As Floyd Landis parades around France, declaring his innocence, hundreds of syringes are heaved at him; his security agents parrying as many as possible. Millions of Americans are flooding sports-radio phone lines, anxious to divulge their inner hatred for the man. Apparently, Landis is preparing to embark on his own TV show, Landis on Landis, to be aired on ESPN.
Oh -- wait -- that’s Barry Bonds, the man who has never tested positive. But how can this be? Certainly, the evidence is much more convincing when it comes to Floyd Landis. Many contend it’s a matter of racism -- but is that really true? Do we really hate the man because he’s black? I think not.
In a world full of rap music, a predominantly black profession; music which millions of Caucasian people listen to with regularity -- are they just trying to diversify the ethnicities of those who sing the music they enjoy? In a world of judicial activism which is, many times, exploited to mollify any animosity which remains between races, Brown-vs-Board-of-Eductation-style -- are they just trying something new? In a world where it's politically incorrect to call someone of a minority-race a racist, when whites are incessantly accused of the crime -- are we just being nice? All good questions.
These days, African-Americans dominate sports; with the exception of NASCAR and the NHL, there is seldom a sport where one cannot find much diversity in ethnicities and color. Is there still racism today? Of course. But to the point where baseball fans and non-viewers alike disgrace a baseball player simply because of his color? It's just unreasonable to believe such a thing.
The Barry Bonds malevolence goes much deeper than skin-color -- this is a matter of the public's apprehensiveness towards the breaking of cherished records such as Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron's, we want to believe that to break such a record is impossible and that there must be a explanation for said success. It is for this reason that we are fleeceable when it comes to accusations of cheating aimed at Barry Bonds. Jump to conclusions? Absolutely!
Where's the positive test? We have all the circumstantial evidence one could ask for, so if the case is so solid; why haven't we been able to trace any of the drugs that we seem to "know" he's taking? Wouldn't it be easy to conduct an experiment, knowing the outcome of the operation before carrying it out? I guess not.
And some will be quick to point out that drug developers are "far more advanced" than the drug testers, even though the social-perception of steroid use is negative, making the number of doctors working to prevent drug use far more than those who promote it. Even if this was true, are we assuming that Floyd Landis didn't have access to these smarter doctors, who can mask heavy drug use through four years of rigorous testing -- drug use which the testers are indefatigably trying to prove.
No -- we have the defense for good old Floyd. He's clean, and we know it! Alleging that he was involved in flagitious activity is just counterfactual and Barmecidal -- or some would assert. It all relates back to our flagrant nationalism in times of vain for our country-at-war, which leads to wide-spread antipathy towards the French; thus making American dominance of an event hosted by France even more gratifying. We want Floyd Landis to be innocent. One can't say the same about Barry Bonds.
What about those French scientists? All hidden away in their secret laboratories, scheming various ways to conspire against Floyd Landis, who they somehow knew was going to win the race -- what about those guys? After all, everyone knows French scientists hate American cyclists -- didn't Thomas Paine write about that hatred in Common Sense? The chances of something of the sort are just about as high as a Fourth of July Parade in North Korea. With the risk of extreme American antagonism if their plot was ever discovered, it is quite doubtful that France would try to nullify Floyd Landis' without just cause.
And if this is the reason for the skepticism towards the test results against Floyd Landis -- then is it so farfetched and ridiculous to believe that the MLB might be doing something similar? Certainly the MLB wants Barry Bonds to be proven guilty as much as the French want to see Floyd Landis' title taken away. Where are the conspiracy theories on this one? Oh -- right, there hasn't been a positive test, I'm sorry, I keep on forgetting.
Nobody has robbed Floyd Landis of a Tour de France yellow-jacket. In fact, it's quite Pecksniffian to question Landis' guilt when one declares Bonds' with rabid passion. The rules are the rules -- when a racer tests positive for a banned substance, their title is revoked, period. This is the stringent system that many are pushing for in Major League Baseball, and perhaps there is a middle-ground between the uncompromising attitude of the Tour de France officials towards drug use and the indifferent attitude of MLB officials -- but the French have banned people of many different countries, including favorites Jan Ullrich of Germany, Ivan Basso of Italy, Oscar Sevilla of Spain, as well as Rudy Pevenage of Belgium -- it's safe to say that the French seem to care much more about the integrity of their sport than the Americans do, at this point.
Maybe it's time to start accepting the truth about Floyd Landis, no matter how hard it might be.
Because my first blog seems to be locking up -- this second blog will be used for a continuance of the ongoing discussion.
Here is a copy of the original post:
Danica Patrick, after dropping out of high school, electing to take a GED test instead, and moving to England, slipped her way into the IRL and into the national spotlight. It has been widely accepted that her appearance in IRL events is, for the most part, a mild attempt at publicity for an oft-incon####uous sport. Yes, Patrick was just the con####uousness that IndyCar needed, and apparently, is going to hold on to after Patrick denied any plans of switching over to NASCAR.
Naturally, if Danica wanted to make such a move, NASCAR fans and media enthusiasts alike would support the move emphatically -- putting together their early predictions for which NASCAR events Danica would win, and how the move would benifit her incalculably. Nevermind the fact that her qualifications are imperceptible, nevermind that she has never finished above 4th in an IndyCar event, nevermind that her greatest career accomplishment was leading at Indianapolis -- Patrick's move would be insanely agreed-upon. And why not? She harbors public attention, is an excellent media incentive, and helps IndyCar brush-off the notion that it discriminates against certain individuals. And while some people concur that certain sports should be exclusively men -- just ask Keith Hernandez -- the including of Patrick certainly plasters the word 'humanitarian' accross the face of IndyCar Racing in the eyes of most.
Really -- who cares about the repercussions? Right? The United States certainly applies this philosophy.
