's next

The news was finally released today: the National Football League (NFL) will suspend Pittsburgh Steelers Quarterback (QB) Ben Roethlisberger four to six games for “violating the NFL's personal conduct policy”. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell said in a public letter to Roethlisberger, “In your six years in the NFL, you have first thrilled and now disappointed a great many people. I urge you to take full advantage of this opportunity to get your life and career back on track.” According to the released NFL report, Roethlisberger has to go through behavior evaluation and counseling before being allowed back to play or practice.

This was a good move by the NFL. Roethlisberger has been accused by 3 different women of sexual assault, he got into a motorcycle crash four years (when it’s in his contract he isn’t allowed to ride a motorcycle!), and he had couple incidents in college that some people say that his university have tried to keep it quiet. He may be a nice guy and he has won 2 Super Bowls with the Steelers. But Commissioner Gödel has shown that no one is beyond reproach in the NFL. Roethlisberger has continuously put himself in bad situation. Even if he is innocent of all accusations, the fact that he has such an immense lack of judgment and puts himself into situations where he could be accused of any wrong doing shows he has issues that need to be dealt with.

So now as a result of Roethlisberger’s suspension, the Steelers are looking to trade him and they should. The Pittsburgh Steelers have been one of the most respected organizations in NFL history. They have been disgraced off the field by Roethlisberger and former Wide Receiver (WR) Santonio Homes’ behavior. The fans and the organization of the Steelers have stood behind these two for long enough. Roethlisberger is suppose to be the face of the Steelers franchise and is one of the most well known players in the NFL. He is supposed to carry himself with more character and professionalism then he has.

Holmes was traded to the Jets for a 5th round draft pick. Now the Steelers are looking to trade Roethlisberger for a 1st round draft pick in this Thursday’s NFL Draft. According to ESPN’s Adam Schefter, the Steelers have contacted St. Louis Rams, Cleveland Browns, Buffalo Bills, Oakland Raiders, Jacksonville Jaguars, Seattle Seahawks, and San Francisco 49ers about trading Roethlisberger for their 1st round pick.

According to reports the Rams and Bills have already said “no” to trading for Roethlisberger. Here’s a breakdown of those teams that are being offered Roethlisberger:

- The Rams, who own the top pick in the draft, are more likely to accept a trade to move down a few picks and draft another QB in the draft instead of taking on Roethlisberger and his baggage. The Rams have invested a lot of time scouting, working out, and interviewing QB prospects like Sam Bradford, Jimmy Claussen, and Colt McCoy. The Rams are considering a trade with the Browns to give them the 1st overall for the Browns pick at 7th overall and a couple of their other draft picks. The idea behind this trade is to allow the Browns to pick Sam Bradford with the top pick and the Rams can draft Jimmy Claussen with the 7th overall pick.

-The Browns General Manager Mike Holmgren likes Quarterbacks who can handle complex offenses like Brett Favre, Aaron Rodgers, Jon Kitna, and Matt Hasselbeck. Roethlisberger is a good QB but has never played in a West Coast type offense before so he is unproven in that type of system. Also Holmgren and Head Coach Eric Mangini have a great deal of interest in Sam Bradford and would like to find a way to draft him; the afore mentioned trade with the Rams is still “on the table”.

-The Bills would not be too interested in Roethlisberger because their new Head Coach Chan Gailey wants to run an offense in Buffalo that Roethlisberger wouldn’t fit well. Gailey wants to run a spread offense that requires a mobile QB who can read coverages quickly and has good accuracy. Roethlisberger doesn’t fit Gailey’s criteria. Gailey would like to draft a QB like Colt McCoy, Tony Pike or Zak Robinson who is mobile athlete, an accurate passer and has experience in the spread offense.

-The Raiders wanted to acquire Donovan McNabb but the Philadelphia Eagles traded him to the Washington Redskins. The Raiders desperately need a good starting QB. They haven’t had a Pro Bowl caliber starting QB since Rich Gannon was the starting QB seven years ago. Roethlisberger would be perfect for a franchise that has a high level of tolerance for their players off the field activities. Oakland has become the home for teams to dump off their unwanted players at. Also, Oakland wouldn’t mind taking on Roethlisberger’s contract.

-The Jaguars don’t need a Public Relations mess that Roethlisberger would be for them in a city where they already have trouble selling tickets and convincing people to come out to games. They want to draft a player who is well known in Florida to sell tickets, like University of Florida hero Tim Tebow.
-The 49ers are a good QB away from winning the NFC West division this year. They had interest in McNabb but were unsure if they could resign McNabb. Roethlisberger signed an eight year contract in 2008 so the 49ers would not have to worry about resigning him. Also they have two 1st round picks in this year’s draft so if they traded one of those picks to the Steelers they would still be able to draft one of the players they really want. It would be a win-win for the 49ers to get a proven QB and still get to draft in the 1st round.

-The Seahawks’ QB situation is already in flux and to add Roethlisberger would cause serious confusion. Seattle already has a veteran QB in Matt Hasselbeck and a young QB in Charlie Whitehurst. Whitehurst was brought in by the Seahawks to be their future QB. Seattle also has two first round picks but there is a lot of expectation that new Head Coach Pete Carroll wants to rebuild this team through the draft. I would expect the Seahawks to keep both picks and draft (if available) Tennessee Safety Eric Berry at the 6th overall pick and Clemson Running Back C.J. Spillers at the 14th overall pick.

