Where is Robin Hood?

For too long, people like me have sat quietly.

Sure we campaigned for Obama and Hillary. Sure we stayed up and partied or cried when Obama won the election. Sure we watched anxiously and proudly on Inauguration Day.

It truly started, though, early this year in Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio and a select other areas. When Republican leadership at the state level tried to circumnavigate union contracts with state employees such as teachers and civil workers. We sat in their workplaces and forced them to hear our complaints. Our representatives left the state to prevent quorums and the passing of harmful bills.

We didn't win those battles but at least we started forming militias.

Nineteen days ago, those militias marched on Wall Street. New York City was joined by several other locations recently such as Boston and Chicago. Major financial greed-holes institutions are the target of tremendous scrutiny. For decades we have sat back and allowed our wallets to be gashed by insane mortgage rates and credit fees and other forms of corporate greed and extortion. For too long, these propagators of financial terrorism have made mistake after mistake. Instead of losing their jobs or some other form of punishment, these same institutions have seen record profits and their employees have received bonus upon bonus.

Congress can't support us. We're attacking their support and livelihood.

What started out as a makeshift protest of a few hundred has turned into a three-week sit in of thousands. Labor unions and special interest groups have lent their political and financial support. Donations of food, minimal shelter and bedding have allowed these groups to stage a 24 hour a day voice.

This army faces a major hurdle, however. Though thousands of faces have joined the crowd, each face has brought its own mouth. There is no cohesive message. There is no general. So far, they are a group of ragtag, frustrated Americans who are angry with super-capitalism and greed.

There is no Robin Hood.

Even though the protests have garnered attention from the AFL-CIO, their support has only brought news articles. Even though the sit-in has brought the media outlets from local stations to FoxNews to The Daily Show, we only hear more rhetoric.

The only politicians to get dirty with this situation is the GOP hopefuls, and none of them support the cause. President Obama has commented on our frustrations, but there is no leadership. There is no direction.

There is no George Washington.

Recently I was given a link to an interview with Roseanne Barr discussing the anger and even some possible, though likely unfeasible, solutions. Can she be the face we need? Will more join her?

Where's our politician who is standing up for the middle class? Not the one who uses rehashed sound bites at a campaign stop, but where is the representative who stands up in the House and proposes a solution?

Hell, what is the problem we're trying to solve?!

This nation became great on the backs of that same middle class. This nation needs the rich and the successful but have they forgotten the lower rungs of the ladder they so easily climbed? Do they forget the teachers that taught them? The janitors that cleaned their classrooms? The men and women who removed their trash and cleaned their streets? The drivers who transport them on the roads they didn't help to build?

There's a famous Charging Bull statue on Wall Street. It represents the bull market. It's a symbol of financial prosperity and growth.

It has a new meaning now. It's the golden calf from the Old Testament. It's a symbol now of greed and false idols.

Wall Street has its face and message. It's a bronze sculpture right there in front of the world. It wants wealth upon wealth.

It's time to stop sitting in and around buildings. It's time to sculpt our own message and put our own face to it.

It's time for our army to find it's general.

It's time for Robin Hood to stand up.

Christian Lopez Living the High Life

A story that in my opinion hasn't gotten enough attention just got sweeter.

Christian Lopez, the 23-year old cell phone salesman who caught and returned Derek Jeter's 3,000th hit, went from hero to victim to saved in a whirlwind of events that must have seemed like thirty seconds and thirty days at the same time.

Lopez caught Jeter's historic home run last week and was covered in a pile of celebratory chaos and greed. Everyone wanted that ball. That ball was probably worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Surviving the pile, he then did what any lower-middle class sports fan with roughly $100,000 in student loans would do...he gave it away.

You read that right. He called up the Yankees and gave the ball to Jeter.

Let's first mention what an incredible act this was. This young man could have paid off his debts and still had thousands of dollars to sit on. Instead, he's a celebrity. An urban hero.

ESPN tried to conduct an interview with him at Yankee Stadium a few days later and fans swarmed to him. His fans. He signed autographs and posed for pictures. They wanted to meet "him", potentially almost as much as they want to meet Jeter or A-Rod.

The attention didn't stop there. The Yankees had some gifts of thanks for him: a suite for the remainder of this season's home games...including the playoffs and different memorabilia signed by the Yankee shortstop.

