Gimme Some Truth

Quizno's Baby

2005-04-15T09:05:00.000-07:00

Now that's one scary little bastard.

Eat it, Red Sox

2005-04-08T10:22:00.000-07:00

Sorry there haven't been any updates here lately. I've been pretty busy with StopAnnCoulter.com. Fortunately, the StopAnnCoulter.com Religion Correspondent Peter Gray was willing to write this week's column review (which will be up this afternoon), so I thought I'd use this free time to talk about baseball.

This is borderline blasphemy, but on Opening Night this year, I cheered for the Yankees to beat the Red Sox. I did, I'll admit it. And it's not that I like the Yankees - I despise the Yankees. But I'm quickly coming to the somewhat confusing realization that I despise the Boston Red Sox.

I know what your thinking. "Scott, don't be so bitter. You're just pissed that the BoSox made your Cards look like a AA team in the Series last year. Red Sox Nation for life, baby!" Or something like that. And I'm sure there's some truth to that, but my hatred for the Red Sox had come to full fruition before the World Series even started last year. So I present to you, the case against the Red Sox:

The Red Sox are essentially the Yankees in a dishevled costume. They present themselves as a blue collar, laid back, populist kind of ball club. But that's total crap. They have the second-highest payroll in the league. The Sox and the Yankees are the only teams above the cap this year. You can't have a payroll of over $100 million and be blue collar. Hell, the Devil Rays aren't blue collar (Manny Ramirez and Curt Schilling together make more than the entire Devil Rays team). The Yankees payroll is certainly higher than the Sox, but at least the Yankees don't try to disguise their wealth behind long hair, shaggy beards, and a laid back persona. Not that there's anything wrong with long hair and shaggy beards - in fact, I think both are extremely cool. However, when you are contractually bound to keep your long hair and beard because of a book deal (Johnny Damon), then you are undermining everything that's great about that look.

This brings me to the double standard in the sports media. When the Sox were down 3-0 in the ALCS last year, everyone on SportsCenter said, "The Red Sox are simply being outclassed. They don't take themselves or the game seriously enough." But when they made the miraculous comeback, the tune changed: "Oh, look how laid back and loose they are. It's so refreshing." Get out of my face.

And here's another problem with Red Sox Nation. For all the 80 year old men out there who had been waiting their entire lives to see a Red Sox championship, I feel great for them. Congrats, you've earned it. But let me speak to Red Sox fans who are my age (20somethings) or younger. Don't give me that crap about the curse and the pain of being a Red Sox fan. The last time the Cards won a World Series, I was four months old. So I'm in as much "pain" as any of you douchebags (not you, Kels, you're not a douchebag, and I know you've been a Sox fan for quite awhile - unlike the hordes of Red Sox fans who were sucked in over the past two seasons).

Being a Cardinals fan is absolutely glorious, even though we choked so badly in the Series. The Cardinals represent greatness - more World Series titles in their history than any other team in baseball except for the Yankees, and the most in the only real league in the game (get rid of the DH, and we can talk, American League). Set in a medium-sized market, St. Louis is consistently picked as the best baseball town in America. Why? There aren't 18,000 HBO special about them. They aren't nearly as marketable as the Sox or the Yanks. It's because their fans know and love the game of baseball. As they rolled to the best record in baseball last year, they still managed to fly under the radar of the Sox/Yanks. The Cardinals (and the Cubs, too, as much I hate to say it) represent the heartland, the pulse of America, not the urban jungles of the northeast. The Cardinals have built a fan base that stretches all over the country, and they have done it with unmatched class. Are the Cardinals a blue-collar team? Hell no. No MLB team is. But they represent a classiness and love for the beauty of baseball that is forgotten in the tabloid rivalry of the Yanks and Sox.

So there you have it, Red Sox fans. You can take "Fever Pitch" and Manny Ramirez and go jump in the Harbor. And what's with all the A-Rod insults during the offseason? You won the title! Just shut up and enjoy it! You're no longer "loveable losers," and the pitiful identity you've fabricated over the years is gone. Congratulations on the World Series, maybe now you can get back to being a baseball team and baseball fans instead of fairweather, whining goofballs. Eat it, Red Sox Nation. Cardinals win.

------------------------------------

And now, the official "Gimme Some Truth" predictions for the 2005 season. The teams you should cheer for idea is completely stolen from Brian's blog.

NL East
Champ: Atlanta Braves
Team to cheer for: Washington Nationals
NL Central
Champ: St. Louis Cardinals
Team to cheer for: St. Louis Cardinals
NL West
Champ: San Diego Padres
Team to cheer for: San Diego Padres
NL Wild Card: Florida Marlins

AL East
Champ: New York Yankees
Team to cheer for: Baltimore Orioles
AL Central
Champ: Minnesota Twins
Team to cheer for: Anyone but the Royals (God, I hate the Royals)
AL West
Champ: Anaheim Angels
Team to cheer for: Oakland A's
AL Wild Card: Boston Red Sox (bastards!)

