Four days before a memorable Super Bowl XL performance, the Pittsburgh Steelers -- coaches, players, and the entire franchise cadre -- were together. Not at a practice. Not at a team meeting, nor at a public appearance. Instead, they sat, likely comfortably wrapped around a table in the warm confines of the Bettis family residence in the suburbs of Detroit. And, at least for that time, I like to imagine that Johnnie Bettis -- proud father and devoted husband -- was genuinely happy.
I didn't have the pleasure of meeting any of the family, as much as I would have enjoyed the experience. I never attended a Steelers football game for as long as Jerome Bettis has played for the organization. But yet, some part of me idolizes a man who attended, with the accompaniment of his wife, each-and-every football game that his son ever participated in -- from junior-varsity to national-league, Johnnie and Gladys were there for their son. In fact, in amongst the plethora of unforgettable images of Super Bowl XL, once will find a photograph depicting Mrs. Bettis in tears, not long after seeing her son win his first-and-only Super Bowl Championship.
But what I wonder the most is how much time Jerome was able to encapsulate with his father, as a result of his retirement following Super Bowl XL. Insofar that I can hope, Bettis himself appreciated the companionship of his father, and the devotion that he showed to his son. In a country of accruing divorse and born-out-of-wedlock children, that final year of the quintessential moments was ever-important, although saddeningly brief. I hope they enjoyed that time together.
As Mr. Bettis' heart took its final beats, he had the presence of mind to pull his vehicle out of the line of oncoming traffic, as to avoid any further damage. And as he did, a succession of passer-bys rushed to his assistance, not because he was the father of their football-idol, but to administer CPR, to assist in any way in prolonging the life o####entleman who was in peril. Although Mr. Bettis passed away today, he did so not in vain -- or so I'd like to imagine -- but rest-assured that he'd seen his son succeed and prevail. He'd seen all the football that was to be played by Jerome Bettis.
In leiu of recent controversy, a light of hypocrisy has revealed itself in the Fox blogging community -- best portrayed in an elegant break-down of the FoxSports philosophy by SoCalSportsFan, which can be found here. Taking a quick glance around our community, one would find a plethora of posts on anything-but-sports; friendly tributes to our fellow bloggers, caption-adding discussions, in-depth looks at the origins of avitars, comparisons between bloggers and wrestlers, et al. However, one and only one seems to irk the blogging community to the point of self-eradication: politics. Somewhere between the "Pig Roasts" and the political/religious blogs of myself and several others, some bloggers lose their sense of reasonability and decide to withdraw from this forum of discussion abruptly for no reason -- or so they insinuate -- other than the presense of political articles; which, of course, they could simply ignore.
Bloggers incessantly accuse the occasional political blogger Ultra and I of simply trying to garner attention. Self-absorbed blogging wackos with nothing better to do than write an extremely detailed, and well thought-out articles on politics, just to appease our never-ending desire for notoriety. Sound accurate?
I find it almost amusing, to be quite honest. Take a brief look back into my history at FoxSports, you'll find months where I've posted 25 different articles, all sports-related, all of considerable length and all of which I spent a great deal of time in writing. Upon further inspection, you'll find something strikingly contradictory to what the "whiners," as we'll call them for now, would have you believe about us, as we'll call me and Ultra for now: Several blogs receive little-to-no comments. In fact, many of my first articles on FoxSports amalgamated more than 7 comments; my narcissistic side should have known better, how could I allow myself to continue posting at a site where I wasn't getting attention?
Simply stated: I love sports, and I love writing. And those are the only constants in my articles. Whether I'm writing about George Bush or Reggie Bush; I'll do my research, and I'll do my best in conveying my message to those who would chose to grace my article with a read. That's what I do. I'm a writer.
And I've written at other websites, as well. I currently write frequently on RealGM.com -- and I'll give you a clue: I don't get to write about politics.
One more thing that you'll notice, if you traverse my history of articles at this site is the relative lack of non-sports-related material. That's right: the lack of. I've written one post on some of my favorite bloggers, I've written a few posts on some important beliefs of mine (smoking, plagiarism, as they relate to sports and the FoxSports community), and I've written a couple of posts on my displeasure with the performance of the American government. Out of the ninety-five articles I've written, three are directly correlated with politics.