SIDE NOTE: If the Steelers follow through with trading Roethlisberger they are fine at the QB position. They right now have three other Quarterbacks on the roster who have played in Pittsburgh’s offense. Byron Leftwitch will probably be the starting QB since he played well in a few games when Roethlisberger was injured. Along with Leftwitch the Steelers have a young QB Dennis Dixon who the Steelers coaching staff wants to see if he can develop into a good NFL caliber QB. The Steelers have gotten by without Roethlisberger in the past and they can again without him.

Election Night 2008 - Live Blogging

This is the Super Bowl of Politics ladies and gentleman! I will be with you all night until we know for sure who will be the next President of the United States. I will also be on AIM on my screen name JoshuaHennig. I welcome your Instant Messages and comments. Im kicking back with my Kirk's Pizza (in Marmora, NJ, awesome Pizza), Im flipping back and forth between Foxnews and CNN mostly, but I will be checking in on ABC, CBS, and NBC starting after 8pm.

*UPDATE* 7:52pm

Foxnews already has called South Carolina, West Virgina, and Kentucky for McCain and Vermont for Obama. Calling states before 8pm is annoying to me. Its early! Why give anyone any "false" perceptions? Obama is right now leading the Popular vote but McCain is leading the electoral vote by a significant margin? Please!

*UPDATE* 8:15pm

Now CNN and Foxnews are calling more states for Obama when there are less than 20 Percent of the results in! Yes some states are forgone conclussions, but still let me digest the evening. I will do my best to keep up with NJ local races when I know as well.

Interesting contrast in how CNN and Foxnews are covering the election. CNN was focusing heavily on demographics and their reporters at different locations. Foxnews is going to their plethora of analysts and playing with their touch screens to compare 2004 to 2008. NBC and ABC is doing similar to what Foxnews is doing. CBS seems to want to make calls quickly like Fox and CNN, which can be annoying because I like to see numbers and atleast 50 percent of votes are known.

*UPDATE* 9pm
The Democrats have gained new Senate seats in North Carolina, New Mexico, and New Hampshire. While CNN and CBS are projecting Pennsylvania for Obama, ABC and Foxnews are cautiously saying it might go Obama's way. This is a huge victory for Obama. McCain was expected to put up a strong fight for that state, but it looks like the cities in Pennsylvania carried Obama for now.

A major concern in this election is if the Presidency and Congress are all under control by one party. As we saw during the Clinton Administration, a Democratic President and Republican Congress got a great deal done. But when both branches of government are controlled by the same party, little good gets done (2002-2006: Republican; 1992-1994: Democrats; 1976-1980: Democrats; etc.)

*UPDATE* 9:20pmOhio might be going to Obama? Interesting since there was 200,000 "invalid voting ballots in that state...

*UPDATE* 9:55pm
This is annoying how early these networks are calling these states so early. Under 20 percent is in for Missouri, but called for McCain; under 15 percent in Wisconson but called for Obama, under 20 percent in of Wyoming called for Obama; under 20 percent in Arkansas called for McCain; and only 25 percent in Ohio for Obama! This is disgusting! It doesnt matter who wins, this is annoying and they should always wait for atleast 40 or 50 percent.

Another thought: if so many youth came out for Obama, what does this say about the next generation? McCain may have voted with Bush "90 percent of the time", but Bush only vetoed a couple bills in 8 yrs! He had 4 years with Democrats in control of Congress and 4 years with Republicans in control of Congress. So we know that the issues McCain differed with Bush (excessive spending, government waste, special tax cuts for the rich, and reform messures) makes McCain more of a moderate than a Conservative overall. So if the youth came out thinking McCain and Bush are one and the same, then there is a lot of false pretense going down in America.

*UPDATE* 10:40pm
Even though the popular vote between Obama and McCain is close, Obama has a strong lead in the Electoral Vote. Also, there have been several gains for the Democrats in the Congressional seats. If Obama does pull this off, it should not be too suprising since it is rare to have one party stay in the Presidency for more than 8 years. Remember 2000 (Democrat to Republican), 1976 (Republican to Democrat), 1968 (Democrat to Republican), 1960 (Republican to Democrat), and 1920 (Democrat to Republican).

I have a questioning thought for everyone: Remember how in 2000 Democrats said Gore should have won because he won the popular vote? How many Republicans now will say the Electoral College is "dated" and "inaccurate" because McCain kept it close to Obama in the Popular Vote but not the Electoral Vote?

*UPDATE* 11:50pm
It is official, Senator Barack Obama has been elected President of the United States. Aside from being the first African-American President elected in USA history, Obama is the first Senator elected President since 1960 (John Kennedy) and the youngest also since 1960 elected (Kennedy - 43; Obama - 47). America has choosen its next President, now we must deal with the consequences. And there are always consequences with every new President.

History predicted that a Democrat would be elected this year because of Bush's low approval ratings and the fact that Americans like some change every 8-12 years for the last 100 years. Sadly, this was an election where people saw the letter next to the candidates name instead of looking at the person who was running. It shows in all the exit polls and how different counties broke down in key states such as Florida, Ohio, Virgina, New Mexico, and Iowa. We live in a nation that is so divided on the lines of politics.

