See this post in Stunning HD!

Introduction

AP - ‘”What is necessary is an objective investigation,” Specter said at a news conference in the Capitol. “And this one has not been objective.”
The Pennsylvania Republican was unforgiving of his criticism of NFL commissioner Roger Goodell, saying that Goodell has made “ridiculous” assertions that wouldn’t fly “in kindergarten.” The Senator said Goodell was caught in an “apparent conflict of interest” because the NFL doesn’t want the public to lose confidence in the league’s integrity.
“They are enormous role models for everybody,” Specter said. “If you can cheat in the NFL, you can cheat in college, you can cheat in high school, you can cheat on your grade-school math test. There’s no limit as to what you can do. I think they owe the public a lot more candor and a lot more credibility.”‘

A few months ago when this all broke lose I wrote a post about where it was all headed. The link to the full text is here but below I will post some of the latter part of the article.

I Told You So

From my post entitled “Big Brother is Watching” dated February 14th, 2008:

It was Only a Matter of Time

Well, now they have gone farther. First, they used the excuse that steroids are illegal drugs to begin the investigation, then they said they were lied to so they needed to go farther, then they said they needed to protect kids so they went farther (sound familiar? Weapons of Mass Destruction, Liberating the Iraqi People, Spreading Democracy).

Now, they are going after football. This has nothing to do with the use of illegal substances, this has nothing to do with perjury, this has only to do with our “right to honest football games.”

So now we have arrived at the stage where the Federal Government is preparing to directly intervene in the affairs of a major sports league in order to ensure our “right to honest football games.” The only question now is, how will they do it? What are their plans to make sure football stays honest?

Well, here’s how I think the process is going to go.

Congressional Hearings

This is the logic next step. Congress will call before them Roger Goddell and company to testify about the integrity of the game, the extent to which teams are cheating, and possible collusion between teams and the NFL front office.

They’ll even threaten to end the NFL’s Anti-Trust exemption. Then what? Will they really break up the NFL? Separate it back into the AFL and NFL? Destroy the Super Bowl? Crush America’s largest major sport and a billion dollar generator for the cities lucky enough to land a Super Bowl?

This will drag out for a while, wasting millions of our dollars, and distracting from real issues our government was designed to confront.

Commission to Investigate the Integrity of the National Football League

Shortly after these hearing wind down I’m pretty sure that Congress will “conclude” that it is in the “best interests of the American people” to establish a commission designed to investigate the integrity of the game. They will poke and prod and examine everything that every NFL team does on and off the field.

Maybe they will even have representatives at every team meeting and every practice just to assure ethics are being maintained. All at the cost of millions to the taxpaying public.

Bureau of Fairness in Sports

After that it’s only a matter of time before the Federal net gets cast wider to include other sports. The NBA, NHL, MLB, NASCAR, NFL, all of them will be subject to the judgment of Federal authorities charged with ensuring they maintain integrity. That they do not cheat and play the game the right way.

Additional millions and billions will be spent by the Federal government to ensure that athletes compete fairly. That they don’t cheat, that they obey the rules set out to the letter. Who knows, maybe they’ll even make those rules into laws. Punishable by fine or imprisonment by the Federal Government.

Maybe they will take over punishment from the leagues so that if you violate the rules of the game you will be punished by a public entity rather than a private organization. Maybe they will integrate the major leagues into the greater apparatus of the Federal Government so they can watch it more closely.

Conclusion

We let this happen and by the time somebody steps up to stop it the government’s intervention in major sports will be seen as “necessary.” After all, they are just trying to protect the children.

The fact that someone who say was have a right!!!!!!! to “honest football” is ridiculous. That’s not a right I’m particular concerned with losing. In fact, I’m pretty sure it’s not a “right” most people care about. Did you stop watching the Patriots after you found out they cheated? Me neither.

Instead of worrying about our “right to honest football” why doesn’t Congress worry about our right to a transparent government? Why don’t they worry about our economy and the various wars in which we’re embroiled? Why don’t they worry actually trying to do the things for which governments are established?

…That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it… (Declaration of Independence)

I don’t believe the Founders were talking about our “right honest football.” I don’t think they would be applauding Congress’ actions now. In fact, I think they may encourage us to enact our final right described above, before it’s too late.