The great John Lennon once said, "If everyone demanded peace instead of another television set, then there'd be peace." The great George Bush once said, "#### Saddam, we're taking him out," more than a year before invading Iraq. The great #### Cheney once said about the possibility of a War in Iraq, "My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators." Secretary of State Colin Powell said, "Ladies and gentlemen, these are not assertions. These are facts, corroborated by many sources, some of them sources of the intelligence services of other countries," on the topic of the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
The always reliable Deputy Defense Secretary, Paul Wolfowitz once said, "It's hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam’s security forces and his army. Hard to imagine." White House Chief-of-Staff Andrew Card said, "From a marketing point of view, you don't roll out new products in August," when asked about why Bush watied until after Labor Day to convince the American public that the War in Iraq was warranted. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, when asked about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." Then, in June of that year (2003) said, "I don't know anybody that I can think of who has contended that the Iraqis had nuclear weapons." And to top it off, when asked about the number of Iraqi insurgents, he said, ""I am not going to give you a number for it because it's not my business to do intelligent work." White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, on July 9, 2003, said, "I think the burden is on those people who think he didn't have weapons of mass destruction to tell the world where they are."
What sad times these are when musicians, known drug-addicts, make more sense than the politicians who we put in the White House. The fact of the matter is, Bush was much more rational before he was in control of our country; during his campaign in 2000 Bush told voters in the second presidential debate that, "I'm not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say, 'This is the way it's got to be.'" It's a shame that people will simply say anything to disagree with what another one says, or to promote himself in the public eye. So why would a man who upheld such beliefs invade Iraq? Perhaps his interview with Pat Robertson shed some light. When Robertson advised Bush to prepare the public for casualties in Iraq, Bush responded, "Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties."
This, my friends, is the rationale the US leaders use when justifying wars. Presidents who showed some semblance of intelligence while campagning elect to leave that intelligence behind and do whatever it is they "feel like" doing. No -- strike that -- whatever "God told them to do". Once again, quoting Bush (June 2003), "I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, 'George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan.' And I did, and then God would tell me, 'George go and end the tyranny in Iraq,' and I did." If any normal American were to say something of the sort, he or she would be ostracized in society and, most likely, shipped off to an asylum for mental treatment -- when George Bush says it, we re-elect him. The strong political winds of nationalism that Bush has done an excellent job in swaying in his favor blind Americans of their prudence and leave behind the scent of gunpowder and the sound of the World Trade Centers collapsing.
And I reiterate how ironic it is that the man who put this reasoning in the best words is Bush, himself. It's our own involvment in affairs that are none of this country's business which prompted the 9/11 attacks, couple that with our own negligence of homeland security -- or perhaps, the allowance of such attacks to occur, as former American military analyst, Daniel Ellsberg believes -- and what you have is a massive tragedy. What's more, the fact that this tragedy was used to manipulate the minds of millions of Americans brings the legitimacy of the attacks themselves into question.
To say that the government told the public about every aspect of 9/11 would be naive. What the American public does see is the incessantly-replayed images of the World Trade Centers crashing towards the ground, thousands of people trapped within -- the images of people leaping from the windows of their 80th-story windows. What the American public doesn't hear about are the four hijackers who are still alive-and-well. What we don't hear about are the pilots, who couldn't even control small propeller aircrafts, according to their instructors, flying massive commercial airliners at the height of a lawn-mower. We don't hear about the fact that the World Trade Centers were built to withstand the impact of a 707 jet-liner which is nearly the same size, and travels 100 mph faster than the 767's which hit the towers. We don't hear about the 81 eye-witnesses, including more than 20 trained firefighters stationed around the buildings, who heard explosions 20 seconds before the Center's collapse. The fact that, as Lieutenant-Fireman Paul Isaac Jr. said, "Many firemen knew there were bombs in the buildings but they're afraid for their jobs to admit it because the 'higher-ups' forbid the discussion of this fact." The fact that CIA director Robert Woosley reported that, "There were definitely bombs in those buildings." The fact that never in the history of the world has a steel-framed building EVER collapsed due to fire, and despite this, somehow, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, who was just outside the World Trade Center building, was warned that "the World Trade Centers are going to collapse, we must leave now." And that, even though such information was, apparently, available, it was not told to the firemen who died inside of the buildings when they collapsed. The public was told that there existed no video footage of the 757 hitting the Pentagon; however, a few years later, the government releases frames from a security camera which show the blurred image of something hitting the Pentagon. The footage which the FBI siezed, a matter of seconds after the attack, telling those who had viewed it to never discuss what they had seen. We don't hear about the rehearsal of the attacks on the Pentagon in the Mass Casualty planning exercise in 2000. We don't hear about the fact that Hani Hanjour, the "pilot" of the plane which hit the Pentagon was pulled over for speeding in August of 2001, three-weeks-later, he sent a check in for $100 to pay the ticket and court charges. Yes, this is the same suicidal maniac, the one who finds our government to be evil, who sent this check.
In 1998, Payne Stewart, a professional golfer, was aboard his private jet -- when his pilots stopped responding to Air Traffic Controllers, five F-16 fighter jets were scrambled to the location of his jet within 18 minutes, even though Stewart was flying in a very rural area. American flight 11 took an unexpected turn at 8:28 PM and hit the first Trade Center 27 minutes later; the second flight, which hit tower #2, went off course 35 minutes before crashing. An Air Force Base rests 71 miles away from the World Trade Centers -- F-16's can fly at speeds in excess of 1500 mph, it would have taken 150-210 seconds to get to the towers. Oh -- and flight 77 flew within 8 miles of the White House, where there are Anti-Aircraft guns which can fire heat-seeking missiles up to 18 miles.