NLCS: St. Louis Cardinals vs. Florida Marlins
ALCS: New York Yankees vs. Boston Red Sox (gross)
World Series: St. Louis Cardinals defeat the Yankees in the last game ever at Busch Stadium. Glorious.

StopAnnCoulter.com

2005-03-03T08:43:00.000-08:00

StopAnnCoulter.com is now completely up and running. Check it out and let me know what you think. Comments, suggestions, and contributions are welcome.

More Notes

2005-02-21T09:15:00.000-08:00

Gay Marraige
Gay marraige is a tricky issue. There are numerous good arguments to be made on both sides. For those who oppose gay marraige, I feel like the strongest argument is that marraige, of any kind, is a religious institution and should be approached as such. The legal system is not the place to define marraige but to legally recognize unions. I probably disagree with this, but this is certainly a respectable position to take. What is not, in my opinion, a respectable position is to say that gay marraige undermines non-gay marraige. That's just ridiculous. If Frank and Jeff's marraige somehow waters down the sanctity of Jill and Henry's marraige, then there are problems with Jill and Henry's marraige.

Ann Coulter Is Going Down
Late Friday night at about 1:30 AM or so, I was watching Hannity & Colmes on Fox News, as I tend to do. Ann Coulter was a guest, and it was absolutely awful. I got so angry watching her act like a child that I started to wonder who pays this woman. I thought I might write letters to all publications who pay her for her work to inquire about why anyone would pay her to espouse such nonsense. She is such a terrible human being, and I think people need to know this. She's got to be stopped, and I decided that letter writing was insufficient. My anger could wear off, but it hasn't yet, and I've just registered the domain name www.stopanncoulter.com. If people have experience and tips about running a real webpage, drop me a line. I hope to have it up within a few days. Check back for more details later.

Have a nice Monday, everyone.

Random Notes

2005-02-15T10:39:00.000-08:00

Sorry for the unannounced hiatus. I took the LSAT this past weekend and have just been generally distracted by that and other things. Also, a new blog will be starting sometime soon, authored by yours truly, Wil Oakes, Brian Hall, John Rogers, and Patrick Kelso. More later about that exciting project. But until then, here are my brief thoughts on things that have happened since my last post.

The 47th Grammy Awards
OK, I'm going to go ahead and say it. Green Day got screwed by a dead guy. All due respect to the late Ray Charles and his storied career, but Green Day's great album "American Idiot" fell victim to sympathy. Don't get me wrong here. I like Ray Charles. I think you'd have to be clinically insane to not at least kind of like Ray Charles, but even his biggest fans admit that "Genius Loves Company" is not even in the same league as his best work. "American Idiot", on the other hand, is, by far, Green Day's masterpiece. In an era where the whole concept of the album continues to decline, Green Day came out with a politically charged, intelligent, and coherent record with recurring themes and a storyline - a "punk rock opera" as they call it. An album like this is highly ambitious, but it works. "Genius Loves Company" is a compilation of duets, at least some of which were not written by Mr. Charles. Indeed, Ray Charles deserves to be honored, but lets face it people - Green Day got screwed. They did receive the award for Best Rock Album, but that was a given. I really think the Grammy's dropped the ball on this one. But I guess getting screwed by the man is what punk rock is all about.

Baseball!
Pitchers and catchers report to Spring Training today for many teams, marking the glorious birth of baseball in 2005. Yes, it is still six weeks until the season actually begins, but this is light of hope in the darkness of a winter without hockey. Wait, what's that? Nobody likes hockey? Oh yeah, I forgot. Anyway, baseball, steroids craziness aside, is still pretty glorious, and today marks the inevitability of its triumphant return.

More to come soon, I promise.

Social Security and Taxation

2005-01-25T11:50:00.000-08:00

I had a conversation with a more conservative friend of mine this past weekend about taxes and social security. I've been thinking and reading about the issue of social security for some time now with the privatization efforts in full swing, and I've developed a theory, upon which I will elaborate: The desire, on the part of wealthy and middle class Americans, to privatize social security and lower taxes comes less from a philosophical opposition to taxes and more from a fundamental misunderstanding of real poverty. This friend of mine, like many people, constantly complains about taxes. He claims that his working overtime for a week bumped him up into a different tax bracket and he ended up making less for 48 hours than he would have for 40. Now, if this is true, then it was a mistake on the part of his employer and he can file that and get refunded. But that's beside the point. This is really just his latest talking point to use in his justification for drastic tax reform (He supports a flat tax). I feel that many opponents of social security think that it's essentially a welfare system, and they resent it because it's redistributive. And why would they resent something that's at all redistributive? Because of a fundamental misunderstanding of poverty.