Awesome story, right? Guy catches ball. Guy gives ball back. Guy gets cool shit. Wrong. The IRS reads the news, too.

Apparently his rewards could total almost one million dollars and the IRS might want their cut. In an interview with ESPN after rumors of the tax hit, Lopez flatly states, "I was stunned...It kinda sucks, to be honest with you." He had a hard time finding his words. I don't blame him.

So just as quickly as he climbed to the top, reality dragged him down to the tune of what could be up to a $14,000 tax bill. The IRS sure knows how to reward good acts.

But then, as word spread of the potential penalties, knights in shining armor started lining up.

Mitchell Modell, the CEO of Modell's Sporting Goods which is a sponsor of the Yankees, had more gifts. For one week, Lopez will receive a percentage of all Yankee merchandise sold at his stores that could climb into the tens of thousands of dollars (an offer that would later be matched by Brandon Steiner of Steiner Sports). To top that off, Modell gave Lopez his 2009 World Series Championship ring.

And as if that wasn't enough, everyone's favorite champagne of beers also stepped up. Miller High Life recently announced that it would cover any tax debts that Lopez may incur. Brand manager Brendan Noonan released this statement:

Miller High Life believes you should be rewarded for doing the right thing, not penalized. We want to recognize Christian Lopez, and in turn everyone like him, for doing the common sense thing and help him continue to live the High Life.

That's putting your money where your advertising is. There couldn't be a better story for the "Living the High Life" campaign.

Want to share in the experience and history? You will be able later this year when Topps will include a Christian Lopez trading card in their next baseball card sets. How do you like them apples, IRS?

This story really makes my body tingle. In a world caught up in murder trials and debt ceilings, there's still good people in this world.

First there was the cell phone salesman who just wanted to do the right thing. Then there was the companies who came to his rescue. There was no obligation for any of them to do what they did. Sure they'll get PR boosts from it, but I really don't think that would matter.

My only wish is that instead of opening up CNN's web page and finding out about terror in India and the fact that Rodney King was arrested, I'd find a heart-warming story. A story of charity with a happy ending.

Oh look..on the bottom of the page there's an article about a third grader her saved his sister from drowning. The twenty-sixth link.

*sigh*

NFL Owners Make Football Less Exciting at Meetings

Despite the already unpopular move of a lockout, NFL owners met in New Orleans this weekend for their annual "Let's Make the Sport Suck Convention."

Generally, I've at least understood some of the past rules changes. In fact, I've been okay with everything except for the rules involving the elimination of the quarterback as a football player (which with all the "safety" talk, I'm surprised there wasn't another condition under which defenders would be even more limited in their ability to do their job).

When the league banned players from using props or going to the ground during celebrations I rolled my eyes but didn't get mad. Yeah they're getting rid of some of the fun, but it was essentially unnecessary taunting and losing it didn't change the essence of the game.

When they eliminated wedges on kickoffs I scoffed, but understood that it was purely for the safety of players basically standing in one spot before getting slammed by a guy with a thirty yard head start.

But this time the owners went too far.

Under the guise of player safety, kickoffs will now take place at the 35 yard line instead of the 30. Why? What good does that do?

Say goodbye to saying goodbye.

People in Chicago literally hold their breath when a ball is slowly floating down into Devon Hester's hands. All bets are off. We could watch a guy run 250 yards for a 60 yard gain. It's more exciting than a last second hail mary or field goal attempt. It's more exciting than a Reggie Bush hand off or an Adrian Peterson screen play.

That excitement is now all but banished from the game. To what end?

All it does is drastically increase the number of touchbacks. Players will still get hurt on touchbacks. Just because the ball is bouncing in the aisles doesn't mean that during the five previous seconds, there aren't still twenty guys busting heads.

You know what it really does? It just makes those unfortunate injuries happen for no reason.

If a guy is going to snap his neck trying to block or break a block, he's going to do it in the first couple of seconds. Not at the end. Not after the returner catches the ball.

By the time Devon Hester catches a kickoff, there's usually at least two guys on the ground, five battles between blockers and potential tacklers as well as ten more guys about hit something really hard.

They have a job to do and that doesn't change until the whistle blows. On touchbacks, that whistle still won't blow until it's too late.

I know your argument already. "But Tony, the attackers only get a five yard head start instead of fifteen!"