My initial reaction as a History major and Political observer for 16 years is very different than many may think. This is what America wanted and deserves. I say this because during the Primaries for both parties, I saw how the "front runners" were not always the best candidates. The most qualified man on the Democrat side (Bill Richardson) didnt even get half a look. The new Vice President was ignored as well by the democratic electorate (Joe Biden). It turned out to be a fight between different factions in the Democratic Party: Clinton Democrats Vs. MoveOn.org Democrats. On the Republican side, the frontrunners comprised of a Veteran and Bi-Partisan Senator (John McCain), a flip-floping Governor (Mitt Romney), a Republican Populist (Mike Huckabee), and a liberal Republican Mayor (Rudy Giuliani). While two men were judged excessively for their religon (Romney and Huckabee), McCain stole the moderate base of the Republican Party from Giuliani. Republicans tried to pick a candidate who could gain Democrat voters to switch teams, but it backfired because McCain forgot to appeal to those voters and focused strongly on getting the Conservatives behind him.

As we can tell by the election results, the "Conservative Base" did not come out in support of McCain like they did for Bush in 2004 and 2000, which they also did for 1980, 1984, and 1988 for Reagan and Bush Senior. Barack Obama used McCain's alliances with Bush (Illegal Immigration, tax Cuts, Iraq, Health care) against him. Instead of McCain distancing himself away from Bush, he kept saying he has a record of "Reform".

Obama initially was a "Dark Horse" candidate but showed himself as a rallying cry candidate. Yet Americans know so little about him. We have not had such a virtual unknown candidate elected President since Jimmy Carter in 1976. At last check, Obama only beat McCain by 3 million votes. That is not overwhelming margin. Bush beat Kerry by 4 million. Obama capitalized on the divided nature of American politics just like Bill Clinton did in 1992. But unlike Clinton, Obama has gotten a true majority vote (atleast 50 percent of voters) which shows that the visseral dislike of George W. Bush and his Republican collegues is deep because they lied. Republicans ignored what made Ronald Reagan great: Fiscal Conservatism.

These Republicans spent like crazy, made special spending deals with Democrats, and capitulated too much. In a simple terms, Bush and his Republicans tried to get away with being Fiscal Moderates and lost their own game. Democrats just let the Republicans destroy themselves by encouraging them ignoring their Political Origins. Why should we be suprised by a strongly left Democrat being elected President when he appealed to the emotions of a betrayed electorate?

Who is ACORN? Why should you care?

The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) is a group that was created as the product of movements of the 1960's concerning Economic Justice and aiding the poor and those on Welfare. Part of their ideology is that they want to focus on helping the poor and "push" them up the classes ladder while bring down the "rich" so there is less of a gap between the rich and poor.

What makes ACORN a problem is that their ideology is anti-American and anti-Constitution in nature. They use the victimization mentality to motive the poor to support political candidates with socialistic agendas. These agendas include economic justice (which means punishing the rich and using that money to support the poor while depending on the middle class to absorb the poor and rich into their part of society and become the supporters of the economy), have the government control the economy and other facets of life, and to institute a more radical form of Affirmative Action. While to some these ideas sound good or reasonable, they go against all the ideals this nation was founded upon. ACORN likes how, for example, Hugo Chavez runs Venezuala. Venezuala economy is a disaster and the great "money maker", oil, is under such strict control by the government, they are having trouble making prospective profits!

Also, ACORN on their website denies they have ever had legal trouble concerning voter registration. But the truth is that they have had voter fraud issues in Missouri, Michigan, Seattle, and let us not forget their legal troubles in Florida, New Mexico, and Ohio.

Senator Barack Obama has said he has no affiliation with ACORN aside from representing them in a legal case. But here is a detailed article on Obama's history with ACORN which included him being involved in their voter registration efforts. Below is a video of Senator Barack Obama in December 2007 at an ACORN rally/forum and see Senator Obama speak for himself to ACORN about his position on ACORN (fast forward to the 1:50 mark of the video):



So now that we know Senator Obama DID work with ACORN and that he wants ACORN INVOLVED in his "Change" for America, now watch these two videos from an ACORN conference from this summer:





So is this what we want? Forget the whole anti-Bush rhetoric or the fact that one presidential candidate is a Democrat and the other is a Republican. Do you want a man whose ideology is in-step with people who want to change this country from what it was created to be? Obama and those who are involved with ACORN want to change this nation into a country where the government controls your life and the poor are babysat by the government, never encouraged to make their lives better. Obama talks about the American Dream, yet Social and Economic Justice stifle such dreams. He doesnt want to fix what President Bush has done, he wants to change this nation in something we wont recognize. Is that what you want?

Epilogue: Next video is the best media story about Obama and ACORN, courtesy of CNN's Lou Dobbs:

Media Reports on the Obama-Ayers connection

I don't want to dwell on this issue as some in the media have done, but for those out there wanting a quick overview of the issue, these reports are accurate and solid. I played this first video on my radio show last Saturday. Giving the media deserved credit when credit is due; this first video is a report on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360:






Now here is a video of Independent Political Analyst Michael Barone being interviewed on Foxnews by Greta van Susteren about why this is important:





The previous two videos, hosted by liberal members of the media, give the best perspective on this issue.