All coincidences, the government contended, just before they used the attacks as justification for an invasion on foreign soil. After easing the spirits of Americans, they gently made their way over into Iraq, which had absolutely no connections with the 9/11 attacks, and began to dictate which type of government the country should be run-under. And we wonder why much of the world express much displeasure over our actions? If we are really the "peace-makers" which we claim to be, why aren't we in Africa, where thousands of people are the victim of mass-genocide and extreme starvation? Oh yeah, forgot -- God told President Bush to invade Iraq. Isn't it great how well we elevate the standard of separation of church and state?
While the rest of the world slowly becomes enraged by our arrogance, we sit back, planning out the future of another country's government -- maybe we should force them all to learn English. Wait, then we could no longer use the excuse that it's difficult to decipher between civilian and Iraqi military men to explain the deaths of hundreds of civilians.
We condemn communist governments for trying to forcefully impose their form of government unto other countries; but, it's perfectly fine for the United States to do so -- because democracy is "right". I wonder how this country would react if another Army invaded our country, began to re-develop our government while killing and raping citizens of our country.
What the United States is doing gives the impression that we are all a bunch of self-serving hypocrites who care only that another country have the democratic form of government. One has to imagine how much longer the US's superiority is going to last, dealing out potentially trillions (yes, that's trillions, with a 't' and an 's') in Social Security and pension and welfare while spending billions on wars to change governments and angering many other countries in doing so.
According to a report by WorldNetDaily, "A newly published paper by a researcher for the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis warns that a ballooning budget deficit and pension and welfare timebomb is growing into a $65.9 trillion fiscal gap that will force the United States into bankruptcy." Professor Laurence Kotlikoff says, "One way to wrap one's head around $65.9 trillion is to ask what fiscal adjustments are needed to eliminate this red hole. The answers are terrifying. One solution is an immediate and permanent doubling of personal and corporate income taxes. Another is an immediate and permanent two-thirds cut in Social Security and Medicare benefits. A third alternative, were it feasible, would be to immediately and permanently cut all federal discretionary spending by 143 percent."
With such an impending doom on the horizon -- politically, economically, and militarily -- one can only hope that the government will come to its senses soon, otherwise, this great country's tenure may just be coming to an abrupt end.
Danica Patrick, after dropping out of high school, electing to take a GED test instead, and moving to England, slipped her way into the IRL and into the national spotlight. It has been widely accepted that her appearance in IRL events is, for the most part, a mild attempt at publicity for an oft-incon####uous sport. Yes, Patrick was just the con####uousness that IndyCar needed, and apparently, is going to hold on to after Patrick denied any plans of switching over to NASCAR.
Naturally, if Danica wanted to make such a move, NASCAR fans and media enthusiasts alike would support the move emphatically -- putting together their early predictions for which NASCAR events Danica would win, and how the move would benifit her incalculably. Nevermind the fact that her qualifications are imperceptible, nevermind that she has never finished above 4th in an IndyCar event, nevermind that her greatest career accomplishment was leading at Indianapolis -- Patrick's move would be insanely agreed-upon. And why not? She harbors public attention, is an excellent media incentive, and helps IndyCar brush-off the notion that it discriminates against certain individuals. And while some people concur that certain sports should be exclusively men -- just ask Keith Hernandez -- the including of Patrick certainly plasters the word 'humanitarian' accross the face of IndyCar Racing in the eyes of most.
Really -- who cares about the repercussions? Right? The United States certainly applies this philosophy.
The great John Lennon once said, "If everyone demanded peace instead of another television set, then there'd be peace." The great George Bush once said, "#### Saddam, we're taking him out," more than a year before invading Iraq. The great #### Cheney once said about the possibility of a War in Iraq, "My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators." Secretary of State Colin Powell said, "Ladies and gentlemen, these are not assertions. These are facts, corroborated by many sources, some of them sources of the intelligence services of other countries," on the topic of the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
The always reliable Deputy Defense Secretary, Paul Wolfowitz once said, "It's hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam’s security forces and his army. Hard to imagine." White House Chief-of-Staff Andrew Card said, "From a marketing point of view, you don't roll out new products in August," when asked about why Bush watied until after Labor Day to convince the American public that the War in Iraq was warranted. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, when asked about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." Then, in June of that year (2003) said, "I don't know anybody that I can think of who has contended that the Iraqis had nuclear weapons." And to top it off, when asked about the number of Iraqi insurgents, he said, ""I am not going to give you a number for it because it's not my business to do intelligent work." White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, on July 9, 2003, said, "I think the burden is on those people who think he didn't have weapons of mass destruction to tell the world where they are."
What sad times these are when musicians, known drug-addicts, make more sense than the politicians who we put in the White House. The fact of the matter is, Bush was much more rational before he was in control of our country; during his campaign in 2000 Bush told voters in the second presidential debate that, "I'm not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say, 'This is the way it's got to be.'" It's a shame that people will simply say anything to disagree with what another one says, or to promote himself in the public eye. So why would a man who upheld such beliefs invade Iraq? Perhaps his interview with Pat Robertson shed some light. When Robertson advised Bush to prepare the public for casualties in Iraq, Bush responded, "Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties."
This, my friends, is the rationale the US leaders use when justifying wars. Presidents who showed some semblance of intelligence while campagning elect to leave that intelligence behind and do whatever it is they "feel like" doing. No -- strike that -- whatever "God told them to do". Once again, quoting Bush (June 2003), "I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, 'George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan.' And I did, and then God would tell me, 'George go and end the tyranny in Iraq,' and I did." If any normal American were to say something of the sort, he or she would be ostracized in society and, most likely, shipped off to an asylum for mental treatment -- when George Bush says it, we re-elect him. The strong political winds of nationalism that Bush has done an excellent job in swaying in his favor blind Americans of their prudence and leave behind the scent of gunpowder and the sound of the World Trade Centers collapsing.