No doubt many who read this will think I’m being ridiculous. I wonder, a year ago if someone told you a Senator would be concerning himself (as a legal matter) with cheating in the NFL you would’ve said it was ridiculous.

Well, now they are and we must begin to seriously discuss what they will do next.

Conclusion (Part Deux)

And so it has come to pass. This all began benignly enough. We have charged Congress to protect us, to preserve us, to care for us, and to tell us what is right and wrong. We have enabled the government to step in and spend money and time on things like the NFL when half a world away citizens are sent to die in a sandbox for an unknown cause.

When responsibility is handed over to government and our sense of entitlement increases the growth of State power is inevitable. We believe that it is the government’s job to secure our entitlements and to use any means necessary to do so. We can’t be expected to raise our own children, handle our own finances, manage our own health, defend ourselves and our families, or even oversee our own pass times.

And so the government reins in society to raise “good Americans,” steals our money in order to provide us “Social Security,” regulate our personal habits to ensure our health, invade foreign nations to protect us (while leaving our border completely undefended), and investigate our sports organizations to provide us “honest football.”

Some people are happy that Congress is investigating this situation because they hate the Patriots. These people mystify me but they also explain to me how we got here. People are naive enough to believe that if they hand over their power to government it will act only on their behalf and never against them. Well, when the popular claim that “every” NFL team does this is proven true I wonder if they will be surprised when Congress goes after their team?

This is what happens when “rights” become “entitlements.” Rights are something to be protected, entitlements are things to be given. But for everything that is given something must be taken: and in this game what is taken is freedom.

I’m sorry to say but “I told you so…”

If you're looking for a post gloating about Bonds facing up to thirty years in prison and how great the Federal government is and how well they patrol the lives of celebrities then just move on.

I can't believe that our tax dollars are being used to investigate steroids in baseball and that the justice department targeted Barry Bonds the way they did. The whole War on Drugs is a travesty and the fact that we're imprisoning people for using drugs is abhorrent. The fact that Congress is taking time to hold hearings about the personal lives of baseball players is disturbing and an overt assault on personal liberties. Barry Bonds should never have been put in the position he was in and he has earned my sincere sympathy.

Steroids in Baseball

Using steroids is against the rules of Major League Baseball. Using anabolic steroids is illegal under the Controlled Substance Act, just like using something like marijuana or cocaine.

Major League Baseball, as a private entity, has every right to regulate its players. Just like when you go to work for many companies you have to sign a form promising that you won't use drugs or alcohol in a way that would prohibit your work performance, the MLB regulates drug use that would enhance the performance of their athletes. The players agree to this in the collective bargaining agreement and that gives the MLB every right to terminate or otherwise punish violators.

Now the second part, the fact that its illegal, that's sticky. There are two questions that arise from the fact that anabolic steroids are illegal. First, why are they illegal? What does the state gain by prohibiting the use of steroids and persecuting those who use them? Second, does the Federal government have the authority to regulate steroid, or any other, drug use?

War on Drugs

The Battle Against Steroids can be lumped into the War on Drugs and the effort to regulate the usage of certain substances by individuals.

The first battle in the war on drugs was launched against opium in the late 1800's. The US government, knowing it didn't have the authority to ban it all together, restricted imports of opium from China. In 1914 the government attempted its first act of internally regulating drug distribution by regulating the production, importation, distribution, and usage of opiates and their byproducts. This simply imposed a tax on everyone involved in those various activities but some law enforcement officials began using the act to prosecute doctors who prescribed opiates.

Eventually, this was struck down by the US Supreme Court which ruled that the Federal government had no authority to regulate medical practice.

The next battle was the battle against alcohol. For several decades the "temperance movement" (the movement geared towards banning alcohol) had been gaining steam, getting severally localities to go "dry" (banning the selling and consumption of alcohol, but not necessarily the production). Then in 1919 the prohibition was nationalized.

Again, the Federal government recognized it didn't have the authority to simply ban alcohol so they changed the Constitution to do it. This measure was enacted to better society. The theory went that if nobody drank then all the evils that alcohol brought down on society would be cured. There was a strong feeling that the crime rate would drop because intoxication from alcohol would be gone.

Of course, the exact opposite happened. People began hoarding illegal alcohol. Prices for alcohol shot up and many people entered into the illegal business of importing, making, selling, transporting, and storing alcohol. This allowed crime bosses to rise to power in many cities and fractured law-enforcement. The act of drug prohibition saw an exponential increase in the corruption of local governments and witnessed such things as the Capone era in Chicago.

