In 218 BC, shortly before the outbreak of the Second Punic War, a considerable amount of land had begun to amass into a dominion we know today as the Roman Empire. While the 91,000 square-miles of land in present-day Italy, which had found itself under the rule of the Roman Republic, isn't exactly what one would consider massive; it was, nonetheless, the point at which the course of history was to be changed indefinitely. The Roman Republic reached, what former Washington Post journalist Malcom Gladwell would call, its "tipping point."
From Italy, the empire would expand to Sicily, from Sicily to Spain, from Spain to Macedonia, from Macedonia to Carthage, from Carthage to Syria, from Syria to Cyprus, and from Cyprus to Gaul, leading up to the point when Julius Caesar would be assassinated, allowing his grand-nephew Octavian (also known as Augustus) become the first emperor. After the Age of Augustus, power would be transferred to Tiberius, from Tiberius to Caligula who was assassinated shortly thereafter, from Caligula to Claudius, from Claudius to Nero until his suicide in 68 AD. After Nero came Vespasian, then Titus who may-or-may-not have been murdered by Domitian, who was in-turn murdered by his own Senate, then came the "Five Good Emperors" until a foiled assassination attempt drove Marcus Aurelius insane, and so began the Severan Dynasty founded by a ruler named Severus. Then came Caracalla, Macrinus, Elagabalus, Alexander Severus, Diocletian, Maximian, and Maximinus. They all came to their respective demise; assassinated, forced to resign, murdered, slain, committed suicide, assassinated, and forced to flee. All-the-while, the empire continued to expand and expand and expand and expand -- amalgamating an incredible 2,300,000 square-miles of land at its height.
Through a governmental see-saw, the Roman Empire is a prime example of one of man's greatest desires: power. And as history would show; where there exists too much power, corruption and abuse is bound to follow, thus allowing for the numerous assassinations noted.
As the famous political philosopher Edmund Burke once said, "The greater the powers, the more dangerous the abuse." Burke's contention is plainly and dramatically emphasized in the period of the Roman Empire, but could a similar circumstance be heading in the direction of the United States? Discouragingly enough, the American public seems to be turning a blind-eye to the slowly accruing political power which is being literally handed to the government under the Bush Administration.
The recently signed Military Commissions Act of 2006 is truly the epitome of what the democratic form of government had hoped to protect from ever occurring. And with the flick-of-a-wrist and a tip-of-the-hat, President George W. Bush suspended Habeas Corpus and consequently abolished all freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, with the exception of the protection from quartering of troops.
For those of you who haven't the slightest idea what Habeas Corpus is, you are at no fault, for it was the intention of the government to prevent as much publicity of this suspension as possible. I'll give you a hint: if you're a fan of trial-by-jury, you're not going to be happy.
No longer does an American citizen have the right to protest the suspension of his or her freedom in the confines of a court room. Simply stated: go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200. No trial, no lawyers, no judge, no jury. If Bush feels so inclined to declare any given American an "unlawful enemy combatant" (although the definition of this phrase is not included in this piece of legislation), he may incarcerate them for as long as he deems necessary, and use means of torture to the point of "serious mental and physical trauma," until you admit to your guilt.
My friends, this as clear-cut as abuse of power gets. Our rights are being infringed upon; and to those who don't believe said power will be abused, I ask of you, why does President Bush need this dictatorial power? And to those who believe that this power will be applied upon American citizens, you need only look to the history of this country to find your answer.
In his riveting speech to the nation, host of MSNBC's Countdown Keith Olberman recalls consonant acts which have been passed in America's history:
"We have been here when President John Adams insisted that the Alien and Sedition Acts were necessary to save American lives — only to watch him use those Acts to jail newspaper editors.
American newspaper editors, in American jails, for things they wrote, about America.
We have been here, when President Woodrow Wilson insisted that the Espionage Act was necessary to save American lives — only to watch him use that Act to prosecute 2,000 Americans, especially those he disparaged as "Hyphenated Americans," most of whom were guilty only of advocating peace in a time of war.
American public speakers, in American jails, for things they said, about America. And we have been here when President Franklin D. Roosevelt insisted that Executive Order 9-0-6-6 was necessary to save American lives — only to watch him use that Order to imprison and pauperize 110-thousand Americans…
American citizens, in American camps, for something they neither wrote nor said nor did — but for the choices they or their ancestors had made, about coming to America."