Take a look around some of the other bloggers who have written on Fox for a while, you'll find masses of avatar posts, "Pig Roasts," and other such non-sports-related content. I have nothing against these bloggers. I've never complained about these bloggers. I've never commented on one of these articles.
Wait a second. Go back! What did he just say?
That's right: I've never commented on one of those articles.
Now let's do some deductive reasoning: NorthSider isn't interested in the "Pig Roast" posts, if one isn't interested in a certain type of post he or she shouldn't comment, therefore, NorthSider doesn't comment on the "Pig Roast" posts.
What a novel idea!
And going back to the "attention-getting" arguments; I've seen a couple of people on this site in the past few weeks write posts complaining about the political content (of which there is very little), calling those who write them Ultra and I nothing more than two bloggers trying to get attention, and then announcing their plans to depart. Now, despite the fact that the posts themselves aren't sports-related; take a second and let that irony resonate. Why must these bloggers flat-out announce their plans to leave? If they're so turned-off by the notion that politics would be posted on this site, and truthfully so discommoded with all of the people on this site, why are they posting articles which have no purpose other than to bring attention upon themselves?
Could it be they're jealous of the amount of comments that Ultra or I receive? I don't know. Could it be that they just wanted to have an excuse to whine about something that they disagreed on? Couldn't tell you. Perhaps they really are just that distracted by the political posts on this website. But still, why can they not just ignore the political posts as I ignore the "Pig Roasts?"
Maybe they feel that political posts detract from their readership by not allowing their sports-related articles to make it on the front page. But all this would prove is that they are exactly what they complain about: people starved for attention. Notwithstanding the fact that everyone else on this site has to "put up with" all of the "Pig Roast"/avatar posts.
And to FlyingPig, I apologize ahead-of-time; I'm picking on you, but unintentionally. I don't detract from the value of your "Pig Roast" posts, I'm sure they're quite engaging, hence the readership -- they just don't "float-my-boat."
The truth of the matter is, these political posts belong here. This is a blogging website -- a site for people to display their thoughts on a variety of different information. And it's FoxSports.com, so it's only natural that the majority of posts here are sports-related (99%+). But, naturally, in an area of free-expression, you're going to hear something about religion every now-and-then, you're going to hear some friends talking amongst themselves ("Pig Roast" posts), you're going to hear some political debate (along with a group of people on-looking), you'll even have your controversy every-so-often. But, nevertheless, we're in an area of free-expression which happens to be hosted by a sports website, so more-than-likely, when you take a look around, for the most part, you'll see thousands of people showcasing their opinions on sports. And that's what you'll see, when you look around FoxSports.com.
And to a recent attack which has been shot at me, I must respond -- as long as we're talking about hypocrisy. For the second (and probably not the last) time, a blogger has gone out and deleted my comments, then posted an article in which he twists my words, and attempts to make a mockery of me. I'm offended.
I dropped comment yesterday on one of NorthSideFan's blogs regarding this topic. In it, I must admit, I was a little bit taken-aback by the fact that NorthSideFan shows up after several months of absence and starts dictating what can-and-cannot be posted on these blogs. I take offense to that. And I have nothing against NorthSideFan, I enjoy his stuff -- and this occurence doesn't take anything away from him, in my mind. He and I happen to disagree on this topic, and that's okay.
I noted that I'd been on FoxSports for a long time, I noted that I'd posted nearly one hundred articles, of which few were politically-driven (as I noted here). I also noted that I was in-the-scheme-of-things during NGS II, not because I wanted to boast my skills or act like I was better than NorthSideFan, but because I was making a point: I've been active on this site for a long time, it's not as if I just showed up and started brewing controversy on incessant political blogs. I've posted a few articles which convey my opinion, and we've gone over the pertenance. This is a site of free-expression. Besides, what kind of #### would I be to start bragging about my status as an NGS II finalist around a group of people which hold deep-seated malcontent, knowing that any false-step I take will be duly noted by the majority of the bloggers in this community.
That's the sad truth with Ultra and I, and I'll point again to Ultra's post on FlyingPig's plagiarism. Ultra posts about something serious, such as plagiarism, and he's condemned for being "overly-critical;" the plagiarism: forgotten. I go out, and try to make a point of my longevity at this site, and my dedication towards it, and an article shows up the next day -- coinciding with the subsequent deletion of my comments, so as to prevent anyone from seeing the real context of them -- which calls me a immodest jerk. I'm offended.
