tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38497689634561888532024-03-13T09:19:22.632-07:00The Red MountaineerConservative political banter and jock talkRedMountaineerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11645724617127125814noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3849768963456188853.post-81850520987352881072011-08-18T16:25:00.001-07:002011-08-18T16:36:54.804-07:00Thaddeus McCotterIt's a real shame that the landslide of media coverage on Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, and Michele Bachmann nearly drowns out the voices of other Republican presidential hopefuls, many of whom offer cogent solutions to our nation's ills. One such virtually ignored Republican is Michigan Congressman Thad McCotter. If you do not know much about him, you should. He's eloquent, intellegent, and cares deeply about the future of this (once?) great nation. Check out his web site at: <a href="http://www.mccotter2012.com/">www.mccotter2012.com</a>.
<br />BigRedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05655461067795258380noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3849768963456188853.post-65261766849499322472009-08-15T09:57:00.000-07:002009-08-17T11:01:54.220-07:00Trey Grayson and Rand PaulThe odds-on favorite to capture the Republican nomination for U. S. Senate in Kentucky is Secretary of State Trey Grayson, the choice (darling ?) of the party establishment. However, Grayson and his allies should not count their chickens before they hatch. His opponent, Bowling Green physician Rand Paul, is a formidable challenger. He is well-spoken, has plenty of political contacts (his father, Congressman Ron Paul, for one), and has recently appeared on numerous high-profile political shows, thereby enhancing his name recognition. Grayson will probably still capture the nomination, but this showdown looks more and more like a barnburner.BigRedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05655461067795258380noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3849768963456188853.post-36184887164049052342009-07-17T09:41:00.000-07:002009-07-17T09:49:20.128-07:00Bunning Must Step DownSimply put, Kentucky's Jim Bunning is hurting the Republican Party's chances of keeping a U.S. Senate seat in the GOP fold. He has sent mixed signals about whether he intends to run in 2010. On the one hand, he has encouraged Secretary of State Trey Grayson to establish an exploratory committee, but on the other, he maintains that he is a candidate for reelection. As a result, GOP donors don't know where to send their dollars. Grayson has raised about $600,000, and Bunning has about $250,000 in the bag. Another hopeful, Rand Paul (the son of Ron) has raised about $125,000, largely through a grassroots effort. Meanwhile, the leading Democratic hopeful, Attorney General Jack Conway, already has an impressive war chest of 1.2 million. Bunning, who often appears addled or angry or both, must step aside and do so quickly, for not only Kentucky's sake but also the nation's.BigRedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05655461067795258380noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3849768963456188853.post-15621157174378850412009-02-11T14:17:00.000-08:002009-02-11T14:44:12.394-08:00Race Anyone?There are simply no limits to the heights a young black person can reach in the twenty-first century. We have a black president, a black Supreme Court justice, and we have two very prominent blacks in the Cabinet with another awaiting confirmation. Do a number of people still hold racist beliefs? You bet, but I would qualify that remark by asserting that racists come in all skin colors. That is reality, and anyone unwilling to acknowledge that fact sees the world the way they want and not the way it is. Moreover, it is becoming increasingly impolite and unacceptable to express racist views even in the company of one's colleagues and friends (and totally unacceptable in a group setting). Frankly, I think a good amount of progress has been made over the past sixty years, and we should feel good about that fact.<br /><br />Yet, there is a very sizeable segment of the American public that seems unwilling or unable to give our society any credit whatsoever on the race question. Specifically, I would point to white liberals of the intellectual class. For whatever reason, they don't seem happy unless they have oppression to rail against. Whether they are motivated by guilt because they come from a better circumstance or by a notion of their own moral superiority, the white intellectual class wring their hands over every -ism in the book: racism, sexism, ageism, lookism, weightism, etc. Frankly, it is not a world view that puts tremendous demands on the individual. As long as you see yourself as believing the "right" point of view, there's no need to examine a situation closely or take any action of consequence to make it better. You're okay because you're not as bad as the fill-in-the-blank (racists, sexists, homophobes, and so forth).<br /><br />Also, I believe that something is very badly amiss in the perspective of many in the black community, especially the leadership. Whatever Dr. King's personal failings, he had the right idea. America could only reach its full potential and overcome its past if whites and blacks truly came together in a meaningful fashion in everyday life. In one word, America needed a top-to-bottom integration. Today, however, it seems to me that the black community is running in reverse, separating now more than ever from the mainstream of America's culture and everyday life. Nowhere is the divergence sharper than in the political sphere, where blacks overwhelmingly, without fail, back Democratic candidates. It's not even the opposing viewpoint that stands out so much as the white-hot vitriol with which America's black leaders make their case. As a practical matter, allegations of racism (such as those spewed at John McCain by John Lewis during the presidential campaign) should not be levied the moment a controversy erupts. I think it is exceptionally rude and unfair to levy this charge unless every single possible alternative explanation has been exhausted. The charge of racism, falsely leveled, poisons the well long after an event has passed.