What's Wrong with Baseball

I'm sure that the story line from Major League Baseball's communications department today is the wild finish early this morning in Game 2 of the American League Championship Series between the Yankees and the Angels, with the Yankees pulling off yet another of their comeback victories. (Who ever thought that Jerry Hairston, Jr. would score the winning run in the 13th inning?) But the storyline they want everyone to ignore and to keep ignoring is the weather. The weather in Yankee Stadium was 45 degrees Fahrenheit at game time with rain and wind, and with the championship series in both leagues yet to be completed, we stand a very good chance of playing the World Series in November which, I'll just state the obvious, is just a plain stupid idea: If you like playing baseball in the winter, go to the Caribbean.

We've reached this point because Major League Baseball is trying to generate as much revenue as possible by lengthening the season, and they have to generate revenue because, for one, player salaries have been on a rocket ship for 34 years. In 1975 when Andy Messersmith and Dave McNally won their landmark arbitration case, the average major leaguer made $45,238 for the season - this season, the average Yankee made over $7,748,000 on the highest-paid club in the majors. Even with record attendance and high TV and merchandising revenues, Major League Baseball is desperate for cash and will do anything, even extend the season past Halloween, to make more, even though this generates something else the owners would rather do without: Scorn.

Baseball is a summer sport. For 65 years, the World Series was played the first week of October when the weather was as near-perfect as possible and fan interest was high. Then, in 1969, baseball decided to add a best-of-five League Championship Series which the calendar could still support, and which helped extend the season of two more teams. This scheme was changed to a best-of-seven format in 1985 and then, in 1995, a best-of-five Division Series was added in both leagues, meaning that eight teams made it to the postseason rather than the original two. In 1903 when the first World Series was played between the Boston Pilgrims and the Pittsburgh Pirates, the Pilgrims managed to beat the Pirates five games to three but yet the season was over by 13 October and neither team played more than 148 games total. The following year, because of the interest the Series generated, the regular season was lengthened from 140 to 154 games which was acceptable since the playoffs were still limited to the Series, and in 1961 when the regular season was lengthened yet again to 162 games, it was still OK: The regular season was over by the end of September with the World Series concluded the same time it always was.

But beyond simply lengthening the season, baseball has changed the way most games are played. In decades past, teams traveled by train from city to city and needed more time in the schedule to accomodate it, and thus played more doubleheaders. Now the clubs fly, need less time for travel and play more three- and four-game series. In the old days, most games were played during the day. Now, most games are played at night to allow more fans to watch the game in person (preferably) or on cable TV (not as preferred but still OK since baseball gets a cut). We are therefore left with a baseball season that has been stretched at least three weeks past its normal limits and which is played at a leisurely pace, all to generate as much revenue as possible, a ludicrously long season that unnaturally overlaps football, hockey and even basketball and instead of creating more fan buzz, playoffs that create more material for late-night comedians, e.g., "C.C. Sabathia tried to master a new pitch the other night but just can't get the hang of the split-finger snowball."

What to do about this ridiculous situation? I have a few ideas. First, the regular season exists to eliminate those teams that just can't compete at a high level, and an extra eight games don't make much difference where that is concerned. Thus I would start by returning to the old 154-game schedule with Opening Day no later than 02 April. Second, I would schedule at least seven more doubleheaders during the regular season for each team, since travel time isn't the factor it was 75 years ago and every day saved in May and June would then be available in September and October. Third, scale the Division Series and League Championship Series back to best-of-five games each - eight teams could still make the playoffs but would have to prove very quickly who deserved to play in the World Series. And last, I would dictate with absolute certainty that the seventh and deciding game of the World Series would be played not later than the fifteenth of October, network rights or marketing schemes or anything else notwithstanding. Baseball has survived scandals and wars and integration and strikes, but baseball cannot survive the image of playing in the snow and has to find a way out of this mess, and quickly.

Source: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_did_MLB_go_to_154_game_season

Source: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_MLB_always_have_a_162-game_season

Source: http://www.infoplease.com/ipsa/A0112331.html

Source: http://www.hickoksports.com/history/reservec.shtml

Source: http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/salaries

Source: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/mlb/news/2000/12/22/free_agency_ap/

The Body, The Body, The Body!