OK, let me back up a little bit. First let me note that social security is not in crisis. It's just not. If you oppose it on some philosophical level, fine, but don't lie and says it's in crisis. President Bush probably knows there isn't a crisis, so he's trying to scare people into supporting his agenda. The social security system has been and continues to take in more than in gives out so that it will avoid a crisis when the baby boom generation becomes eligible. We are fifty years or so away from any kind of "crisis" at all, and we could help avoid such a long term problem by not cutting taxes the way we are and not running up $855 billion dollars in deficits over the next decade like our supposedly fiscally conservative Republican brethren would like to do. I'm not going to go into great detail here, but you can read about the fabricated nature of this "crisis" just about anywhere. The Republicans are just wrong on this issue, and the evidence is against them.

But back to my friend. During our conversation I asked him if he actually resented taxes coming out of his paycheck or if he was just saying that because it's the official creed of American conservatism. He said he actually does resent it because he is now poor and needs that extra little bit of money. I reminded him that he makes $23,000 a year, to which he responded, "Exactly! I'm poor. That's the definition of lower middle class." That's when it hit me. He has absolutely no understanding of poverty. So here's a quick lesson for him. According to the U.S. government, the poverty threshold for one person (no dependents) for 2003 was $9,393. Which puts my friend at over twice the threshold. In fact, between him and his two roommates, they are well above the country's average household income.

Furthermore, my friend spent a considerable amount of time trying to convince me that poor folks hate social security. (I guess he should know since he's poor, right?) Now, he couldn't point to a single poor person to back up this ridiculous claim, which highlights how little he knows about poverty. While he whines about a few dollars coming out of his paycheck, other people are making a very weak minimum wage and struggling to pay the rent and put food on the table for their families. And social security helps to relieve this burden for older folks. Elderly people won't have to work sixty or seventy hours a week to feed themselves. And it works. Social security works. It's the most successful social program in our nation's history. It's not in crisis, it helps millions of people, and it hurts nobody. Unless you really want to argue that a few dollars (money that you, too, will see when you become eligible) out of your $23,000/year salary are hurting you. And then you're just being a dick. Taxes are part of the system. Get over it.

Remembering the Dream

2005-01-17T10:26:00.000-08:00

On August 28, 1963, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., delivered his famous "I Have a Dream" speech from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, DC. Perhaps the most powerful voice of the civil rights movement, Dr. King spoke that day of his vision for America - a nation that was no longer being strangled by the rope of segregation and racism. It was one of Dr. King's most powerful speeches he ever gave, and, interestingly enough, he came up with the "I have a dream" part of the speech on the spot. He had another ending written, but spontaneously nixed it and delivered the lines that would become his most famous. The text of the speech can be found here, and an mp3 of the speech can be downloaded here.

Certainly we have come a long way towards achieving the dream that Dr. King spoke of some forty years ago. But we have not come far enough. This is the major point that I want to make - we have not come far enough. There is still a major problem with race in this country, and anyone with eyes can see it. The socio-economic gap between whites and minorities is drastic and doesn't appear to be significantly improving. A Wall Street Journal report detailed a study in which job applications were sent to various employers that were exactly the same, except for the race line. Others were sent that were the exact same save for a couple of other variables, such as criminal record. The results are stunning. Not only does the white person have a much greater chance of getting called back than the black person with the same resume, the study showed that a white person with a criminal record has a better chance of getting hired that a black person with no criminal record. This is institutional racism, and it is alive and well in 2005, 42 years after the "I Have a Dream" speech.

But let me back up for a second. I'm not trying to point fingers and yell "racist!" at the individuals who denied blacks with no criminal records while calling back white criminals. This is a problem that runs much deeper, into the subconscious of individuals as well as the culture. There is a subconscious tendency towards discrimination - a tendency that I believe is the result of hundreds of years of a systemic divide between races. And I have no doubt that I am as guilty of this as anyone, because I am a product of the culture. But we can't just say that it's a cultural problem and leave it at that. We have to fight for the dream that Dr. King spoke of, and step one in the fight is to face the reality that race is still a problem.

One of my biggest problems with conservative America is how they handle the race issue. You won't often hear a conservative in America start a conversation about race, but you will often hear them being very defensive about it. You're not going to hear Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity say that there is still a race problem in this country. You might hear them defend themselves or their party against accusations of racism or say that we now have racial equality to the point that things like affirmative action aren't necessary. And this is a big problem, because I believe that this denial and defensiveness is the major element that is stifling the discussion of race in America.

It is not enough, especially today as we honor Dr. King's legacy, to say that things are better now that they were in 1963. Of course they are, that's an easy thing to say. What's not easy, however, is to face today's reality of racism - a more subtle yet very institutional form of racism. And accepting this challenge and opening ourselves, as a culture, to a renewed discussion of race in America is a far greater way of honoring the life and activism of Dr. King.

