Week Two Picks

While it may not look like it on paper, week 2 is important for every single one of our teams. In one way or another, we all have something to prove (or disprove) this weekend.

Miami-Oklahoma
I won't always lead off with my Canes, but they have the biggest matchup this weekend. I remember telling my UM friends 3 or 4 years ago that there were going to be years where the Canes (gasp!) would not necessarily contend for a national title. They all laughed at me and told me to shut up. Three years later, we are still without so much as an ACC title. This recent lack of success has not, however, changed expectations in Coral Gables. UM people still expect to win national titles. If Miami wants to compete nationally this year, they must leave Norman with a win. Unfortunately, I think the Canes are a year away from competing (at least nationally). Oklahoma's D bottles up the Miami O just enough to win.
Oklahoma 21 Miami 14

Clemson-ULM
The Tigers are notorious for riding the focus roller coaster - it's what ruined their season last year. If the Tigers want to go to JAX, they must show that they can retain intensity from week to week. This game against Monroe is the first step towards this goal. Tigers focus enough to run a clearly inferior ULM team off the field.
Clemson 38 ULM 7

Georgia-South Carolina
Georgia looked good last weekend. However, if the Dawgs want to win the SEC this year, they need to pick up home wins against SEC rivals. Carolina looks a little suspect, and Darth Visor's decision to start Blake Mitchell makes the Dawg D's job a little easier. Georgia wins in surprisingly easy fashion between the hedges.
UGA 28 Carolina 10

Free Shoes-UAB
Honestly, the Noles looked terrible on Monday night. As I have told a number of my FSU friends, the Jimbo Fisher hire was nice, but it's not going to pay immediate dividends. Much like the Kyle Wright/Kirby Freeman two-headed monster, FSU's Weatherford/Lee combo is frighteningly bad right now. In addition (with the possible exception of the last 1/3 of the game), FSU looked listless and downright lazy on offense and defense - they also looked pretty slow at times. The Noles need to hammer UAB this weekend and prove that they aren't going to fold like last year. Noles get well for a week and hammer a bad UAB team.
FSU 35 UAB 7

Week One Picks

Miami 28 Marshall 17

Clemson 21 FSU 20

WVU 38 Western Michigan 24

Georgia 28 Olahoma State 27

This week's lesson: home-field advantage means everything early on in the season.

Glavine and 300

New York Mets lefthander Tom Glavine recently became the 23rd pitcher in big league history to win 300 games. Some baseball experts argue that Glavine will be the last pitcher to reach the cherished milestone. Randy Johnson has 284 wins, but he has suffered nagging injuries the last two seasons and he is approaching 44, an age at which most starting pitchers are already in their rocking chairs. Moreover, the 5-man rotation and the game's emphasis on relief pitching has significantly reduced starting pitchers' chances of winning 15 games, let alone 20, in a single season.

But let us not forget that Tom Glavine came up in 1987, when 5-man rotations and managers' love affair with relievers were already well entrenched. Glavine has never started more than 36 games in any season, and for his career he has averaged about 33-34 starts per campaign in non-strike years. He has also never pitched more than 246 2/3 innings in any season. And let us not forget too that Glavine pitched most of his career under Braves manager Bobby Cox, who is notorious for yanking starters at the first hint of trouble.

Sure, it was easier to win 300 games when pitchers started 40 games a year and routinely completed 20 of them. But if Glavine can achieve 300 wins in this day and age, there is no reason another pitcher will not one day reach the 300 mark. All it takes is consistency.

Let us not forget that baseball experts also made the same prediction about the demise of 300 games winners in the 1980s and early 1990s when the likes of Steve Carlton, Tom Seaver, Don Sutton, Phil Niekro, and Nolan Ryan reached the hallowed milestone. Baseball writers contended then, as they do now, that the current crop of starting pitchers would not be able to match their predecessors' feat because they rarely started more than 35 games or pitched more than 250 innings. (With the exception of Sutton, the others had started more than 40 games and pitched more than 300 innings several times in their careers.) Citing monster salaries, writers also claimed that pitchers would not have any incentive to hang around long enough to win 300.