FOOTNOTES OF HISTORY DEPT.: On 30 April 1976, at the Capital Centre in Landover, Maryland, two-time heavyweight champion Muhammad Ali defended his title against the little-known Jimmy Young of Philadelphia in a fight widely viewed as just another payday for the champ - he would make $2 million for the bout and was expected to dominate his less-experienced, less-talented opponent. However, Young, whose record stood at 17-4-2, had no intention of being yet another Ali victim. Having beaten Ron Lyle in a straight-up fight and having fought the powerful Earnie Shavers to a standstill, Young was a cagey, crafty fighter who was difficult to hit. For fifteen rounds, Young dodged, weaved and counterpunched the champion silly, avoiding most of the heavy blows while scoring repeatedly himself. Ali never seemed to get a clean shot at him and for many of the fans in the arena and watching on TV, it seemed that they were witnessing an upset. Yet in a surprise announcement, Referee Tom Kelly scored the fight 72-65; judges Larry Barrett and Terry Moore had it 70-68 and 71-64, respectively: Amid a chorus of boos and insults from the capacity crowd, Ali was declared the winner in a unanimous decision and retained his title. Ken Norton (who was calling the action ringside for NBC and who had beaten Ali and broken his jaw two years previous) thought that Young had clearly outduelled the champion. Confirming popular opinion, Ali refused a rematch with Young, unwilling to face such a cunning opponent - and further embarrassment - ever again.

Why was there such outrage over the decision? Why was there such a disconnect between the fans watching the fight and the officials who decided it? Because Young's style of boxing, designed to frustrate and confuse his opponent, to protect himself from Ali's deadly combinations while allowing him to score with jabs and straight rights, was not what makes a champion. Simply surviving didn't impress anybody - if Young really wanted to beat Muhammad Ali and take his belt, he had to be the aggressor, he had to take the fight to him and whip him on national TV. Against a legend like Ali, Jimmy Young would have to take risks, get in close and knock the champ out at point-blank range, something he was clearly unwilling to do. That being the case, the judges saw no justification for giving him Ali's title: Jabbing and counterpunching just weren't good enough.

We now have a situation in Afghanistan that bears some resemblance to my pugilistic example. LTG Stanley McChrystal, President Obama's hand-picked commander in that theater, has requested 40,000 additional troops to augment his current force of 68,000, over and above the 17,000 personnel he received in the Spring. LTG McChrystal is convinced that without these reinforcements, he will be unable to counter the current Taliban offensive and may not be able to hold the country; that is, the United States might lose the war. He wants the strength to get in close, take the fight to the enemy and knock them out, yet President Obama is notably reluctant to approve LTG McChrystal's request as this contravenes his party's 45-year aversion to military action and his own liberal instincts. Having repeatedly stated that the war in Afghanistan was the one we had to win, the President now searches for a way to abandon it. (Recall that then-Senator Obama vehemently opposed President Bush's troop surge in Iraq in 2007, claiming the war was already lost. Since that surge actually worked, His Serene Loftiness is reluctant to validate conservative military strategy yet again.) He hesitates, he considers shifting away from defeating the Taliban and toward pursuing Al Qaeda, away from Afghanistan altogether and toward Pakistan, he commissions a review of LTG McChrystal's plan and floats trial balloons through his surrogates like negotiating with the Taliban rather than destroying them, he has SecDef Robert Gates rebuke LTG McChrystal and CENTCOM chief GEN Petraeus for publicly advocating for McChrystal's strategy, he rebukes LTG McChrystal on board Air Force One personally, his willing accomplices in the news media publish opinion polls and reports indicating the American public's fatigue with the eight-year war and their doubts as to whether continuing the fight is worth it, he does everything possible to avoid simply approving LTG McChrystal's request. He considers withdrawing most American combat troops and relying instead on armed Predator drones, special operations forces and airstrikes to do the job, jabbing and counterpunching from a distance like Jimmy Young did, keeping the enemy off-balance and avoiding the big knockout punch.

...instead of delivering the big knockout punch. President Obama, like Jimmy Young, instinctively chooses a defensive strategy that assures personal survival but surrenders the initiative to his opponent, thereby guaranteeing defeat. If we are not actively pursuing the Taliban and attacking them first, we are inviting them to do the same to us, and with Taliban forces gaining momentum throughout Afghanistan, we must do everything possible to stop them, regain the initiative and crush them, or else risk losing the war, which we cannot afford to do. Bill Clinton relied on cruise missiles and airstrikes for nearly three months against Serbia in 1999 but the only thing that drove the Serbs to the bargaining table was the threat of ground invasion, so Obama has that example from his immediate Democrat predecessor from which to draw inspiration. We cannot lose Afghanistan. That is a simple, undeniable fact and one which His Serene Loftiness claims to understand. If that is indeed the case, Mr. President, then answer LTG McChrystal's request, commit the troops, fight America's enemies toe-to-toe and win the war...or slink away, disgraced and defeated, to your eternal shame.