Sudan Peace Agreement

2005-01-13T11:37:00.000-08:00

Buried in the craziness of the holiday season was a bit of really extraordinary news. Representatives for both the Sudanese government and rebel forces signed a peace agreement, ending a 21-year civil war that has killed 2.5 million to date. This is really great news, even though I've heard little more than a brief mention of it the mainstream media. The agreement gives hope to the countless refugees and victims of the violence that peace can be achieved. Indeed, it would be naive to think that this agreement will make all violence end immediately. Unfortunately there has been a great deal of violence in Darfur since the signing, but it does show that the two sides (or at least the leadership of the two sides) are now willing to work with each other. We can only hope that this is a good sign of things to come. It is my personal hope that the American government will be willing to actively help out in any way they can, be that through advisory or diplomatic means. America - the government, people, and media - have not given this nearly the attention that they have given Israel/Palestine, Iraq, and others, even though this has been one of the deadliest wars of the last twenty years. For a quick summation of the history of the conflict, visit the Center for Religious Freedom's Sudan page. For a wealth of information and recent news from Sudan, visit Sudan.net.

The Bowl Championship Series

2005-01-12T10:02:00.000-08:00

It's kind of weird to write about the sports world after writing about something as important as the tsunami, but I'm going to do it anyway. Mainly because I love sports. Is being a sports fan escapism to some extent? Sure. But sports also tap into a part of the human spirit that nothing else quite touches. We, as fans, are drawn to the way that a great player can, at times, take on a kind of transcendental nature and perform at a superhuman level (Peyton Manning this year, Barry Bonds every year). Yet we are also draw to the way that a great team with a great chemistry can execute highly complicated plays with ease and grace. The fact that we are drawn to the interwoven successes of the team and the individual is very much indicative of the American spirit.

Now, that being said, I would like to talk about something in sports daily that completely undercuts all the we love about sports. And that thing is the college football Bowl Championship Series. The most exciting time of the year in any sport is the postseason, when the best teams in the league square off in tournaments of varying structures to determine the year's champion. Every major sport on every level uses some kind of tournament or playoff to determine the champion. Every sport, this is, except for Division I-A NCAA football. Even all of the lower divisions in college football use a playoff system. Instead, they use a system called the Bowl Championship Series - a complex amalgamation of computer rankings, human polls, and math intended to determine who the best two teams in the country are at the end of the season. The top two teams in the BCS rankings play each other for the national championship. There are, of course, many problems with this. This year there were five undefeated teams, three of whom play in major conferences. Auburn, which was undefeated, plays in the Southeastern Conference, the best football conference in the country. Yet they were ranked #3 by the complex system and were left out of the championship game. The top two, Southern California and Oklahoma played in the championship game - a game in which USC destroyed Oklahoma.

I could argue that the other two undefeated teams (Boise St. and Utah) as well as other great teams like Texas (one loss) deserved a shot at the title, as well. But the Auburn situation is inexcusable. They won their consolation bowl game and ended 13-0, the only 13-0 team in history not to win at least a share of the national title. And what do I mean by share of the title? Because of the complexity of the system, there are cases when the BCS and the Associated Press disagree on the #1 team at the end of the year. Last year, for example, the BCS title game winner, LSU, was #2 in the final AP poll behind USC. So what happened? Both teams claimed were declared national champions! Hell, I guess we don't need a World Series or even playoffs in baseball. That would have been great for me this year. The Cardinals, having the best regular season record, could have just been declared champions as soon as the season ended, rather than getting swept in the World Series.

Now it is important to note that another major flaw in the system is that some teams can't win a national championship, no matter what. Since the computer rankings are based heavily on strength of schedule, only teams who play in major conferences realistically have a chance. Of course some of the smaller conference schools could schedule tougher opponents, but not every team can do that. And that ruins the purity of the start of a new season, because a large number of teams know from the outset that they can't win a title, no matter how well they play.

And the driving force behind this entire farce is money. And this blatantly undermines the beauty of college sports, in particular. College athletes aren't getting paid, most of them will never be professional athletes, yet they play with a passion that the pros can't match. Nonetheless it's money that drives a champion that is determined largely by computers. It's money, tied up in bowl sponsors and TV contracts and such, that prevents college football from being able to determine its champion the way it's meant to be determined - on the playing field.

Tsunami, Etc.

2005-01-06T12:03:00.000-08:00

Hello all, and Happy New Year. I'm back from my holiday hiatus, and there are lots of things to discuss. Over the next few days, I'll be weighing in on the signing of the Sudan peace agreement, the college football Bowl Championship Series system, and events surrounding the recently convened Congress. However, today I want to discuss the December 26 tsunami and issues surrounding it. First off, click the banner above if you would like to contribute money to UNICEF's tsunami relief efforts. This is probably the most devastating natural disaster of our time, and hundreds of thousands of people, many of whom are children, are without food and shelter. UNICEF and many other organizations are working to provide food and shelter for these people whose lives have been shattered.