There are a lot of things I've been on this site: Contentious perhaps, verbose, well-traveled -- immodest isn't one of them. Needless to say, I wasn't the happiest person in the world, but I can live with it.
What I saw next astounded me. I came across the aforementioned piece by SoCal, and I see a comment by NorthSideFan in which he makes it known that not only is he well-read when it comes to Shakespeare, but also that he's in MENSA. This is the same guy who quoted four words of mine ("...It's not a hit..."), deleted the rest, and called me out for bragging. Thanks, Mr. MENSA, for the advice on modesty -- I think I'll make my own decisions, though.
And I won't hold this against NorthSideFan -- and I'm not holding it against him currently. I think he made a mistake: we all do. Maybe I was immodest in my comment (although it wasn't my intention, and now we'll never be able to see); but to go out and make an article condemning me, only to post something so foolishly in contradiction with what you had earlier complained about is just ridiculous. And I think he owes me an apology. But I didn't receive an apology the first time my comments were deleted, and I don't expect to receive one this time. This just bothers me. A lot.
And for the record, I left a comment on NorthSideFan's blog just prior to writing this article. In it, I expressed my feeling that my comment was being misrepresented, but I also left the following remark:
"You're one of the truly good bloggers on this site."
And I honestly believe that.
I don't hold grudges against anyone on this site, whether they be the ones it seems I always disagree with, or just someone who goes out and writes something which condemns me as a person -- I'll still read their articles. As I always will.
And it's just the ad hominem arguments that get to me. Attack my point. Attack my analysis. Don't attack me, and don't attack my ethical standards.
I've written two of these types of posts in my stint at FoxSports, the first time, I was accused of plagiarism -- this time, my motivations were questioned. Both times, both parties were able to put the occurence behind themselves -- I can only hope the same thing happens this time.
And out of this, if you gather nothing else, at least gather this:
There are a lot of people who disagree with Ultra and I, and it leads to a good amount of articles in response, and a great amount of debate. If you don't want to engage in the debate, just don't read, and if you must read, don't comment. There are several bloggers on this website who refuse to leave more than one comment on a politically-driven blog: more power to you. But there are also people on this site who are open-minded to non-sports talk, and are willing to express their opinions, and I really enjoy hearing them -- regardless of how I respond.
This is a site of free-expression. It's your decision as to how to exercise your freedom.
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.
Through a rather rocky-road of respect and retribution, there are a select few who stand up and write what's on their mind and do so in an efficient and thought-provocative manner. These few are able to garner respect and influence the mindset of their readers, which should, in all cases, be the goal of the journalist; whether it be out of coherent thought or through intense debate, these bloggers stand strong and are cognizant of the main points from either side of the spectrum.
I must admit, having spent the past eight months browsing this site, writing blogs and trying to build a reputation, my thought-process has been altered in an indescribable way -- I have these select few, among others, to thank for the phenomenal experience I've had on this website.
Though I've been involved in some of the most-invigorating and vehement debates that have occured on this site, I'd like to take this time to remind everyone I've ever agreed-with or categorically differed from -- I hold your opinions with the utmost-respect. Whether I seemed hostile or cordial, I need only remind you that my responses were only prompted by your stimulating comments and/or articles. I hold no grudges and every time I read an article, I do my best to give each writer a clean slate -- no matter our history.
Instead of just listing out my Top Ten, I've decided to devote some time to try to explain why I placed a certain blogger in my Top Ten, in hopes of directing those who have not read these blogs to the blog which interests them the most.
So, without further ado, I present my Top Ten Bloggers:
#10: FlyingPig -- Though FlyingPig probably wouldn't give me the same recognition, I have much respect for his blog. For the most part, I disagree with FlyingPig; but, this conflict only furthers the amount that I enjoy his pieces. When FlyingPig has something on his mind, he writes it down; and he amalgamates his stories in an exorbitantly professional manner. Whether it be sports or politics -- religion or team-loyalty -- FlyingPig is confident in what he believes in, and isn't the least bit shy about reporting that information.