Source: http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1897542,00.html

Source: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/10/white-house-furious-at-gen-mcchrystal-for-going-public.html

Source: http://www.upiasia.com/Top_News/2009/09/24/Petraeus-urges-linking-anti-terror-efforts/UPI-23211253766119/

Source: http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat-matrix/archives/2009/09/mcchrystal_to_resign_if_not_gi.php

Never Mind...

BIG SURPRISE: After forcefully and repeatedly stating that he would close the terrorist prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as a candidate last year and signing an Executive Order to that effect two days after his Inauguration, it now appears very likely that President Obama will fail to make good on that promise. The White House says that poor recordkeeping by the Bush Administration is to blame for the mess but the real reason, the real problem driving this development is what I mentioned in this space eight months ago: Whatever the President and his fellow liberal true believers may think, you can't close Gitmo because there's nowhere else for these guys to go. They're the most dangerous people on Earth and nobody wants them, not Obama's socialist friends in Europe nor his other socialist friends here in America. No Congressman, no Senator and no city councilman, no matter how solid their Leftist credentials, wants a bunch of Al Qaeda thugs living in the same ZIP code as their constituents and they'll do whatever they have to do to keep that from happening - have you noticed that with the avalanche of spending from Obama and the Congressional Democrats on everything else that there's not one penny approved for closing Gitmo? No conicidence there, my friends, no coincidence at all.

His Serene Loftiness is learning a hard lesson with Gitmo just as he has with health care reform, that is, simply wanting things to work according to socialist dogma isn't good enough. With health care, many millions of people resist the thought of being ordered into a government-run program that will be more expensive, more wasteful, more corrupt, more regimented and less free than anyone can predict, and are letting the Messiah-in-Chief know it. With Guantanamo Bay, the possibility of Al Qaeda suicide bombers running loose in America freezes the blood of the diest of die-hard liberals. They may have railed against George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Alberto Gonzalez, and demanded the closure of Guantanamo Bay and civil rights for terrorists but when asked to keep those terrorists in their own districts, they rediscover the old mantra of NIMBY: Not In My Back Yard. (Remember how the dear departed Ted Kennedy, ever the champion of clean energy and the environment, quashed a wind turbine project off Cape Cod three years ago because it would ruin the view?) Obama would do well if he would simply admit his mistake and reverse his order, if he would demonstrate an ability to think objectively and keep Gitmo open, but to do so would require intelligence, character, a sense of leadership and humility, and nothing in Obama's past suggests he is capable of such greatness: Too bad for us.

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/25/ap-guantanamo-close-january/?test=latestnews

Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30860366/

Source: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/05/20/white_house_closing_gitmo_a_hasty_decision_96593.html

Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Briefing-by-White-House-Press-Secretary-Robert-Gibbs-8/13/09/

Source:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/04/27/kennedy_faces_fight_on_cape_wind/

Dear Leader

Dear Leader Comrade Generalissimo Barack Obama the great peerlessly brilliant President of all the Americas is a great unequaled inflexible political genius of a large caliber always on the offensive to stiffen the steel-strong rock-hard ranks of the American Democratic Socialist Workers Proletariat into a match-for-a-hundred invincible force of strong patriotic anti-Republican anti-imperialist revolutionary spirit with a zeal of defending the Leader with their own lives at one stroke.

Once again Dear Leader Comrade Generalissimo Barack Obama has found the perfect way to uplift the capability of the American Democratic Socialist Workers Proletariat, delivering an inspirational and historic speech of decisive strategic power value to the boy schoolchildren and girl schoolchildren of the invincible mighty relentless unstoppable American Marxist Unified People next Tuesday. Hearing the cry of the people for his unique invaluable priceless wonderful leadership, the Mighty Sun of the 21st Century will uplift their joyous hearts with this immortal feat, propagating his glory and inspiring them to struggle forward with revolutionary fervor:

Menu of Classroom Activities
President Obama’s Address to Students Across America
(Pre-K6)
Produced by Teaching Ambassador Fellows, U.S. Department of Education
September 8, 2009

Before the Speech
Teachers can build background knowledge about the President of the United States and his speech by reading books about presidents and Barack Obama. Teachers could motivate students by asking the following questions:
Who is the President of the United States?
What do you think it takes to be president?
To whom do you think the president is going to be speaking?
Why do you think he wants to speak to you?
What do you think he will say to you?
Teachers can ask students to imagine that they are delivering a speech to all of the students in the United States.
If you were the president, what would you tell students?
What can students do to help in our schools?
Teachers can chart ideas about what students would say.
Why is it important that we listen to the president and other elected officials, like the mayor, senators, members of congress, or the governor? Why is what they say important?