It would be foolish to disregard the possibility of governmental corruption. It's historic. We must learn from our past to prevent it from happening again in the future -- it's the oldest saying in-the-book.
And that's all it takes: the possibility. This bill might not affect us now, it might not affect us in five years, it might not affect us in fifty; but the chance that it might will always remain. If, by some stretch-of-the-mind, an incompetent leader does take office, one who has little regard for the well-being of his people (as was seen in the Roman Empire on multiple occasions), what's standing in the way of him and a totalitarian government?
We should not be sitting in our homes, wondering whether or not today is the day when our president locks-us-up for a crime we didn't commit. We shouldn't be sitting hoping that such a day never comes around.
This is a democracy, and the power is delegated to the people. The Tenth Amendment so reads, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
Such blatant insouciance for Amendments 4-8, which grant us protection from unreasonable search and seizure, protection from self-incrimination, a trial by jury, and protection from cruel and unusual punishment, is grounds for impeachment. But at the least, let us call for reform before it's to late.
In a 2005 Gallup Poll showed that 49% of Americans felt that the Patriot Act did not go too far in trying to catch terrorists; however, 85% of Americans admitted knowing either some, not much, or nothing about the bill -- 28%, 28%, and 29%, respectively. While this might initially seem to show that Americans don't mind giving up their liberties; upon closer investigation, it strikingly proves that Americans are nonchalant towards the actions of their government. To be sure, some will argue that the American public simply trusts its own government; we can clearly see that this trust is misapplied and this is simply a case of Americans being manipulated by their own government. And although the levels of Americans who know little-to-nothing about the bill remains astoundingly low, the number has nevertheless slowly increased in the past four years, and directly correlated with this increasing number was an increase in the percentage of Americans who felt that their liberties were being infringed-upon.
After its signing, several sections of the Patriot Act were declared unconstitutional by federal courts due in-part to the actions of a select group of Americans who stood up for their liberties. Allowing for baseless wiretapping and invasion of privacy is as insignificant as a pebble dropping in water during a hurricane compared to the unrestrained suspension of Habeas Corpus contained the Commissions Act.
It is imperative that we act, and do so quickly. These are our freedoms, and we, as Americans, are the only ones who can protect them. Let us not forget the very definition of the word democracy: a government by the people, a government which is prevented from corruption by the constant supervision of the people. I ask only that you do not stand by. That you take action, and fight for our freedoms -- if for no other reason, simply in the spirit of democracy and the founding fathers who created this great country.
Even after the eventual fall of the Roman Empire, its lasting effects were evident. Coincidentally, the United States itself derives portions of our law and governmental philosophy, including the Presidency. In creating the Presidency, the Founding Fathers hoped to create an "Augustan Age." Both providentially and strategically, this country has long out-lasted the 45 years that the Age of Augustus existed.
The 300th anniversary of the United States of America is in the near-future, and it is my hope that we will reach that milestone not in chaos or corruption, but in the same innovative way in which we have reached into the 21st century. Perhaps then we can rest comfortably on the globally-warmed, increasingly polluted, shores of the Atlantic; rest-assured that, no matter what obstacle that presents itself -- whether it be global warming, pollution, or anything else -- our future as a country will still be in-tact and the freedoms we enjoy today will still be available to the generations which lay ahead.
Again NothSider, I disagree. This is the same message posted previously and methinks it was by Ultra. While you are not lying, you are speaking like a politician campaigning for office, in half-truths, innuendos and doom and gloom rhetoric. Habeas Corpus is only suspended for THIS federal crime, if it is committed-this you do not explain. Those committing crimes in violation of STATE LAW are not affected; those committing other Federal crimes, such as bank robbery (which may or may not be charged federally), kidnapping (when state lines are crossed), postal fraud or robbery, possession of prohibited weapons, etc., are not affected by this suspension.
I think that when you use this types of scare rhetoric, you not only doing a diservice to all who read it, but a diservice to yourself also.
I just might start a blog post in answer to yours, I'll have to think about it, remember I said I did not want to enter into some long drawn out diatribe about this subject. I know where you are coming from and want to go, but I disagree.
"Categories listed at the end of this blog include NFL, MLB, NHL, and NBA. To the naked eye, this would seem to be a ploy to get noticed."
As would the whole notion of blogging -- Fox wants their writers on the BOTD, some people want to sound so good that they look to plagiarism for answers; I value the opinions of my readers, so I do my best to make sure I at least get a decent amount of readers.