#9: SoCalSportsFan -- When a blogger with longevity on this site thinks of FoxSports, one of the first things that comes to mind is SoCal's blog. Although the frequency of his posting has slowed, somewhat, he's still a regular around here -- leaving a plethora of comments and weighing-in on a wide-variety of topics. Many times, SoCal is able to report stories I haven't even read about on his blog; whatever the matter is, SoCal has probably written a blog regarding it.
#8: Mr. NFL -- The first thing one must notice about Mr. NFL is that he is extremely active in the blogs, as a community. No matter what the topic encompasses, one can expect Mr. NFL to leave a comment, which is just the thing that a blogging site needs -- activity. What's more, Mr. NFL devotes much time to his posts; whether it be by inventing a system of predicting the outcome of NFL Games (which, I might add, has been quite accurate), or by (somehow) coming up with 50 kickers to rank in a preseason fantasy cheat-sheet, Mr. NFL does his research. He faces the adversity of age, yet composes himself as if he had double the years; Mr. NFL is a hymn to everything that I try to accomplish -- meticulous research and well-rounded readership.
#7: Demonicume -- One of the things that I really enjoy about demonicume is that he's always around the main debates on this site, while others tend to stay out. To me, this is a sign of confidence and the willingness to state his opinion, no matter the topic. He has an open-mind and addresses all sides of a debate. Furthermore, his articles are very insightful and well-written; on a site where many bloggers post articles which measure only a few paragraphs, demon articulates his point and makes sure that there is no room for error.
#6: Fatmaw1 -- Admittedly, his most recent article has had a great influence on my respect for him; however, his blog has been consistently meritorious for a while now. He'll report on just about anything from soccer to football (no pun intended), and isn't afraid to join in on the occasional political dialectic. I look forward to reading more from fatmaw, he's one of the truly down-to-Earth writers on this site.
#5: ShooterB -- As far back as I can remember, I've always received comments from Shooter; and his writing-style is very engaging and informative. While some bloggers rely on popular-news to gather attention, Shooter writes about anything he finds to be interesting, and does an excellent job of doing so. His status as a previous NGS finalist is further proof that Shooter is one of the up-and-coming writers in America's sports-world; I certainly am awaiting the day where I pick up a national newspaper and Shooter's article is right there on the front (the day can't be far away).
#4: Dudski -- Yet another blogger from the batch of NGS finalist selected alongside me during the second competition; I honestly knew that Dudski would be among the top 16. His writing has a distinctive tone and incorporates the perfect amount of humor to amount to a splendiferous salmagundi of an exposition. Though he tends to stay-out of the more intensified debates, he is a fine example of a perpetual reader on FoxSports.
#3: The_Dan -- From his radio show competition to his eloquent writing style, The_Dan is a big fan of reader-involvement. Such is another element that every writer should strive to achieve -- an integration of the reader into the article. His long-standing and distinction as one of the regulars of this site prove to me that he is worthy of a number 3 ranking.
#2: Rivjo -- To round-off the conglomerate of NGS II finalists, is one of my favorite bloggers, Rivjo. Here's what makes Rivjo stand out from the rest though; not only is his writing poignant, but he is enmeshed in almost every prominent controversial article on this website. He'll let you know what he thinks, and his debating-skill really shines through. An excellent writer and a devoted reader, Rivjo is everything that a blogger should be.
#1: UltraMegaOK1988: For some, this might seem like a lackluster selection for my top-spot; but I assure you, this pick is without bias. Simply stated, UltraMega is one of those writers who just gets you thinking; and most of the time, he baffles me with how much logical reasoning is implemented in each-and-every article he writes. He doesn't cut off his articles, and at the same time isn't overly-verbose; what's more, he addresses both sides of the argument and takes a stand, no matter the issue. His writing is witty and epigrammatic; his diction is unbelievable -- when you're reading one of his articles, everything seems to blend together so seemlessly, you almost lose sight of the fact that you're reading in a preponderance of consideration. While he may be of the minority on many issues, he sparks the thought of many and his articles are always heavily-commented on; both for his skill of writing and train-of-thought. His consistency is a clear-mark of his ability to usurp the mind of the reader for the few minutes in which he or she is reading one of his articles -- and that alone lands him atop my list.
