The Iowa Caucus

There has been quite a bit of discussion over the Iowa Caucus taking place tonight regarding winners and losers, and what it will mean to the Presidential Nominations.  Personally, since my state has a primary, I am a bit confused as to what will actually occur today, but I have been reading up on the Caucus system.  I will attempt to break it down for you, along with the possible implications of tonights “vote”.

Today, in the Iowa Congressional Districts, people will gather with their neighbors, and listen to representatives of the Presidential Candidates (and sometimes, the candidates themselves) campaign for their vote.  The people will then cast their vote for who they would like to be their party’s presidential nominee.  The caucus does not allow for absentee votes (so, deployed military does not get to vote).  The caucus also lasts two hours, so anyone working or sick will likely not be able to cast a vote.

So, what does this mean?  The Iowa Caucus is generally considered the kick-off for the Presidential Nomination.  Super Tuesday is less than a month away, in which 19 primaries will be held.  The Iowa Caucus allows the winning candidate a good amount of momentum going into the New Hampshire Primary, although it does not mean they will win.  The Iowa Caucus also impacts fund raising, as someone who finishes 4th or 5th in the Iowa Caucus will likely have a difficult time rallying support. 

Generally speaking, a top three finish is what a candidate is looking for.  Top three allows the candidate to continue rolling and pick up a head of steam going into New Hampshire. 

Right now, the Republican vote looks to be split between Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, with either Rudy Giulliani or John McCain probably fighting for a third place spot.  Giulliani seems to be focused more on New Hampshire, which could hurt him in Iowa, and Fred Thompson (the candidate I WANT to back) will probably finish 5th.  This is of course, all speculation, as in 2004 John Kerry was figured to finish 4th and won the Caucus, and the eventual nomination.

On the Democrats side, Barack Obama is the smart money favorite to win Iowa, however, John Edwards could surprise some people.  Clinton will probably finish third, but she is expected to win NH easily, so there is still no clear favorite on the Democrats side of the aisle.  However, if John Edwards finishes third, he could likely be faced with a difficult decision, as he is not likely to finish better than third in NH.  Should he fare poorly today, don’t be surprised if he is soon backing Clinton, with the hope of a VP bid.

So, I will watch, and hope Fred Thompson somehow pulls out a strong showing today, because, to me, he is the best conservative candidate, and he is someone I could back without any hesitation.  If only he campaigned without hesitation…

Vacation

I want to apologize to my readers.  I went on a much needed, yet impromptu, vacation, and have not posted anything new in a few weeks.  With the Iowa Caucuses tonight, though, I plan a lengthy political post today.  Stay tuned….

The Mitchell Report

I know that I am not the only person in the blogosphere writing about this today. And I know I will not be the only person on radio talking about this tonight. However, the questions I want answered don’t seem to be the questions I am “hearing” asked. Let me start off by saying that there are dozens of “leaked” lists out there, and thus far, none of them have been correct, save one. ESPN.com has produced a list of players actually named in the Mitchell Report. Here is that list:

Marvin Benard, Barry Bonds, Bobby Estalella, Jason Giambi, Jeremy Giambi, Benito Santiago, Gary Sheffield, Randy Velarde, Lenny Dykstra, David Sequi, Larry Bigbie, Brian Roberts, Jack Cust, tim Laker, Josias Manzanillo, Todd Hundley, Mark Carreon, Hal Morris, Matt Franco, Rondell White, Roger Clemens, Andy Pettitte, Chuck Knoblauch, Jason Grimsley, Gregg Zaun, David Justice, F.P. Santangelo, Glenallen Hill, Mo Vaughn, Denny Neagle, Ron Villone, Ryan Franklin, Chris Donnels, Todd Williams, Phil Hiatt, Kevin Young, Mike Lansing, Cody McKay, Kent Mercker, Adam Piatt, Miguel Tejada, Jason Christiansen, Mike Stanton, Stephen Randolph, Jerry Hairson, Jr., Paul LoDuca, Adam Riggs, Bart Miadich, Fernando Vina, Kevin Brown, Eric Gagne, Mike Bell, Matt Herges, Gary Bennett, Jr., Jim Parque, Brendan Donnelly, Chad Allen, Jeff Williams, Howie Clark, Exavier “Nook” Logan, Rick Ankiel, Paul Byrd, Jay Gibbons, Troy Glaus, Jose Guillen, Gary Matthews, Jr., Scott Schoeneweis, David bell, Jose Canseco, Jason Grimsley, Darren Holmes, John Rocker, Ismael Valdez, Matt Williams, Steve Woodard

In all, 76 Major League Baseball Players (28 active) were named in connection to illegal perfomance enhancing drugs. This report covered MLB players between 1985 and 2007. Although 76 seems like a high number, I personally expected this list to be much larger.