<br /><br />As a real-world example of the changing racial dynamic in America, look at the 2000 NCAA basketball tournament. In a first-round matchup, the University of Mississippi was paired against tiny Iona College of New Rochelle, New York. In 1957, Ole Miss found itself scheduled to play Iona, which had a single black player on its roster. Rather than compete under this circumstance, Ole Miss forfeited the game to Iona. In 2000, the University of Mississippi invited that black gentleman to attend the game as their guest. The unhappy souls who want and need to feel bad can probably find something negative to say. I think it's a nice example of white people of goodwill attempting to come to terms with a less-than-ideal past. As a further point, it should be noted that in 2000 all five starters and the head coach for the University of Mississippi were black.<br /><br />Unfortunately, individuals who accuse others of prejudice have a decided advantage in debate. A person can show or explain who he is, but it is impossible to prove that he is NOT something. In the same way, it is a difficult task to prove that society is not a certain way (i.e. thoroughly and insidiously racist) in the face of strident attack. But that should not deter fair and honest people from keeping up the good fight against unwarranted, hateful namecalling.BigRedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05655461067795258380noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3849768963456188853.post-80808090248582477242009-02-08T12:34:00.000-08:002009-02-08T12:36:24.790-08:00Quick ObservationA rerun of Saturday Night Live last Saturday reminded me that rural southern/Appalachian whites are the one minority group still open for ridicule across the board. At one time, SNL had a sketch entitled "Appalachian Emergency Room." Exaggerated stereotypical characters walk into an emergency room with ridiculous injuries. There would have been howls of protest had the skit been entitled "Inner City Emergency Room."BigRedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05655461067795258380noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3849768963456188853.post-62923538977828404892009-01-29T16:02:00.000-08:002009-02-04T12:20:44.370-08:00Baseball Hall of FameRecently, Rickey Henderson and Jim Rice received the nod to join the hallowed halls of Cooperstown. No one questioned Henderson's credentials, but some baseball pundits wondered aloud whether Rice's numbers warranted his election. They noted that he did not hit 500 home runs (382) and that he fell well short of 3,000 hits (2,452). While discussing these milestones, the pundits apparently forgot that Rice was one of the top five hitters in the American League for a decade. Few players in either league were among the elite for so long, and that alone makes him a worthy Hall of Famer.<br /><br />The debate over Rice demonstrates that baseball writers are increasingly obsessed with the big numbers: 300 wins, 500 home runs, and 3,000 hits. While it is hard to argue that a player who reaches one or more of these numbers is not deserving of the Hall, these stats do not always prove that a player was better than someone who fell short of them. Unfortunately, baseball writers do not always see it that way. If a player does not reach one of these milestones, he generally has to wait many years to win election to the Hall, if he is voted in at all.<br /><br />Let's take an example. Don Sutton, who strung together 324 wins over twenty-three seasons while rarely leading the league in any category, became a member of the Hall after five years on the ballot. Meanwhile, Bert Blyleven, who won 287 games and struck out 3,701 batters (good for fourth on the all-time list), is still on the outside looking in after twelve years of waiting. Simply put, Sutton was not that much better than Blyleven (if he was any better at all). The baseball writers may vote in Blyleven before his eligibility expires after the 2012 elections, but, then again, they might not: Ferguson Jenkins, who was elected in 1991, was the last starting pitcher with fewer than 300 wins (284) to gain enshirnement.<br /><br />Then there are pundits who have argued that Hall of Famer Kirby Puckett, whose career was cut short by glaucoma, did not reach the necessary statistical thresholds for admission. While it is true that he did not get 3,000 hits or attain one of the other magical milestones, he <em>averaged</em> 658 atbats, 97 runs, 209 hits, 19 home runs, and 99 rbi per 162 games. One must wonder what he would have had to average to satisfy his detractors.<br /><br />Using the logic of the milestone obsessed, all-time greats such as Bob Feller, Bob Gibson, Carl Hubbell, and Robin Roberts, none of whom reached 300 wins, should now be considered inferior to Don Sutton and Phil Niekro because Sutton and Niekro (thanks mostly to their longevity) crossed the mark. Such hitters as Luke Appling, Richie Ashburn, Sam Crawford, and Frankie Frisch (all of whom hit over .300 lifetime but fell short of 3,000 hits) would be deemed lesser batsmen than someone with a lifetime .280 average who held on enough to leg out 3,000 safeties. The illogical has become the logical for many baseball observers.BigRedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05655461067795258380noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3849768963456188853.post-31572131155723285162009-01-26T11:16:00.000-08:002009-01-26T11:27:40.173-08:00Eugenics Reborn!!!Here is a direct quote from Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on the economic benefits of population control:<br /><br />"Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government."