During the Speech
As the president speaks, teachers can ask students to write down key ideas or phrases that are important or personally meaningful. Students could use a note]taking graphic organizer such as a "cluster web;" or, students could record their thoughts on sticky notes. Younger children could draw pictures and write as appropriate. As students listen to the speech, they could think about the following:
What is the president trying to tell me?
What is the president asking me to do?
What new ideas and actions is the president challenging me to think about?
Students could record important parts of the speech where the president is asking them to do something. Students might think about the following:
What specific job is he asking me to do?
Is he asking anything of anyone else?
Teachers? Principals? Parents? The American people?
Students could record questions they have while he is speaking and then discuss them after the speech. Younger children may need to dictate their questions.

After the Speech
Teachers could ask students to share the ideas they recorded, exchange sticky notes, or place notes on a butcher]paper poster in the classroom to discuss main ideas from the speech, such as citizenship, personal responsibility, and civic duty.
Students could discuss their responses to the following questions:
What do you think the president wants us to do?
Does the speech make you want to do anything?
Are we able to do what President Obama is asking of us?
What would you like to tell the president?

Extension of the Speech
Teachers could extend learning by having students:
Create posters of their goals. Posters could be formatted in quadrants, puzzle pieces, or trails marked with the following labels: personal, academic, community, and country. Each area could be labeled with three steps for achieving goals in that area. It might make sense to focus first on personal and academic goals so that community and country goals can be more readily created.
Write letters to themselves about how they can achieve their short]term and long]term education goals. Teachers would collect and redistribute these letters at an appropriate later date to enable students to monitor their progress.
Write goals on colored index cards or precut designs to post around the classroom.
Interview one another and share goals with the class to create a supportive community.
Participate in school]wide incentive programs or contests for those students who achieve their goals.
Write about their goals in a variety of genres, such as poems, songs, and personal essays.
Create artistic projects based on the themes of their goals.
Graph individual progress toward goals.

Menu of Classroom Activities
President Obama’s Address to Students Across America
(Grades 7-12)
Produced by Teaching Ambassador Fellows, U.S. Department of Education
September 8, 2009

Before the Speech
Conduct a "quick write" or "think/pair/share" activity with students. (In the latter activity, students spend a few minutes thinking and writing about the question. Next, each student is paired with another student to discuss. Finally, the students share their ideas with the class as a whole). Teachers may choose to ask the following questions:
What ideas do we associate with the words "responsibility," "persistence," and "goals?"
How would we define each term?
Teachers then may choose to create a web diagram of student ideas for each of the words.
Have students participate in a "quick write" or brainstorming activity. Teachers may ask students:
What are your strengths?
What do you think makes you successful as a student and as a person?
Teachers may engage students in short readings. Teachers may post in large print around the classroom notable quotes excerpted from President Obama’s speeches on education. Teachers might ask students to think alone, compare ideas with a partner, or share their thoughts with the class. Teachers could ask students to think about the following:
What are our interpretations of these excerpts?
Based on these excerpts, what can we infer that the president believes is important in order to be educationally successful?
Create a "concept web." Teachers may ask students to think of the following:
Why does President Obama want to speak with us today? How will he inspire us?
How will he challenge us?
What might he say?
Do you remember any other historic moments when the president spoke to the nation?
What was the impact?
After brainstorming answers to these questions, students could create a "cause]and]effect" graphic organizer.

During the Speech
Teachers might conduct a "listening with purpose" exercise based on the following ideas: personal responsibility, goals, and persistence. Teachers might ask pairs of students to create a word bank at the top of a notes page that has been divided into two columns. On the right]hand side, students could take notes (trying to capture direct quotations or main ideas) while President Obama talks about personal responsibility, goals, or persistence. At the end of the speech, students could write the corresponding terms from the word bank in the left]hand column, to increase retention and deepen their understanding of an important aspect of the speech.