I don't care. These athletes have perfected the art to get maximum speed in minimal time. Hitting someone with 1000 psi instead of 1200 doesn't make a vertebra less vulnerable to snapping. It doesn't make the ACL withstand an awkward hit.

These players will still get hurt.

They'll still get hurt when the guy in the third row drops his hot dog to catch a souvenir. They'll still get hurt when we hear the "Thwung!" of the ball hitting the goal post.

They just won't get hurt when guys like Hester or Josh Cribbs or Leon Washington make highlight reels. There won't be highlight reels.

Just touchbacks.

Madness 2011: Initial Reaction

The brackets are out. Did your team make it? Did your rivals'?

It's time to enter your pools and make one extra 5-12 upset than you're supposed to (admit it, it happens every year). Need help? Use my guide for those toss-up matches.

Here are my initial reactions and a few predictions headed into the first week of games.

 Teams I feel sorry for:

1. Massive apologies to Colorado and Virginia Tech. Maybe go to a holiday tournament next season and play some teams from another major conference.
2. I think the committee got Alabama and Alabama at Birmingham confused. Not sure what happened there.
3. Congrats to Ohio State. Your number one overall seed got you the number one overall hardest region. Your season-long effort of dominance won you the death draw.
4. Gonzaga fans are going to realize that, just like the last fifteen years, their favorite players are highly overrated. Listen, Mark Few is a great coach but he needs to get to a school that can attract players worth coaching. When is the Zag-fest going to end in this nation?

   

   Sorry, Coach. Reserving that seat will never fill it with a bigger trophy

Teams that got lucky:

1. Virginia Commonwealth and UAB both seemed to sneak into the tournament. Not really sure how they passed a couple of major-conference teams but hey.. they're in.
2. Dear Georgia: who did you pay off to get a ten seed? Somebody check AJ Green's locker.
3. Despite losing in the quarterfinals of the Big East tournament and losing at home to Notre Dame (who ended up with the same conference record), Pittsburgh got a number one seed. But it doesn't end there. They also got the easiest region. Completely baffling.
4. The Big Ten in general. I don't know what makes people think that outside of Ohio State, Purdue and Wisconsin you still have solid programs left. Michigan State struggled through a very tough schedule but Penn State, Illinois and Michigan did virtually NOTHING to make this tournament. Coming out slightly on the top half of an extremely mediocre conference should be enough to get good seeds in the NIT.
5. Don't laugh Pac Ten fans. This goes for you too but with absolutely no heavyweights.

Predictions:

Newark: Where geese commit suicide

1. The Big East will get at least five sweet sixteen teams (more than the ACC got into the entire field).
2. On a related note, the SEC will not have a single team in the sweet sixteen.
3. Long Island will give CBS a reason to cut to their game.
4. There will be only one top-seeded team in the final four.
5. The results of the East region will be the best thing to come out of Newark. Ever.
6. Tuesday and Wednesdays games on TrueTV will have absolutely terrible ratings. Maybe we can put the games on Oprah's new network next year to hide the embarrassing expansion even more.
7. I'm by no means the first to bring this up, but it's a tragedy that Purdue and Notre Dame, an hour's drive from each other will travel well over 1,000 miles away to play in the sweet sixteen. Northern Indiana bars, however, will get quite rowdy.
8. The final four will be extremely entertaining. The three games will be decided by a total of fourteen points. Heard it here first.
9. We're all going to thoroughly enjoy this tournament. There's maybe only one or two truly elite teams. There's probably ten really good teams. Then there's the rest of the field. Wide open.

Remember guys, the minute you give someone 20 bucks and a bracket, it's no longer your money. Try to enjoy the tournament anyway.

And as always, tip your bartenders.

Bracket-busting for Dummies

It's that time of year. The ESPN networks are inundated with Jay Bilas and Joe Lunardi and that weasel Doug Gottleib. It's the one time of year we care about Sam Houston State and Belmont and Indiana State.

Kelly green looks good on everyone!

Dick Vitale's doctor is constantly on-call and Digger Phelps buys at least ten more ugly ties.

It's March Madness. It's sports heaven.

It's bracket time.

It's the time of year that every guy and a lot of awesome ladies (I know Texie falls in this category) has random ten- and five-dollar bills in their pockets on the off chance someone has a bracket pool going.

It's the time of year where somehow your best friend's girlfriend gets second place "because tigers wearing purple could never beat a black and red bearcat," (Which is true.. LSU sucks).