I couldn't care less whether I received 1 or 1,000 comments -- I've been around Fox for a long time, and since my first post, I've gone through several articles which have garnered less-than-5 comments. On the other hand, I've gone through many articles which receive 50+ comments. All of these are on a plethora of different topics ranging from politics to MLB to NBA to the NFL. I've proven that I'm not a attention-hungry blogger in the past 10 months. This argument is getting rather cliche.
If you ask me, the structure of this website needs to under-go serious over-haul. But that's just my opinion.
People complain all the time for not receiving BOTD -- it doesn't matter to me, as long as I receive some feedback from my readership. I fail to see what your ad hominem argument is trying to point out in me.
"I do agree with you about our freedoms being consistently taken away. Kind of reminds me of socialism. You know, with the government control, and all."
Ricko and I agreeing -- almost seems unfitting.
Thanks for the comment, Ricko. No matter the issue, I've always been able to count on at least one comment from you.
"Those committing crimes in violation of STATE LAW are not affected; those committing other Federal crimes, such as bank robbery (which may or may not be charged federally), kidnapping (when state lines are crossed), postal fraud or robbery, possession of prohibited weapons, etc., are not affected by this suspension."
You've obviously not read the legislation. Shame on you for coming in here and criticizing me without first examining the piece.
The bill allows for the President to declare any person an "unlawful enemy combatant," and if he so decides, that person can be stripped of all of their rights and imprisoned indefinitely.
The type of crime - or even the presense of a crime - is completely irrelavent. An American who has not once committed a crime could be incarcerated at any time. In fact, Bush has been explicitly interested in the actions of several peace groups recently, which are spreading "anti-war propaganda."
The rank of the freedom of the American press has dropped from 12th in 2002 to 57th in 2006 -- Bush's incessant limiting of the media, and his overall tenure has been a complete disaster for this country.
"I think that when you use this types of scare rhetoric, you not only doing a diservice to all who read it, but a diservice to yourself also."
Scare rhetoric? Seems pretty ironic, if you ask me. The government passes a bill which allows for torture, and suspension of all-things-trial-by-jury, and you're calling my piece a "scare tactic?"
Please, point out these "scare-rhetoric" devices for me -- I'm not even convinced that you grasp the meaning of the phrase. People are losing their freedoms, it's as simple as that -- there's no scare-tactic involved.
If you want to debate scare-tactics with me, go right ahead -- just be fore-warned, you will not win.
If you want scare-tactics, look no further than the Bush Administration. Constant references to 9/11, calling of Americans to support the War in Iraq or they're not being anti-American, embellishing the threat of terrorism to frighten Americans into corners. Via the Bush Administration, terrorism is succeeding in its cause: scare Americans into foolishly disregarding their rights. Fear is the goal of terrorism.
My article does not once propose that we fear our government; in fact, it points to the exact opposite, the government should fear the people. We need to take action, and restore our freedoms -- I'm curious, do you also contend that Luther King Jr. used scare-tactics?
Your entire argument is baseless -- you cite no specific examples in my article, and you're begging the question, which is completely fallacious.
I have said before that too much is made of the whole BOTD thing. Getting one is nice, but it really means little in the grand scheme of things. (I've had three-how many have you had? Huh? How many?? Just kidding).
As for our freedoms being taken away, I've railed against that for many years. Unfortunately, because we are so comfortable in our lifestyle, or at least think we are, not much has been done. And I do not think the Patriot Act, nor the recent bill signed into law by Bush, will be repealed after we exit the wartime state we are currently in. I know better.
"Unfortunately, because we are so comfortable in our lifestyle, or at least think we are, not much has been done."
I think a lot of it has to do with this, along with an over-trusting of our government. People don't use the power which is delegated to them by the 10th Amendment. Democracy is fading in the midst o####rowing dictatorship -- foolish Americans don't believe it can happen (as it seems Fuzzboss doesn't), they disregard the historic premise the where there's excess power, there's corruption.
Tell me, Fuzzboss, why is the United States above history? What leads you to believe that Bush, or any future president for that matter, won't abuse this power?
Why are you so open to giving up your own freedoms?