The idiocy of this amendment was seen by Congress and the twenty-first amendment was passed to repeal it. Once alcohol was legal again the black markets that used to handle it were broken up and crime rates dropped.

In the 50's after years of taxing marijuana the Federal government began issuing stiff penalties on those possessing the drug. There was public perception that marijuana use led to insanity, criminality, and death. While this was eventually show to be absurd the government simply rewrote its justification for prohibiting marijuana stating it was "gateway drug."

Nixon described illicit drugs as the United States' enemy number one and began the modern War on Drugs and in 1970 the Controlled Substance Act was passed. Ever since a growing number of drugs have been added to the list and it continues to grow today.

In 1990 the Federal government added anabolic steroids to the Act in spite of objections from the Food and Drug Administration, Drug Enforcement Agency, American Medical Association, and National Institute on Drug Abuse. These agencies opposed this measure because steroids do not cause physical or psychological dependence. None the less, Congress bowed to political pressure and change the law.

With so much opposition, why did Congress make anabolic steroids illegal? The obvious reason is health concerns. Even though steroids are used to treat many diseases it has been shown to have a negative impact on the heart, cholesterol, and liver. For these reason many people felt steroids were dangerous and were worried about those health effects.

But this is a sad reason for making them illegal (ie. punishable by imprisonment). If a person is really concerned about the health effects of steroids then they shouldn't take them. There's no justification for forcing someone else who is willing to take those risks not to use steroids.

Then, of course, there is the unresolved question of whether or not the Federal government has the authority to prohibit drugs, especially prescription drugs, the way it does. Even though the Supreme Court has said that it doesn't, it continues to do so.

Former Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O'Connor once stated that the Federal prohibition of drugs was a usurpation of its authority to regulate interstate commerce and that prohibition should be reserved to the states. Meanwhile, many have cited the fact that the Constitution does not grant the Federal government the right to prohibit personal conduct in such a way. There are numerous questions as to the legality of drug prohibition yet the American public complies with these laws nonetheless.

Congress in Sports

So now, after a couple decades or regulating the personal conduct of individuals we have the Federal government stepping in to enforce its drug policy. Bud Selig wasn't man enough to enforce his own rules and asked Uncle Sam to do it for him. Congress was more than happy to exercise the might of the Federal government and now Barry Bonds might be going to jail.

This is just sad. Instead of going after ####s, thieves, murders, legitimate criminals the resources of the Justice Department have been used to go after a drug user. What a waste. Barry Bonds was no threat to me or to anyone else. It's not like he was a raging alcoholic who went out driving after a hard night at the bar. All Barry did was use steroids to get an edge, and he (maybe) got caught. Big deal, that doesn't merit a prison sentence. The cell Barry Bonds will occupy will be a cell a child #### or violent home invader will not and that's a terrible miscarriage of justice.

Conclusion

This is just another awful chapter in the long, sad history of the War on Drugs. People who've done nothing else but carry a little weed on them are in prison for life. Now, Barry Bonds who did nothing but use some steroids could be in jail for 30 years because he lied about it. We need to wake up and stop this idiotic assault on personal freedoms. The Federal government has no authority to tell Barry Bonds he can't use steroids. The Federal government should never have been involved in this who steroids issue. Let Major League Baseball patrol itself, and if it's too weak to do so then maybe someone will start a league that isn't.

This persecution of celebrity for their personal habits is disturbing. If the Federal government is willing to forgo cow-towing to all that money imagine what happens when they come after the middle class. How are we supposed to fight back when even the super rich can't? Sudafed has been moved behind the counter and it's only a matter of time before it's available through prescription only (if at all).

This whole situation is embarrassing for the "land of the free and home of the brave." The Federal government is taking steps to restrict our liberties more and more each day and the American public is doing absolutely nothing to stop it.

Introduction

Well, the World Series of Poker has wrapped up. Only a few short years ago only "insiders" really knew or cared about this event. Today, it's an international sensation and is encouraging people everywhere to try their hand at Texas Hold 'Em.

In fact, it has inspired a huge boom in online gambling, where you sign up with a Credit Card or Bank Account number and play against people from all over the world. Many of us have done it, I recently added a free Texas Hold 'Em program to my Facebook.