So what are the secrets? How does one win? Here's the no-guarantee, fool-proof way to (possibly) win your brackets.


Rule One: Make sure you go game by game. 

Picking the champion and then making your bracket fit accordingly is just ridiculous. Each match-up is unique and needs proper attention. You can't pick Pittsburgh to go to the Final Four if you don't even know who they'll play in the Sweet Sixteen.

Start with day one, top left. Work your way straight down. Move to the top right. Work your way straight down. Move to day two and repeat.

Try to make your winners fit the bracket. Not the other way around.

Rule Two: Ignore your alma mater.

I can't emphasize this one more. You know what I'm not doing this year? Picking Notre Dame to win the championship. You know what my friend Pete shouldn't do? Pick Purdue to win the championship.

The reason for this is three-parted:

1. Your favorite team probably isn't nearly as good as you think it is. It's just that simple.
2. Getting second place in your pool but watching your favorite team surprise you and win the tournament anyway is priceless. At least I assume it would be. It's win-win.
3. It's never good to have heart and finances riding on one game. It's why people have strokes and gambling problems.

On the other side, you should also not pick against teams who you consider even remotely close to rivals. You know why? They're probably way better than you think they are. Ask me again why I never make money off of Syracuse.

Rule Three: Rock beats scissors. Gut beats brain.

To be bluntly honest, sometimes your gut is smarter than your brain. Especially if you watch a lot of college basketball. You'll sit there and stare at a twelve-seeded Michigan State vs. five-seeded Xavier (a possible first round according to Lunardi).

You'll say to yourself, "Never bet against Tom Izzo in the tournament...but Xavier pushes for the sweet sixteen every year!..Michigan State is due and I always pick a twelve-seed to upset a five."

You know what? Stop talking to yourself. Close your eyes and take a deep breath. Michigan State sucks this year and you know it.

Remember, sometimes it's not "too obvious."

Rule Four: Globetrotters trump Bangers.

Also known as the Big East vs. the ACC rule, it basically says that the NCAA prefers its basketball to be fast-paced and completely non-physical. When filling out your bracket, remember that odds are, most Big East, and other physical, teams will not be able to adjust to the fluid, sissy style of basketball that NCAA referees seem to prefer in the tournament.

Rule Five: Some trends rarely, if ever, change.

Here are a list of things that I've noticed are as much a staple of the NCAA tournament as hearing "One Shining Moment":

How do you not give calls to this pretty face?

• There will, in fact, be at least one twelve-seed to upset a five-seed. Since 1985 and the beginning of the 64 team tournament, the five-seed is a mere 69-35 against the twelve-seed (66.35%).
• It's true, you shouldn't bet against Tom Izzo in the tournament.
• At least one mid-major (at best) team will make the sweet sixteen. If you have a hunch that Richmond can make it to the second weekend, you're probably still wrong. It'll be Belmont just to make you mad.
• Referees will be responsible for at least ten points a game for certain teams: Syracuse, Duke, North Carolina, Kentucky and Kansas (among others) will receive gift calls throughout the tournament. It's just the way it is.
• Mid-majors who receive top-four seedings are always disappointments. Butler last year was a rare exception.
• In a related trend, Gonzaga sucks. Mark Few cannot coach in the tournament. They've been overrated for a decade now and never stop disappointing their fans.
• And every year, without exception, I remember what a completely terrible song "One Shining Moment" is. I mean seriously, it's awful.

Rule Six: Have fun.

The basketball gods know when you take these things too seriously and they will do anything to get you committed into a psych ward.

Relax. Breathe.

And good luck.

Let the Games Begin

February 23rd, 2011. A day that will live in infamy.

Okay, that's a stretch but the gauntlet has been thrown nonetheless. On that fateful Wednesday evening in the basement of a local eatery, two great minds collided in a battle wits matched only by the showdown in Florin.  Man vs. Woman. Strength vs. Speed. Glen Livet vs. Texie Guinan.

The goal: Create the best ten-athlete roster from yesterday and today.

The rules:

1. Teams will consist of ten athletes drafted by each of us.
2. One athlete per sport. If an athlete plays multiple sports, you must declare that sport (i.e.- Deion Sanders can play baseball or football, not both)
3. At least one female athlete. I thought this would be tough but I realized the advantages of having a smaller frame running around out there.
4. Only one dead athlete. It just makes the discussion easier.
5. The teams will be based in a fantasy sports world. A "computer" will spit out a sport to which each team must adapt. This could range from football to curling to rhythmic gymnastics.
6. Two coaches will also be chosen. These will be the assistants working for the drafter.