Teachers might conduct a "listening with purpose" exercise based on the themes of inspiration and challenges. Using a similar double]column notes page as the one described above, teachers could focus students on quotations that either propose a specific challenge to them or that inspire them in some meaningful way. Students could do this activity individually, in pairs, or in groups.
Transition/Quick Review
Teachers could ask students to look over their notes and collaborate in pairs or small groups. Teachers might circulate and ask students questions, such as:
What more could we add to our notes?
What are the most important words in the speech?
What title would you give the speech?
What is the thesis of the speech?

After the Speech
Guided Discussion:
What resonated with you from President Obama’s speech? What lines or phrases do you remember?
Whom is President Obama addressing? How do you know? Describe his audience.
We heard President Obama mention the importance of personal responsibility. In your life, who exemplifies this kind of responsibility? How? Give examples.
How are the individuals in this classroom similar? How is each student different?
Suppose President Obama were to give another speech about being educationally successful. To whom would he speak? Why? What would the president say?
What are the three most important words in the speech? Rank them.
Is President Obama inspiring you to do anything? Is he challenging you to do anything?
What do you believe are the challenges of your generation?
How can you be a part of addressing these challenges?

　
The brilliance of Dear Leader knows no bounds and this stroke of invincible genius boosts the effective invincibility of the American Democratic Socialist Workers Proletariat a thousandfold, sending the criminal Republican imperialists reeling in a panic, smashing their frantic anti-Revolutionary schemes at one stroke. Hail victory! Hail the Leader!　
　

Source: http://www.ed.gov/teachers/how/lessons/7-12.pdf

Source: http://www.ed.gov/teachers/how/lessons/prek-6.pdf

Worse Than The Disease

In his second Inaugural Address, Abraham Lincoln reached the pinnacle of American oratory. A backwoods lawyer without the polish and training of his privileged Eastern counterparts, he nonetheless saw straight to the heart of the war then raging across the country and put it more brilliantly than anyone ever had: “It may seem strange that any men would dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces, but let us judge not that we be not judged.” Here was the core of the argument that had divided the country philosophically and then violently, the idea that the South could base its economy, society and culture on the enslavement of other human beings and insist that such enslavement was justified. Mr. Lincoln, in a moment of perfect clarity, refuted that idea. No-one has that right, he said; no-one has the right to force others to work for them and live off the gains of that labor, and that principle was vindicated on the field of battle and by the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.

One hundred forty-four years later, things have changed. We’re not facing a shooting war as Mr. Lincoln did but rather a political war that could be even more destructive in its own way, a war over the way we live our lives in this country. On the one side are the forces led by Mr. Obama, forces that claim the right that Mr. Lincoln so eloquently denied, that they are entitled to the profits earned by others and which they indignantly demand: Home mortgages subsidized by others, automobiles subsidized by others, jobs subsidized by others and now health insurance subsidized by others. The system is unfair, they cry; it’s time to restructure the United States to favor the poor and damn the costs, hence this quote from Nancy Pelosi at a news conference last June:

“First of all, the health care bill will be paid for. Second of all, we have to reduce cost. Cost must be reduced as we go forward. We know there are many initiatives of prevention and wellness and the rest that may not score down. But, nonetheless, we have to try to keep the number a containable one, an affordable one, one where waste, fraud, abuse, other aspects of -- well, as the President has already indicated, there's money to be found in Medicare and Medicaid, not that that's waste, fraud, and abuse, but just in how it is managed and -- administratively it's okay, but how the money is spent.

"And we can wring out money, and we must. We can't just say, "Well, we want the health care bill we want and we'll pay for it and how are we going to do that?" No. We have to reduce cost, establish priorities, and then go forward with how we pay for it."

“Wring out money.” For anyone not familiar with liberal jargon, that means higher taxes. Not for everyone, mind you, but only for the top ten percent of Americans who already pay 65% of all Federal income taxes. Speaker Pelosi wants to knock them down and steal their lunch money and then give it to the people she represents – the bottom fifty percent of wage earners who pay only 4% of Federal income taxes, those who want to “wring their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces.”