About a year ago the United States House of Representatives passed a very interesting piece of legislation. Known as HR 4411, the bill effectively uses the Interstate Commerce Act to make the transfer or money to online gambling sites illegal.

Online gambling is already illegal (rather, it's been assumed to be illegal) so Congress instead targeted banks and credit card companies which transfered money to "online casinos."

Of course, horse racing and lotteries were exempted. I can only assume horse racing was exempted because that's an acceptable form of gambling, participated in by the richest of the rich and the upper class for years. Meanwhile, state lotteries generate a lot of revenue for the government(s) and the Representatives wouldn't want to interfer with that.

But there are major concerns with this, besides the obvious exemptions for special interests. First, what business is it of the government to stop people from gambling? Second, this gives the government a foothold on regulating the internet, it's only a matter of time before they come after us. Third, the government has no business setting a moral agenda for any one, just because some Congressman who's eager to get back to have sex with his 15-year old male intern says somethings immoral does not mean I have to agree. Finally, this is simply unenforceable. In the long, sad history of prohibition this may be the biggest disgrace yet. This yet another example of politicians trying to control something they do not understand.

In Congress...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

This is what the Founding Fathers wrote when declaring themselves free of the jurisdiction of the King of England and regulation of the British Parliament. Lest we forget, the American colonies revolted because they felt Parliament was unfairly regulating them.

Taxation without Representation was a common cry that stirred the emotions of many Americans because they were fond of "sel####etermination." They believed that the best government is the government that acts to protect the liberties of its people instead of restricting them. They understood the risks, if you allow people freedom they will make mistakes. However, they believed government regulation of people's lives would be far worse.

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, two of the most influential men in the drafting of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution respectively, must be spinning in their graves. The idea that Congress is stepping in to tell individuals how they can spend their money is repulsive.

The government has absolutely no place running the lives of individuals or even "protecting them from themselves." If the government can step in and stop me from gambling my money what's to stop them from stepping in and ensuring I only buy "healthy" food? Or stepping in keeping me from spending too much of my income on "luxuries?"

Internet Regulation

It's only a matter of time. Like healthcare, the government is slowly convincing people the only way to keep the internet "fair" is if they're in charge. These dinosaurs have enough trouble powering their PC's on let along understand how the internet works. Internet regulation will make it slower and less fair and is a disaster waiting to happen.

The begins of internet regulation are being championed, ironically enough, by the internet's biggest users. It's called "Net Neutrality" and would essentially have the government make sure companies do not determine the speed of data transmission based on the nature of the data being transported.

No company does this as of now, but for some reason people are afraid if the government does not step in soon, some or all will. This is idiocy and gives Congress a foothold in internet regulation. It would only be a matter of time before "pornographic" material was banned. Then "excessively violent" material would follow soon after, with our benevolent politicians deciding what's "excessive."

The government has no place in regulating internet usage. It has no business regulating the personal transactions of individuals. The government has instituted the "Income Tax" because it feels it owns our income, allowing us to keep a portion of it. Now they are extending their control to how we spend what portion of our income it graciously allows us to keep.

There is a voice in Congress against this bill and internet regulation in general. His name is Ron Paul, and he is running for President as a Republican. He has consistently voted against every attempt by Congress to regulate, tax, or otherwise control the internet. Here's what he had to say in Congress:

(see the clip here)

Prohibition is a dismal failure and will be again. The government has no right to regulate the internet and should be prevented from doing so.

"Kids Fall Prey To Scourge Of Internet Gambling"

Lest you believe this is some "Right Wing Conspiracy" it is not. Every side of the argument has a common battle cry: "Protect the children." This has resulted in the government regulating television, radio, video games, images, stores, and a myriad of other things. Since parents are no longer capable of raising their children the Saints in Washington have come to do it for them; according to Congress, parents are incapable of protecting kids and only the mighty hand of the government can do that job.

The quote I used comes from Senator Chuck Schumer's website. In 2005 he launched a campaign against online gambling, especially in terms of March Maddness.

“'Unless we take the necessary steps to eliminate online gambling, more and more of America's young people will be return from college holding a receipt of outstanding debt, instead of a diploma,' said Schumer."

Where has this guy been? Kids are walking away with both at a record pace. College costs are so out of hand the government is considering getting involved in that too. Ignoring the fact that it was their intervention that set college costs sky rocketing in the first place, Congress is preparing to take Upper Education under its wing and print the money necessary to cover the costs.