So there we sat. A piece of paper and a pen on the table. A beer and a whiskey in front of us. Texie is first.

Surprising to most, but not to me, Texie's first pick is Jim Thorpe (most girls probably think Jim Thorpe is a John Wayne character or something). Couldn't pick a better number one star. For some reason, despite the fact that it isn't in the rules, I decided I also had to pick from the track: Jackie Joyner-Kersee. As a heptathlon competitor, I figured it was a nice well-rounded female pick. No Thorpe, of course, nor a great first round draft pick but if you're going to blow it, might as well blow it on Sports Illustrated for Women's choice as the greatest female athlete of all time, right?

Second round. She takes Jim Brown. My eyes raise up. An interesting pick. A tremendous runningback, sure, but to my knowledge he never really strayed from the realm of the gridiron. Not like my response: Frank Thomas. Thomas was a pretty good footballer in his own right, excelling at tight end for Auburn. Naturally I took him as a baseball player, but to get that kind of size and skill was invaluable to me.

Third round. Michael Phelps. Shit, I dropped the ball on that one. One of the greatest olympians of all time. A long body with tremendous endurance and lung capacity, Phelps would be a great asset in a variety of sports. My counter? Patrick Roy. Yeah, seven rounds too early and I paid for it. You'll see why in the next paragraph.

Really Texie?? You took Mohammed Ali? Dammit. Size, speed and balance? Power and quickness? Okay..I'm taking Tiger. Eventually your guys will have to use some form of hand-eye coordination and between Tiger and the Big Hurt I think I have you there.

And then Pele. Now personally I don't think soccer is a sport, but I will admit at least that many soccer players are good athletes much the same way a distance runner is. Pele was the best of all time in a "sport" that requires a lot of agility and endurance. I responded with what was actually a tough decision for me. I wanted either Sugar Ray Robinson or Sugar Ray Leonard. I went with Leonard. It's a huge debate as to who the "pound-for-pound" best fighter is and I don't know much about boxing. I went with the guy who fought in my lifetime.

Now is when Texie started falling apart. Any good sports fan knows that drafts are won in the late rounds and I believe I have that edge. She picked her favorite athlete of all time, Steffi Graf. Listen, I'm fine with saying she's the greatest female tennis player. She might have been. But would I want a female tennis player without the Williams sisters' steroids? I don't know. I countered with Michael Vick. Vick might be one of the most gifted athletes to ever play in the NFL. Maybe not the greatest passer or the fastest runner. Maybe not the smartest quarterback, either, but one thing you can't take away from him is his ability to lead a team and make plays with his eyes, arms and feet. I want that on my team.

Now she takes Bonnie Blair. I don't now what to say about her other than the fact that she might have the largest thighs on either team. This is when I play a wild card. I want a bad boy. A rule-breaker. I want Dennis Rodman. The Worm wasn't picked for his ability to rebound. He was picked to dig into opponents' brain and throw them off their game. I can't tell you how many times I watched all-stars and hall-of-famers crumble on the court due to his antics.

Texie now went with the ProStars approach. Back-to-back picks from the 90s cartoon, beginning with Bo Jackson. Now..we're taking these players in their prime, so I suppose his bionic knees aren't in play here. I just think it's funny she had to take the antithesis of Frank Thomas (better football player, worse at baseball..both from Auburn. Weird.). Maybe a wasted pick for me, I took Mia Hamm. I wanted another woman to counter her two women, and I figure if I had to pick a soccer player, it might as well be a chick. That's about all.

How it took us nine rounds to take His Airness, I don't know, but Texie completed her pair of ProStars with Michael Jordan. I'm still not certain I'm mad though. I'm not sure I'd want him and Tiger on the same team. I just don't see them getting along and they'd probably go off and start gambling on golf before a late breakfast at Perkins to check out the service staff. I brought out my favorite tennis player here, and as ironic fate would have it, I took Steffi's husband, Andre Agassi. No one does camera commercials like Agassi and I'll take his serve in case a doubles tennis match shows up.

