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.

I'm crossing my fingers. Are you?

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.

Don't get your hopes up.

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.