Consider, if you will, that in 2003 MLB subjected all players to PED testing for the first time, without fear of reprecussion. This was an attempt to gauge how pervasive PED use was in baseball, and one of the substances that was not tested for was HGH (Human Growth Hormone). In this “survey”, 100 players tested positive for banned substances. So, my question is this, why are there ONLY 76 players on this report? How can a report that took more than a year, and millions of dollars to compile, not be comprehensive? Why was a report put out that does not show the full scope of the problem? And finally, what does this report do to/for baseball?

It is true that George Mitchell was severely hampered by the MLB Players Assosciation. It is also true that very few players volunteered to work with the commission. However, there were ex-players (Jose Canseco), and ex-employees (Kirk Radomski) willing to talk. And where are the 100 players who tested positive in 2003? At the very least, this report should have included them. Perfomance enhancing drugs are a problem across all sports, and the fact that the Mitchell Commission could not uncover more of the problem over the course of the investigation makes me question the overall integrity of the report.

In my opinion, this investigation was flawed from the start. I do not believe that George Mitchell set out to be the patsy of MLB. I also do not believe in a “Red Sox Bias”. I do believe, however, that MLB and The MLBPA did not want George Mitchell to really investigate anything. The fact that this investigation was carried out without any type of subpoena ability, and without the power of the Office of the Commissioner of Baseball behind it, proves that no one really wanted answers. Players were allowed to refuse to co-operate. If the Commissioner came out and stated that any player that was uncooperative would face fines and possible suspension, much more would have been accomplished. But instead, Mitchell and his investigative team were hampered at every turn by the MLBPA. An investigation can not be efficiently carried out with one of the largest, most powerful unions in the country blocking your efforts.

In the end, I don’t think this report will do much to baseball. In the end, people who want to believe that baseball is clean, will believe it. I don’t think the players named will be hampered when it comes to Hall of Fame voting. I don’t think players named will lose money. I don’t think players named will lose their jobs. Look at Jason Giambi. Giambi is named in the BALCO investigation, admits to using steroids in front of a grand jury, and even after his testimony is leaked, he is named AL Comeback Player of the Year. The fans do not care. This is proven every game, as stadiums are sold out all over the country, and baseball sets new attendance records almost yearly. Barry Bonds, perhaps the face of the steroid era, was consistently cheered when he continued to hit monstrous home runs.

Until MLB admits that there is a problem, and decides to move past it, we can never be free of the steroid era. Empty investigations like this, do not lead anywhere. Admit there is a problem, admit that, while flawed, the drug testing policy is better than what was previously in place, and move on. If MLB takes these steps, and continues working towards a better solution, the fans will eventually forget about the steroid era.

Here is one fan hoping this can happen.

The Golden Compass

Friday, the movie The Golden Compass opened in theatres, and judging from the trailers, I have to say that this movie is targeted at a younger demographic than the one writing this blog.  Also, let me say early on, that I HAVE NOT seen this movie.  I WILL NOT support this movie, therefore, until it comes out on one of the premium movie channels, I will not see this movie.  That being said, I will base my opinions, based on reviews, and statements made in the press by both sides of the argument.

 However, based on interviews, I can say the following are fact:

 This movie is based on Philip Pullman’s first book of His Dark Materials trilogy, a series of books about a girl traveling through multiple worlds inhabited by witches, polar bears, and ecclesiastical assassins to defeat the oppresive forces of the church, and eventually defeat a senile God.

Philip Pullman, a self-described agnostic/atheist (depending on the interview) has stated that he “does not profess any religion; I don’t think it’s possible that there is a God.”

Philip Pullman stated in a 2003 Interview “My books are about killing God.”

In a 2001 interview, Pullman stated that he was  “trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief.”

These are not my opinions.  These are direct statements taken from the Author, and each one of them can be found here http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/compass.asp

 Now, based on these statements, I must profess that I am quite happy that the film’s opening weekend has been deemed a disappointment by New Line Cinema, and that I am anticipating the film making even less money in the next few weeks, with I Am Legend and National Treasure 2 opening 12/14/07 and 12/21/07, respectively.  Hopefully, if this film continues to disappoint, that the second and third books will not be made, as they are significantly more anti-Christian than the first book.  I sincerely hope that a movie is never made in my lifetime, where the “Good Guys” kill God. 

Now, for those that are seeing this movie, and even for those that are taking their children to see it, I must ask:  What kind of message are we sending our kids?  I am all for free speech, as without it, this blog would not be possible, but are we really doing our kids a service by undermining the faith that this country was built on?  This film is being marketed to children, and what better way to stunt the church, but to corrupt children, and drive them away.

On the plus side (if there is one), is that this movie has allowed us to open a dialogue with our children.  Hopefully, this movie will have the exact opposite effect than the author intended, and will drive people to the church in search of answers.  One can only pray that this be the case.

Why my Sattelite company is pissing me off….

I am with a pretty well known sat provider, and I have an issue.  Their direct competition is currently running a special, offering a free HD DVR, which I really, really want.  So, I contacted my provider, asking what they would do to keep my business.  Their response, nothing.  They would not match the competitions offer of a free HD DVR, and they would rather lose a customer.  Their answer was pretty much yes.  So, I am probably going to switch providers, and take my money elsewhere.