I suppose if you like a small frame combined with speed, balance, agility and power, you'll like Texie's final pick: Nadia Comaneci. Hard to argue other than I'm not sure I'd want three women on my squad. Take her instead of Bonnie Blair and I'm on your side. And while we're in gymnastics arena, I'm taking Paul Hamm. I'm not sure why, I think it's because he's funny and I really respect what male gymnasts can do with that much muscle and flexibility. It's insane.

Next up were the coaches. I so win this. The greatest American philosopher, who apparently loved to coach basketball is the obvious first pick. What athlete wouldn't want to play for John Wooden? No one can touch his pedigree or the respect held by his peers and players and family and friends and strangers and fans and..well..everyone. I need an X's and O's guy, too, though. I need an innovative mind with a proven track record. I want Bill Walsh, the father of the west coast offense. Yes. That will do.

Texie's coaches aren't bad either. Not sure I'd take Lou Holtz like she did, but damned if he isn't one of the greatest motivators of our time, if not all of time. People love and respect that little bugger and the gods know that no referee or umpire would want to cross him. Her second pick was perfect. I knew who she needed for her list of prima donnas and egos, and she nailed it: Phil Jackson.

I win. I know I win. She doesn't have the size or speed that my team possesses. Sure she has balance and agility and maybe quickness but not all of the events are done with a pommel horse or rings.

In the future you'll see articles discussing our teams match ups in regards to specific sports. This is just the first part of what will be many, many blogs, I'm sure.

Enjoy. Discuss. Critique.

Let the games begin.

The Suicide of Dave Duerson

What is it going to take to get people to start helping these guys? Former professional football players (and I'm sure a lot of college and younger kids, too) are getting serious brain issues later in life.

Former Chicago Bear and Notre Dame defensive back, Dave Duerson, is the latest in a long line of deaths that are being directly attributed to brain damage caused by football injuries. Ironically, Duerson was an NFL Players Association rep as a member of a six-person committee that weighs disability claims for retired players. This same committee has come under fire from high-profile former players such as Mike Ditka as well as medical organizations and fans for denying benefits to veterans.

You can read more about Duerson's tragic suicide here: Duerson sent texts before suicide (ESPN)

The NFL isn't helping anything. Flagging and fining players for head shots isn't the solution. Hits to the head happen. It's just flat out part of the game. Nothing can prevent the brutal damage done due to the sheer size and speed of these players. I, myself, sustained more than a couple of concussions while merely playing high school ball. Now add a decade of seasons and an increase in talent.

What the NFL needs to do is focus its money and attention to preventing the damage, not the hits. The helmets need to be reevaluated and redeveloped. There has to be a way for some company to rake in on a patent for the helmet of the future.

I like the new rules on entering a game in which a player has sustained a concussion. I'm glad they're paying more attention to doctors than the players now. No NFL players wants to the leave the game. There are too many bonuses and incentives built into the contracts for skill players, and the others play for the love of the game. They don't want to lose their starting positions and they don't want to be called a baby by teammates and fans.

Players and coaches should not be allowed to make the decision on when someone is "healthy enough" to go back into the game. Doctors should be paid by the league and not the team. They should be an impartial entity designed specifically to ensure the safety of the players.

If the NFL is serious about protecting their players then they absolutely **MUST** start doing things to prevent injuries. Defensive players making upwards of ten million dollars a year don't care about a $50,000 fine for hitting a wide receiver "too hard". Sure they don't like to lose money, but they won't change the way they play the game. They've been playing the game a certain way for as much as twenty years and you can't un-teach that kind of mentality.

Build a better helmet. Give doctors more power.

Do something.

Reactions to the 2011 Conservative Political Action Conference

I know this circus conference is little more than an extremely early pep rally for politicians and voters, but its never too early to poke fun at some of the funnier quotes and moments brought to us by our red-wearing neighbors.

Generally looked upon as an early introduction to presidential hopefuls it seemed that the list of favorites is a who's who of people not named Mitt Romney (Idaho senator John Thune please stand up).

Romney appears to be one of the favorites having taken the last couple of years off after leaving the governor's mansion in Massachusetts for his last presidential run. His batteries are recharged and he has stayed out of the spotlight recently which is probably a good thing since he favored a mandatory health care reform that mirrors President Obama's and segregated himself from die-hard conservatives.