Well, these predictions fell by the way side. Roger Clemens, Greg Maddux, and Tom Glavine have all won 300 since the writers of the 80s and early 90s made their prognostications, and each of them have played more than 20 years. The echoes of the past should be remembered when the current crop of baseball experts declare that Glavine will be the last to join the 300 win club.

The Producers, Baseball Style

Bud Selig (quite possibly the worst commissioner of any professional sports league in the history of organized sports) recently commented that he is happy with the current economic system in Major League Baseball. For those of you who don't know, baseball is different from all the other pro leagues in America. Instead of a salary cap, MLB uses revenue sharing to bring competitive balance to the game.

In theory, larger-market teams kick millions of dollars back to smaller-market teams so that these also-rans can sign better players and invest more in their player development programs.

This sounds pretty nice, doesn't it? Everybody (at least nowadays) likes parity in professional sports.

The problem is that small-market teams have figured out that, like Max and Leo in The Producers, it pays to lose. Why spend the revenue-sharing money on better players or facilities when you can basically pocket the money (which is a gross misappropriation of these funds per MLB), put a terrible team on the field, play in front of 3000 fans, and make a pretty penny?

Here are a few examples from the 2006 Forbes report on the business of baseball:

The Devil Rays (my AL team) finished 61-101 (36 games behind first place) last year. They made a profit of $20.3 million.

The Nationals finished 71-91 (26 GB) last year. They made $27.9 million.

The Royals finished 62-100 (34 GB) last year. They made $20.8 million.

In essence, teams like the Yankees and Dodgers are subsidizing the premeditated (and quite profitable) failure of teams like the Devil Rays and Royals. This is out and out fraud and something must be done to force small-market teams to use these funds to put a better product on the field.

Calling Out a Liberal

A theology professor at Southern Methodist University recently sent out a mass email imploring faculty members from across the country to a sign an attached petition in opposition to President George W. Bush's decision to locate his presidential library complex at her school. The email read in part:

"A group of 130 faculty members at Southern Methodist University (SMU), Dallas, TX, recently signed and launched an online petition, formulated as an Open Letter, asking the President and Trustees to turn down the politically partisan institute that George W. Bush seeks to include in his presidential library complex on the SMU campus.

"A political partisan think tank located at any school, college, or university is contradictory to education as approached within free and democratic societies. The precedent set by it would put academic freedom at risk at all educational institutions, as well as SMU.

"Researchers hired by the institute to pursue the partisan agenda set by George W. Bush borrow on SMU's credibility in the Academy, while remaining completely unaccountable for their scholarly activity. . . ."

After reading the professor's email and the attached petition, I was suspicious that the petition organizers were not motivated by concerns over academic freedom and integrity; instead, I believed their efforts against the library were politically motivated. The petition and email contained coded language ("politically partisan think tank," "partisan agenda"), a favorite liberal trick to discredit conservatives. Moreover, as a teacher myself, I know that the academy is overrun by liberals who hate--yes, hate--George W. Bush. I couldn't help but have doubts

I wrote the petition organizer explaining that I chose not to sign because I believed the wording of the petition indicated it was politically driven. I also asked her why she opposed this particular "politically partisan think tank" when colleges and universities are already consumed by them. Except in this case they are called academic departments, which are overrun by effete, snobbish liberals who tolerate dissenting opinions about as well as Joseph Stalin.

The professor replied with several ranting, boiling-mad emails; I had obviously gotten her goat. She said that I imputed to her values that were simply not in the email or petition. There was no way I could deduce she was a liberal, she stated. Then she unloaded her verbal guns on me: "Perhaps you simply do not like the Perkins School of Theology of Southern Methodist University. Perhaps you don't like Southern Methodists. Plain and simple, you're predisposed to dislike me, and to see things that aren't there, and that's called stereotyping and prejudice."