On the other side are conservatives who resist the notion of a national health care system like they would resist the plague, who resist the higher costs, higher taxes, invasive regulation, fraud, waste and corruption such a system would bring. A recent Congressional Budget Office study indicates that Mr. Obama’s plan, though costing an additional $1.6 trillion over ten years, would only cover ten million of the estimated 47 million Americans lacking health insurance, meaning that if he truly wants universal health care in the United States, Mr. Obama will have to find $7 trillion that he hasn’t already spent. Second, his claim that the creation of a new Federal health care plan would lower costs because of competition with private health companies is a blind alley. Private health insurers would quickly realize that they lacked the resources to compete with the Federal government and would collapse, especially as businesses realized they could unload the cost of insuring their employees to the Feds: Thus the competition Mr. Obama envisions would result in a single, gigantic national plan and stratospheric expenses, which might suit his socialist philosophy but not the long-term interests of the country.

Third, as I’ve mentioned in this space before, even if Mr. Obama establishes a national health care plan and finds the money to pay for it, he will simply be adding another 47 million patients to the existing infrastructure. As far as I know, he doesn’t plan on buying one more bed, building one more hospital or hiring one more doctor, meaning that America will have rationed health care if his plan is adopted.

Fourth, the government never runs anything efficiently, thus it is amazing that the same people who complain bitterly about the DMV or the Post Office or the IRS ardently support Mr. Obama’s plan to establish a national health care program costing trillions of dollars. The current high costs of health care result in large part from Americans’ desire to get something for nothing, so if national health care is established and private insurers are driven out of business, there will truly be no incentive to save money anywhere and the country will be bankrupted.

Fifth, Senator Kent Conrad is urging the taxation of employee health insurance benefits as a method of raising money for the Democrats’ health reform plan. Since World War II, offering employee health benefits has been a way for businesses to attract and keep the best workers without increasing basic salaries. Taxing these benefits would push people into higher tax brackets and punish them for their success, but beyond raising money for universal coverage though, such taxation would discourage enrollment in private health care plans and drive people toward the single national program Mr. Obama is advocating. Once again, the liberals are obsessed with forcing everyone in America into one monolithic system and are willing to sacrifice our freedoms to do it.

Sixth, tied to the point I make above, is that after having unloaded their employee health coverage to the Federal government, businesses will want to do the same with their employee retirement plans. Health insurance and retirement are hugely expensive and the opportunity for a business to dump these costs on the Federal taxpayers will be too enticing to resist, so the American people will be funding the total cost of medical care and pensions for every worker in America and their families.

Seventh, the health care benefits paid to union workers would be exempt from the taxes imposed on non-union workers. This would encourage higher union enrollment and, together with the check-card voting system proposed by the Democrats, might reverse the 30-year decline in union membership which is essential to the establishment of a true socialist state. However, I doubt that any of Mr. Obama’s devotees have thought this approach through to its logical conclusion: As more workers join the union ranks, tax receipts from private health benefits would plummet while health care costs would climb. Since the money for the new Federal health program would have to come from somewhere, these new union members (as well as their veteran colleagues) would find their benefits eminently taxable by the same government they trusted.

Eighth, and this is quite taboo among the legacy media and the liberal intelligentsia, prosperity is the product of risk. A doctor with ten years’ training took greater risks and thus is entitled to a higher salary than the drive-thru guy at McDonald’s. Someone who starts a billion-dollar software company took greater risks and is entitled to a higher salary than an associate at Best Buy. And by and large, the top ten percent of wage earners in America have taken greater risks and thus earn higher incomes than the bottom fifty percent. They didn’t cheat the bottom fifty percent of their just due, they didn’t defraud anyone, they just worked harder and made better decisions and that enfuriates His Serene Loftiness. Some people have the unmitigated gall to succeed on their own in a difficult career while others take fewer risks, earn lower incomes and bitch about being cheated. These latter are Nancy Pelosi’s constituents and Mr. Obama’s, the millions who want to make very safe choices or none at all, who aver higher education or tough technical training, who never move or want to change jobs or invent something useful or start a business but yet want the rewards of such risk-taking: A guaranteed income, a guaranteed home, guaranteed pensions and now, health care for life guaranteed by the American taxpayer. They want to enslave America to their dream of a safe, worry-free life, yoking everyone else to their burden and draining the coffers dry, forcing everyone to the same level of mediocrity for as long as life endures. They don’t object to slavery as long as someone else is the slave, and the first African-American President of the United States is whipping us onward to that particular cliff. “Ironic” doesn’t quite characterize that scenario and neither will “catastrophic” if this nightmarish plan isn’t soundly and permanently defeated.








Source: http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/06-18-2009/0005046655&EDATE=

Source: http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres32.html

Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/health_care/

Source: http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/wm2448.cfm

Cruel Torments of the Devil

Transcript of exchange between Perez Hilton and Miss California USA Carrie Prejean at the Miss USA Pageant, Las Vegas, Nevada, 19 April 2009

Perez Hilton: "Vermont recently became the 4th state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit. Why or why not?"