Ron Paul is back, taking John McCain's place as the old guy that many voters assume hates kids on his lawn. I actually kinda like his gun toting Texas attitude. It's cute like Yosemite Sam. Despite being considered one of the more conservative members of congress especially regarding the second amendment and abortion, he actually opposes radical legislation such as the Patriot Act, federal use of torture and the use of national identification. These views are easily pushed to the right by Paul, citing his firm belief that state governments should have maximum control of social laws.

Former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty is essentially Mitt Romney from ten years ago. Well known in republican circles and to his constituents but on a national level his name is just slightly more recognizable than John Thune (sorry Idaho). It'll be interesting to see how he postures himself as time goes on.

John Thune is from Idaho. I'm sorry, I just don't have the time to look this guy up just because he gave a speech. Michelle Bachmann is that chick with weird eyes than can't look into a camera, I think. Rick Santorum just needs to stop talking. He's a fairly young conservative with some potential in the republican party, but his inability to soften his language against gays and clergy will force the party to isolate him.

An interesting (and more personal) candidate may or not be Governor Mitch Daniels from Indiana. Personally I hate this guy. He's in his last term, thank the gods, but hasn't ruled out a push at the presidency. I'm pretty sure he'll try to sell off New Jersey to the French in order to reduce the debt. Selling the toll road is how Indiana has a surplus. Well, how Indianapolis has a surplus. Frankly the guy comes off as a con man.

He spoke of radical changes to social security and medicare; helping the impoverished and ending the war involving social issues. This mindset is going to rally a multitude of Americans who don't want debates over abortion and gay marriage but instead over fixing the deficit and creating more fiscal competence in the federal government.

But if he's so fiscally responsible why did the Bush administration, which hired Daniels as the budget director, create such financial problems? Why is Indiana's budget, although shrinking, relatively successful when it has one of the lowest educational rankings and highest unemployment rates? These issues must be addressed by a man who appears like a white knight in a land of red ink.

So to sum up, I'm not sure how to react to these candidates. I feel like it's similar to the ones running on the democratic side in 2008 minus the perfect storm of Barack Obama (youth, oration and a good smile). Hopefully they have to beat each other up so much in the next eight months that all the ammo is there already for the democrats to jump on.

I'm just glad we didn't have to listen to Sarah Palin.

Valentine's Day Irony in Indiana

It's almost Valentine's Day. Cheesy quotes and fluffy cards will be circulated with chocolates and flowers. Men will scramble for that last second gift in hopes to score some points with their ladies. Women will sweat wondering if their man will do something right or if they screw up yet another Hallmark holiday. Love is in the air and retailers are counting it by the c-note.

During all this fretting a serious debate looms in the Indiana House of Representatives. As early as Monday, the Republican-heavy House can vote to push forward a new amendment that seeks to ban gay marriage. As it stands, the marriage laws in Indiana explicitly deny same-sex marriages.

According to the Indiana constitution (as read on http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title31/ar11/ch1.html):
IC 31-11-1-1
Same sex marriages prohibited
     Sec. 1. (a) Only a female may marry a male. Only a smale may marry a female.
    (b) A marriage between persons of the same gender is void in Indiana even if the marriage is lawful in the place where it is solemnized.
As added by P.L.1-1997, SEC.3. Amended by P.L.198-1997, SEC.1.

Proponents of the law site that, as written, the law is susceptible to higher courts over turning the amendment. The new amendment, which would still need to be passed through the Republican-held state senate, must pass through two concurrent legislative sessions. In 2005 the amendment passed through one, but democrats took the House in 2006 ending the push.

With the Republicans holding majority again, it is less likely that the motion won't pass a second time in either 2013 or 2014. After a second passing, the amendment will find its way onto the next year's public ballot similar to California's (in)famous Proposition 8.

So enough of the social studies lecture. We need to fight this now.

According to the 2000 census, Indiana has over 16,000 same-sex couples raising children. That's just open relationships with children. How many are couples living in a shroud of secrecy aren't counted? How many have added to that total in the last ten years? How many aren't raising children for various reasons?

I'm scared for this state and this nation. I'm scared that we're disguising hate and intolerance in the name of fundamental religion and morality. I'm scared that louder conservative faction is covering up the growing progressive side.

For the first time since polling began on same-sex marriage, neither side holds a majority (CNN article). Based on an overwhelming social movement, Don't Ask-Don't Tell was revoked by the US court system. Conservative politicians and religious organizations are teaming up in many states hoping to write iron-clad legislation that they hope will supersede federal action.