And I reiterate how ironic it is that the man who put this reasoning in the best words is Bush, himself. It's our own involvment in affairs that are none of this country's business which prompted the 9/11 attacks, couple that with our own negligence of homeland security -- or perhaps, the allowance of such attacks to occur, as former American military analyst, Daniel Ellsberg believes -- and what you have is a massive tragedy. What's more, the fact that this tragedy was used to manipulate the minds of millions of Americans brings the legitimacy of the attacks themselves into question.
To say that the government told the public about every aspect of 9/11 would be naive. What the American public does see is the incessantly-replayed images of the World Trade Centers crashing towards the ground, thousands of people trapped within -- the images of people leaping from the windows of their 80th-story windows. What the American public doesn't hear about are the four hijackers who are still alive-and-well. What we don't hear about are the pilots, who couldn't even control small propeller aircrafts, according to their instructors, flying massive commercial airliners at the height of a lawn-mower. We don't hear about the fact that the World Trade Centers were built to withstand the impact of a 707 jet-liner which is nearly the same size, and travels 100 mph faster than the 767's which hit the towers. We don't hear about the 81 eye-witnesses, including more than 20 trained firefighters stationed around the buildings, who heard explosions 20 seconds before the Center's collapse. The fact that, as Lieutenant-Fireman Paul Isaac Jr. said, "Many firemen knew there were bombs in the buildings but they're afraid for their jobs to admit it because the 'higher-ups' forbid the discussion of this fact." The fact that CIA director Robert Woosley reported that, "There were definitely bombs in those buildings." The fact that never in the history of the world has a steel-framed building EVER collapsed due to fire, and despite this, somehow, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, who was just outside the World Trade Center building, was warned that "the World Trade Centers are going to collapse, we must leave now." And that, even though such information was, apparently, available, it was not told to the firemen who died inside of the buildings when they collapsed. The public was told that there existed no video footage of the 757 hitting the Pentagon; however, a few years later, the government releases frames from a security camera which show the blurred image of something hitting the Pentagon. The footage which the FBI siezed, a matter of seconds after the attack, telling those who had viewed it to never discuss what they had seen. We don't hear about the rehearsal of the attacks on the Pentagon in the Mass Casualty planning exercise in 2000. We don't hear about the fact that Hani Hanjour, the "pilot" of the plane which hit the Pentagon was pulled over for speeding in August of 2001, three-weeks-later, he sent a check in for $100 to pay the ticket and court charges. Yes, this is the same suicidal maniac, the one who finds our government to be evil, who sent this check.
In 1998, Payne Stewart, a professional golfer, was aboard his private jet -- when his pilots stopped responding to Air Traffic Controllers, five F-16 fighter jets were scrambled to the location of his jet within 18 minutes, even though Stewart was flying in a very rural area. American flight 11 took an unexpected turn at 8:28 PM and hit the first Trade Center 27 minutes later; the second flight, which hit tower #2, went off course 35 minutes before crashing. An Air Force Base rests 71 miles away from the World Trade Centers -- F-16's can fly at speeds in excess of 1500 mph, it would have taken 150-210 seconds to get to the towers. Oh -- and flight 77 flew within 8 miles of the White House, where there are Anti-Aircraft guns which can fire heat-seeking missiles up to 18 miles.
All coincidences, the government contended, just before they used the attacks as justification for an invasion on foreign soil. After easing the spirits of Americans, they gently made their way over into Iraq, which had absolutely no connections with the 9/11 attacks, and began to dictate which type of government the country should be run-under. And we wonder why much of the world express much displeasure over our actions? If we are really the "peace-makers" which we claim to be, why aren't we in Africa, where thousands of people are the victim of mass-genocide and extreme starvation? Oh yeah, forgot -- God told President Bush to invade Iraq. Isn't it great how well we elevate the standard of separation of church and state?
While the rest of the world slowly becomes enraged by our arrogance, we sit back, planning out the future of another country's government -- maybe we should force them all to learn English. Wait, then we could no longer use the excuse that it's difficult to decipher between civilian and Iraqi military men to explain the deaths of hundreds of civilians.
We condemn communist governments for trying to forcefully impose their form of government unto other countries; but, it's perfectly fine for the United States to do so -- because democracy is "right". I wonder how this country would react if another Army invaded our country, began to re-develop our government while killing and raping citizens of our country.
What the United States is doing gives the impression that we are all a bunch of self-serving hypocrites who care only that another country have the democratic form of government. One has to imagine how much longer the US's superiority is going to last, dealing out potentially trillions (yes, that's trillions, with a 't' and an 's') in Social Security and pension and welfare while spending billions on wars to change governments and angering many other countries in doing so.
According to a report by WorldNetDaily, "A newly published paper by a researcher for the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis warns that a ballooning budget deficit and pension and welfare timebomb is growing into a $65.9 trillion fiscal gap that will force the United States into bankruptcy." Professor Laurence Kotlikoff says, "One way to wrap one's head around $65.9 trillion is to ask what fiscal adjustments are needed to eliminate this red hole. The answers are terrifying. One solution is an immediate and permanent doubling of personal and corporate income taxes. Another is an immediate and permanent two-thirds cut in Social Security and Medicare benefits. A third alternative, were it feasible, would be to immediately and permanently cut all federal discretionary spending by 143 percent."
With such an impending doom on the horizon -- politically, economically, and militarily -- one can only hope that the government will come to its senses soon, otherwise, this great country's tenure may just be coming to an abrupt end.
According to the American Medical Association,40,000 people die every year from inhaling passive smoke. The Centers of Disease Control report that an estimated 434,000 people die from firsthand smoking. Essentially, for every 11 smokers who die each year, they take one, completely innocent non-smoking bystander with them.
Children who live in the homes of smoking individuals are at a severely increased risk for SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome), ear infections, respiratory problems, and asthma attacks, reveals Surgeon General Richard Carmona in a recent report. In fact, half of all non-smoking Americans are regularly exposed to secondhand smoke. What's more, tobacco smoke is considered an allergen which can be dangerous when exposed to certain individuals -- not to mention that side-effects such as nausea and extreme headaches are common in people, even those who do not suffer from allergies or asthma.