Now lets get back to debating the issues....

The Truth about Drilling for Oil in ANWR (Alaska)

I found this on The Heritage Foundation Blog site and felt it is worth republishing here. This summarizes what is really going on with ANWR and Oil Drilling and it's all true! Take time to see this and open your mind:

 First, do you know what ANWR is?

ANWR = Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Now, a comparison:

 And some perspective:

Note where the proposed development area is (in the ‘ANWR Coastal Plain’):

This is what the Democrats, liberals and ‘greens’ show you when they talk about ANWR. And they are right, these are photographs of ANWR:

Isn’t ANWR beautiful? Why should we drill here (and destroy) this beautiful place?

Well, that’s not exactly the truth.

Do you remember the map?

The map showed that the proposed drilling area is in the ANWR Coastal Plain.

Do those photographs look like a coastal plain to you?

What’s going on here?

The answer is simple.

That is NOT where they are wanting to drill!

This is what the proposed exploration area ACTUALLY looks like in the winter:

And this is what it ACTUALLY looks like in the summer:

 Here are a couple screen shots from Google Earth:

 As you can see, the area where they are talking about drilling is a barren wasteland.

 Oh, and they say that they are concerned about the effect on the local wildlife.

Here is a photo (shot during the summer) of the ‘depleted wildlife’ situation created by drilling around Prudhoe Bay. Don’t you think that the Caribou really hate that drilling?

Here’s that same spot during the winter:

 Hey, this bear seems to really hate the pipeline near Prudhoe Bay, which accounts for 17% of U.S. domestic oil production.

A sign of neglected evil in our world

Brooke Bennett was found dead yesterday about a mile from her uncle's residence. Her uncle has been arrested for kidnapping her to initiate her into a child sex ring. Brooke's stepfather has also been arrest for destroying evidence that could have helped police in finding Brooke's whereabouts.

This situation angers and disgusts me! Two men who are entrusted to take care of and protect a child, a stepfather and uncle, facilitated and aided in putting Brooke Bennett in danger, leading to her eventual death. This is a sign of the evil that society has allowed to occur.

Yes, I blame society. We live in an America where we have the "War on Drugs" and the "War on Terror", while we obsess over the lives and activities of celebrities and we worry about whether the New England Patriots have "spied" on teams over the years and if they cheated more than a "few" times. But yet, there is a pandemic of tragedies involving the sexual exploitation, sexual abuse, and deaths of our youth.

In today's world there is an attitude toward men saying "Boys will be Boys". This mentality removes any legitimate expectation of men to be responsible and productive citizens in society. People have tried to make men into insignificant "sperm donors" who are not good for anything.

So, since the expectations for men are so low, what happens? Men and boys fall into becoming self-absorbed, depraved individuals. While not all men become pedophiles or have pedophilic tendencies, the slippery slope is there. There are more deceitful and predatory males than "good guys". I say this as a male. The fact that MANY men have turned into using, self-absorbed, sex obsessed, irresponsible, lazy pigs is generated by the low expectations laid upon them by other men AND from women. When women do not hold men responsible to be REAL men, they become mentally lazy and deviant.

The majority of males have turned into wimps or predators. It is sad and is an evil that is being ignored by many people, especially those in positions of power, such as judges, lawyers, and politicians. The excessive rise of the numbers of pedophiles and child/female predators in today's society is utterly repulsive. People seem to live in a world of ignorance, thinking things such as "That will never happen to me" and "Deep down, everyone is a good person".

Everyone needs to wake up. We live in a depraved, evil world were things such as what happened to Brooke Bennett happen right under people's noses. What has been mentioned in numerous news reports on TV is that Brooke's uncle is a convicted child sex offender who "graduated" from a pedophile rehabilitation program. Rehabilitation for pedophiles? Pedophiles and those who prey upon children and women are NOT like alcoholics and drug junkies! This is not some addiction, this is a mental disorder! These people are messed up in the head. This is not normal. These are people who are disturbed, abnormal individuals.

Numerous psychologists say that pedophilia is a mental disorder. Rapists have a recidivism rate of 94 percent and child molesters have a recidivism rate of 90 percent. Compare that to murders (including manslaughter) which have a recidivism rate of 62 percent. That’s a major difference, 30 percentage points, between those two types of criminals! Yet, people want to "rehabilitate" these people?

This topic is also personal to me. I have known and been friends with numerous women who have been the victims of molestation and rape. Just in this last week, a friend of mine who is a minor had two different men in different vehicles attempt to pick her up while she was waiting for a ride home. One of these men even said to her that her mom has "sent him" to pick her up. Once she threatened to call the police, the one man drove away and the other drove away once her ride home showed up. I personally have seen pedophiles stalking children and women in stores and on local boardwalks. These men have similar profiles: they don’t like to look people in the eye, they like to be in areas where children may be, they look down a lot, and they usually walk with erratic speeds (example: slow-fast-slow).

