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.

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.

And as always, I also encourage your comments.

Links to the Articles:

Wiretap News Report:
Click Here

Editorial Piece:
Click Here

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.

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.

Sources:

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ART
ICLE_ID=51078
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1007-03
.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/28/polit
ics/main646142.shtml
http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/stupidquotes/a
/iraqquotes.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danica_Patrick

http://www.911review.org/

I'll keep this short and get right to the point.  Another blogger has recently, and unfortunately, attacked my references to another blogger's plagiarism of a certain part of his article.  Specifically, a definition of the word 'fascism', copied word-for-word off of Wikipedia.org.  This blogger attempts, or so it seems, to misrepresent my intentions when I posted the original comment -- in fact, my intentions were to further the discussion and defend another blogger.

The article which I connected with plagiarism is entitled "The Star Spangled Banner, Baseball and America" and was written by FlyingPig.  It can be found here.

The part of the article which prompted my response is quoted below:

"This fellow blogger breaks it down for us in a very well thought out “Wikipedia” styled, cut and paste with big word thrown in here and there dissertation about the evils of the hell bound USA."

With a nice euphamism of the word plagiarism, FlyingPig is quite obviously accusing "this fellow blogger" of plagiarizing parts, if not, all of his article.  I decided to defend "this fellow blogger", by saying:

"[FlyingPig] debases another [blogger] for his use of research via Wikipedia.org, and then, in his own post, plagiarized definitions from BOTH Wikipedia.org and Dictionary.com. Shame on you, FlyingPig. "

FlyingPig, who is seemingly enraged by whatever I say, has apparently decided to disagree with whatever myself or "this fellow blogger" say, write, or do.  Such was first apparent in a comment which he left in response to my article regarding smoking in public.  Contained in the article is my own reference to the fact that NASCAR and MLS allow smoking in seating areas, which is something I do not believe to be acceptable.  Because of past disagreements and what seems like a permanent feeling of antagonism to me, FlyingPig left the following comment:

"Thanks for educating me about the smoking laws. I am not a NASCAR fan, but I think I will become a patron of the sport now...Nothing like sitting in my fully paid for seat and sitting back with a nice, big, fat Monte Cristo. I may even become a soccer fan if I can smoke at the games. "

FlyingPig goes on, in his article, to respond to my accusations of plagiarism (which, again, were merely in the attempt to defend another blogger) by saying:

" I was unaware that the rules to blog with them included naming sources. I will continue to use definitions without naming sources, just so they are aware of it. In fact, I will only name my sources when I feel like it...How do you think they'll like them apples?"

Hopefully, judging by the childish comment of "how do you like them apples," FlyingPig was only kidding.  But his incessant desire to do the opposite of whatever "this fellow blogger" and I say, write, or do, scared me into the feeling that, perhaps, FlyingPig was serious -- so I responded:

"Who knows, one day, someone might read one of your articles where you "don't feel like citing sources" and happen to be the writer of one of those uncited sources. A long legal suit would follow, probably costing you a good amount of money. Your above comment would probably be used against you in the suit, and you would have absolutely no chance at victory, however -- if that's how you want it to be, I'm fine with it. "

My only hope is that FlyingPig will come to his/her senses and decide not to plagiarize in the future.

Now, getting back to the response in which another blogger tried to call me out as incorrect in my defense of "this fellow blogger" -- going as far as saying that my accusation of plagiarism was a "personal-jab", which of course, it is not.  And even if one were to consider it a personal-jab, it was only meant to defend "this fellow blogger" from the personal-jab which was directed at him.

Inside the article, this blogger says that the restating of common knowledge is not plagiarism -- which is true.  To further his point, he defines 'common knowledge' as:

"Common knowledge: facts that can be found in numerous places and are likely to be known by a lot of people."

Needless to say, I'm not sure why this blogger found it necessary to cite the source where he found this definition -- because, under his own assertion, the copying-and-pasting of dictionary definitions is not plagiarism.  However, he was right in doing so, because his assertion is incorrect.  To set the facts straight, I responded:

"But, the real hole in your case comes in your own definition of common knowledge (at least, I think it's your definition, but then again, you could be copying it from any given source because it's perfectly legal to copy a definition word-for-word, in your mind). Here is your definition:

"facts that can be found in numerous places and are likely to be known by a lot of people."

Wikipedia.org's defintion of fascism CANNOT be found in numerous places and is NOT likely to be known by a lot of people. I'll say it again, I know of no one who can recite WIKIPEDIA.ORG's definition of fascism. I can also say that there are no other online sources which have EXACTLY the same definition as Wikipedia.org without citing Wikipedia.org as the source of that definition. This makes your entire argument invalid because Wikipedia.org's definition of fascism is NOT common knowledge.