<br /><br /><br />Here is a direct quote from Professor of History Jeremy Noakes at the University of Exeter contained in Richard Bessel's edited collection <em>Life in the Third Reich</em>:<br /><br />"During the 1920s a number of doctors and psychiatrists in Germany began to propose a policy of sterilization to prevent those with hereditary defects from procreating. Such a policy of <em>negative selection</em> had already been carried out on a limited scale in the United States where the technique of vasectomy had been developed and was first applied by a prison doctor in 1899. WITH THE ECONOMIC CRISIS WHICH BEGAN IN 1929 SUCH PROPOSALS GAINED INCREASING SUPPORT AMONG THOSE INVOLVED IN THE WELFARE SERVICES, SINCE THEY APPEARED TO OFFER THE PROSPECT...OF SUBSTANTIAL SAVINGS IN THE FUTURE."<br /><br /><br />I'll let you draw your own conclusions here...RedMountaineerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11645724617127125814noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3849768963456188853.post-85083033067480078032009-01-26T11:13:00.000-08:002009-01-26T11:14:46.875-08:00MarveNow that the Marve situation has cooled down a bit over the past few days, I feel like I can address the controversy with a reasonable amount of objectivity.<br /><br />Generally, and perhaps predictably, the media's coverage of the Marve saga has congealed into one big, anti-UM hit piece. Coach Shannon has been portrayed as nothing less than a petty, classless little man taking advantage of a poor, defenseless victim. This interpretation is really not all that surprising as the media hates Miami and American society in general seems to have elevated the victim over the achiever in recent years. In short, Americans love bitching about the little guy getting pushed around by the big bully (whoever he/she may be).<br /><br />What I find absolutely ridiculous about the whole situation is that talking heads at news outlets like ESPN simultaneously heap praise on BC for firing their coach and "upholding the sanctity of the contract" while shredding Miami for holding Marve and his family to the same contractual standard (remember that football scholarships are one-year, renewable contracts).<br /><br />Here are the facts of the case:<br /><br />1. Robert Marve had every chance in the world to cement his status as full-time starter with consistent and steady play - he failed to do so.<br /><br />2. Not one person in the Hecht Center ever lied to Bobby Drama about the QB situation. Both he and Jacory knew that they would be splitting time this year.<br /><br />3. Coach Shannon's "fascist" decision to limit Marve's transfer options is standard operating procedure at most major college football programs.<br /><br />4. Robert started 11 of the Canes' 13 games this year. He was suspended for the two games he did not start.<br /><br />5. Shannon's decision to restrict Marve from transferring to the three SEC schools (UT, LSU, UF) was made to protect his roster, not to punish an unhappy player. There is no doubt whatsoever that either Marve, his dumbass father, or his slimy HS coach had contact with all three of those schools before the end of the season and perhaps as early as November. That, of course, is a blatant violation of NCAA rules. In light of these facts, Coach Shannon had every right in the world to make sure that scumbags like Les Miles and Urban Meyer could not poach talent straight out of the UM locker room. Furthermore, if Shannon and UM really want to get nasty, they could request an investigation of Marve, his family, AND the three schools involved in these violations.<br /><br />6. Robert's father, Eugene Marve, is a string-puller and a scumbag. His recent decision to peddle his prostate cancer in a thinly veiled attempt to elicit sympathy is as offensive as it is misleading. Eugene's argument that big bad Randy Shannon was hurting the Marve family by cutting off the UF avenue because Robert "needed" to stay close to home is pure bullshit. Eugene did not seem to have a problem coming very, very close to sending his child hours away to the University of Alabama two years ago. Now that Shannon has opened up, in an amazing display of kindness in my opinion given the Marve family's public behavior, the possibility of Robert tranferring to UCF or USF, I BETTER see Bobby Drama at one of those two schools if location is such a big deal.<br /><br />7. Robert Marve, not to put too sharp an edge on it, is a child and a punk. It seems to me that Robert was always more interested in the IDEA of being Miami quarterback than in upholding the tradition of being a UM signal caller. He is the prototypical, immature college boy that I am so used to dealing with in my own classes - a punk who is too hard-core to show up to class on time, do the work, or show respect, but who simultaneously needs constant reassurance and ass-kissing to operate. Frankly, if Robert was expecting ego-stroking from Randy Shannon, he was barking up the wrong tree.RedMountaineerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11645724617127125814noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3849768963456188853.post-52509720574011133562008-11-12T15:31:00.000-08:002009-01-29T16:01:48.435-08:00The Forgotten ClaimLast week Barack Obama defeated John McCain to become the next president of the United States. