Right on the Mark

What A Difference A Year Makes

Last December my family suffered the tragedy of a house fire. A ceiling fan went bad & caused a spark to ignite the fire in the attic. My wife & son were home while I was at work in Toledo. Everyone made it out just fine & we spent the next four months living in a hotel.

As a community we collectively suffered the wrath of Mother Nature as we watched flood waters rise to record levels. This has sparked a debate over what we should be doing with local funds. Fix the flood problem; or, build a Towne Centre in that floodplain?

Locally, we've elected a new mayor. And nationally, we've been watching the presidential race unfold as we will elect a new president in 2008. Quite possibly a woman or black man for the first time this nation's history.

Our suspicions of widespread "cheating" in Major League Baseball were confirmed by the Mitchell Report. The NBA had it's controversy over a gambling referee. Those black-eyes on American sports have even made some of us cynical about the official results of NFL games; especially those close games involving the now undefeated New England Patriots.

We witnessed a champion of the global warming cause win the Nobel Peace Prize. I'm still wondering what global warming has to do with peace. We've got our quote of the year in "Don't taze me, bro." And, the "person" of the year, no longer allowed to be "man" of the year, was named Vladimir Putin. I'm thinking the quote of the year, especially during this campaign season, could have been Hillary Clinton's "...that's what I'm going to try to do as president again..." statement that was glossed over. And clearly, the man of the year is General Petraeus who took a war that was lost (according to Harry Reid) & turned it around. Even one of the biggest critics of the war, John Murtha, believes this to be true.

This blog & the entire Virtual Village came into existence this year. I appreciate the opportunity I've had to share my thoughts with you & have enjoyed your thoughts as well. I look forward to our first full year here at the Virtual Village & more participation from you; the reader.

I suppose the only proper ending to the year is...

   

What If Christ Were Born Today

Christmas is the celebration of the birth of a Savior. But, what if that Savior were born today? How different would it have been?

The story starts with a virgin conception. Today, how many men would have stayed with a bride carrying the child of another?

Joseph & Mary loaded up their donkey & made a long journey only to find that there was no room at the Inn. Today, they would have booked a flight & a hotel room on Travelocity.

The Three Wise Men made a long journey just to give gifts of gold, frankincense & myrrh. Today, they would have just sent an E-card, a text message & a Wal-Mart gift card.

These humorous comparisons tell us how far mankind has come since the birth of Christ: or has it? The most significant difference is that, today, Mary likely would have had an abortion. 

The Spirit Of Giving

With Christmas just around the corner presidential candidates are making Christmas campaign ads. Yesterday I told you about the controversy over Mike Huckabee's ad. I also mentioned Giuliani & Obama. Today, I want to talk about the Hillary Clinton ad.

Here it is...

Universal Health Care, Alternative Energy, Bring Troops Home, Middle Class Tax Breaks, Universal Pre-K are apparently all gifts she believes she can give the American people. I always thought giving was something you did with your own money. Of course Senator Clinton doesn't tell us how she plans to pay for her promises of holiday gift giving.

Universal Health Care: She cannot deliver on this promise. She needs support on both sides of the political aisle & she doesn't have it. She already failed at this once.

Alternative Energy: This is a great idea but without a market it'll fall flat. Although, she could help create a market & the infrastructure that goes along with it by introducing legislation that would mandate that the United States government exclusively use alternative energy. Is this possible?

Bring Troops Home: As president she certainly could do that. Although she has already stated that she couldn't promise to have all troops out by the end of her first term. Not so sure this is very high on her priority list.

Middle Class Tax Breaks: We already got some tax breaks that she & a few of her colleagues keep trying to take away from us.

Universal Pre-K: Sounds wonderful. Who doesn't want to help our youth? It'll likely be about as effective as No Child Left Behind

Putting your child in a pre-school of any sort has to be a priority. A government mandate, with or without funding, does nothing for the education or nurturing of our children.

Ah, the spirit of giving is easy when it's not your money.

So This Is Christmas

There's some controversy over a recent campaign ad by Mike Huckabee. It seems all the candidates are putting out Christmas ads. Giuliani has his "fruitcake" ad & Barack Obama has his daughters wishing us a "Merry Christmas" & a "Happy Holiday." But, what Mike Huckabee has done is crossing the line to some folks including Catholic League President Bill Donahue.

Here's the ad...