I am tired of hearing about how these men are "people too" and how they have "rights". Let’s get something straight. Men have responsibilities. Men are creatures designed to protect and defend children and women, not to take advantage and prey upon them. We have numerous young men going to jail for numerous years in excess for drug possession charges in comparison to those who are convicted of child molestation crimes! You explain to me how some kid who was caught with a bag of crack in his pocket is more of a danger to society than a guy who fondles a 5-year old child? Why does the kid who had the crack on him get a jail sentence of 5 years and the child molester gets out after 2 years for good behavior?

We do not need a "War on Drugs". Drug addicts need rehabilitation and help. We need a War on Predators, all kinds! These sick, evil intentioned men are dangerous. Rape and molestation destroys lives and scars people for life! We as a society need to start caring more about the rights and safety of our women, children, and youth more than we are about ourselves! The moral standing of a nation defines its future.

Stop thinking about how it can't happen to you or anyone you know. Take a minute to think about it this way: What if Brooke Bennett was YOUR daughter, YOUR friend, YOUR girlfriend/future girlfriend/future wife, YOUR niece or grand-daughter...? Everyone needs to get out of this mindset that it can't happen to you or someone you know. Everyone needs to stop thinking weird, disturbing, or bad people are "good" at heart. Women need to STOP excusing the bad actions of men. According to studies, the majority of cases of abuse, rape, and molestation are never reported. If the guy is a jerk or mean or abusive or a user or a deviant, get away from him! Surround yourself with friends (male and female) you can trust and who will give you sound advice. Men, I challenge you to grow up and start being REAL men, not wimpy, self-absorbed, horny freaks! Take responsibility; treat others and yourselves with respect. Women also need to stop being so naive about how many dangerous and predatory men are out there. I am a male and I know these pigs when I see them.

Remember ladies and gentleman, "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing".

Understanding the US Supreme Court's recent rulings

Many people have either read or heard the news about the US Supreme Courts 5-4 ruling in the habeas corpus case for enemy combatants of the USA (BOUMEDIENE et al. v. BUSH) and the easing of restrictions for immigrants to gain citizenship in USA case (Dada v. Mukasey). Both cases had the nine US Supreme Court Justices split along the exact same lines of majority and dissent in the case.

In both cases, the majority included Justices Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, David Souter, John Paul Stevens, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg; the dissenters included Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito.

Many in the media are painting these cases as divided along ideological lines. The Associated Press has referred to Justices Breyer, Souter, Stevens, and Ginsburg as "liberal", while calling Justices Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito as "conservative". The problem with such "labeling" is that such terms put these justices in a box and narrow how people look at them. The reality, despite the spin of the media on TV, Radio, and Online, is that these cases are not divided along "Conservative" versus "Liberal" battle lines. There is a much more subtle, yet dangerous issue that lies behind how these Justices took sides in these two cases. That issue is the interpretation of the law and the Constitution.

To give a little background, the job of a US Supreme Court Justice is to review and decided cases brought before him or her without ideological bias and to use the US Constitution as the basis for their decisions. But the reality is that US Supreme Court Justices have been employing agenda, ideology, and prejudice in their judgments for over 208 years! Whether the case be Marbury v. Madison (1803), Dred Scott v. Sandford (1856), Everson v. Board of Education (1947), Berman v. Parker (1954) or McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003), the US Supreme Court has a history of it's Justices invoking their own bias and ideology into the debate and to help formulate their decisions.

Some may say that such bias and ideological reasoning falls along political lines. They claim political agendas are what rules the day with the justices' decisions. This is not true though. It is a legal division that creates world views and defines how these Justices interpret everything. It is the legal debate between the interpretation of the Constitution by the "Letter of the Law" and the "Spirit of the Law".

The "Letter of the Law" refers to a "strict" interpretation of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. We can gather an example of a "strict" interpretation by looking at the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html)

A "strict" interpretation of this amendment would take away from the wording that the US Congress can never pass a law or resolution that respects, restricts, or regulates the activities or beliefs of a religion. Also, Congress cannot prevent any religion's splitting into denominations or sects and Congress cannot impose the restrictions upon a religious entity that it may against a business per say.

On the other hand, the "Spirit of the Law" refers to the "reasonable" interpretation of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. A "reasonable" interpretation of this same amendment would take away from the wording that the phrase "Congress" is not just in reference to the US Congress (US House of Representatives and US Senate) but to all three branches of the US Government. With that understanding, the US Government cannot respect, disrespect, restrict, hold expantion, prevent or promote the exercise of any religion. Also, they cannot tell any religion, not matter how big or small, what, how, and why believe or not believe.

While the above examples are limited in scope, they give you an idea of what we are dealing with when these US Supreme Court Justices make their decisions. The argument of "Spirit" versus "Letter" has been going on since this nation began. Even people at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia were concerned about how things were worded because they didn’t want people to "misinterpret" the intentions and purposes of what was being written. Although the Bill of Rights seems to get the most public scrutiny, many people do not understand that the Bill of Rights was meant to be a counter balance to the articles in the US Constitution and limit the powers of the Federal Government.