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Obama's</span> victory seemed to many (at least to many of his supporters) foreordained. But no one should forget that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton fought tooth and nail in the Democratic primaries before Obama secured enough delegates to claim victory. Before Clinton conceded defeat, it seemed for a while that she might fight Obama all the way to the convention. Indeed, Clinton began intimating that she should be the nominee because she had (supposedly) won the popular vote during the primary season. Although it is the delegate count, rather than the popular vote count, that ultimately decides a presidential nomination, do Clinton's claims of having captured the popular vote hold water? No national news source, as far as I know, ever tackled this question.<br /><br />There were 56 primaries, caucuses, and conventions in the Democratic Party's presidential nomination contest (the 50 states, the District of Columbia, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Puerto</span> Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the ever-popular Democrats Abroad). In determining who captured the popular vote, Michigan stands as the biggest hurdle because Obama was not on the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">ballot</span>. Fortunately, the media's exit polling included a query on voters' preference had all candidates appeared on the ballot. On that question, Senator Clinton led with 46%, Senator Obama had 35%, and John Edwards trailed with 12%. (Those numbers are very much consistent with the results from Florida, where Senator Clinton scored 50%, Senator Obama 33%, and Edwards 14%. One would expect Clinton to score slightly higher in the Hispanic-heavy Sunshine State and Edwards to benefit from his southern roots.) I feel it is fair to divide the Michigan vote according to the exit poll's result. It answers the Clinton campaign's call to count every vote, it acknowledges that she won the most votes in the state, and it awards many (but not all) "Uncommitted" ballots to Senator Obama. There were several other bookkeeping matters that required consideration. Three caucus states (Iowa, Nevada, and Maine) did not report popular vote totals. Again, media polling came to the rescue. Since Iowa and Nevada were very early on the calendar, there was a treasure trove of information on the voter's intentions as they entered the caucus sites. It is important to go with the entrance polls since weaker candidates are frequently eliminated from consideration and their supporters asked to realign with one of the leaders as the process unfolds. By the time Maine voted, it was a two-horse race and, therefore, no problem to apportion the vote. Washington state, Idaho, and Nebraska Democrats awarded delegates to the national convention through caucuses, but each state subsequently administered an advisory/nonbinding primary. Since more people participated in the primaries, I decided to use them instead of the caucus tallies. It would not be appropriate to use both since this would undoubtedly give some people two votes, which is an absolute no-no in my book. The Lone Star State used both a primary and a caucus to determine its delegation; only the primary was considered. Pundits referred to it as the "Texas Two-Step"; I said even worse things about it. At any rate, that is some of the procedural minutiae that allowed me to find my way in tallying the vote. Among the jurisdictions where the vote totals are absolutely certain, I have Senator Obama with 17.939 million and Senator Clinton with 17.873 million. For the guess-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">timate</span> states, I have Senator Obama garnering roughly 83K from Iowa, 48K from Nevada, 26K from Maine, and 208K from Michigan. Senator Clinton counters with 65K from the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Hawkeye</span> State, 56K from the Silver State, 18K from the Pine Tree State, and 273K from the Wolverine State. By my calculation, that gives Senator Obama the victory by a final count of 18.304 million-18.285 million. Once he closed the deal in Indiana and North Carolina, Senator Obama pretty much left the field to his colleague from New York. She ran up huge margins in West Virginia, Kentucky, and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">Puerto</span> Rico. In short, Clinton did not entirely close the gap, but she came mighty close.BigRedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05655461067795258380noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3849768963456188853.post-40720006111442303332008-10-08T06:33:00.000-07:002008-10-08T06:49:40.276-07:00Pitiful DebateLast night's presidential debate was easily the worst in years. The candidates began exceeding their time limits virtually from the start. Debate moderator Tom Brokaw should have taken preventive action by reminding the candidates BEFORE the debate that the lights around the stage signaled when their time was up. When the candidates exceeded their limits, Brokaw should have immediately cut them off. Instead, he repeatedly made snippy comments about the candidates' longwindedness. The candidates' verbosity and Brokaw's behavior made for a long, irksome evening.<br /><br />In addition, none of the questions touched on any subject that wasn't covered in the first debate. Surely the thousands who submitted online questions and the audience in Nashville asked some good questions that dealt with something other than the economy, health care, and foreign affairs.