This unhinged ad hominem attack left me flabbergasted, to say the least. I never attacked her personally. I merely questioned the wording of the letter and asked why she was so concerned about one conservative think tank when the academy as a whole is dominated by liberal ones.

I had obviously struck a raw nerve, which reinforced in my mind that I had been right about the petition all along. Liberals tend to lash out and sling mud when they are caught redhanded. But I had to know for sure. Could I have been wrong? Could I have read too much into the petition? Well, I did research and found an article written by the same professor about the library. The article clearly indicates, as I suspected all along, that the professor circulated the petition due to her personal animus toward Bush. Her gibberish about academic freedom was nothing more than a cloak for her true agenda--preserving the academy as a bastion of liberalism. Here are the telling passages:

"What moral justification supports SMU’s providing a haven for a legacy of environmental predation and denial of global warming, shameful exploitation of gay rights and the most critical erosion of habeas corpus in memory?

"Given the secrecy of the Bush administration and its virtual refusal to engage with those holding contrary opinions, what confidence could be had in the selection of presidential papers made available to the library? Unless the Bush library philosophy is radically different from the already proven track record of isolation, the library will be little more than a center for the preservation and protection of privileged presidential papers."

And the petition had nothing to do with politics? As a famous judge is prone to say, don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.

Open for Business!?!?

Governor Joe Manchin's flunkies are thumping their chests today over a one cent reduction of the state's FIVE cent food tax. That's right, the state of West Virginia taxes its citizens five cents per dollar...ON FOOD. This is just one example of the Mountain State's Massachusetts-like penchant for taxation.

What is remarkable about this and many other levies (including a possible Morgantown city "user fee" that would require citizens to pay an employment tax for working but not living in the city) is that, in spite of this almost unprecedented taxation, the state still sticks by its new slogan - "Open for Business". This is a joke at best and an out and out lie at worst.

While Manchin and others pathetically cling to this reassuring motto, businesses continue to skip West Virginia on their way to Ohio, Kentucky, Virginia, and even Maryland. Quite simply, it is impossible to do business in the state and darn near impossible to live in the state. There is a $6 tax (completely independent of tags) per dog in Morgantown!

Ironically, the only time that the Mountain State was actually open for business was when turn of the century state politicians allowed coal and gas operators to secure over half of the available land and systematically rape West Virginia's natural resources while giving almost nothing back.

Unfortunately, the only industry that seems willing and able to thrive in West Virginia's oppressive business climate (the racetracks and casinos) looks a lot like the robber barons of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries as they systematically redistribute even more money from the pockets of the poor and middle class into the coffers of the state via a 35% profit tax.

Oh well, that's what you get when you elect one party year after year after year.

Still No Apology

Proponents of the tortuous disaster euphemistically known as the immigration reform bill once again failed to muster enough votes for cloture. Thank God. The result proves that some Senators still have the best interests of their country in mind.

But a carping cabal of Senate Republicans was so determined to ram this monstrosity of a bill down the throats of the American people they pulled out all the stops, including blaming talk radio for the bill's lack of support and calling their constituents who dared oppose the legislation stupid and bigoted. Mississippi Senator Trent Lott, who cannot keep his foot out of his mouth, was so incensed by talk radio's opposition that he snapped, "Something has to be done about this [talk radio]." What do you propose, Senator Lott? Censoring talk radio so Americans will not hear the truth about the legislation? South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham got his panties in a wad and pitched a diva fit anytime anyone pointed out one of the bill's numerous shortcomings. Georgia Senators Johnny Isakson and Saxby Chambliss called opponents of the bill "misinformed," which, of course, is political code for "stupid" or "ignorant."

Millions of Americans from all walks of life opposed the bill, yet these Senators honestly want you to believe that they are smarter than all of them. The next time I need a tip on how to lecture about the XYZ Affair or my nephew needs help on his calculus homework, I'll be sure to look up Lott, Graham, Isakson, or Chambliss. They apparently know everything.