This current conflict we are in is Vietnam all over again in so many ways. Apparently we didn't learn much from history. But I must say in Bush's defense, few presidents have had to deal with what he has while in office. One could say it's hard to look good under the circumstances he has faced. I'm not defending Bush, but the government as a whole is responsible for the current state of affairs.
Does everyone understand the premise of democracy was shaped upon past governmental corruption and how to prevent it in the future?
The very reason that the government delegates power to the people is so that something of this sort DOESN'T ever happen. Whether the bill is used on Americans or not, it's infringing upon our rights and the possibility of misapplication is around-the-corner. It's not only naive to think that it will never occur, but in reality, this shouldn't matter -- as I pointed out earlier, we shouldn't be sitting, hoping that our government doesn't abuse power. It shouldn't have the power to abuse in the first place.
The US is a democracy. The Military Commissions Act is Figure 1 in the lesson on How to destroy a democracy.
"but the government as a whole is responsible for the current state of affairs."
We can debate about who-proposed-what for years; the fact is, this legislation was supported by Bush -- and it's directly violating the Bill of Rights.
That said, adverse circumstances in a Presidency are no new occurence. We have the Civil War, the Great Depression, World Wars I and II, the JFK Assassination; none of which were handled nearly as poorly as this current Administration has handled the War in Iraq, and the general state of domestic affairs.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Nothing even comes close?? You wouldn't say the JFK assassination, still unsolved after 43 years, doesn't come close? That was the ultimate in government corruption, and nothing has come close to that. That Lyndon Johnson was quite the guy, though, I must say.
As for your comment which ended in 'what don't you understand?' Who are you talking to?
I really don't know where you are going with this post. In defense, I know too little about the bill to comment.
However, if it is a scare tactic, one should not be scared, but at least concerned.
I applaud whatever effort you have made here. There seems to be some history with this matter, this particular blog, and/or those commenting.
So, I suppose I will let those it was supposed to affect, well comment more. I'm not saying the bill doesn't affect me as a person. I am saying the very concept of the blog is in question
Ricko, you finally contributed something other than a snide comment to one of my or NorthSider's blog. And you do well at it. Keep it coming, it's the soft and buttery side I've been longing to see.
Hey, Ricko, you might be pleased to know that we, too, share something in common: I've also been Blog of the Day three times. And those three times came by on sports-related topics, mind you!
Former88Fan, we've had a few political debates over the last few months or so. You can find a few of them on my blog, a couple here on NorthSider's, and others scattered around on the blogs of Socalsportsfan, FlyingPig, and Fatmaw1.
If their blogs are anything like mine, they're open to anyone and everyone, so jump in if you'd like. This isn't relegated to a specific clique of people on here.
You know what NorthSider: I responded to your blog in a reasonable and decent tone; I did not criticize you or question your motives, I said what I thought/we are on opposite poles, but you come back and attack; that is why I shouldn't even wrote anything about it to you. That's my bad. I won't respond further. I read the law. If one commits a local, state crime this law has no effect, if a person commits a federal crime not included under the au####es of this aforementioned law, no effect. Now that is the law, contact an attorney smart guy and find out, I did, remember too I know a little more of the law than most. Don't attack me cause you think you're smarter. Just stay on your side, I' ll stay on mine.
True anyone of us could be hit under the law, that is the problem, I agree. But if one violates a STATE law, he still has all his rights; what your rant says that this law has taken away all our rights; this is blatantly not true and is a scare tactic, much like Joe McCarthy of the early 50,s with his "Red Menace".
Last edited by fuzzboss on October 27th at 5:35 AM.
North, this was a well written post. As I have stated before, I am leary of big government and I do not like laws such as this one, but sometimes our government will evolve over time. Just as the 2nd ammendment has evolved to take away arms which were meant for war, assualt rifles, but still allow peaceful, law-abiding citizens to own guns has changed. I do not fear this bill nearly as much as I fear a government that sits idly by and watches terrorists come into our country and does very little to remove them. I want our government to have the tools necessary to capture, punish, and even tortue those who are non-american citizens. I have no problem with that. Of course if it were me, I would shoot them after I finished torturing them with my 2nd ammendment handgun.
This is the first and last comment by me on this topic here, but I might just write a post later on today to address my feelings on the matter.
Northsider...I understand where you are coming from. But if you can give me the name of someone this has effected in the next 6 months...maybe I'll agree. Otherwise, this should have no effect on you, me, or anyone we know for that matter. It is being blown waaaaay out of proportion. There is still no evidence that it has, nor that it will take away your rights!!