<br /><br />To this point in the campaign, the best debate was the Saddleback Church forum. The pastor asked some good, probing questions that touched on a variety of subjects. Brokaw could have learned some lessons if he had watched a tape of the program.<br /><br />I have confidence that Bob Schieffer, who is professional and usually impartial, will ask good questions during the next debate. However, if he offers nothing new, I will turn off the TV.BigRedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05655461067795258380noreply@blogger.com29tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3849768963456188853.post-76387183836047157692008-08-25T11:25:00.000-07:002008-10-08T06:43:51.613-07:00McCain's VeepstakesNow that Barack Obama has picked his running mate, it's time to take a closer look at those candidates who are on John McCain's short list for VP. Here they are (in no particular order):<br /><br />1. Mitt Romney. Pros: Romney has executive experience, whereas Obama, Biden, and McCain do not. He is knowledgeable about economic issues, one of McCain's perceived weaknesses. In addition, he has a devoted following among Republican conservatives, and he is a master fundraiser. Cons: There is still a great deal of skepticism concerning Romney's membership in the Mormon Church. He has flip-flopped on more issues than John Kerry, including abortion, an issue held dear by conservatives. Moreover, he doesn't have the common touch. He appears aloof, unable to connect with average Joes. Finally, McCain and Romney displayed a palpable dislike for each other during the primaries. Political observers are not sure whether the two have put their hard feelings behind them.<br /><br />2. Mike Huckabee. Pros: Huckabee appeals to the Evangelical base of the Republican Party, and he has executive experience. He is a great debater who would more than old his own against Biden. Cons: He may be too conservative for moderate Republicans and undecided Democrats.<br /><br />3. Tim Pawlenty. Pros: He does not have any skeletons in his closet (as far as we know), and he is a popular governor of Minnesota. Cons: He suffers from a lack of name recognition, and, to be blunt, he is not the most exciting campaigner in the world.<br /><br />4. Sarah Palin. Pros: Strongly pro-life, extremely popular Alaskan governor, and she would appeal to women voters. Cons: She has served as governor for less than two years; in short, she has less political experience than Obama. Republican observers rightfully worry that she may not be ready for the political "big show."BigRedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05655461067795258380noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3849768963456188853.post-35774210970682687782008-08-14T11:46:00.000-07:002008-08-14T12:02:58.784-07:003 Keys......if the Miami Hurricanes want to go 8-4 this year:<br /><br />1. <strong>Find a Quarterback...any Quarterback.</strong> In spite of a poisonous locker room and an almost complete lack of effort for most of the season, the Canes would have won 7-8 regular season games last year (instead of five) if either Kyle Wright or Kirby Freeman had been even passable behind center. The Georgia Tech game would have been a win. Miami would have completed a monumental comeback in Chapel Hill. The most obvious case, of course, was the overtime loss to a terrible NC State team in the Orange Bowl. Had ANYONE completed more than ONE pass, the Canes would have put the Pack away. Look for Shannon to go with the hot hand this year. In spite of a complete lack of experience at the position, expect the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">QBs</span> to perform better than last year - simply because Coach Shannon has more options.<br /><br />2. <strong>BLITZ!!!</strong> Miami built its reputation in the 1980s and early 1990s on the backs of tough, aggressive defenses. Miami's defensive coaches became quite passive over the past few years - content to "out-talent" the other team's offense. As other teams caught up, however, rushing four and dropping everyone else into coverage was no longer sufficient (see last year's <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">UVA</span> game). Look for Bill Young, the new Defensive Coordinator, to mix things up a bit and bring pressure from more places than just the front four.<br /><br />3. <strong>Don't get down. </strong>Any self-aware Miami fan will admit that, with trips to <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Gainesville</span> and College Station early on, the Canes could easily start the season 1-2. With an exceptionally young and inexperienced squad, it will be supremely important for Shannon and his staff to keep the kids focused and confident. Coach will need to sell the early losses as learning experiences. This should not be an impossible task as winning the conference (or at least the division) should be the overriding goal for the 2008 Canes.RedMountaineerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11645724617127125814noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3849768963456188853.post-91697017063683488102008-07-30T20:21:00.000-07:002008-08-25T11:25:21.518-07:00Political CluelessnessLibertarian presidential hopeful Bob Barr is hoping to gain ballot access in the Mountain State. To do so, the Barr campaign must collect and submit over 15,000 signatures on state-approved petitions by August 1. Recently, a Barr petitioner posted an article on Barr's campaign Web site lamenting the difficulty of gathering signatures in the state for a third party. The petitioner ascribed the difficulty to West Virginia's love affair with the Democratic Party, and, get this, Barack Obama. The author might as well have written that the earth is flat.