Is Something Else at Work???

Democrats and some Republicans failed AGAIN and FOR THE SECOND TIME to force their amnesty bill through the Senate, to the House, and eventually down the throats of the American people.

While the cloture vote's failure is perhaps not entirely unsurprising, what is surprising is the fact that supporters of the bill continue to beat a rapidly dead and decaying horse. Why would politicians, who stake their livelihoods on securing votes, go against the vast majority of their constituents and the overall well-being of the nation they serve?

Is something else at work here?

Let Paul Debate

Iowans for Tax Relief recently unfairly excluded Texas Congressman Ron Paul from a presidential debate. When asked why Paul did not receive an invitation, a spokesman for the group stated that Paul was not a "credible" candidate. However, the group invited Congressman Tom Tancredo and U.S. Senator Sam Brownback, both of whom consistently poll about the same as Paul (1-3 percent). Clearly, Iowans for Tax Relief had an ulterior motive for giving Paul the cold shoulder.

Although the Iowans for Tax Relief will never divulge their exact motive, the reason for Paul's exclusion undoubtedly has its roots in his decidedly maverick voting record. During a House career that has spanned over a decade, he has upset many dyed-in-the-wool Republicans with his staunch libertarian views. Indeed, he ran for president in 1988 as a Libertarian, and he has consistently opposed the war in Iraq. Some Republicans are none too pleased by his positions, especially his opposition to the war, but his views, whether misguided or not, should not be censored.

The Bloomberg Factor

In a move that generated nationwide headlines, no-nonsense New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently quit the Republican Party and announced that he would govern the city as an independent. Many political observers believe that Bloomberg's move is further proof that he intends to seek the presidency. In recent months, Bloomberg has repeatedly bemoaned the gridlock and partisan rancour in Washington, insisting that we need a president who can bridge the partisan gap and get things done. Bloomberg points to his success in New York, an overwhelmingly Democratic city, as proof that Republicans and Democrats can and should work together. Of course, Bloomberg denies he is the person he has in mind for the job of bringing the two parties together on the national level.

A Bloomberg presidential candidacy should not be taken lightly by either party. His personal fortune is estimated to be between $5 billion and $12 billion, and one Bloomberg aide has indicated that the mayor is willing to spend $500 million of it on a presidential bid. Millions of those dollars will have to be spent on the costly and time-consuming task of gaining ballot access in each of the fifty states and assembling a nationwide campaign organization. Nevertheless, Bloomberg should have plenty of money left to devote to actual campaigning.

Who will a Bloomberg candidacy appeal to, and which party's candidate will he hurt most by running? Although a Republican until only a few days ago, Bloomberg holds decidedly liberal views on a host of social issues, including gay marriage and abortion. Therefore, the mayor most likely will cost the Democratic candidate more support than the Republican. However, if the GOP picks a rockribbed conservative (a la Fred Thompson) as the party's standard-bearer, Bloomberg may find some support among disaffected moderate Republicans. Then there is the question of New York. How will Bloomberg affect the outcome in his home state, especially if fellow New Yorker (by way of Arkansas) Hillary Clinton clinches the Democratic nod? Although he may not win the state, Bloomberg is certain to make the race in the Empire State a viable three-way contest. And if he divides the state's liberal base, then the GOP will have a fighting chance of securing New York's sizable bounty of Electoral College votes for the first time since 1984.

The Fascist Doctrine

In another shocking (but not altogether surprising) example of the Left's selective protection of our nation's First Amendment, a number of Democrats have been campaigning for the return of the FCC's "Fairness" Doctrine. This is not necessarily breaking news. However, Republican Trent Lott's recent verbal assault on conservative talk radio is as frightening as it may be instrumental in reigniting pro-"Fairness" Doctrine activism.

This law, which would require radio stations to provide equal time for both sides of political issues, is nothing more than an assault on freedom of speech and the free market system.