Hope you enjoyed. I'm currently writing an article about religion and politics, which goes into the integration of the two into the sports world which I plan to publish in the next few days. I hope that, if you have the time, you'd come back and read.
If there is one realm which a sportswriter doesn’t anticipate embarking upon, it is that of human psychology – more specifically, the psychology of suicide. After all, the conventional mental image of the misguided, oft-desolate and depressed teen as the stereotype of the very essence of suicidal hardly fits the outré, unduly popular sports superstar. At the root of this lies the rationale behind the massive misconception, or lack-thereof, that has stemmed from the ever- dramatizing macrocosm that is Terrell Owens.
And I must preface this article by admitting that, prior to this incident, I had little formal knowledge of suicide, or the reasoning behind it. But the exiguity of the sports-media is what led to this controversy—simply stated, the sports journalists who were being asked to write editorials concerning Owens’ alleged suicide (or, so the police contended, at the time being). In this situation, we weren’t dealing with your, for the lack of a better term, quotidian suicide case. Never, to the best of my knowledge, had a case of an athlete attempting suicide been so quickly and definitively reported within 24 hours of its occurrence.
To be frank, no one could have foreseen Terrell Owens to be suicidal. A narcissist, maybe; a mentally troubled person, maybe; a self-centered individual, maybe—but certainly not suicidal. I wrote an article a short time ago which centered on Owens and the excess pressure we place on athletes in today’s society, I categorically implied that Owens was simply a troubled young man; and as much as I’d like to make the claim-to-fame that I predicted this outcome, I can honestly say that I was flabbergasted.
Why would a multi-million-dollar athlete attempt suicide? Why would a man who was the culmination of public interest suddenly have the urge to cease his own life? Both good questions, but the answer has been seemingly imponderable—certainly there must have been someone, somewhere who studied these types of cases. And while such an individual hasn’t surfaced to this point, one can still attempt to understand the philosophy behind human self-termination.
First, it is to be duly noted that the act of suicide has been denounced by society for hundreds, if not thousands, of years—it was widely criticized by the Jewish populace, and subsequently so by many other major religions. This ideology was shared by the Enlightenment-era thought, in which suicide was declared to be disease of the mind, which was to be treated by the respective psychiatrists of the time. Recently, the malcontent directed towards those who chose such means of death has sparked much controversy over the almost-unimaginable thought process of the suicide-attacks of September 11, 2001.
Shortly after the attacks, President Bush condemned the acts of the hijackers (as to be expected) by calling them “cowardly” as a precursor to his campaign for his ‘War on Terror’. Washington Post opinion-writer, George Will, on the other hand, pointed out that, “Although Americans are denouncing the terrorists' ‘cowardice,' what is most telling and frightening is their lunatic fearlessness."
Politicians alike weighed in on the terrorists’ hatred towards the United States, and ultimately, what was amalgamated, in retrospect, consisted of a plethora of rather-regrettable quotes. “This perversion of the world's great faiths, produces suicide bombers. How to build a defense against the theological brainwashing that creates these human missiles? That is the challenge to Muslim clerics everywhere,” said William Safire.
However, Dr. Thomas S. Szasz, who is noted for believing that suicide is a basic human right, in his essay, Straight Talk About Suicide, asks, “How wrong can our most respected pundits be before we begin to view their expertise as we regard the expertise of the Enron accountants? The Muslim suicide bombers are a challenge to their victims, not to their teachers and paymasters. Any other interpretation is our collective folly, serving to indulge our love affair with a misguided concept of multiculturalism.
"Are brainwashing, cowardice, and lunacy our only choices? Surely, it is not difficult to see an Arab youngster training to become a suicide bomber and becoming a celebrated patriot and martyr as engaging in what he considers a rationally motivated series of actions. From the point of view of the future terrorist, his family, and his society, his actions are just as rationally motivated as are the actions of a young American engaged in going to college, studying medicine and becoming surgeon.”
"I maintain that, from the point of view of the suicidal actor, planning to kill himself and carrying out the act is also rationally motivated. However, we regard this interpretation as so flagitious -- so indecent -- that, for most Americans, it is as good as taboo. The only socially acceptable view is that suicide is a ‘cry for help,’ uttered by a person who has a mental illness (depression) and denies that he is ill.”