The controversy is of the image over Huckabee's right shoulder. Yep, it's a cross. Or, is it? Might it be a shelf? Either way the image does resemble a cross. My question is: What's wrong with that? I mean seriously, it is a Christmas ad. God forbid that Christ or an image of Christ be seen or mentioned around Christmas. What was Huckabee thinking? Maybe he should have turned the image slightly making it the acceptable & politically correct image of Xmas.

Harry Stein put it well in his book "How I Accidentally Joined The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy (& Found Inner Peace)." In a list of things that may indicate that you've joined the vast right-wing conspiracy Stein states "Christmas season rolls around & it hits you that there may be a religious connection."

It's Christmas & all the politicians want to take the time to wish each & everyone of us a Merry Christmas, a Happy Holiday & a Season Greetings. Of course it's pandering tugging away at our heartstrings during this heart warming time of year. Would you expect anything less from politicians? Is Huckabee's pandering any worse than that of other politicians? Absolutely not.

It's Christmas. There's a cross in an ad. Get over it.

Baseball, Apple Pie & Steroids

"It reminds us of all that once was good & it could be again." Does it & can it? After the recent controversy over performance enhancing drug use some people are wondering. Although, baseball has endured the Black Sox Scandal, integration, an asterisk, Pete Rose controversy & eight player strikes since 1972. Baseball will likely survive this controversy as well.

Major League pitcher & manager Bob Lemon has said "Baseball was made for kids, & grown-ups only screw it up." Legendary Yankees manager Billy Martin has said "Cheating is as much a part of the game as scorecards & hotdogs." I don't think you could find two more accurate quotes about baseball today; at least as far as public opinion is concerned.

With the Mitchell Report naming names people are rushing to judgment. It seems that in baseball an accusation is the same thing as guilt. The popular sentiment is that the list of names proves that performance enhancing drugs work because homerun king Barry Bonds is on the list as well as seven time Cy Young award winner Roger Clemens. The list seems to have only confirmed our suspicions. However, not all the players on the list are considered greats. And, even some great ball players didn't appear to get a boost from performance enhancing drug use.

• EXAMPLE: David Justice is accused of buying performance enhancing drugs after the 2000 World Series & using them going into & during the 2001 season. The problem is that Justice batted .241 & hit only 18 homeruns that season (according to ESPN Radio). Those are the stats of a mediocre player. So Justice either didn't do what he's been accused of, or the drugs didn't work for him.

We've had a tell-all book by Jose Canseco outing many players & claiming that 85% of major league players have used steroids. Although, Canseco seems more like a joke today with his legacy being a ball bouncing off his head for a homerun. Steroids certainly didn't help him on that play. We've watched Rafael Palmeiro emphatically deny the use of steroids only to see him test positive a short time later. Even with this history & the Mitchell Report you're not likely going to see much of a decline, if any, in attendance. The accusations against Bonds over the past year certainly didn't take butts out of the seats, but rather, put them in the seats. No matter what the controversy baseball has & will endure. "people will come Ray, people will most definitely come."

Uninspiring

Yesterday was the democratic version of the last Iowa debates hosted by the Des Moines Register. It was even less eventful than the republican one. Oh, they tried to recreate what Fred Thompson had done the previous day but fell short. Senator Clinton asked for a "raise your hand" debate question. The one high point was when Senator Obama told Hillary that he looked forward to getting advice from her in defense of having former Clinton advisers currently working for him.

While spending two days uninspired by the debates & the candidates I did take notice of a few things & differences. I watched both debates on FOX News & they had Frank Luntz conducting focus groups for both. They showed a graph at the side of the screen showing approval & disapproval during the dabates that gave real time reaction to the candidate's words. Each graph had a moderate line & a liberal line for the democrat debate & a moderate & conservative line for the republican debate. These lines stayed closer together, for the most part, during the republican debate than they did during the democratic debate. And, there were far more extremes during the democratic debate than the republican debate. The democrats got higher & lower responses while the republicans stayed relatively even keeled.

During the democratic debate the lines went up when there was overt Bush bashing but leveled off or receded when talking about their own plans. A few times the lines did go off the chart when talking about implementing more entitlement programs. The lines took a serious nose dive when Senator Biden invoked religion when talking about a hymn describing lifting America up as God lifted Christians. The most inspiring moment didn't seem to garner much response from the folks at the democratic debate. In my opinion that was when Senator Dodd spoke about the honor of public service. How a doctor only has so many patients & lawyers only have so many clients. But, an elected official can affect the lives of millions & that there was no higher calling than to serve the American people. Whether you believe him or not, the words did give me a sense of pride in my country & respect for Senator Dodd.