And that's not the worst of it. This smoking -- which menaces the health of those who chose not to cope with the dangers of smoking, is still allowed in many public areas and is a common state-sponsored drug. These states ignore the salubriousness of the general public and stand-by , cheering on the jubilant smokers and using such excuses as, "Nothing can be conclusively proven about secondhand smoke," to justify their dismissal of the loss of human lives.
It's time for the states to get a clue; people don't want to have to endure the unpropitious effects of secondhand smoke. Among all MLB, NHL, NFL and NBA sporting arenas, not one permits smoking in seating areas -- indoor, or outdoor; enclosed, or open.
Unfortunately, NASCAR and Major League Soccer have chosen to ignore these risks as well -- allowing smoking in almost every area of the stadiums. So much so, that some have elected not to attend NASCAR events because of the "smoky environment" and their own dissatisfaction with the organization's lack of respect for its paying customers. This same philosophy can, and should be applied to states which are currently endorsing smoking in public.
"Keep your smoke at home, I don't want it." We live in a free country -- one where any individuals is permitted to make his or her own choices, as long as that choice does not infringe upon the safety or health of another. If you want to smoke, go right ahead -- but risking the lives of others is beyond the question. It's time for some new legislation.
I'd like to point something out to adults, sports fans, and parents alike. Punishment has never been an effective tool in changing the minds of others or changing someones general behavior. Newsflash: Why do you think it is that teens are so rebelious? Because it's the only time in life when that person is living with someone that can punish him or her.
Punishment just isn't as effective as when it is combined with reward. Let's try to make an analogy here. Speeding, everyone does it; you can't show me one person (with a driver's license) who has never sped at least one time in their life. But, per se, if the government decided that they were going to reward everyone with a bonus on their paycheck of 5% if they drove the speed limit always -- there would be plenty of people who would not ever speed. Now please, save the, "Well, the government would never do that!" I know, it's hypothetical for God's sake.
What I'm trying to get at is this -- suspensions, penalties, fines, and/or jail time is not enough to change a person. You can fine and penalize Ricky Williams as much as you want, he's not going to stop smoking pot -- unless you tell him that he'll break even with the Dolphins if he does stop. You can tell Terrell Owens that he can't play, that he won't receive his paycheck -- but he's not going to stop being Terrell Owens unless you tell him that you're going make him the highest paid receiver in the league if he behaves well.
These threats are good enough to keep someone who wasn't that type of person from doing such things as smoking pot -- but it's not going to convince the people who do smoke pot to stop. Laws are broken -- chances for a reward are never missed. Why do you think that so many people buy lottery tickets? It costs them a dollar a piece and the chances of winning are worse than 14 million to one. But the idea of a huge reward intrigues people. You want Terrell Owens to behave? Put a clause in his contract that says that the Cowboys will trump any receiver's pay if he continues to perform and behave -- don't tell him that you'll cut him if he doesn't behave well.
Laws and restrictions lead to rebellion -- it's our nature. People want to be different, and want to do -- well -- what they want. But the thrill of reward is in each and every one of us; this is where you can convince athletes to change -- punishment just isn't the key.
There was a good amount of response to my earlier article about Paul Dana. Enough to consititue a follow-up on my thoughts and beliefs about racing.
Paul Dana was a sports writer out of college, let's keep that clarified. His death was a trajedy and is, in my mind, acknowledging the major aspects of racing that are missed by many.
While the real story of that day remains with Paul Dana -- the best explanation that we can make out is pointed-out by a former Indy 500 winner. "He just didn't know what the hell he was doing," said the former champion.
It is asked by Ultra in one of his comments to the former article as to whether Dana was a good racer -- and the answer is the reality of it all. Dana was in over his head.
It has been noted by some columnists that Dana starting competing in small formula racing in the later 1990's, while he was still covering the CART series in Autoweek Magazine. He was writing about Michael Andretti and Al Unser Jr., and the next month, he wold be competing against them at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway.
It's too easy to get into racing now -- it's about your marketability rather than your talent. Pointed out by Robin Miller, "In USAC's glory days of the '50s-'60s-'70s, it was damn tough to get a national big car license, as it was called. A driver had to spend a few years in midgets or sprints, then run Trenton, Phoenix and Milwaukee in an Indy car and then be 'nominated' by a USAC star in order to be allowed to take his ROOKIE TEST at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway." And Miller shares my viewpoint on this matter -- the balance of marketing and driving, which no longer exists.
Why do you think that Dana replaced Vitor Meira on Rahal's team? Not because he was the better of the two drivers, but because he brought the huge sponsorship of Ethanol. Miller continues, "Paul Dana certainly wasn't the first or the worst to ever buy his way into an Indy car. We've seen Patrick Bedard, Dale Whittington, Jack Miler, Paul Jasper, Dennis Vitolo, Randy Lewis, Lyn St. James .... there's a long list of people who were much better at marketing than they were at driving." And how right Robin is.
Veteran racers knew that Dana had little experience and was not qualified enough to be racing at that level, according to Miller, "He lacked the miles of high speed experience necessary to drive one of those IRL missles in close quarters." And, as we all know with experience comes knowledge, and with knowledge comes insticts. Instincts like looking down the track for trouble.
Dana was a terrible loss and a tragic story. Those who say that the drivers know the risk when they step into a vehicle -- the risk of death -- and then watch the races merely to "see the crashes" are hypocrits. And plus, Dana wasn't a driver, he was a sportswriter.