Now, one of the things that I've noticed during the coverage of the tsunami and its fallout is America's obsession with "human interest" stories. I've decided that we need to be more specific, however, and admit that we only care about American human interest stories. We can hear on the radio, see on TV, and read in the papers about how many dozens of Americans might have been killed in the disaster or what Americans survived the event to be joyously reunited with their families. Let me make this as clear as I can. The international death toll is currently hovering around 150,000, and the United Nations warned today that this number could double before the dust settles. 300,000 people possibly killed, and hundreds of thousands of others struggling to survive right now. Early estimates show that about one third of the victims were children. Yet somehow these number don't tug at our heart strings the way the comparatively tiny number of American casualties do. This is a travesty, and, I believe, a testament to our general isolationist attitude toward the rest of the world. 300,000 people dead. Whatever producers or editors who made the decision to devote airtime and print space (usually more prominent space than the coverage of international casualties receives) should be given the axe immediately. There's absolutely no excuse for this kind of journalistic irresponsibility.

Now, moving onto the international aid aspect of the ordeal. Countries all over the world are pouring money and resources into Southeast Asia in an inspiring display of unified support. The United States government has certainly come around significantly from their initial pledge of a mere $15 million, raising their promise to $350 million (White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan has repeatedly lied about this, claiming the $350 million was our initial pledge). This increase came on the heels of comments made by Jan Egeland, United Nations emergency relief coordinator, where she suggested that the wealthiest nations in the world were being "stingy" toward the poorest nations in the world. It's no surprise, of course, that the throngs of Bush Administration ass-kissers were enraged at the accusation doesn't give enough in foreign aid. "We give away more than anyone," I can hear Limbaugh saying in his guttural tone. However, when you evaluate foreign aid by percentage of gross national product, the US doesn't look so generous. Norway devotes 0.92 percent of its GDP to humanitarian aid and development. Denmark, 0.84 percent. Our apparent nemesis, France, 0.4 percent. The US, 0.14 percent. So we don't make the sacrifices that other countries make in the foreign aid department. And in this case, we can't even claim that we've contributed the largest volume, GDP percentages aside. A number of countries have promised more money that they U.S. Among these are Japan and Germany, the latter promising the equivalent of $674 million US dollars.

Don't get me wrong, it's great that we're contributing what we are, but we could certainly be a lot better. I think calling us "stingy" is probably a stretch, but we are certainly not being liberal with our tsunami relief donations. We are giving a very average amount of aid, and personally, I think that for the wealthiest, most powerful country in the world, average just isn't good enough. Please consider clicking on the banner above to donate money, or click here for a list of other resources.

FBI Agents Witnessed Prisoner Abuse

2004-12-22T08:27:00.000-08:00

Pro-war pundits often criticize anyone who leans left of dwelling on the negative aspects of the war in Iraq and its fallout. These same folks also really hate the American Civil Liberties Union. On his June 2 radio show, our good friend Bill O'Reilly claimed that the ACLU was "the most dangerous organization in the United Sates right now." He continued, "They're, like, second to al-Qaeda." On his television show that same night he referred to the ACLU as "fascist." It's tempting here to educate Mr. O'Reilly on what "fascism" means so that perhaps he wouldn't say such ridiculous and inflammatory things anymore, but who am I kidding? Joseph Farah, founder, editor, and CEO of conservative website WorldNetDaily.com, wrote about the ACLU in his November 17 column: It (the ACLU) is an organization in league with the devil, as far as I am concerned."

So it shouldn't be a surprise when the smearing of the ACLU's recent torture allegations begins. Even if they are less allegations and more actual documents. Without going into great detail (see the ACLU's website), documents obtained by the ACLU through the Freedom of Information Act detail memos and emails sent by FBI agents to their superiors complaining of the prisoner abuse that they were witnessing in Guantanamo Bay and Iraq. On multiple occasions, FBI agents reported that Defense Department interrogators would impersonate FBI officials. These FBI agents apparently felt that this was an attempt to exploit the rapport that they had established with inmates. Also, they were concerned that if any of the tactics that they were witnessing went public, the FBI would take the heat.

These documents detail a number of grisly "interrogation" methods, including putting lit cigarettes in detainees' ears, knocking them unconscious, spitting on them, allowing them to remain tied up in their own feces and urine for extended periods of time, and various humiliation tactics, including wrapping them in Israeli flags. One of the memos notes that this and other techniques were approved by the Deputy Defense Secretary, Paul Wolfowitz. Another email suggests that these tactics were in line with an executive order received from the White House. While the White House vehemently denies this allegation, the repetition of these claims by multiple FBI agents should be a red flag.

Indeed, if there is even a fraction of truth to any of these claims, we've got serious problems. How can our president have the gall to say, "They hate us because of our freedom" when atrocities such as these are being committed by our own people. How quick we are to condemn our enemies for actions that we can't control ourselves! What will the reaction to these documents be? The O'Reilly's of the world (do you like how this is Bash Bill O'Reilly Week?) will probably just keep slandering the ACLU rather than address the problem. And it is a problem - a very serious one, indeed. Things like this don't just slightly damage American credibility, they destroy it. Every time something like this comes to light, a new group of terrorists are born. Those in the Arab world whom we desperately need to reach out to are moving closer and closer to the extremists every time a new report comes out. And, if you want to be completely irresponsible, you can blame the ACLU for uncovering these documents. However, if there is any truth at all to these documents, the only responsible thing to do is to work to end this kind of treatment. We can't be the beacon of hope and freedom the President Bush refers to while condoning these atrocities. It's time for the President and his buddies in the Pentagon to grow up and show some responsibility. This is the only way we can start to rebuild the credibility that they have so irresponsibly shattered.