Fred Thompson clearly helped himself in the republican debate. Although, the biggest story of the democratic debate was the hit taken by Hillary Clinton. Her loss is another candidate's gain & that gain clearly went to Senator Obama. Despite being uninspired, with very few exceptions, this race is tightening up & just may surprise us all in the coming weeks & months.

Raise Your Hand

Raise your hand if you agree was the command given by the moderator in the Republican debate yesterday in Iowa. If you watched the debate you know this moment was the debate. Sure there was another eighty-nine minutes or so of debate time but didn't make near the impact of the "raise your hand" debate style that was finally & successfully contested.

The statement to agree with was basically whether or not you believed global warming was serious & if it was man's fault. The refusal wasn't an attempt not answer the question but rather indicated that the issue was far more complicated than the simplistic view given by the moderator. One can believe global warming is serious & believe man may contribute but not necessarily believe man is at fault; & certainly not entirely. I wish the moderator would have given Fred Thompson the one minute he requested to give an adequate answer. Instead, we got some folks talking over each other in an attempt to pander.

In addressing the global warming issue one good point was made & that was it's not America warming. That point did resonate with people because it appears that the United States is the only nation expected to conform to strict environmental standards while the rest of the world is reaping the reward of taking American jobs without those same standards imposed on them. The issue that still doesn't get any attention is the idea that global warming is going to happen regardless of human activity. And, that we need to learn how to adapt to it & any other serious or extreme climate change that may come our way. What do you suppose caused the demise of the Neanderthal man? While some scientists blame it on climate change I would say it was their inability to adapt to that change.

While global warming will likely remain a heated debate topic I hope Fred Thompson's refusal to participate in "raise your hand" debates has put the practice to rest. Raising your hand in agreement does nothing for debate. It does nothing to address the issue. If the issue is worthy of being brought up then it's certainly worthy of discussion. Fred Thompson certainly helped himself with this priceless debate moment. Comparable to Ronald Reagan's "I paid for this microphone" debate moment.   

Waterboarding, Lies & Videotape

This recent revelation that the CIA destroyed videotapes of interrogations that may have included waterboarding has some folks ranting about a new Watergate. This story has twists, turns & all the drama of a Hollywood movie. Basic questions fuel the suspense. Who knew what & when did they know it? The answers appear to be blurred by time & partisan politics.

It appears that those on the House & Senate intelligence committees were briefed several times on the CIA's plans for interrogations starting in 2002. The discussion of waterboarding & videotaping didn't seem to raise any eyebrows. Not even from current Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, who held an oversight position during that time period. Prior to 2005, when leaks of waterboarding first surfaced in the news, those who sat on those oversight committees not only failed to object to the practice but even "asked the CIA to push harder" according to the Washington Post.

Today, the destruction of the tapes is raising a lot of eyebrows. It seems that claims of a cover-up are ridiculous in light of the fact that certain members of Congress were informed of the tapes, the contents & their destruction.

ABC reports that waterboarding was indeed used on terror suspect, Abu Zubaydah & was successful. The former agent, John Kiriakou, who told the story of waterboarding at first didn't believe it was torture but has since changed his mind. Even with a changed mind Kiriakou admits if not using waterboarding allowed something horrific to happen that he would not forgive himself for not doing everything possible to get the information to save lives.

The CIA has suspended the use of waterboarding. Is there a situation in which the CIA would bring back the technique? Knowing that the technique has been successful is there a situation that would warrant it's resurrection?

How Far Have We Really Come?

Sixty-Six years ago today we were attacked at Pearl Harbor. The United States had war thrust upon it at that very moment. That subsequent war had ups & downs, successes & failures. We learned of an enemy willing to fly planes; with their pilots firmly in their seats; into people, ships & other structures. The loss of life was devastating. As a country we shared in the burden. Our children left for foreign lands to fight the regime that not only attacked us but those who were in alliance with them as well. Mothers & wives went to work outside the home for the very first time. "Rosie the riveter" became as popular as Rita Hayworth. "We can do it" wasn't just a slogan for "Rosie" but was the common sentiment echoed across the country.

Sixty years after the day that will forever live in infamy we were attacked again. And again, we found an enemy willing to sacrifice the lives of their men in order kill Americans by flying planes into buildings. Subsequently a war seemingly without boundaries or end has ensued. This time there doesn't appear to be a shared burden. Military families carry this burden alone. "We can do it" doesn't appear to be part of our national vocabulary. "I support the troops but not the mission" has become a popular fallacy. Can you imagine your parents or grandparents wishing for the failure of our troops mission in WWII but claiming they supported them? Not likely.