We can't let our state fall to this tactic. We need to stand up and voice our beliefs louder than the opposition. It's time to stop being the silent members of society. It's time to stop letting this country be shaped by religious fundamental groups because there was no opposition in their way.

Contact your district representatives and tell them that the cat lady with a cross in her front yard doesn't speak for you. Tell them that your Jesus taught love and tolerance, not hate and exclusion.

Legislators by District
PDF map of districts
Find your elected officials

It's time to let our voices be heard and not to sit by and watch.

What the Hell Is Going On In Arizona?

So obviously we all know about this whole immigration law bullshit that Arizona governor Jan Brewer signed slightly less than a month ago. I'm not going to rehash this argument about the racist undertones and poor decision making which went into that bill.

Now Gov. Brewer has signed a new bill. According an LA Times article, "HB2281 bans schools from teaching classes that are designed for students of a particular ethnic group, promote resentment or advocate ethnic solidarity over treating pupils as individuals. The bill also bans classes that promote the overthrow of the U.S. government."

Just like the first bill, I get what the inspiration was. Brewer and the state of Arizona has an agenda to maintain American values, but at what cost?

I understand there needs to be immigration laws put into place. And not just in Arizona but nationwide. But giving cops the ability to profile immigrants wasn't the answer.

I understand they want to eliminate potential anti-American teachings within American schools. But that doesn't give the state the right to suffocate ethnic studies. Brainwashing them by preventing them from learning about their culture and history through arts and literature is NOT the answer here, either.

Teachers in grade schools and high schools are going to be looking over their shoulder at all times, worried that if they teach a book written by a Latino or Chicano author might end up getting them fired or losing the school part of their state budget money.

Are there books or movies or other forms of media that are negative towards America? Yes, of course. And maybe there should be a list of the truly evil ones that are banned from the schools. I get that. But eventually these students are going to begin thinking for themselves. Eventually they should be able to read those books and be allowed to have a discussion in the intentions of the author.

Eventually the students are going to read them anyway, shouldn't we be trying to provide the proper environment to maximize they're ability to understand them?

Ethnic studies have increased in popularity nationwide over the last couple of decades. Colleges and high schools everywhere, especially in ethnic-rich neighborhoods and cities, offer education in the relationship between their particular social structure and the nation they call home. 

That home has an infamous past. America has persecuted many different races over the last three hundred years. We've pushed the Native Americans as far west as possible and we've used slaves from Africa and cheap labor from China. We are not a perfect country.

Teaching these students a White-washed education is another step in Arizona adding to the list.

What's next? Are we going to eliminate gender studies as well before the women can read books about how chauvinistic our country is?

Elena Kagan: Why Does It Matter?

It all started by what was a horrible mistake (or a deliberate bad joke) by the Wall Street Journal. Showing Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan in a seventeen year old picture playing softball, the WSJ has now created a wave of "Is she or isn't she?" questions all over the nation.

Kagan and the White House has done nothing but ignore the topic and rightfully so. This is one of those topics that regardless of one's response to the question, both sides will get upset about it.

If they say she is a lesbian, the conservative groups will probably try to secede from the Union again based on their ability to overreact to every little detail and on the other end of the spectrum will start throwing parties in the streets that we finally have someone proud enough to say "Yes I am" while holding one of the most important positions in our nation.

If they say no, most people will believe she is anyway, just because that's how non-trusting our society is nowadays. But at least the reactions won't be over-reactions.

So what's the point in responding? It only makes people angry or judgmental no matter what is responded.

And that's the problem with this country. We preach acceptance and freedom but we make people afraid to earn both. Both sides (liberals and conservatives) are guilty of this, as well as all those in the middle. Whether you agree with the gay or lesbian lifestyle should have no bearing on whether or not Kagan deserves to be a justice on the Supreme Court.

It should be about her credentials as a judge. Tell me what's in her employment and ruling history, not her taste in men or women. I don't care about that.

The conservative response is predictable. "But she'll get to rule on topics like gay marriage and if she's gay she's going to be biased!" Well duh. But so will Bubba Jo from Alabama. It's a liberal president nominating a liberal judge. Most liberal judges are going to rule in favor marriage equality. Her being gay or not won't change the way she rules.

Remember when people used to emigrate to America from countries which persecuted them for their beliefs or their lifestyles? Isn't it a little scary to realize that we're one of those countries now?