As much as the NPR crowd would like the government to add active administration to its already questionable regulation of the airwaves, radio is a business before it is a public service. Certainly, radio stations should be required to air public safety alerts. However, the government should not and must not determine what views are and are not expressed over the airwaves - that is fascism plain and simple (Hitler, Mussolini, and Chavez all co-opted the media in the early stages of their respective regimes).

This is nothing more than a left-wing effort to even the playing field artificially because their main mouthpieces (Air America, etc.) are spectacular failures. The government does not force Kroger to shut down close to half of its stores because it is more successful than other chains.

A notice to the Left: if you want "fairness" on the airwaves, start producing better programming and securing more lucrative ad revenue. Until then, go listen to NPR.

Throwing Stones

James Dobson, the outspoken founder of Focus on the Family, a non-profit Christian organization, recently questioned whether soon-to-be presidential candidate Fred Thompson is a committed Christian. He noted that the Tennessee Republican has never spoken publicly about his faith. If Thompson does not discuss his faith publicly, Dobson implied, he will urge the approximately ten million people he reaches through his radio and television broadcasts to support someone else.

Thomspon has indicated that he is a Christian, and I accept him at his word. Dobson should do likewise. The Bible clearly indicates that no one has the right to judge anyone else. That power resides with God and God alone. If Dobson is as knowledgeable about the Bible as he claims, he should have learned that lesson a long time ago.

The Pot and the Kettle

The McCain campaign recently criticized Mitt Romney for apparently changing his position on abortion. McCain calling Romney a flip-flopper is like Lindsay Lohan calling Paris Hilton a skank (that will be the last pop culture reference on here for a long time).

Voters need to realize that Romney was a Republican politician in an incredibly liberal state. He had to dance around issues like abortion in order to get elected. A politician should have the right to change his or her personal opinion on issues - provided he or she does not constantly waver.

McCain is accusing Romney of doing something he does for a living.

Until the Arizona senator maintains a strong, CONSERVATIVE position on anything, he should keep his mouth shut.

At it Again

The immigration reform bill is a disaster on every level, but President George W. Bush and his small circle of sycophant Senate Republicans persist in their efforts to convince opponents that the measure is the best thing since sliced bread. In a recent conference with recalcitrant Republicans, for instance, the president tried unsuccessfully to win converts by vowing to secure America's borders. But we have heard this before. The 1986 immigration reform bill contained similar promises of border security, but guess what? You got it. They were not enforced.

Prove you mean business, President Bush, by securing the borders now and enforcing the laws that are already on the books. Maybe then, and only then, can we get down to business and have a meaningful dialogue on immigration.

Taking Requests...

College football season is fast approaching and so is RedMountaineer's inaugural College Football preview spectacular.

I will provide analysis and predictions for the following teams automatically: University of Miami (my undergraduate alma mater), University of Georgia (my Master's alma mater), WVU, and Clemson. Additionally, I will provide a preseason top-25 list and a BCS bowl projection.

If our loyal readers would like to see any other schools, they can reply to this message and I will do my homework.

Remember, only 2 months and 3 weeks to kickoff!!!

An Apology in Order

Republicans who supported the recently failed immigration bill owe the millions who opposed the legislation an apology. Opponents of the bill, including many prominent think tanks, made an exceptionally strong case that the legislation would grant illegal immigrants virtual amnesty and that it would have a ruinous effect on the American economy.

Instead of countering their opponents' arguments in a constructive, systematic way, Republicans who fancied the bill subjected their critics to an avalanche of vituperation, vilification, abuse, and buffoonery. President George W. Bush alleged that those who charged that the legislation would grant amnesty were using "empty political rhetoric" to "frighten" the American people. Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who is apparently prone to conniptions, repeatedly questioned the intelligence of the bill's opponents, and on at least one occasion he called those who criticized the bill "bigots." Georgia Senators Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson also charged, in so many words, that those who questioned the soundness of the legislation were a bunch of clueless dullards. I guess those Ph.D. economists at the American Heritage Foundation who took issue with the bill just do not know what they are talking about.