It doesn't appear that we've learned much from our past. nor does it appear that we've come very far as a society. To further make that point, one only needs to look at the speech given yesterday by presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Forty-Seven years ago John F. Kennedy gave a similar speech about his faith. It was out of fear that forced JFK to explain his faith & how it may or may not influence a Kennedy presidency. Today, Mitt Romney, because of public fear, was thrust into the public square to discuss his faith. Of course his words will be examined & scrutinized. Did he pass the religious test? What religious test you may be asking? The one society has put on presidential candidates since 1960 & apparently continue to place on them today. While we have recently seen the first Muslim elected to Congress could we elect a Muslim president of the United States? How about a Jew? Or, an atheist? Folks, you cannot legislate away bigotry. Morality isn't guided by the laws we pass. It's at the core of each of us. Have we, as a nation, sought to educate our youth & ourselves of these things?

I know there doesn't appear to be much correlation between the attack on Pearl Harbor & the Kennedy speech. Although, it shows that in a couple of different aspects of life we haven't really come all that far. We still have active enemies willing to kill themselves just to kill us. We still have religious bigotry in a country where the very first right guaranteed to us is the freedom of religion. Yet, today, we find ourselves less willing to fight that enemy abroad & more than willing to accept religious bigotry. If anything, I'd say we have regressed.   

Who To Vote For...?...

This election is getting exciting as we move closer to the Iowa Caucus & then onto the New Hampshire Primary. There will be less than a week between them. That doesn't leave a lot of time to recover from a poor showing in Iowa. Are you watching the polls? Do they matter to you? Do you already know who you'll be voting for when the primary gets to you?

On the Democrat side you got Sen. Clinton & Sen. Obama tied for the lead at 29% in Iowa. John Edwards sits solidly in second with 23%. That pretty much sets the stage for a three way race on the Democratic side of things going into the Iowa Caucus. On the Republican side you have Mike Huckabee in the lead with 28% & Mitt Romney just behind with 25%. Rudy Giuliani with 12% & Fred Thompson with 11% are fighting for the third spot. Looks like a two way race in Iowa with an outside chance for a four way. Sen. McCain (4%) & Rep. Paul (5%) don't appear to be a factor in Iowa. Although, McCain's poll numbers are considerably higher in other state polls as well as national polls.

New Hampshire tells a slightly different story. Romney has a solid lead at 34%. Giuliani at 20% & McCain at 13% round out the top three for the Republicans. For the Democrats, Clinton has a solid lead at 36%. Obama at 22% & Edwards at 15% round the top three on the Democratic side in New Hampshire. While the Republican poll numbers vary quite a bit between Iowa & New Hampshire, the Democrat numbers don't change nearly as much. I think that reinforces the idea that the Democratic nominee is a foregone conclusion while the Republican nominee is still very much a mystery.

Do these polls mean diddley squat to you? If they do, you can keep track of them at RealClearPolitics where they report & keep an average of all the polls. How about the Iowa Caucus or the New Hampshire Primary? I'm betting that most of us don't want them to but then again, no one wants to vote for a loser either. Do you vote for who you want to win even though they're most likely going to lose? Or, do you vote for a second or third best candidate in your opinion to avoid a candidate from winning that you really don't want to win? Sadly, instead of voting for the best candidate our elections have come down to voting for the lesser of two evils.

On the Democrat side let's assume you really like Joe Biden or maybe Dennis Kucinich. It isn't likely that they'll win the nomination. Do you vote for them anyway out of principle? Or, do you vote for Clinton or Obama to ensure the other doesn't win the nomination? On the Republican side let's assume you like Ron Paul or Tom Tancredo. While Rep. Paul has raised a lot of money that hasn't translated into poll numbers & he or Tancredo aren't likely to win the Republican nomination. So, do you vote for your candidate anyway? Or, do you vote for Huckabee or McCain just so Romney or Giuliani don't win?

These are the things American voters have to think about. The bad taste of voting for Ross Perot in 1992 still lingers for a lot of folks. Many of us still voted for third party candidates in 2000 only to realize we had no voice in electing our president. Voting for one of the two major candidates; who were the only ones with an actual chance to win the presidency; likely would have averted the controversy that has clouded the minds of voters ever since.