And while some will contend that mental illness is nonexistent, such as Dr. Szasz, the inherent social consensus seems to be that suicide attempts are derived from a severe case of depression. Because this philosophy provides no pragmatic answer for why an individual who is clearly well-off, a la Terrell Owens, the successive denial that any suicide attempt occurred has been greeted with an increased amount of tolerance. Whether or not the details add up, is a whole other story.
What is known is that, upon arrival, Dallas Police were convinced that this was a case of a failed-suicide attempt. This sentiment, though, was promptly altered (or corrected) in the police reports after Owens and his publicist, Kim Etheredge, ardently refuted the remarks by police; specifically that Etheredge had to forcibly remove pills from Owens’ mouth. “[I] did not take anything out of his mouth,” Etheredge said on Wednesday, with the complete-backing of Owens.
Nevertheless, Senior Cpl. Glenn White, President of the Dallas Police Association has demanded an apology from Owens and Etheredge, citing that, “Those officers out there did the job they were supposed to do and did a good job of it. We police officers don’t go out to these calls and make [information on police reports] up.”
Regardless of what you might or might not believe, it must be recognized that the image of a professional athlete as carefree of public opinion has been unraveled in these past few days. Something questionable happened on Tuesday, although the details may never be known; and what you chose to take out of it should, to some extent, change the way you view professional athletes. Perhaps, in time, we might just come to comprehend the daily disquietude experienced by the players of the sports we devote ourselves to watching. And someday, the hurricane of sports-related emotion will be mollified and our nonchalance towards the mental-state of the human race, regardless of profession, will be recognized—and, alas, the sun will cut through the cavities of the clouds, and the strong winds replaced by a calm breeze. Then, and only then, will we really be at-ease in the era of sports controversy.
With the uprising of the BALCO investigation and the integrity of baseball imperiled, one must ask the question, "Does the American public take sports too seriously?"
Mitch Cozad, backup punter at Northern Colorado has answered the aforementioned question unequivocally. In the era of steroids, which has prompted the increasing of the stringency of drug testing, Cozad decided to attempt an alternative method of performance enhancement.
On Monday night, Cozad stabbed starting-punter Rafael Mendoza in the kicking leg. Some might say that this is simply a case of acting without thinking -- however, a quick look at the motive points in the opposite-direction. Whatever pressures Cozad was facing that week, he obviously felt it necessary to obtain the starting roll -- extremely necessary.
Now, I hate to speculate on matters like these -- but I will anyways. More than likely, we're looking at a prototypical plight of peer pressure -- how about that alliteration? I'm having fun, let's make more assumptions. It's quite probable that said pressure was applied by a mixture of media and parental expectations
I mean, that's how it is -- right? If you're not the starter, you're obviously not very good -- especially when we're talking about punting. It's bad enough being the backup-quarterback, I can't even imagine what it must be like to take the spot of backup-punter. Because, we all know how often punters go-down in the game of football -- it's almost inconceivable.
Perhaps I'm wrong. Maybe Cozad just got caught up in the adrenaline -- which, of course, comes hand-in-hand with punting -- saw Mr. Big-Shot-Mendoza walking to his car -- surrounded by attractive women, as he is the staring punter -- and decided, "I'm going to put that guy in his place."
On the other hand, maybe not.
Now that I've ripped on punters as much as humanly possible, let's get serious. This is the future generation we're talking about, after all. Have we really gotten to the point where if one misses the starting job, he or she should stab the starter?
The sad, but ultimate truth is that sports are being taken far too passionately. Now, it's deplorable to mention politics on any website which relates to sports -- we've lost touch with reality, and sports are pulling us further and further away. It's time to sit down and have that platitudinous conversation with your kids and let them know that it really is acceptable to be the backup.
It's kids like Mitch Cozad who remind us what can happen to an insecure adolescent who just can't #### the fact that he is the reserve. This is true of many college athletes who spend much of their high school careers as the star-players of their respective towns -- regardless of position. Unfortunately, with the coming of high expectations, there will be cases of consummate failure, which will test the will-power of the person involved.