<br /><br />While it is true that West Virginia was once a Democratic stronghold, it voted for George Bush by substantial margins in both 2000 and 2004. Moreover, if West Virginians are in love with Barack Obama, they sure hid their infatuation well in the Democratic primary. Voters awarded Hillary Clinton a crushing 31 point victory over Obama. If that is love, it must be the tough kind.BigRedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05655461067795258380noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3849768963456188853.post-28139477838781097602008-07-29T12:41:00.000-07:002008-07-29T13:01:26.775-07:00Will the Real Conservatives Please Stand Up!?!?I have been known to describe myself as a conservative first and a Republican second. Any allegiance I have given to the GOP over the past decade or so has been based largely on the fact that I truly believed that the Republicans were more closely aligned with the ideals of true conservatism - balanced budgets, self-reliance, limited government, minimal foreign entanglements, measured and patient social reform.<br /><br />Unfortunately, these past few years have so tried my patience that I am about ready to jump the GOP ship. Quite simply, the current crop of Republican politicians wouldn't know true conservatism if it smacked them in the face with the force of a Ronnie Reagan one-liner. The list of modern GOP crimes against conservatism is as endless as my patience is nonexistent: amnesty for illegal immigrants, corporate and investment banking bailouts, predatory lender bailouts, massive tax "rebates" that do not go to the people who can truly stimulate the economy and are financed by assuming even more Chinese debt, an intractable and seemingly endless (not to mention unnecessary) war - and now, another record budget shortfall!!!<br /><br />Worst of all, when these pseudo-Conservative sellouts do not get their way on legislation that would fit quite comfortably in a Clinton or even Roosevelt presidency (see the amnesty bill), they pitch a fit - condescendingly blaming and demonizing the very constituency who voted them in!!!<br /><br />Will the real conservatives please stand up!?!?RedMountaineerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11645724617127125814noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3849768963456188853.post-49703434048096843242007-09-07T07:12:00.001-07:002007-09-07T07:14:20.130-07:00Week Two PicksWhile 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.<br /><br />Miami-Oklahoma<br />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.<br />Oklahoma 21 Miami 14<br /><br />Clemson-ULM<br />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.<br />Clemson 38 ULM 7<br /><br />Georgia-South Carolina<br />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.<br />UGA 28 Carolina 10<br /><br />Free Shoes-UAB<br />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.<br />FSU 35 UAB 7RedMountaineerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11645724617127125814noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3849768963456188853.post-67829281303448886092007-08-29T08:58:00.000-07:002007-08-29T09:59:40.609-07:00Week One PicksMiami 28 Marshall 17<br /><br />Clemson 21 FSU 20<br /><br />WVU 38 Western Michigan 24<br /><br />Georgia 28 Olahoma State 27<br /><br />This week's lesson: home-field advantage means everything early on in the season.RedMountaineerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11645724617127125814noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3849768963456188853.post-38139505281875786082007-08-07T11:40:00.000-07:002007-10-07T09:18:24.012-07:00Glavine and 300New 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.BigRedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05655461067795258380noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3849768963456188853.post-55694999684018435372007-07-14T08:51:00.000-07:002007-07-14T09:16:04.721-07:00The Producers, Baseball StyleBud 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />This sounds pretty nice, doesn't it? Everybody (at least nowadays) likes parity in professional sports.<br /><br />The problem is that small-market teams have figured out that, like Max and Leo in <em>The Producers</em>, 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?<br /><br />Here are a few examples from the 2006 Forbes report on the business of baseball:<br /><br />The Devil Rays (my AL team) finished 61-101 (36 games behind first place) last year. They made a profit of $20.3 million.<br /><br />The Nationals finished 71-91 (26 GB) last year. They made $27.9 million.<br /><br />The Royals finished 62-100 (34 GB) last year. They made $20.8 million.<br /><br />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.RedMountaineerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11645724617127125814noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3849768963456188853.post-60700924201298938202007-07-09T11:08:00.000-07:002008-07-31T08:52:13.321-07:00Calling Out a LiberalA 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:<br /><br />"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.<br /><br />"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.<br /><br />"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. . . ."<br /><br />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<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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:<br /><br />"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?