If FlyingPig were defining fascism off the top-of-his-head, and it was his own definition, he wouldn't have to cite any source, because it was his knowledge. But since he copied a definition word-for-word, one which isn't common knowledge under your definition (again, it might not be yours), it is plagiarism."

Quite clearly, I made a strong rebuttal of this blogger's case -- which, I might add, was never responded to directly.  However, despite his lack of a response, he continued to assert that copying a definition directly off of Wikipedia.org, word-for-word, without a citation, was perfectly legal.  So I took the liberty of finding the real facts of the matter -- directly from Wikipedia.org, itself.  So, for the future reference of all bloggers -- should they feel the need to copy-and-paste something directly from Wikipedia.org, has been documented in the comments which I left for this blogger to review for himself, should he so chose to.  I have quoted the comments below:

"I have gone onto Wikipedia.org and researched their policies for redistrubtion of text used on their website. Below I have copied many of their policies:

Wikipedia.org's license for redistribution of articles contained on thier website includes the following passage:

"The purpose of this License is to make a manual, textbook, or other functional and useful document "free" in the sense of freedom: to assure everyone the effective freedom to copy and redistribute it, with or without modifying it, either commercially or noncommercially. Secondarily, this License preserves for the author and publisher a way to get credit for their work, while not being considered responsible for modifications made by others."

And their copyright policy is as follows:

"The license Wikipedia uses grants free access to our content in the same sense as free software is licensed freely. This principle is known as copyleft. That is to say, Wikipedia content can be copied, modified, and redistributed so long as the new version grants the same freedoms to others and acknowledges the authors of the Wikipedia article used (a direct link back to the article satisfies our author credit requirement). Wikipedia articles therefore will remain free forever and can be used by anybody subject to certain restrictions, most of which serve to ensure that freedom."

If you are confused as to how to cite the source of what you find, Wikipedia.org provides you with a guide on how to do so:

"Example notice
An example notice, for an article that uses the Wikipedia article Metasyntactic variable might read as follows:

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Metasyntactic variable".
("Metasyntactic variable" and the Wikipedia URL must of course be substituted accordingly.)

Alternatively you can distribute your copy of "Metasyntactic variable" along with a copy of the GFDL (as explained in the text) and list at least five (or all if fewer than five) principal authors on the title page (or top of the document). The external Page History Stats tool can help you identify the principal authors."

Wikipedia also keeps a history of edits to their article, if you are interested in citing the author him or herself, as noted in the quote above.

But to keep it simple, what occured was a COMPLETE and UTTER violation of Wikipedia's copyright and citation policy and DID NOT meet Wikipedia's "author credit requirement". Therefore, you are incorrect, and what I pointed out as plagiarism was, indeed, plagiarism. "

So, for any future reference, let it be known that I have clarified the truth of this matter, and if any blogger would copy something word-for-word from Wikipedia.org, without proper citation, it can be considered plagiarism.  And furthermore, anyone's comment where he or she points out this plagiarism is neither a personal-jab nor is it unwarranted.

The first two games went rather smoothly.  Dallas -- 2 at home, setting the tone for the NBA Finals early.  It's owner, however, was unseen -- unheard and sequestered by his comfortable lead, on the road to his first NBA Title.  The way it should be -- or so he thought.  The Heat were subdued, crippled, and woebegone over their predicament.  Mark Cuban had his finger on the trigger.  He could smell the sweep.

Apparently, Cuban had an itchy trigger-finger.  Don't believe me?  Just ask Cuban's star-player, Dirk Nowitzki.

"We all know that Mark is 100 percent all the time," Dirk said in front of a group of kids attending a local basketball clinic, "He loves us and he gets fired up once in a while. Well, all the time, really."

Now comes the 'but':

Does anyone remember the original ad campaign the NBA used to promote finals (as if they had to)?  It went something like, "The Mavericks have earned the right to play in the NBA Finals."  Someone needs to tell them how right they are.  It might seem straightforward that a team which makes it to the NBA Finals has the right to play in the NBA Finals, but I beg to differ.  There is, however, one problem -- the Mavericks aren't exercising the right which they have so dearly fought to earn.  In fact, in recent weeks, it seems hard for me to even remember any 'playing' that the Mavericks engaged in -- all I seem to recall is incessant remonstrating.  "Referees this," "Referees that," "NBA Board this," "NBA Board that," "Suspension this," "Suspension that," how can numerous phrases become so trite over the period of a few days?