Honestly, we can all sit and laugh at the stupidity of Cozad's actions, or we can learn from them. These situations occur every day, whether or not the proverbial Mitch Cozad decides to express his anger physically or emotionally -- upon himself or upon others -- we need to recognized that there is a problem, and work on a solution to fix that problem.
As Hurricane Katrina obliterated cities, razing the entire city of New Orleans and taking 1,836 lives with it -- not including the 705 missing persons -- President George W. Bush sat in the comfort of his ranch in Crawford, Texas. As he practiced his rifle-aim and lounged around his home, millions of Americans suffered -- and billions of dollars were lost. This isn't the first time Mr. Bush failed to even flinch at the notion of thousands of Americans dying; nor would it be the first time he ignored a national catastrophe.
On September 11th, 2001, President Bush stared at a wall of finger-paintings amongst a class of elementary students for more than 7 minutes after being informed of the terrorist attacks in New York City -- as the World Trade Centers swallowed thousands of gallons of jet fuel, and endured the blazing conflagration.
While Bush sat, motionless, hundreds leapt 100 or more stories to their deaths; thousands more rushed down 80 flights of stairs. While Bush was on his care-free vacation in Texas, thousands of New Orleans residents clung to whatever was in reach, hoping to avoid being swept away by the violent water currents -- those who could not hold on were engulfed by the current and drowned.
Either President Bush has an extremely good poker-face, or the man has no remorse for the deaths of American citizens. He's either casually watching them suffer, or shipping them off to the lost cause of the War in Iraq -- destroying the economy, or approving the unconstitutional invasion of privacy.
An editorial which appeared in the New York Times on September 1, 2005, one day after Bush appeared to be smirking during a speech to a troubled American public, pointed out, "George W. Bush gave one of the worst speeches of his life yesterday, especially given the level of national distress and the need for words of consolation and wisdom. In what seems to be a ritual in this administration, the president appeared a day later than he was needed. He then read an address of a quality more appropriate for an Arbor Day celebration: a long laundry list of pounds of ice, generators and blankets delivered to the stricken Gulf Coast. He advised the public that anybody who wanted to help should send cash, grinned, and promised that everything would work out in the end."
And now, whatever was left of the Bush Administration's thin-line of credibility has been brought into question. In an article in the United Press International (UPI), former FEMA Director, Michael Brown has admitted that the government -- President Bush, in specific -- told him to lie about FEMA's lackadaisical response to Hurricane Katrina.
"The lie was that we were ready and that everything was working as a team. Behind the scenes, it wasn't working at all," Brown stated in an interview with ABC News. "There were political considerations going into all the discussions. There was the fact that New Orleans did not evacuate and the mayor (Ray Nagin) had no plan.
"[It's natural to] want to put the spin on that things are working the way they`re supposed to do. And behind the scenes, they're not. Again, my biggest mistake was just not leveling with the American public and saying, `Folks, this isn`t working.`"
Natural? I guess that's what this administration has culminated to; better to lie to the American public than to admit yet another error of a misguided, mishandled presidency.
"####, you're doing a heck of a job," Bush once said, referring to Michael Brown and FEMA's response to Hurricane Katrina.
You don't think Bush's tribute to the work of Brown had anything to do with the fact that Brown was taking all of the blame, do you? Certainly not.
Instead of concentrating on helping the thousands of homeless in and around New Orleans, President Bush decided to take a different route and offer up a bit of advice for the American Public. "Don't buy gas if you don't need it," Bush asserted in an article by John Rentoul.
Sadly, we've fallen to the point where the public knows little-to-nothing about what goes on in today's government -- although the corruption, irresponsibility, and unreliability seem to shine through just fine. And as this great country sinks further and further into debt while it continues to lose essential professions in product development, we have no one to blame but ourselves for turning our back on what was so blatantly obvious; George W. Bush doesn't have what it takes.
The worst of it is -- not only is our government incompetent, now they're incompetent liars. Brown's comments seem to confirm what many 9/11 skeptics have been believing for the past 5 years; this government is capable of lying to the American people.
Brown referred to an email which was "from a very high source in the White House," and revealed that, "the president at a Cabinet meeting said, `Thank goodness Brown`s taking all the heat because it`s better that he takes the heat than I do.`"
That's a great philosophy, George -- good luck with that one.