Now with some background and understanding about the elements of history and law that are associated with the US Supreme Court, we can see how the debate between the "Spirit" versus "Letter" of the Law is key in both of these decisions. In the case, Boumediene v. Bush, the majority five justices give the right given to US citizens of habeas corpus. This is a Latin term meaning "you should have the body". In British Common Law and US Judicial Law, the term refers to having the individual or group of people who being charged with a crime or crimes brought before the court to face their charges and accusers. This is something that leads usually to the accused party to face a trial in front of a judge in some capacity. The reason why this "right" was being withheld from those who have been labeled "enemy combatants" by the US government is because historically anyone who attacks, declares war with, engages, attempts to harm the USA or US troops are considered "hostile enemies". Usually in official acts of war, as declared by a declaration of Congress (examples: War of 1812, Mexican-American War, Spanish-American War, World Wars 1&2), it is easily defined who an "enemy combatant" may be, usually someone from a country that the US declared war on. But in "wars" in which Congress never made any official declaration of war (Korean War, Vietnam War), it was understood that the enemy was anyone who overtly attacked US troops or who were on the side of the Communists.

But in the military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq (Also, known as the "War" in Afghanistan and Iraq), we were not battling a specific people or nation, but segments of people and militants within those countries. Many of the "enemy combatants" held in Guantanamo Bay are there for the gathering of intelligence and because if released, they would go back to the "battlefields" and conduct operations against the USA and US troops. The idea of the "Bush Doctrine" is that America is at War with terrorists and radical entities that hate America and want to destroy the USA and kill Americans. So, like in team sports, in order to prevent defeat, you take offense against the enemy to ensure security and eventual victory.

The five justices in the majority in this case though (Kennedy, Breyer, Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg) looked at Authorization for Use of Military Force of 2001 (also known as "AUMF" of 2001) which was passed after the events on 9/11, giving the President of the US the power to conduct any military activities and actions necessary to find, capture, and punish those responsible for 9/11 and to prevent any further attacks on the USA and its interests. The five justices took an approach that the "Spirit" of "AUMF" is that we must "punish" those who were involved in the "acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens" (http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/sjres23.enr.html)

According to these justices, what the Bush Administration has deemed "enemy combatants" are being held in Guantanamo Bay as "criminals". Now, since criminals such as those in Guantanamo Bay are usually deemed "war criminals", they are to face a tribunal or "war court". The court already order this to be done in the case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006). But the claim in this recent case was that since Guantanamo Bay is not on foreign land but on US "ground" in Cuba, those prisoners should stand trial in federal US courts for their "crimes".

Part of the Justices argument lays with the understanding that Congress never "declared war" against Al Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, the Taliban, or such terrorists, but that they only gave President Bush military power to protect the US from further attacks and to track down the "criminals". They claim that the AUMF of 2001 resolution does not give power to the President to deem who is and who is not a war criminal or enemy combatant and that Congress does not have the right under the Constitution to hand over any of its Article 1, Section 8 powers under the US Constitution to the President.

The Justices who dissented (disagreed) with the majority (Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, Alito) took a "letter" of the law interpretation to the case. These Justices understood that AUMF of 2001 fell under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 which states Congress has the power to:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water

Technically, according to the "letter" of the law, the AUMF of 2001 resolution can be seen as a "Letter of Marque", which is traditionally known to be similar to "warrant". Because of the balance of powers, Congress has the power to declare war and regulate and maintain the military. Since the President of the USA is the "Commander-in-Chief" of the military, it is Congress' job to tell the "head" of the military what to do. Part of the minority justices' dissent is based upon the idea that since Congress has the power to tell the President to conduct "all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons" (http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/sjres23.enr.html). So, if the president deems these people "war criminals" or "enemy combatants" being held in Guantanamo Bay and since these people are not citizens or "constructive persons in society", these do not get to have the same rights and privileges as those who are on US soil and get to be protected by the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. It is the job of the US Congress, not the US Supreme Court, to redefine who is or isn't a "war criminal" or "enemy combatant". (US Constitution Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 9,10,12,14,15,16,17,18)

In summary, the "Spirit" versus "Letter" of the Law divide has brought such a decision down from the Justices on the US Supreme Court. Interesting, the same split of Justices occurred in the Dada v. Mukasey case, in which the court made allowances for those immigrants who overstay their visa to apply to stay in the US and not be deported. In the "Spirit" of the law, Justices Kennedy, Breyer, Souter, Ginsberg, and Stevens ruled that if the individual was initially here legally and is making an "attempt" to remain here legally, those persons should be helped in their desire to be here legally and/or become US Citizens. The "Letter" of the Law dissenters Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito stated that this is an immigration law issue, that laws and regulations already make this situation easily avoidable since it is specifically dependent upon the immigrant to within the timetable to make such appeals and efforts to stay in the US and/or become a citizen. They went as far to say this issue is "beyond" the realm of the US Supreme Court's domain.

This is not an issue of Conservatives versus Liberals. That is a lie from the media. The media's creation of these "battle lines" is debunked in other cases. For example, in the case Hustler Magazine v. Fallwell (1988) was an 8-0 decision in favor of the porno organization over the Christian minister. "Conservatives" William Rehnquist and Antonin Scalia were in the majority with "Liberals" William Brennan and John Paul Stevens. In the case Van Orden v. Perry (2005) in which the court upheld that the Ten Commandments' monument that was located outside of a government building should stay. In the majority in that decision were so called "Conservatives" Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist, along with "Liberals" Kennedy and Breyer. Finally, in the recent case United States v. Williams (2008), the court upheld the illegality of the pandering, solicitation, and creation of Child Pornography. "Liberal" justices such as Breyer, Stevens, and Kennedy joined "Conservative" justices Scalia, Roberts, and Thomas in the 7-2 majority.