These kids are idiots, so what? How is that my problem? I'm twenty and I'm not spending my tiny salary on internet gambling, why should I be punished because some people don't know when to stop?

Some people say gambling addiction is a disease and that internet gambling facilitates is. Getting rid of internet gambling will help eliminate this illness. That sounds strangely like what they said about alcoholism before prohibiting that. We all know that worked wonderfully. It's also what they said about drugs before the "war" started; again it's continuing to demonstrate its success every day.

The government has no business imposing morals on me or anyone else. If someone wants to waste their money gambling that's fine, it's their money. The government's made it my problem by creating a "safety net" and now I do have to worry about other people's spending habits lest they fall into that net and drain our resources even more.

Mission: Impossible

Quite frankly this won't work. It will be another huge expenditure for our government which it can't pay for. People will keep gambling online. People will continue to lose their shirts, their houses, and, sometimes, their lives doing it. Prohibition will just make criminals out of otherwise law abiding citizens.

Congress does not understand the break neck speed at which the internet is advancing. It's seeking to reign it in and see if the government can get a piece of the money making pie. In doing so, it will eliminate the innovation currently existent in the industry.

The best thing the government could do is step aside and deal with real issues facing the nation such as the national debt, Social Security, and foreign policy.

Conclusion

Unfortunately, short sighted people will be all for this. Gambling is "evil" according to them or "harmful" to the well being of people and their families. Therefore, they will whole-heartedly endorse such measures. But, as Dr. Paul said in the clip, how long until someone says certain ideas espoused on the internet are harmful?

These same short sighted people will probably endorse the idea of getting pornography off the net but how long until they go after violence? How long until they go after things like Ultimate Fighting or even Boxing? If you start legislating morals then sooner or later they will come after yours.

Finally, if the government begins regulation of internet gambling how long until it begins regulating internet blogging? Don't think it would happen?

In late 2006 a program was set to air on ABC. The program was entitled "Path to 9/11" and highlighted (sometimes embellished according to some) the failures of the Clinton government to go after Osama bin Laden.

The Democrats were very angry at this program and tried to have it pulled several times. Finally, shortly before the programs air date and a few months before the election, Congressional Democrats wrote a threatening letter to ABC:

We write with serious concerns about the planned upcoming broadcast of The Path to 9/11 mini-series on September 10 and 11. Countless reports from experts on 9/11 who have viewed the program indicate numerous and serious inaccuracies that will undoubtedly serve to misinform the American people about the tragic events surrounding the terrible attacks of that day. Furthermore, the manner in which this program has been developed, funded, and advertised suggests a partisan bent unbecoming of a major company like Disney and a major and well respected news organization like ABC. We therefore urge you to cancel this broadcast to cease Disney’s plans to use it as a teaching tool in schools across America through Scholastic. Presenting such deeply flawed and factually inaccurate misinformation to the American public and to children would be a gross miscarriage of your corporate and civic responsibility to the law, to your shareholders, and to the nation.

The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events.

The Democrats were basically threating ABC's broadcast license if it aired a program they disagreed wit, again the justification was to protect the children.

If they do it with TV why not do it with the internet? Why not censor blogs? Why not? Some have complained about the "lack of policing" on Fox Blogs. I totally disagree. The best way to keep people from writing inferior or non-sports blogs is to simply ignore them. Comments on here are like currency, stop spending money and they'll stop writing.

What if some government agent come on to Fox Blogs? Oh some of you might smile when you hear that UltraMegaOK has been removed and his website shut down because you disagree with him politically. But what about when they go after someone for suggesting Bonds deserves the batting title (the government's after Bonds, again, to protect the children)? Or someone else for suggesting Michael Vick is innocent until proven guilty? Or how about if they were here during the Duke Lacrosse case and took out SoCal for suggesting maybe those kids were innocent? Then what if they come after you because you dare utter something deemed "harmful?" Not so fun is it?

Letting the government dictate our morals and our activities is dangerous. It may seem sensible at first but it quickly spirals out of control. Soon after we allow such things they begin to go a little bit farther and a little bit farther. Soon they stop going after those we see as evil and start coming after us. And I fear that day may be sooner than we think.

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
Pastor Martin Niemöller (an anti-#### German, Protestant preacher)