Say what you want about the NBA ad campaign being obvious -- but someone needs to remind the Dallas fans, "Hey, Game 5 is over."  I know, shocker of all shockers -- the game is over.  It's not going to change.  I promise.

And I apologize for the sarcasm, but come on -- I think the NBA has the idea.  Dallas fans don't like the officiating.  It's become such a tradition -- especially living in Dallas, as I do.  Whenever Dallas loses a playoff game, the referees are "out-to-get" Dallas, there's some kind of new conspiracy against Dallas.  Am I the only one who recalls that this game went into over-time?  If the referees were, indeed, trying to cheat Dallas out of a win -- they certainly did a poor job.

Here's what I saw: A few blown calls, a few ghost calls, but I didn't see one call go in favor of the Heat that didn't, at one time or another over the course of these finals, go in favor of Dallas.  Oh yeah -- and when I caught these blown calls, I was watching the instant replays in slow motion, with commentary from dozens of NBA analysts, friends, and fellow fans.  Each one pointing out a diferrent discrepancy between what was called and what actually happened.  What I can say for sure is that these people couldn't have pointed out any of these discrepancies without the convenience of instant replay.

Man Law: "To call-out the referees for a bad call, you must have seen the dissemblance live -- it real time, not slowed down in an instant replay."  (The Table of Celebrities says "Man Law" in unison while holding up their bottles of beer).

I vote ABC and ESPN come to an agreement that they will not show instant replays for the remainder of this series.  That way, the Dallas fans can finally shut up.  And I mean no disrespect -- but these complaints are just trivial.  It's basketball, my friends, blown calls are bound to happen -- and they go both ways.  There's no reason for owners to use profanity -- no matter how "right" the use of vulgar language may be according to Mark Cuban.  There's no reason for fans to argue.

I must say, I haven't heard a word out of Miami fans -- even in the two games they lost.  They didn't complain -- not one bit.  The always-unhappy San Antonio Spurs fans kept their mouths closed.  Even the uneasy Suns fans had nothing to say.  But in (North-)Texas, we like things big -- especially controversy over blown NBA calls.  Might I point out that there have, to this point, been only two games in Dallas (which were all more than a week ago) and three games in Miami.

What's fresh in the Dallas fan's memory are the bad-calls of Game 5 -- what he or she doesn't remember are the bad-calls of Games 1 & 2, and what he or she isn't realizing is that there are two games to be played in Dallas; where, most likely, many calls will go in favor of the Dallas Mavericks.  Home-court-advantage.  Perhaps referees do get caught up in the pressure of the game -- it wouldn't surprise me, but I'm not going to say that the officiating has been unfair nor am I going to try to create a conspiracy about how the NBA is trying to have the "bigger-superstars" as the champions.  That's just ludicrous.  And I'm tired of hearing Dallas fans' complaints every-time they lose a game.  In fact, I'm not just tired of it, I'm enraged by it.  You don't seem to hear all of this controversy when Dallas wins.  Coincidence?  I think not.

All that said, I'll try my best to explain some of the calls which the Dallas fans are so persistent in pointing out:

"The Ghost Foul on Dwyane Wade":  When I watched this play in real-time, I thought it was a foul.  When I watched the replay, I thought it was a foul.  Maybe it wasn't on Dirk Nowitzki, but I thought it was a foul.  When Dwyane Wade went down, and made that lackluster attempt at a shot, I said, "That was a foul."  My friends, who are Dallas fans, had nothing to say -- until they heard the commentary of the ABC Announcers and the home-town speculation on Fox Sports Southwest.  I don't fault the referees for calling the foul and I still think that there was a foul committed on that play, I could present the rules for shooting fouls, but that would be a waste of time.  This complaint has no substance to it, whatsoever.

"The Jerry Stackhouse Suspension":  Let's make this one plain-and-simple.  The NBA has always suspended players for such actions, in fact, if you'll remember, Udonis Haslem was suspended for throwing a mouthpiece "in the direction of a referee".  Let's see here, what do I find more damaging, a flimsy little mouthpiece flying in the "direction" of a referee, or Jerry Stackhouse body-slamming Shaquille O'Neal into the photographers on the side-lines intentionally.  I'd have to side with the latter being the worse of the two; however, I stand by the NBA in suspending both players -- they need to keep control of the game.  We cannot risk the injury of players on intentional fouls, just as the MLB cannot risk the injury of players on intentionally throwing at batters.  Just ask Randy Johnson about that.  Can you imagine what would have surmounted had Shaquille O'Neal been injured on that play?  I don't even want to think about it.