Paul Dana. A terrible story for IRL Racing and for sports in general. Dana died during a practice run on March 27, 2006 -- smashing into the disabled car of Ed Carpenter. Telemetry has shown that Dana was going about 176 mph when he struck Carpenter's car, and that he began braking only tenths of a second before the collision. Why Dana didn't brake may remain a mystery for eternity -- only Paul will know the real events that occured that day.
Paul was a great man, many note -- one that was making his attempt at winning IRL's rookie of the year award. Dana made his debut in 2005 in IRL racing; however, during a practice run, Dana's rookie year was cut short in an accident while Dana was preparing for the Indianpolis 500 -- he broke his spine in two places.
How can the IRL and racing in general live with themselves? Dana was only thirty years-old. For those who would criticise him for having a slow reaction time or perhaps not noticing the yellow lights -- you only encourage death -- it's as if you are understanding of the death of a young man. I invite you to look at the picture. Look at him, look in his eyes -- what do you see? I see the life of a young man, a man with a long future in front of him; cut short by a tragedy, a preventable trajedy. If I look at his smile, I think of what could have been, but never was. When I listen to his last recorded interview, I hear the voice of someone who should be alive. It's almost frightening.
A sports writer, like many here, Paul was. He was married. Perhaps a future father. Not to be.
I read the articles -- the ones that are seemingly proud by the fact that "Dana was the first fatality in IRL in three years." Three years. Look at the picture again. Say to yourself, "He was the only driver who has died in the last three years." Do you feel any better? Look at the pictures below. Did these men deserve to die?
Three died in practice runs. Which is the first thing that should be eliminated from all IRL races, especially on the day of a race. The next thing to eliminate is the "sport" itself. To put people at risks like these, and turn on the TV and watch it as entertainment is wrong. People have told me that they watch racing "for the crashes, they're exciting." How excited are you today? How about on the days that these men died? Is the idea of death exciting to you? These men should be alive.
In the case of Dana, the IRL decided that his death wasn't important enough to postpone the race. I can imagine the conversation, "Do you think we should postpone the race?" "Why? It's just the death of a thirty year-old, it happens every three years or so." I want to meet the guy who decided to continue the race. I wonder if he knew Paul Dana.
If a man's death isn't enough to let you postpone an insignificant race. If the high risk in your sport isn't enough to get you to think twice. Then your sport is not a sport -- it's a death wish. I encourage everyone to take a moment of their time before they go to bed tonight to remember Paul Dana -- keep him in your prayers and in your memories.
It's the thing that everybody wants; it's the reason that all the athletes you watch and love/hate play; and, according to one credible source, is what "can't buy you love" -- and the players on this list will agree. For those of you who listen to the Bealtes, you already know what I'm talking about -- Money. Dinero. Cash. Dollars. Bucks. Bling-Bling. Whatever floats your boat. These are simply the players who weren't listening to the Beatles when they signed their multi-million dollar contracts, because it's rediculous.
#1. Peyton Manning - Quarterback, Indianapolis Colts ($14.17 million/year) That's right. I'll say it. Peyton Manning. Let's start off with the obvious. A seven year contract for an NFL player today -- that's pushing it. To even say that he's going to be able to stay healthy for seven years is asking for criticism -- to say that he's going to be a $14,170,000-caliber player is flat-out rediculous. I'm going to have to agree with Mike Vanderjagt on this one; as long as Peyton Manning and Tony Dungy are on that team -- mark my words -- they arent going to win any superbowls. It's been evident since his Tennessee days; the guy can't win a big game. And, once again, this year, it was, yet again, proven. Manning had every chance possible to win that game; he had tons of opportunites, he had a lot more time in the pocket than Big Ben did, and he had the opportunity to get into field-goal-range in the final second of the game; but, he failed. I know what you're thinking -- what about the touchdown record? If you ask me, you could surround Joey Harrington with as much offensive talent as the Colts have, and he would throw a ton of touchdown passes. Let's not forget something -- Manning was third in total passing yards. The only thing that led to that record was Manning being put in during scoring opportunites and the players around him -- Wayne, Harrison, James, Stokley, the list goes on -- make him look good. But the Colts have a successful regular season team with Manning, so they can fork out the cash to him because they are cashing in on the regular season crowds and people like Manning -- why not lock him up? I agree with the Colts in this sense, but as far as the salary-to-performance ratio goes, Manning comes out on the short side; and until he can win a superbowl and prove himself, he will remain the #1 most overpaid athlete.
#2. Michael Schumacher - Professional Formula One Driver ($80 million/year) Man oh man, 80 million bucks to drive a car in circles -- it has dream job written all over it. I almost laugh whenever I think about it, is this guy really that talented? First off, Formula One drivers have little competition if you think about it. How many of you guys played little league baseball when you were younger? Maybe you were into high school basketball or football? Alright, now how many of you guys raced Formula Ones when you were young? Now, unless I am a lot more popular than I had thought, I'm thinking everyone can't say that they raced Formula Ones when they were young -- much less after turning 21. Schumacher is considered by some to be a dominating driver; when in reality, he is just really good at making other drivers lose -- besides that, his only talents are being able to hold down the gas pedal for a few hours, occasionally the clutch, and steer his car at high speeds in a circle. Beyond that, Schumacher is highly controversial. Anyone remember the '94 Australian Grand Prix? When Schumacher misjudged a turn and slammed into Damon Hill and cost Hill the championship? Or the '97 European Grand Prix? Candian, Jacques Villeneuve, attempted to overtake Schumacher and Schumacher deliberately colided with him, stripping him second place in the world championship while letting him keep his points from the season. Of course you can't forget the '02 Austrian Grand Prix where team Ferrari ordered Schumacher's teammate, Rubens Barrichello, who was leading the race, to back off and let Schumacher win the race. Schumacher was so embarassed that he had to let his teammate step up on the podium with him; his teammate, who later moved to Jaguar for reasons related to this circumstance. It makes no sense to pay a guy 80 million bucks so that you can order other teammates to lose and let him win; and it certainly is not right to pay a guy this much so that he can run other racers off the track -- Michael Schumacher is not just an overpaid athlete, but a questionable one as well, landing him at number two on this list.