<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />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.BigRedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05655461067795258380noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3849768963456188853.post-50776424145877821272007-07-02T08:06:00.000-07:002007-07-02T08:22:36.605-07:00Open for Business!?!?Governor Joe <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Manchin's</span> 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 <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Massachusetts</span>-like penchant for taxation.<br /><br />What is remarkable about this and many other levies (including a possible <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Morgantown</span> 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.<br /><br />While <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Manchin</span> 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 <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Morgantown</span>!<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Oh well, that's what you get when you elect one party year after year after year.RedMountaineerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11645724617127125814noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3849768963456188853.post-84645126023160169162007-06-28T11:01:00.001-07:002007-07-01T06:49:02.801-07:00Still No ApologyProponents 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.<br /><br />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."<br /><br />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.BigRedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05655461067795258380noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3849768963456188853.post-6457073112878153212007-06-28T09:52:00.000-07:002007-06-28T09:58:02.220-07:00Is 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 <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">House</span>, and eventually down the throats of the American people.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />Is something else at work here?RedMountaineerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11645724617127125814noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3849768963456188853.post-32364515551967124092007-06-27T11:07:00.001-07:002007-06-28T11:00:51.944-07:00Let Paul DebateIowans 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.<br /><br />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.BigRedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05655461067795258380noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3849768963456188853.post-71963983722521143772007-06-21T11:04:00.000-07:002007-06-22T07:07:06.052-07:00The Bloomberg FactorIn a move that generated nationwide headlines, no-nonsense New York City Mayor Michael <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Bloomberg</span> recently quit the Republican Party and announced that he would govern the city as an independent. Many political observers believe that <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Bloomberg's</span> move is further proof that he intends to seek the presidency. In recent months, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Bloomberg</span> 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. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Bloomberg</span> points to his success in New York, an overwhelmingly Democratic city, as proof that Republicans and Democrats can and should work together. Of course, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Bloomberg</span> denies he is the person he has in mind for the job of bringing the two parties together on the national level.<br /><br />A <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">Bloomberg</span> 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 <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">Bloomberg</span> 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, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">Bloomberg</span> should have plenty of money left to devote to actual campaigning.<br /><br />Who will a <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">Bloomberg</span> candidacy appeal to, and which party's candidate will he hurt most by running? Although a Republican until only a few days ago, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">Bloomberg</span> 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 <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">rockribbed</span> conservative (a la Fred Thompson) as the party's standard-bearer, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">Bloomberg</span> may find some support among disaffected moderate Republicans. Then there is the question of New York. How will <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">Bloomberg</span> 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, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">Bloomberg</span> 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.BigRedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05655461067795258380noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3849768963456188853.post-23922720782967092412007-06-21T09:48:00.000-07:002007-06-21T12:10:17.193-07:00The Fascist DoctrineIn another shocking (but not altogether surprising) example of the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Left's</span> selective protection of our nation's First Amendment, a number of Democrats have been campaigning for the return of the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">FCC's</span> "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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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).<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.RedMountaineerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11645724617127125814noreply@blogger.com1