"The Back Court Violation":  Perhaps there is some semblance of such a violation -- but even upon my numerous attempts to catch the violation in slow-motion, it is almost impossible to tell with the Championship trophy logo in center-court.  Dallas fans point out a rule that says one must "establish" himself in the back-court before receiving a pass.  I cannot locate any such rule in the NBA Rulebook online -- that's not to say it doesn't exist.  But even so, even if this rule existed, there enlies another problem with the Dallas fans complaining about it.  Ask a Dallas fan about the final foul against Dwyane Wade, they will tell you that a game shouldn't be decided on a foul -- that a guy should be decapitated before the referee blows the whistle for a foul.  So should a game be decided on a questionable back-court violation?  I####ame shouldn't be decided on a foul, why should it be decided on a back-court violation?  In the spirit of Dallas, a player should take 5-dribbles in the front-court and then take two more in the back-court for the referee to blow the whistle and call a back-court violation.  No, friends, there is no rule in the NBA Rulebook which says that, "In the final seconds o####ame, the referees should not call fouls."  Can you imagine what would happen if such a rule existed?  Let's be reasonable.

"The Josh Howard Timeout":  Avery Johnson doesn't have NBA Finals experience, yet.  Josh Howard doesn't have NBA Finals experience, yet.  So what transpired?  A rookie mistake.  Nothing more.  If you were to ask Pat Riley, he would tell you -- the player should go up to the official, make it very clear what his intentions are.  Say it out loud, "I want to take a timeout AFTER the next free throw."  Say it twice!  But if you make the timeout gesture, the referee must call a timeout -- it's as simple as that.  Josh Howard, of all people should know.  Why, you ask?  This isn't the first time a puzzling Josh Howard timeout has, perhaps, cost his team the game.  As previously noted by the Associated Press, in February of 2002, Josh Howard was with his Wake Forest team at Maryland.  Howard called a timeout.  But Wake Forest had no timeouts remaining -- resulting in an automatic-technical foul.  The ensuing free-throw won the game for Maryland.  This was just an example of one, of many, mistakes Dallas made during this game.

The bottom line is, the referees didn't force Dallas to make poor shooting decisions.  The referees aren't in a conspiracy against Dallas.  There's only one thing left for Dallas to do.  Win.  Twice.  At home.  Or go home.

"Bush Authorized Leak on Iraq"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12187153/

Bush didn't win his popular vote in 2000.  Selig didn't win his popular vote in 2000.  For Bush it was 9/11.  For Selig it was an All-Star Game tie.  For Bush it was the War in Iraq.  For Selig it was the war against the Expos.  For Bush it was not acting on Hurricane Katrina.  For Selig it was not acting on steroids.  For Bush it was taking a vacation to his ranch.  For Selig it was taking a vacation to Milwaukee so he could manage the team he owned.  And now, for Bush it's the CIA leak that he authorized.  For Selig, it was the racketeering charge against him.

Do my eyes decieve me?  Aren't these two the same person?  Let's consider a few things.  Both have a similar history of wrong-doings (above).  Both have an approval rating lower than Mike Lowell's batting average last year.  Both are hated by a black person, for Bush it's Kanye West, for Selig it's Barry Bonds.  Bush has been accused on numerous occasions of using marijuana, Selig must have been smoking marijuana to not have noticed steroids in baseball.  C'mon guys!  What could you possibly have been thinking?  With all due respect, you make it seem like you must be trying to mess-up at your job -- seriously.  The only fix to the mess you have created is to resign and do everyone a favor.  But there is a problem.  Neither have a good cut-out replacement.  If Bush resigned, we'd have Cheney in office -- needless to say I wouldn't feel any safer.  Not to mention the fact that Cheney is involved in this whole CIA leak scandal.

Let's all take a second and count how many scandals each of these guys have been in.  I can tell you that it's more than the number that Selig is holding up -- you probably can't even fit the number on two hands.  How are these guys allowed to keep on leading their respective organizations?  They each received a contract extension in 2004 -- what were we thinking?  Now don't get me wrong -- I'm not trying to take a bunch of low-blows on these two, there have been a few good things that they have done throughout their respective careers -- but the key word is 'few'.

Two guys -- perhaps one -- who are hated by many and liked by few.  And unless Cheney starts shooting IRS agents and Selig throws Barry Bonds out of baseball (which might even boil-up more controversy), their approval ratings shouldn't be spiking any time soon.