Merry Christmas vs. Happy Holidays

2004-12-21T11:26:00.000-08:00

It must be a slow season for news. You wouldn't think this would be the case with the war and all, but I think the media is suffering Post-Election Withdrawal Syndrome (PEWS). Normally, the media deals with the onset of PEWS by devoting excessive amounts of coverage to minimally important issues such as Scott Peterson or how dudes making out is going to destroy society as we know it. Now, however, the holiday season is upon us, which can make for hours of "Christmas 2004" coverage. This season, thanks to Bill O'Reilly, one of the bigger stories has been "Christmas Under Siege" (fade in ominous music). He regularly argues that secularists are undermining traditional American values by driving Christmas out of the public light wherever possible. A frequent example of this is the increased usage of "Happy Holidays" as opposed to "Merry Christmas" by advertisers and the like. Proponents of "Happy Holidays" argue that their phrase covers all holidays celebrated during this season, including Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, New Years, etc. The O'Reillys of the world argue that we are a nation founded on Christian principles and that Christmas is the centerpiece of the season.

So that's the big story, and apparently the implications of this manufactured controversy are enormous. I actually had no idea that saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" was a viscous ploy to undermine the sanctity of Christmas, but that's probably just my evil secularism talking. It's very strange, though, how folks like O'Reilly are so sensitive about this. They treat Christmas like overly protective parents treat teenagers. So here's my message to O'Reilly: It's ok, Bill, Christmas is a big boy. I think he can handle being lumped in with Hanukkah. This is a season of peace and love, right? Why not throw a little inclusion into the mix as well.

And my message to anyone who thinks that this is actually a newsworthy issue: Get over it. In this season of celebration and hope and love, Americans and Iraqis alike are dying by the dozen in a war that we started. I know that's not pleasant to hear, but it is reality. Christmas being under siege is not. So let's allow the message of peace that is inherent in the Christmas season be that which points us towards the things that are really important. And from all of us at Gimme Some Truth to all of you out there (especially Bill O'Reilly), Happy Holidays.

Here is a good article by Rabbi Michael Lerner

Washington Post Article

2004-12-20T06:57:00.000-08:00

The following article from Saturday's Washington Post details a study on the rise in the murder rate of pregnant mothers. Indeed, this seems to bolster my argument that the Scott Peterson trial was grossly over-publicized to the detriment of the credibility of mainstream American media.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6732499/

Oakes Films Limited

2004-12-17T10:15:00.000-08:00

Check out my roommate's independent film company, Oakes Films Limited. You can download his new short film based on none other than yours truly. It is entitled "A Day in the Life of Scott Davis." As the website says, he truly is a visionary.

Unions for Millionaires?

2004-12-15T13:10:00.000-08:00

I am a huge baseball fan. More specifically, I am a huge St. Louis Cardinals fan. I will even go so far as to say, as one of my roommates recently noted, that the St. Louis Cardinals are the greatest franchise in American sports history. Sure, they are second to the Yankees in World Series championships (by a mere 17), but they have had great success without compromising their integrity the way the Yankees have. The Yankees play in a huge market and use their status as the richest franchinse in baseball to drive the success of their team. The Cardinals do not have that option. They are a middle market team that is driven by a loyal fan base and the fact that players want to play there, often when they could make more money elsewhere. And why not? Anything short of perfection in New York and you're booed out of the ballpark. Cardinals fans stick with their players, through slumps and streaks. You won't ever hear of Cardinals fans treating their players with the contempt that you find in the Bronx for Derek Jeter when he dares to go 0-5 in a game. This being said, you can imagine my heartbreak this past November when the greatest team in baseball completely fell apart in the World Series, dropping four straight to the Boston Red Sox. But this is not intended to be a piece about the glory and sorrow of being a Cardinals fan.

Today, the Boston Globe reported that the Cardinals' star shortstop Edgar Renteria has signed with the Red Sox. This comes on the heels of reports yesterday that Renteria was going to accept less money to stay in St. Louis, where he was comfortable. This, of course, makes perfect sense. When you're completely comfortable with a city, a group of teammates, trainers, and coaches, and you're already making $8 million a year, what is an extra million anyway? Ay, but here's the rub. A number of sources, including Cardinals manager Tony LaRussa, have mentioned that Renteria was under fairly intense pressure from the Major League Baseball Players Union to accept the deal from the Red Sox. The reasoning is that the Red Sox offered more money, and by taking a "cut" to stay in St. Louis, Renteria would drive down the market value of other players.