Carrie Prejean: "Well I think its great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think it should be between a man and a woman. Thank you very much."

There were four other contestants at that point but Perez Hilton knew what he was doing by saving that particular question for Carrie Prejean. He knew that she was a Christian and he wanted to put her under some pressure: Live TV, the desire to win, the desire to give the acceptable answer. He wanted to put her faith to a test - if she dodges the question, or equivocates, or agrees with him, he can exult in the knowledge that another Christian can be bought with fame and fortune, that faith isn't real and neither is God, and a flaming homosexual who mocks the Almighty is on the winning side.

She fumbled a bit, caught off-guard by the potent question but quickly realized that she was being ambushed and found her courage. With everything on the line, with victory so close, she gave not the answer that Perez Hilton wanted to hear but the answer that he and America needed to hear. She didn't attack him or homosexuals in general, but stated her case and said, "Thank you very much." Doing so cost her the crown she had worked so hard to win but Carrie Prejean can look herself in the mirror today knowing that her conscience is clear.

The crowd in the Planet Hollywood theatre booed. The title went to Miss North Carolina. Perez Hilton ranted hysterically on his blog, insulting Prejean with language both crude and revealing: For his fans, this is what he's really like. The left-wing press has excoriated Carrie Prejean for accepting breast implants provided by the Miss USA pageant, for posing for topless photos now splashed across the Internet, for appearing in a commercial supporting traditional marriage, for not going away broken and silenced. She has discovered how angry Satan can be when Christians oppose him.

While not diving for the gutter, Perez Hilton has expressed "disappointment" that Prejean "didn't leave her politics out" of her answer. He and his morally naked allies have smugly announced that Miss California USA represents all of that state and should be more inclusive, by which they mean that when Carrie Prejean leaves her politics out, their politics are left in and the millions of Californians who agree with her and who twice approved constitutional amendments have no right to be heard. But beyond beauty pageants and free speech lies a larger issue, one that the press ignores and Perez Hilton, in his malignant glory, doesn't comprehend: The reversal of order that is at the heart of Satan's war with God.

Let's say that tomorrow a Constitutional amendment is passed legalizing gay marriage throughout the United States. TV cameras would pan across throngs of homosexual couples queueing up at the courthouse, champagne bottles would pop all over the country, liberal politicians would give excited speeches about civil rights and liberty and lofty ideals, thousands more children would be adopted into the homosexual lifestyle. Then a little movement would be felt. Some chatter would race across the Internet, advocacy groups would be formed, money would be raised, more speeches about civil rights and liberty and lofty ideals. Bills would be introduced and lawsuits would be filed, and eventually, polygamy would be legalized. After all, if traditional marriage is no longer the standard, then why exclude polygamists? Then we would see similar demands by pedophiles, the North American Man-Boy Love Association, groups wanting to marry groups, siblings and so on, obliterating the traditional view of marriage until only a confused, chaotic mish-mash is left, reversing the institution that God established and which has sustained human civilization for 7000 years. With the decision to move the line having been made, there will exist no reason not to move it a hundred times and certainly not for some moral objection, and America will disintegrate. That's why Carrie Prejean spoke up and why buffoons like Perez Hilton persecute Christians like her.

There have been other buffoons and other persecutions. Read on:

Letter from Pliny the Younger, Governor of Bithynia-Pontus, to Trajan, Emperor of the Romans, 112 AD:

It is my practice, my lord, to refer to you all matters concerning which I am in doubt. For who can better give guidance to my hesitation or inform my ignorance? I have never participated in trials of Christians. I therefore do not know what offenses it is the practice to punish or investigate, and to what extent. And I have been not a little hesitant as to whether there should be any distinction on account of age or no difference between the very young and the more mature; whether pardon is to be granted for repentance, or, if a man has once been a Christian, it does him no good to have ceased to be one; whether the name itself, even without offenses, or only the offenses associated with the name are to be punished.

Meanwhile, in the case of those who were denounced to me as Christians, I have observed the following procedure: I interrogated these as to whether they were Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed. For I had no doubt that, whatever the nature of their creed, stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished. There were others possessed of the same folly; but because they were Roman citizens, I signed an order for them to be transferred to Rome.