#3. Alex Rodriguez - Third Base, New York Yankees ($25.7 million/year) I don't think I cross any lines when I call A-rod baseball's most overpaid athlete. I like to think to myself what was going through Tom Hicks's mind when he accepted that outrageous Scott Boras contract? Is A-rod an upper-echelon player? Yes, you could even argue that he is the best third-baseman in baseball. Is he worth $25,705,118? No way. And here, again, enlies the problem with long contracts in sports -- 10 years in this case -- you can't trust athletes to stay healthy that long, especially in baseball with 162-game seasons. I mean, it is easy to mark the fact that baseball are sports' highest payed players -- which is probably the most logical considering they play 162 games, which is very high risk and pushes many athletes beyond their comfort zone -- but you're talking about a guy making more per year than CEO's of blue-chip companies make. A-rod can't even be said in the same sentence as Steve Jobs (Apple Computers) or Sam Walton (Wal-Mart) or David Edmonson (RadioShack -- only kidding). And if you take his name out of the context of third-basemen, his stats match up with players making a heck-of-a-lot less than $25 million. But what can I say? Hicks is obviously really sucked in by Boras's approach -- just as Jerry Jones is by Drew Rosenhaus's apparently. This much is apparent in his overpaying of free-agent pitcher, Kevin Millwood. But let's not get off-topic. Bottom line is, anyone who can make a good arguement of why A-rod deserves $25.7 million a year is someone that I gotta meet.
#4. Barry Bonds - Outfield, San Francisco Giants ($22 million/year) Do I even have to make an arguement? Probably not, but I will for the sake of -- well -- this article. Let me say that if someone here wants to pay me $22 mil a year to pump up on steroids; please, let me know. Now, of course, I'm only kidding, and I do realize that not all of Bonds's talent was created by steroids -- in fact, I believe that he is a very talented player, capable of numbers close to what he was able to accomplish with steroids. But the effect that steroids has on the recovering and overall ability of staying healthy is undeniable. And the fact that the San Francisco Giants were dumb enough not to see through Bonds's twenty-pound weight increase or his sudden ascent to the league's best home-run-slugger is totally and completely their fault. Now both Bonds and the Giants are going to luck out in this case because Major League Baseball cannot justly suspend or ban Bonds without looking into every single MLB player of the time; but this doesn't change the fact that he makes a lot more than he should. Let's see, Juiced Barry minus the juice equates to about $4-8 million a year at this stage in his career -- especially with his knees. It is unclear whether or not Barry has stopped taking steroids, but we will probably find out this season; and, if indeed, he has stopped, we will probably see the result of it -- and the Giants will feel like idiots for signing this guy to a 90-million-dollar deal.
#5. Derek Jeter- Shortstop, New York Yankees ($19.6 million/year) And the Yankees and George Steinbrenner are at it again. Mr. November; it sounds like a big honor, but seriously, November isn't a Major League Baseball month -- as if he had any competition. What we're saying is that because he got to play in November and got a couple of hits in some clutch-ish situations, he suddenly gets named after a month that baseball isn't even played in -- I would consider it a joke, not an honor. Jeter is the highest paid shortstop in the game today, yet he ranked #1 in only one major-hitting category in 2005; 4th in average, 3rd in total bases, 13th in stolen bases, 6th in RBI's, 5th in home-runs, and 8th in slugging-percentage, which is probably the most important problem with Jeter -- he lacks the power to back-up his huge pay-day. He isn't even the best shortstop when it comes to "his specialty" in the hits department. If you want to pick the best shortstop to lead-off, you pick Michael Young, if you want power and extra-bases, you pick Miguel Tejada, if you want defense, you pick Orlando Cabrera, and if I had my choice of shortstop to accompany me in the clutch situations, I go for Tejada. Jeter is both over-hyped and over-rated -- if you just take a quick glimpse at the statistics, you will see no justification of his huge salary. Jeter is simply on a team thats willing to fork out the cash and a team that has enough talent (because of that cash) to make it to the playoffs every year. It's not like the Yankees make the playoffs every year because of Jeter, you could stick Bobby Crosby in there at short and they'd still make the playoffs every year, it's not an individual accomplishment and shouldn't add anything to his salary -- he should be able to prove he's worth $20 million a year at the plate and on the field, and he falls way short.
#6. Terrell Owens - Wide Receiver - Dallas Cowboys ($8.3 million/year) Terrell Owens is a great receiver, period. He is extremely talented and can improve any team on paper. He sounds like he is worth the $8.3 million a year he makes, which also makes him the highest paid wide-receiver in the game today. And I do think that he is a good fit for Dallas, he can do major good for this team, and he probably will -- for at least a year, perhaps more. But take into mind the gamble, and you simply can't risk the highest wide-receiver salary on Owens, no matter how good he might be. I do think that his status as the highest paid wide-receiver could actually improve his behavior for a while; and who knows what will happen when someone gets a bigger contract -- all I know is that only Jerry Jones would gamble this much money when the odds are so far against him. I have to admit, I thought that Owens's scandal in Philadelphia would lower his stock and his salary, as I think many others did -- but it ended up making it go up? It just doesn't make sense -- good luck with this one Jerry, I sincerely hope that it doesn't backfire on you.
#7. Tiger Woods - PGA Tour Professional ($80.3 million/year) Before you start screaming at your scream, let me say that I believe that Tiger is the best golfer in the game today -- and one could argue he is the best ever. But sit down and think about how much 80 million dollars is and you'll start to understand. Golf is a very tough sport to play, both mentally and physically, but there is no justification of such a huge salary -- anywhere. Tiger had an incredible start, and really showed the world what he was capable of very early in his career; since then, his game is not what you would call remarkable. Tiger is finally starting to win events on a consistant basis again, but he's just not as sensational as he was a couple of years ago -- and certainly not sensational enough to justify his monster load of cash. I will say that Tiger, out of the people on this list, is probably the most well-known and well-respected players; and there is no question that he is the best public speaker, so you have to hand it to him, he does a really good job for Nike -- just not an $80-million-worthy job.