This kills me. My understanding is that unions exist to protect the rights and well-being of its members. In this case (and others in the past, most notably the doomed Alex Rodriguez/Manny Ramirez deal of last year), the union reportedly pressured Renteria into taking more money, even though he may have wanted to stay in St. Louis for slightly less money. Now, it should be noted that much of this report is speculation and rumor, but that doesn't detract for my general point, because things like this have happened often in recent years. When you have a situation like this where a union is coercing a group of millionaires to always take the most money regardless of whether or not they might have to go somewhere they doesn't want to be, it makes a mockery of the entire idea of a labor union. It's essentially a mockery to refer to a bunch of millionaires who get to play baseball for a living as laborers.

Let me say here that unions are great. I am a totally pro-union guy. They have done great things for working class Americans throughout our nation's history. But let's crunch some numbers. The median salary for an American worker who is a member of a union is approximately $740 per week, as opposed to $587 for non-union members. This makes an extraordinary difference for average people working to support their families. Now, if you take the average salary for a major league baseball player in 2004 ($2,486,609) and calculate the average ballplayer's weekly earnings, it comes out to $47,819.40. Hmmm. So, tell me again why these millionaires need a "labor" union. To prevent that weekly salary from dropping to $42,000?

Now I do think that the players union does provide some valuable services to its players, helping protect identity rights and other legal services. But no union, especially one representing very wealthy individuals, should try to thwart the desires of its members. By coercing its members to always taking the most money, the beauty and sanctity of the greatest game of all time is further diluted. The MLBPA apparently assumes that what is purely the best financial situation for its members must actually be the best situation, and this makes money more important that game, which is a problem that certainly needs no further exacerbation. Especially by a labor union.

Scott Peterson

2004-12-14T11:31:00.000-08:00

OK, I need to start here with a disclaimer: I have not been following the Scott Peterson trial very closely. . .ok, I haven't been following the Scott Peterson trial at all. All I know is whatever I sat through on the various news networks while waiting for them to get back to apparently less important subjects like the election. So i apologize for any possible factual inaccuracies.

Yesterday afternoon, the jury delivered its sentencing recommendation in the murder case of Scott Peterson. The choice was between life in prison or the death penalty for the recently convicted Peterson, and the jury chose death. This group of twelve of Scott Peterson's peers were convinced, based on what they knew (and, admittedly, their feelings about him), that Scott Peterson does not deserve to live. I have had serious problems with this entire case from the very beginning, and my criticisms come from a couple of different fronts. First, lets approach it from a media criticism perspective, since many of the other problems essentially stem from there. From the very beginning, it seemed strange to me that the national media latched on to this case so rabidly. Call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure that people kill their wives on a far more regular basis than the national media would have you think. It happens all the time, but why did this case get singled out? Answer: they're white, she was pregnant, and they were wealthy relative to most other wife murderers. And even if you accept that these factors make this case worthy of such heavy national coverage, there was still an absurdly disproportionate amount of coverage considering that there was an election this year. Oh yeah, and there's a war going on in Iraq last time I checked (Though you might not know it if you listen to the president). Bottom line here: the national media made this a much bigger deal than it ever should have been for the sake of tabloid ratings.

That being said, we should discuss the impact that such ridiculous coverage had on the public perception of the trial. I refer to an episode of Dennis Miller's CNBC show from about a month ago. One of his guests was a "legal expert" who was to discuss the ins and outs of the case, which was still in the trial phase. Dennis Miller began that segment much like I began this piece, admitting that he had not been following the case at all. The woman gave her "expert" legal analysis of the case and answered a couple of broad questions while Miller sprinkled in jokes here and there. After she answered his last question, Miller, not three minutes after claiming that he knows nothing about the case, commented, "Well, I think he should get the death penalty, but that's probably just wishful thinking." What? Wishful thinking that someone you admittedly know very little about should die? Man, that's sick. But it was and is a very popular sentiment. Most people completely agree with this verdict and sentence.

Now I know that many people have followed this case very closely and feel completely justified in their opinion that Peterson was certainly guilty and that he should receive the death penalty. However, many more people have followed this case as a soap opera. Folks like Dennis Miller seemed predisposed to hating the guy and wanting him to die even if they didn't know anything about the case. And lets keep in mind that this was a case in which the prosecution produced no murder weapon and no witness, yet they were able to convince the jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he was guilty. And don't get me wrong here. I'm not trying to defend this guy or defend his positions, alibis, or anything. All I'm saying is that I don't know enough about the case and the evidence that I am familiar with does not prove anything to me beyond a shadow of a doubt. And I think that many trial watchers who condemned from early on didn't know enough either. So the jurors, who certainly are more aware of the case than any of us, were able to infer that he was guilty despite the lack of murder weapon and witness. And on top of that, they felt justified enough in their decision that they felt it necessary to recommend the death penalty. What exactly was it that made them choose death over life in prison? Because "he showed no remorse," said one juror. Another said, "He lost his wife and his child and it didn’t seem to faze him." And I suppose once he's been proven guilty, reasoning for life over prison vs. death can be reasoned based on emotion, but it seems like a slippery slope. Especially since emotion and feeling seems like it very much played a role in coming to the guilty verdict considering the lack of physical evidence.