Politicians who deride critics on a personal level do so because it is the easy way out; if you don't have an easy answer to criticism or if you know your point has been exposed as wrong, dodge the issue and sling mud. It's an old Democratic trick that some Republicans have obviously learned all too well.

Our Own Backyard

Supporters of immigration "reform" (including the president himself) rationalize their toothless approach to America's illegal influx by arguing that unskilled and low-skilled immigrants are an important and even necessary piece of the economic puzzle because "they do the work that Americans don't want to do."

This contention is insulting and downright erroneous on a number of levels. In economically depressed states like West Virginia, for example, citizens hungry for a job would be more than happy to hang drywall or pick crops for between $10-15 an hour.

But that's not really the issue. It's not that Americans won't do the work, it's that developers and big agricultural operations would rather empoly illegal labor. Paying an illegal immigrant $10-15 an hour while avoiding payroll taxes and social security contributions will ALWAYS be cheaper than paying an American worker $8 an hour legally.

Until Democrats stop vote grubbing and certain Sunbelt Republicans stop kowtowing to suburban developers, there will be no meaningful enforcement of the rule of law or just punishment of business leaders who are more interested in maximizing profit than in giving their own countrymen and women a fair shake.

Show Me the Money

I used to have the utmost respect for pitching ace Roger "The Rocket" Clemens. I admired his work ethic, his tenacity on the mound, and his ability to blow away hitters with his overpowering fastball. But his selfish behavior over the last two seasons has soured me on the future Hall of Famer.

Clemens has retired several times, and he implied last year that his appearance in the World Baseball Classic would finally be his last. However, Clemens "unretired" in mid-season when the Houston Astros offered him a whopping $12 million dollars for the rest of the year.

This year Clemens announced on May 6 that he would rejoin the New York Yankees, for whom he pitched from 1999-2003. Clemens said his decision has nothing to do with money. Indeed, he remarked that he has enough money for several lifetimes. Yet he will receive about $4.5 million a month, one of the most lucrative contracts in sports history.

If Clemens' decision to "unretire" again had nothing to do with money, why didn't he sign a contract for $1 million or, better yet, the Major League minimum of $350,000? Alternatively, if money is not the issue, why doesn't he donate his paychecks to charity? Well, the answer is simple--as is the case with most pro athletes, Clemens' love of money is far greater than his love for the game.

HISTORICAL NOTE: D-Day

Today is the 63rd anniversary of the Allies' successful invasion of Nazi Germany's "Fortress Europe."

Please take a moment today to remember all of our fallen servicemen and women.

McCain Commits Hari-kiri on New Hampshire Stage

Senator McCain's seemingly ceaseless tenure square in the middle of the political road finally got him run over last night. In a Republican "debate" where EIGHT of the other candidates came out firmly against the immigration bill, McCain backed the amnesty measure. Worse yet, he acknowledged the fact that he co-authored this particular piece of legislation WITH SENATOR TED KENNEDY!!!

This bill is quickly becoming a poison pill politically. Unfortunately for McCain, swallowing it whole may have cost him the White House.

Double Standard in Sports???

Is there a double standard in sports? Do African-American athletes receive preferential treatment in the media? Is Rush Limbaugh (Gasp!!!) correct? If the Mike Vick dog fighting episode is any indication, the answer may be yes.

Keep in mind that authorities have not yet charged the Falcons athlete/quarterback with a crime. However, numerous news outlets/opinion makers have already circled the racial wagons and mounted a vigorous defense.

Has this defense been based on the evidence? No. It has been based on cultural relativism. The argument is that it is OK for Mike Vick and other poor southerners (which in a racist and euphemistic way means southern blacks) to commit a felony and brutally fight dogs because "that's what poor southerners do."

Does this strike anyone else as incredibly condescending? Are sports media outlets so politically correct now that they are actually racist?