There is a war of ideology in the chambers of the US Supreme Court. Unlike a similar one that occurs between Conservatives and Liberals, this is a war over how to interpret and apply the law and the US Constitution. The "Spirit" versus "Letter" is a debate that may evolve slightly from age to age, it wont be resolved anytime soon. The ideological war of Conservatism versus Liberalism is predicated upon different world views and is interwoven into our society and media. Do not let the media trick you into thinking the world is a Republican versus Democrat and/or Conservative versus Liberal war.

Pat Buchanan's Hitler Fantasies

Pat Buchanan has come out with a new book titled "Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World is about how Churchill". Aside from the insidious title, Buchanan was on CNN recently and showed his true colors on the topic in the interview, especially within the last minute and a half:



Here is the transcript of Buchanan's ignorance:

BLITZER: Hitler had plans of exterminating the Jews in the '30s, a lot earlier.

BUCHANAN: Wolf, I have not seen any plans of extermination. Hitler went genocidal after the invasion of Russia was broken down in Russia, after he declared war on the United States, and he was looking defeat in the face. It was at that point that the Wannsee Conference was held, Wolf. as you know, that was in January of 1942.

BLITZER: What about all the anti-Semitic laws? Kristalnacht? All those Jews who were rounded up in Germany starting in the 1930s.

BUCHANAN: Look, there's no doubt Hitler was anti-Semitic from the time even before he wrote Mein Kampf. What we're talking about, when you mention the Holocaust, for Heaven's sakes, is genocide. We're not talking about anti-Semitism, there was anti-Semitism in Poland for those years. The Nuremberg Laws were in 1935, they were dreadful. As a consequence half the Jews had left Germany before Kristalnacht, which was in November 1938. Another half fled after that. They were outside Germany when the curtain fell. What Hitler did was a monstrous crime, Wolf. But it was a war crime. Had there been no war there would have been no Holocaust in my judgment.
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/28/pat-buchanan-blames-brita_n_103992.html)

Buchanan, who claims in the interview he has studied Hitler a great deal, seems to either be purposefully ignoring what History says happened, or he is attempting to re-write history. Hitler DID have plans for the extermination of the Jewish people. In Mein Kampf and other writings of Hitler and those close to him discuss how people such as Jews and Blacks need to be eliminated or subjugated. Hitler's claims about the "superiority" of the Aryan race and his plans were subtle, yet known. It was because of Hitler and his comrades’ speeches and writings that Winston Churchill pushed for war with Germany, to "...save Europe and the Jewish people from a mad man...”

This farce that many Jews "escaped" before the events of Kristalnacht and "another half", as Pat puts it, escaped after that is not part of the historical record. Hitler's Third Reich wouldn't let many of these Jews leave. And where could they go? The US limited the number of legal immigrants allowed into the country during the 1930's. These Jews were not welcome in the surrounding nations of Poland, Italy, and Austria. Stalin's Soviet Union looked down upon having outcasts from other countries coming into his (Stalin's) empire. Anti-Semitism was rampant also in the Middle East and the home of modern day Israel. While some Jews took refuge in Belgium and France, their "safety" was quickly turned into terror when Nazi forces invaded those nations and began rounding up anyone Jewish and anyone who was "allied" with the Jews.

Also, this fable that Hitler "went genocidal after the invasion of Russia was broken down in Russia" suggests that Hitler only committed genocide against the Jewish people because he went "nuts". Buchanan refers to the Wannsee Conference as the point when it was "decided" the implement "The Final Solution". Yet, if we look at the timeline of events, Dachau was created in 1933 and Auschwitz was transformed into a concentration camp in southern Poland in 1939. While the specific numbers are subject to question, we know a minimum of 1 million Jews were killed before the Wannsee Conference in 1942. Also, in 1941 Hitler met with the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Mohammad Amin al-Husayni to discuss the obliteration of Jewish hegemony in Europe and the extension of the Nazi "anti-Jewish program" to the Arab world. Hitler told Al-Husayni:

Germany stood for uncompromising war against the Jews. That naturally included active opposition to the Jewish national home in Palestine....Germany would furnish positive and practical aid to the Arabs involved in the same struggle....Germany's objective [is]...solely the destruction of the Jewish element residing in the Arab sphere...
(http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/muftihit.html)

That is just one example that Hitler didn't walk into the Wannsee Conference in January of 1942 and during the conference say "Hey, let’s institute the Final Solution!" Historians have discovered other writings by Hitler in which he discusses his plans of exterminating the Jews and working to eliminate other lesser peoples. Hitler was a staunch believer in Social Darwinism and Eugenics, which was a complete vindication and reinforcement for the anti-Semitic and racist beliefs of Hitler.