I am a voter in a serious quandary. I believe Duncan Hunter is the best candidate running for president. The problem is that he isn't likely to win the nomination; let alone the presidency. On the Democrat side, Joe Biden is the only candidate who doesn't make me want to scream & throw things at the TV. On the Republican side, once you get past Hunter I just don't know about rest of them. McCain tried to sell us out on immigration & I don't trust Giuliani or Romney. They both seem so fake. The same thing goes for Clinton, Edwards & Obama on the Democrat side.

As a conservative without party affiliation does this mean I should stay home for the primaries & wait to vote in the general election for another third party candidate who has even less of a chance to win the presidency? Michael Bloomberg, Chuck Hagel & Sam Nunn all have considered jumping in as the Unity08 candidate. Of course there's the LibertarianParty or the ConstitutionParty candidates. Maybe an Independent candidate might be in order. If we really wanted to get back to our roots that's what we'd do. Remember, George Washington was an Independent. I know I left out the Green Party, the Prohibition Party & the Socialist Party but seriously, what chance do they really have?

This is a serious task we have before us. Some call it our right. Some call it a privilege. I call it our responsibility. And, not to be taken lightly. I hope I haven't confused anyone or made your choice even harder. My intention is to get you really thinking about your vote. You have just one, so make it count.   

Bogus College Standings

I'm sorry folks but I just can't talk about politics today. We'll get to some presidential politics as this week goes on. Remember: December 7th is the National Presidential Caucus. Check with FlagCityPolitico for time & place for our local event. You might want to retake or check out the presidential candidates quizzes I posted recently to help you narrow down the field (ElectionChoices, PickAWinner, SelectACandidate, Match-O-Matic/CandidateMatchGame, BackByPopularDemand). Now on with this BCS fiasco.

Bogus College Standings makes for a more accurate name than Bowl Championship Series for the the BCS. This year couldn't be a better example of why Division 1 college football needs a play-off system. Questions arose earlier when Ohio State lost at home to Illinois. The assumption was that because of that loss there were now six other teams better than Ohio State. Kansas, Missouri & West Virginia were among a few of them. It appeared going into the last week that we were going to see West Virginia & Missouri in the National Championship. But, the unthinkable happened. Supposedly the best teams lost. It then looked like Ohio State & Georgia would move into the top two spots. But wait, Georgia didn't even win their conference. We can't have that. So then there was LSU, USC & Oklahoma. All major conference champions but all with two losses. What about Hawaii? They're undefeated for crying out loud.

Jason Smith on ESPN radio refuses to call this years BCS championship game the National Championship simply because he believes the teams participating aren't the two best teams in the country. Apparently he has an issue with Ohio State not playing the past two weeks but still moving up because other teams were losing. He also appears to have an affection for USC. It does appear that USC is hitting on all cylinders right now & probably is worthy of a shot at the National Championship. But, Oklahoma does as well. They man-handled the number one team in the country this past weekend to win the Big 12 championship. Sorry to say but even a play-off system doesn't ensure the two best teams play for the championship. How many times do we get to the Super Bowl & realize the two best teams played the previous week in either the AFC or NFC championship? However, a play-off system, even with its flaws, allows for fair competition. And, isn't that what we're really looking for? In today's system Hawaii will never get a shot at the National Championship because they play in what's considered a weak conference.

My plan (you just knew I had a plan; didn't you?): There are 11 Division 1 conferences plus the Independents essentially making 12 conferences. You win your conference, you make the play-offs. The question then becomes how do you rank the teams for the play-offs? You could let the BCS rank the conferences based on the actual season rather than ranking teams or conferences before they even play a game (the way the system currently works). The conference champion then assumes the rank of their respective conference. Or, you could rank the remaining conference champions based on their point differential. Then a typical bracket would have #1 play #12, #2 play #11 & so on. Of course each round would vary based on the pre-play-off ranking. After each round the highest ranked team to win plays the lowest ranked team to win until we have two teams left & that becomes the National Championship. This way an undefeated Hawaii doesn't get left out & Oklahoma & USC don't feel like they're getting hosed. It would be time to put-up or shut-up. Win or go home.

I know we're probably not going to see any major changes to the system any time soon. Mainly due to the money involved in the Bowl Game System we currently have. In trying to ensure fair competition some changes to the current system may be right around the corner. However, until a play-off system, that gives all conferences a shot at the National Championship, is implemented there will always be controversy surrounding the Division 1 College Football Championship.

Okay, I'm done ranting about the BCS. At least until next year.

GO Buckeyes!