Soon accusations spread, as usually happens, because of the proceedings going on, and several incidents occurred. An anonymous document was published containing the names of many persons. Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ--none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do--these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.

They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food--but ordinary and innocent food. Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations. Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition.

I therefore postponed the investigation and hastened to consult you. For the matter seemed to me to warrant consulting you, especially because of the number involved. For many persons of every age, every rank, and also of both sexes are and will be endangered. For the contagion of this superstition has spread not only to the cities but also to the villages and farms. But it seems possible to check and cure it. It is certainly quite clear that the temples, which had been almost deserted, have begun to be frequented, that the established religious rites, long neglected, are being resumed, and that from everywhere sacrificial animals are coming, for which until now very few purchasers could be found. Hence it is easy to imagine what a multitude of people can be reformed if an opportunity for repentance is afforded.

Letter from Trajan answering Pliny the Younger:

You observed proper procedure, my dear Pliny, in sifting the cases of those who had been denounced to you as Christians. For it is not possible to lay down any general rule to serve as a kind of fixed standard. They are not to be sought out; if they are denounced and proved guilty, they are to be punished, with this reservation, that whoever denies that he is a Christian and really proves it--that is, by worshiping our gods--even though he was under suspicion in the past, shall obtain pardon through repentance. But anonymously posted accusations ought to have no place in any prosecution.

For this is both a dangerous kind of precedent and out of keeping with the spirit of our age.

In Pliny's day, it was a capital offense simply to be a Christian and that is where we are headed today. As long as there have been Christians, there have been people who hated them, whence Perez Hilton's vulgar rage, but someday the most important question that moron will ask will not be, "What do I think of Christ?" but rather, "What does Christ think of me?"

Good Riddance

So Arlen Specter is a Democrat again - big deal. For 28 years the man has had it both ways by getting huge support from the GOP during election season (like when the RNC supported him against conservative Pat Toomey in 2004 even when Specter had opposed President Bush's tax cuts) but voting whith the Democrats on stuff like the Obama stimulus package, illegal immigration and check-card voting for union elections. He's pro-abortion, pro-affirmative action and he joined John McCain's Gang of 14 four years ago that hijacked the review process for President Bush's judicial nominees. With friends like him, who needs enemies?

Sen. Specter admits that the political situation in Pennsylvania had the greatest influence on his decision. Mr. Toomey is mounting a serious challenge for Specter's seat and the senator believed that he would lose the GOP primary next Spring and, if he declared as an Independent like Joe Leiberman, the general election. Given that he doesn't want to retire, the only option left was to switch back to the Democrats he abandoned in 1965 and count on massive support from President Obama and the DNC next year which he's sure to get. So at least Senator Specter is honest enough to say that craven political survival drove his announcement and not some highfalutin philosophical reason like the tax policies of the Club for Growth.

The Democrats are exultant, of course. With Al Franken near to closing the deal in Minnesota, Specter's defection brings them a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate (at least on paper) and no real threat to their agenda through next year. They can run through every wild-eyed piece of legislation they've dreamed of submitting for the past forty years but which was simply too dangerous to consider until now: passage of the Kyoto Protocols, cap-in-trade limits on industry, mandatory union membership for every job, citizenship for illegal immigration, Federal legalization of gay marriage and euthanasia, outright government ownership of every major industry from airlines to real estate. The future is bright if you're a socialist now that Arlen Specter is on your side.

For the Republicans, Specter's betrayal is both a kick in the groin and an opportunity. They are weaker in the Senate than at any time since 1976 and have virtually no chance of even slowing down the radical agenda I described above, yet are closer to their conservative core. The country club Republicans who chafed at Ronald Reagan and who sneer at the NASCAR dads who voted for them have pushed the Party to the left for years, away from the principles that brought them victory after victory and toward bigger government, higher taxes and spending, acceptance of abortion, euthanasia, stem cell research, illegal immigration and so on, blurring the distinction between Republicans and the Democrats they ostensibly opposed. These misguided blue bloods thought by emulating the liberals and differing in policy only by degree, they could avoid the bitter debates that are at the heart of American democracy, get along with their enemies and keep their jobs longer. However, as was demonstrated in the past two elections, becoming more like the Democrats only gave more power to the real Democrats, and as Dr. Phil is fond of saying, "How's that workin' for you?" The answer, of course, is disastrously. The American people want and deserve a real choice when they go to the polls, not two shades of gray. By abandoning the Republicans, Arlen Specter gives them a chance to rediscover the power of conservative ideas: Let's hope they take it.