Last edited by fatmaw1 on October 27th at 7:30 AM.
In re Territo(1946)
Johnson v. Eisentrager(1950)
Ex Parte Quirin(1942)
Colepaugh v. Looney(1956)
Ramsi v. Bush(2004)
Hamzi v. Rumsfeld(2004)
A few of the cases concerning this same issue. You will see where in the 2 2004 cases our Supreme Court basically gave itself jurisdiction over foreign lands. And at the same time gave every enemy combatant picked up on the battlefield the ability to use our court system. Pretty scary stuff. Understand this bill was written b/c of the decision handed down in the Ramsi v. Bush case in 2004. Our Supreme Court just opened the flood gates to our enemies. We can hold a prisnoer or enemy combatant for as long as hostilites last. Lincoln arrested 9 Maryland legislators and suspended Habeus Corpus. You have to understand this bill deals with war time issues only. If you do not believe we are at war then this bill would in fact look scary. But since we are at war and the Constitution does not define what must be written in declaring war all this other stuff that you will say in response to this is pointless.
"all this stuff you will say in response to this is pointless."
There are two problems with this. First of all, you do not decide what is pointless, or relevant to the conversation. Second of all, a statement like that shows a closed off mind. When you say something is pointless, before it is even brought up, you are saying that you don't want to listen to it.
Now, here's the problem I have with your statements. First of all, you do not know for a fact that every person in Gitmo is an "enemy". Just by random chance, I'm sure at least a few innocent people were rounded up and placed there. Constitutional rights are granted to protect those who are innocent. Secondly, why should it be that not all people are protected by Constitutional rights? Why should a person who's not from this country have no rights? All people have rights, not just Americans. These people have rights to protect them from being treated unfairly by people who may abuse their powers. Enemies are people also. They have rights. If they are indeed our enemies, then we will surely find that out after they are tried and convicted. We should not just immediately go to punishing people, without them being convicted of any crime. Just because the President points to a man and says, "He is the enemy", that does not make it so. Just because LSUfan thinks that man is the enemy, that does not make it so. What does make it so is a trial and a conviction of a crime.
You are falling into a trap here. A man is not the enemy because he looks Muslim and scary. A man is the enemy because he commits criminal acts against the United States. In this country, how do we determine if a man has committed a criminal act? We try him in a court of law and, if he is found guilty by a jury of his peers, he is convicted of said crime. Why should it be any different for other people? Again, just because he looks Muslim and scary or just because you say he committed a crime, that does not necessarily mean he is guilty of anything. He needs to be tried in a court of law and convicted. And, sorry, trying him in front of a few of Bush's yes-men, who will award a conviction without evidence, doesn't count. And by the way, anything you will say to this is pointless.
Last edited by jgrace_12 on October 27th at 9:09 AM.
I'm obviously kidding about the "anythin you say is pointless" part. I threw that in there to show you how ridiculous it sounds.
Again, the Constitution was written under the premise that "All men are created equal." It does not say that American men are better than everyone else. It was written BY "We the People", but it was written for all people everywhere.
Last edited by jgrace_12 on October 27th at 9:12 AM.
For some reason, I feel the urge to go home and watch a bunch of movies about the Roman empire. Definitely one my favorite topics...
Anyway, I note the problems with our government. Power is a scary thing. While I try to be thankful for the things we do have, I don't enjoy our freedoms being taken away.
But my anger started a long time ago. Several years ago, when this happened: No Bongo?
There are many rights that should be guaranteed. And I think playing the bongo drums naked should be one of them.
This post is the same as Ultra's post a couple of weeks back... BTW, the Kieth Olberman thing- this dude's show last night was weighing the socio-economic weight of Maria Carey's concert dates being cancelled on his show last night. Hard hitting stuff for sure.
I admire the passion you poured into the post here, but it is a retread issue, already discussed ad-nauseum by Ultra's previous post on the same topic.
I will however look forward to your next post, as you are a solid writer.
Is it any wonder that bloggers are flocking to other sites to discuss sports and not politics.
NorthSide~ Before you cut-and-paste my words and surround them with quotes, don't waste your time. I won't be checking back to read your retort. While you have a natural ability to write, the message at this site was once about sports. Seems that yourself and UltraMeg have taken it upon yourselves to ####ize the site for your own personal political agendas. Have at it. Maybe you two could get a room.