All we can do now is throw up the white flag, and cross-our-fingers that this administration hasn't caused any imperishable damage to what once was a powerful country.
I have recently released two articles on RealGMBaseball.com which detail the Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams story and contain RealGM Exclusive interviews.
There are two different articles, one of which is a news-report, reported on a straight-fact basis and is much shorter than the editorial piece. I would encourage you to read the editorial piece, but if you'd rather read the report, it will take less of your time.
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.
What happens when one corporation spends one-thousand-three-hundred-eighty-four-point-nine percent more than another? Quite simple; competition is eliminated. Pro-free-market-economists call it a monopoly.
How much is 1384.9%? If one were to take IBM, number 10 on the Fortune 500 list of the highest-revenue companies, and try to find a company which brings in 1384.9% less -- the companies would include Brunswick (best known for bowling products), McGraw-Hill (textbooks), and Advanced Micro Devices (AMD -- technology), to name a few.
To deny that Major League Baseball has become, at the least, an oligopoly, would be nescient. Teams like the Yankees can use their massive profits, which mainly coincide with their superlative media markets, to "mark up" the prices of free agents to the point where smaller-market teams simply do not have the financial wherewithal to acquire talented players.
The USA finds itself in a similar predicament. As the more-than 77 million baby-boomers between the ages 41 and 59 reach the point of retirement, they drool at their gargantuan pensions and other retirement benefits -- passing that expense on to the next generation. And, according to a paper published by a researcher for the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, said expenses could amount to $65.9 trillion -- forcing the US into bankruptcy.
Unfortunately, neither the US Government nor Major League Baseball seems to be concerned about the impending destruction due to their financial malpractice. While the NBA, NHL and NFL all have implemented salary caps, the MLB has responded with a subordinate "luxury tax" and ineffective revenue-sharing policies. Some owners pocket every-last-cent of the money they receive in these systems, and because there is no tax for impecuniousness, there are few incentives to take risks by spending more money.
As the price of players continues to skyrocket, division races turn into shopping-sprees, and the competitiveness of small-budget teams is unremarkable. With the same-old-teams playing in the same-old-playoffs with the same-old-players, the fan-following diminishes and the state-of-the-game deteriorates.
The government seems to be consonant to these philosophies. Why worry when we can procrastinate, after all? Constantly, this country's leaders dial out and circumvent the imminent economic future, promising tax cuts and dealing out more and more money in Social Security.
Not to mention that, as of recent, the US has become the proverbial ATM machine for Third World countries -- inflict mass genocide, and the US will ship you boat-loads of cash, only further contributing to inflation. Somehow, it has become our responsibility to clean up the messes belonging to other countries, and the longer this occurs, the more bankrupt we become.
Let's not forget that the value of the US Dollar is consequent to the public opinion of it -- the more money we print, the less that money is worth, it's as simple as that. When people start to lose confidence in the American economic system due to the doubling in personal and corporate income taxes to pay for 77 million retirement plans, they move their business elsewhere. Mass-outsourcing of corporate affairs is already evident as the US coaxes its people into believing that their financial-futures are secure.
In fact, in 2004 International Business Machines (IBM) was sued for its "age discriminatory" conversion from a traditional to a cash-balance pension plan and forced to pay more than $300 million to settle these issues. However, the government later passed the Pension Security and Transparency Act in 2005, which seemingly encouraged IBM's conversion, saying that cash balance pensions are not age discriminatory. Somewhat controversially, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report which stated that a cash balance plan would lower retirement benefits for most workers.
But if the government is encouraging lesser retirement benefits, certainly, they must be aware of the threat greater plans pose on the society of the future. So why haven't they publicly addressed these problems, admitting what hardships these pensions will create? Because, they, like the MLB have decided to ignore these problems as much as possible -- the last thing Bush wants is more negative publicity.
Sad when major organizations are driven solely by publicity, isn't it? Now, any attempt to resolve the pending problems might prove to be too late -- as Professor Laurence Kotlikoff contends, the government is already bankrupt. And although some baseball aficionados are still anticipating a salary minimum and maximum in the near future, such a result seems unlikely.
The economic rigmarole may just out-wit these organizations, consequently the outcome can only be negative for the millions of Americans who love and cherish their way-of-life and national pastime.
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.
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.