What Buchanan doesn't mention is that he himself has an anti-Semitic history and has based many of his positions and beliefs around that dark cloud that hovers over his political career. Buchanan's desire to rewrite history to reflect his way of thinking is disgusting and conservatives should stop trying to find an ally in Buchanan for the same reason they distance themselves from the likes of Michael Savage: damaged goods. Buchanan is dangerous in that he is presented as a "Conservative commentator", as if he is someone whose opinion is worth while. But anyone, no matter what the label, who distorts truth and rewrites history should not be trusted and should be discarded. The fact that Buchanan is unapologetic about his positions in this book tells me that he is no better then the likes of any other person who twists the truth to benefit their prejudicial beliefs.

Conservatives like Buchanan are dangerous because they are trying to implant this spin into the mainstream and them, along with the isolationists, anarchists, and racists, are trying hard to gain ground. Those who care about the truth need to stand in their way and stop letting those around them fall prey to these sorts of lies. The idea that Hitler "wasn't so bad" starts us down a dangerous road that blurs the difference between good and evil, right and wrong.

Laura Ingraham vs. Dick Morris: Ridiculous

I happened to have on TV in the background Fox News' "O'Reilly Factor" last night, and saw this segment in which Dick Morris was the guest on the show. Filling in for Bill O'Reilly for the last few days has been radio talk show host Laura Ingraham. Take some time to watch this segment where Laura gets crass with Morris, who is suppose to be the "expert guest" on the show:



I must preface what I say with the fact that I do not care for Laura Ingraham. But this proves my point about her rudeness and elitist attitude. At about 3:55 in the clip, here is where Laura shows her true colors:

Ingraham: She hasn't been making comments like we need to, uh, make sure we don't offend our allies overseas and how we set our thermostat, what we put in our mouth for food and what we drive for SUV's, so I think the statement over the weekend in Oregon by Barack Obama went right to his view of what true change is which is a change of America's sovereignty, she's never said anything like that Dick.

Morris: I'm just pointing out the facts that on three crucial issues, crime, illegal immigration, and education he clearly is to the right of her...

Ingraham: So then why does MoveOn.org...

(Morris tries to talk while she talks over him)

Ingraham:...why does MoveOn.org not like Hillary?

Morris: Laura let me finish! Ok? You want me on the show, let me finish.

Laura: Alright, don't...

Morris: On other issues like...

Laura: Chill out...

This was the second or third time Laura has ran over what Morris said, but this time he spoke up for himself. Laura thinks she knows better than Morris, yet every point where she is wrong about something, Morris shows he knows more and knows better. She got the whole Super Delegate deal wrong, she thinks Obama is totally more liberal than Hillary, and she goes into the interview trying to pontificate a point and trying to use Dick Morris to make her point.

I have listened to Ingraham's radio show three times. All three times she came across as rude, pompous, and impetuous! Whether complaining about men's leg hair or calling Democrats stupid or telling a caller how much smarter she is than them, she exudes no class. Radio show hosts like Ingraham, Hannity, and Levin call names and get rude with people, like that is going to convince anyone to their side of an issue.

The fact is that Dick Morris was correct with his information and Laura was wrong and she thinks she knows all. I am unsure about Morris' last comment about how the voting results are along racial lines, but Morris understands something that many of these conservative talking heads like Ingraham and Hannity seem to forget: Obama may be liberal, but Hillary is dangerous. Yes, Obama has a tendency to be more vocal about his views, because he is less of a political practitioner than the slick Clintons. Hillary is very smart. She usually knows what to say, what not to say, and how not to say things. Obama is actually, as Morris describes, more of a Populous Candidate while Hillary will do whatever it takes to win and have power. If you want to know where she stands on issues, she has almost 8 years worth of Senate votes on her record we can reference. On Education, Health Care, Illegal Immigration, Israeli Sovereignty, Russia-USA relations, and a few other issues, she is to THE LEFT of Barack Obama. Yes, on Iraq and Taxes Obama is more left. But guess what? The Republican nominee John McCain is more left than Obama and Hillary on Global Warming and more to the left of Obama on Education, Israeli Sovereignty, and Russian-US relations.

So we can nit pick all day. I am unsure why Ingraham was picked to sub in for O'Reilly, but she acts like she knows better about the Clintons than a guy who worked with them off and on for almost 20 years! He knows Hillary personally and professionally. And if Laura is wrong about the Super Delegates and about how "liberal" Hillary "isn't", then she needs to stop preaching and start learning. Instead, she tells Morris to "chill out" and puts a smile on her face as to say "Ha-ha, I ruffled your feathers". Laura, this isn't High School where the Alpha Female is trying to one up the smart kid in class, this is National Television.

And all these Conservative radio talk show hosts who are so "afraid" of Obama getting the Democratic Nomination and who are bloviating so much about how Hillary Clinton is more of a "centrist" than Obama need to wake up. Whether Obama could become another Jimmy Carter type of President is not the problem. The real problem is that the Republican voters and Republican "powers that be" allowed John McCain to be the nominee. The real issue is that Conservatives are concerned that McCain does not have a chance against Obama. Whether he does or not is to be seen because the whole setting for the General Election has not been set yet. It's May, not September. And Laura, you wrote a best selling book called "Shut up, and Sing", being rude and elitist does not appeal to Moderates like me. In fact, your impetuousness is a major turn off to many people and Conservatives AND Liberals need to quit the pompousness and name calling and start talking about issues for a change.