Where are guys like you (with such deep concern about protection of constitutional rights, freedom, and liberties) every time taxes are hiked?!?!?
US taxpayers pay over 50% effective tax rate (combining income, sales, property, estate, etc), which is by definition SOCIALISM, not capitalism as our founding fathers intended.
Where is your history lesson on the repercussions of socialism and the loss of political and economic freedoms and human rights in the failed communist/socialist states (see USSR, see French labor riots)?!?!?!
THE ONLY reason you are making so much noise about this is because it is regarding action taken by an elected official that doesn’t sit on your side of the aisle.
You are as bad as a Steeler fan complaining about officiating – you only complain when questionable calls are made against YOUR team, F*** everybody else!!!.
Last edited by TJHooker on October 27th at 12:45 PM.
TJ, if you're talking to me, I'm in favor of democratic socialism, so it's not really a partisan thing for me. I don't associate myself with Democrats, Republicans, or any other American political party for that matter.
You are obviously a talented writer Northsider, but this was the wrong place for a soapbox rant. Leave this kind of thing in High School Goverment class.
If you are hoping to be seen as intellectual with varied interests outside of the world of sports, then step outside of the world of sports.
Maybe you'll do better in Canada or Mexico. Always paid for by American lives, honorably defending all our freedoms, the right to life and the pursuit of happiness, including sports and blogs.
Just thought I'd stop by to let you know that my fingers are obviously not crossed, hence the avatar. The picture is what I really think about this type of feces on a sports blog.
Ultra~ did I give you permission to link my blog? No, I didn't think so. Thanks for reading! In the 4 minutes and 30 seconds it took me to write such beautiful prose(actually, it was a well thought out post which actually referred to sports and took much longer than 5 minutes) you probably squeezed out another "Why firefighters/police officers/mothers aren't Heroes" posts. Congrats. You want to criticize, come on over and bring it. You feel that the #### you spew is superior to mine? I beg to differ. My intention is for humor, yours, obviously, is to give us an alternative to stomach pumping.
Respond if you must, but I also won't be waiting for your feeble attempts to rile me. As for your attempt at sports humor "Baseball Matchmaking", copies of it are currently being used by Honduran children as ####-wipe.
You and LSUfan should team up and call yourselves "The Strawman Arguers."
You don't even need me to here to argue. Just set up my thoughts and motivations the way you want them so they're easy for you to refute, and I'll be in the other room in case you actually want human interaction.
Hey, Tony Romo and Tony Snow both share the same first name.
Here's the main problem (of many) with your argument. Bush doesn't stay in power. In just two years time we will have what is, in a sense, a revolution. That's the beauty of our government. We have a revolution every four years which keeps anyone from getting too much power. I'm sure you'll be upset with the results as I find it very unlikely a democrat will be in office. They'll take control of Congress, but the oval office will stay in the republicans' hands for at least four more years in '08. The point is, no one is striving for dominant power like the Roman Empire. Your conspiracy theories get worse and worse North.
"We have a revolution every four years which keeps anyone from getting too much power."
Wouldn't it be ironic if and when the Democrats win the Presidency in 2008, George W. Bush is declared an "unlawful enemy combatant," is put before a completely biased, uncaring tribunal who gives the thumbs-up to waterboarding, and he's sent to Gitmo for his remaining years?
It would be nice reprisal.
"the oval office will stay in the republicans' hands for at least four more years in '08."
I strongly disagree. While I don't think he's the best or most qualified candidate, I think Barack Obama is riding too much momentum not to become President in 2008. He signifies everything that America wants, as well as an end to what they're tired of. Read up on him if you haven't heard of him.
"UM that is plagerism!!!....lol. You used STB's blog w/o his permission..lol."
Thanks for showing that you don't understand what plagiarism is.
I am an avid sports writer in my part of town and am active in expressing my opinion (at times, I can get carried away, yes). I am known by many as a die-hard Beatles fan and I always get people talking about my constant references to them. Not only do I find them to be the best band to ever grace the planet, thus far, but I also find them a very good source for comparison in my articles. Hope you enjoy my articles on here as I'm just getting started, and I am always open for commentary.
.
Writer and Featured Columnist, RealGM Sports: www.realgm.c om
.
Read My Articles Daily at RealGMBaseba ll.com Under "Call to the Bullpen"
.
Online Blog at www.northside r.net