#8. Shaquille O'Neal - Center, Miami Heat ($20 million/year) The big man is finally starting to decline and show signes of a fatigued body with increased injury and decreased scoring. And somehow this justifies his earning of a 5-year, $100 million extension? Today (Mar 21) Shaq was held out o####ame because he was injured "on a dunk attempt" according to the Associated Press. Shaq just isn't the player he used to be, and he is certainly more seceptable to injuries than ever before. His points-per-game totals are in the midst of a steady decline and let's not forget his age of 34 which is getting up there for NBA players. The real principle for the Heat paying him so much is because he draws crowds -- which he has been doing since his LSU days. He is easily the most well-known NBA player and is unmistakable when he's playing -- again, that's when he's playing, not when he's sitting on the bench, injured. But the Heat must have realized that Shaq's body wasn't going to hold up to a 5-year, 100 million dollar contract -- right???
#9. Stephon Marbury - Point Guard, New York Knicks ($14.625 million/year) Probably one of the most selfish guys in the NBA today if you ask me. I mean it should be evident in the fact that the guy names all three of his kids after him (even one girl) -- Stephanie, Stephon Jr. and Xavier (his middle name). The guy is a disaster for Larry Brown and the Knicks -- a center for media attention of the conflict between the two. The Knicks should just do the smart thing and get rid of the guy like the Pacers did of Artest -- he's just not worth the hastle or the pay. Obviously the guy hasn't helped the Knicks very much, and he's not getting along with one of the greatest managers in NBA history -- and that is enough to land Stephon Marbury on this list.
#10. Andre Agassi - Tennis Professional ($28.2 million/year) Andre the Giant. His service to tenis has already been done -- his best years are behind him -- or at least, stat-wise they are. Money-wise, Agassi is doing better than ever-before, making a massive $40 million stock award from Nike last year for "years of valueable service." Apparently, his best years of Nike endorsement are still in front of him; or at least Nike thinks so. But let's face it, he's nothing like he was three years ago -- and certainly doesn't deserve anything near $28 million, which is far more than Andy Roddick or any other tenis pro for that matter; ones that are currently doing better than Agassi is. But, just like earlier cases, it's all about popularity, and Agassi excells in that category.
(Dis)honorable Mentions: Oscar de la Hoya ($22 million/year), David Beckham ($28 million/year), Dale Earnhardt Jr. ($20.1 million/year), Phil Mickelson ($19.8 million/year), Lance Armstrong ($19.2 million/year), and Ronaldo ($18.5 million/year).
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
campagning elect to leave that intelligence behind and do whatever it is they "feel like" doing. No -- strike that -- whatever "God told them to do". Once again, quoting Bush (June 2003), "I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, 'George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan.' And I did, and then God would tell me, 'George go and end the tyranny in Iraq,' and I did." If any normal American were to say something of the sort, he or she would be ostracized in society and, most likely, shipped off to an asylum for mental treatment -- when George Bush says it, we re-elect him. The strong political winds of nationalism that Bush has done an excellent job in swaying in his favor blind Americans of their prudence and leave behind the scent of gunpowder and the sound of the World Trade Centers collapsing.
who couldn't even control small propeller aircrafts, according to their instructors, flying massive commercial airliners at the height of a lawn-mower. We don't hear about the fact that the World Trade Centers were built to withstand the impact of a 707 jet-liner which is nearly the same size, and travels 100 mph faster than the 767's which hit the towers. We don't hear about the 81 eye-witnesses, including more than 20 trained firefighters stationed around the buildings, who heard explosions 20 seconds before the Center's collapse. The fact that, as Lieutenant-Fireman Paul Isaac Jr. said, "Many firemen knew there were bombs in the buildings but they're afraid for their jobs to admit it because the 'higher-ups' forbid the discussion of this fact." The fact that CIA director Robert Woosley reported that, "There were definitely bombs in those buildings." The fact that never in the history of the world has a steel-framed building EVER collapsed due to fire, and despite this, somehow, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, who was just outside the World Trade Center building, was warned that "the World Trade Centers are going to collapse, we must leave now." And that, even though such information was, apparently, available, it was not told to the firemen who died inside of the buildings when they collapsed. The public was told that there existed no video footage of the 757 hitting the Pentagon; however, a few years later, the government releases frames from a security camera which show the blurred image of something hitting the Pentagon. The footage which the FBI siezed, a matter of seconds after the attack, telling those who had viewed it to never discuss what they had seen. We don't hear about the rehearsal of the attacks on the Pentagon in the Mass Casualty planning exercise in 2000. We don't hear about the fact that Hani Hanjour, the "pilot" of the plane which hit the Pentagon was pulled over for speeding in August of 2001, three-weeks-later, he sent a check in for $100 to pay the ticket and court charges. Yes, this is the same suicidal maniac, the one who finds our government to be evil, who sent this check.
And that's not the worst of it. This smoking -- which menaces the health of those who chose not to cope with the dangers of smoking, is still allowed in many public areas and is a common state-sponsored drug. These states ignore the salubriousness of the general public and stand-by , cheering on the jubilant smokers and using such excuses as, "Nothing can be conclusively proven about secondhand smoke," to justify their dismissal of the loss of human lives.
So much so, that some have elected not to attend NASCAR events because of the "smoky environment" and their own dissatisfaction with the organization's lack of respect for its paying customers. This same philosophy can, and should be applied to states which are currently endorsing smoking in public.