It should be noted that it is highly unlikely that Scott Peterson will actually die by the death penalty. The appeals process in California is such that there are about 600 people on death row with an execution rate of about one per year. I am opposed to the death penalty in just about any situation, but I bring this issue up not to be critical of the death penalty. My feeling is simply that this case was not a slam dunk, yet he was convicted and even sentenced to death. And the public's response? Hooray! And I think that when media figures (and I mention only Dennis Miller because he's one of the few I can stomach) blindly yet publicly condemn Peterson and proclaim him to be guilty, then it inevitably influences a public that is highly susceptible to sensationalism. One has to question how fair a trial this has been when the public and media have approached it with the mentality of a lynch mob.

And how about this little piece of Boolean irony: Most conservatives are for the death penalty. Conservatives often criticize liberals for making decisions based on emotion and feeling as opposed to reason and truth. Most conservatives agree with and applaud the decision in this case - one made based heavily on emotion and feeling.

Thankfully, the case is over, and the mainstream media can start to regain its credibility. Wait. . .you say the Michael Jackson case is about to really kick off? Damn. Nevermind.

John Lennon

2004-12-08T08:03:00.000-08:00

Today marks the 24th anniversary of the death of John Lennon, one the greatest and most influential voices in the history of rock and roll. Since this blog uses one of Mr. Lennon's songs as its namesake, I felt that I pay homage to his legacy. Through his music and his activism, John Lennon was a very powerful voice for peace and social justice, and his message of love should be heard and acknowledged now as much as ever.

John Lennon ~October 9, 1940 - December 8, 1980~

Ticket Brokers

2004-12-07T09:20:00.000-08:00

I awoke on the morning of August 21 with the wide-eyed expectations of child on Christmas morning. At 10:00 am, tickets for R.E.M.'s October 22 concert at Nashville's historic Ryman Auditorium were to go on sale. Truly a great day for America. R.E.M., one of the acclaimed American rock bands of the last 20 years, can sell out large arenas with ease, and the chance to see them in such a small, intimate venue was not an opportunity that may come around again. My roommate and I sat anxiously in front of the computer as the moment drew near. When the clock struck 10:00, the Ticketmaster page for the show was unlocked. With fingers flying, we frantically informed the electronic salesman that we would like two tickets in the best available spot, please. We waited as the order processed, and at approximately 10:00:45, our joyous anticipation turned to confused horror. "No tickets available in the area you requested," read the screen. We back and tried again, assuming there had to be some mistake. Again, we received the same message. We sat there, stunned, trying to wrap our minds around what had just happened. By the time we had decided to buy single seats and forfeit sitting together for the chance to see one of our favorite bands in one of the South's greatest venues, even single tickets were sold out. Defeated, with the melancholy melody of "Everybody Hurts" echoing through our heads, we resigned ourselves to a night at home on October 22.

Over the next couple of weeks, I explored some relatively painful options, such as purchasing tickets on eBay for ungodly prices. I also browsed through the websites of various ticket brokers. Now, for those of you who aren't familiar with ticket brokers, they are companies who purchase tickets for high-demand events and then resale them at a much higher cost for profit. I was noticing that ticket brokers had an extraordinary number of tickets available for the R.E.M. show. Just a quick glance of a few ticket broker websites indicated that these brokers had hundreds of tickets to the show in their possession. This seemed pretty shady to me, so I spent some time over the next week researching the ticket broker industry.

The practice of ticket scalping has increased significantly in the past years. Indeed, the parking lot practice of hawking extra tickets for beer money has grown into a thriving, but often corrupt, enterprise that is very harmful to the average consumer. Ticket brokers walk the line of legality precariously while using deception and dishonesty to further their cause. Ticker brokers have the ability to obtain hundreds and even thousands of tickets for single events, compromising the notion of equal access. The Ryman Auditorium has a seating capacity of a mere 2,360 people. Ticket brokers who have hundreds of tickets in their possession for a show there control a huge fraction of the total tickets, most of which cost anywhere from three to six times face value.

How do they obtain so many tickets, and is this legal? In most states it is totally legal, though it varies from state to state, and often from city to city. Louisiana and Maryland have even gone so far as to limit resale prices to face value. Ticket brokers claim that this is unconstitutional and undermines the free market system. And, indeed, this is the strongest argument the pro-scalping camp makes. In the end, this is the nature of capitalism, but the notion of equal access is also fundamental in a free market system, and ticket brokers frequently use dirty and illegal tactics to gain unfair access to tickets. In addition to bribery of ticket sellers, they have computer systems and hundreds of employees whose job it is to snatch up as many tickets as they can as fast as they can. The average consumer cannot compete the ticket broker machines, and the result is that tickets skyrocket beyond affordability.

I'm a sucker. And it's an opportunity that will likely not come around again, so I purchased a ticket to the R.E.M. show off of eBay for $125.00 - roughly $55.00 over face value. I went to the show, and it was easily the best of the three R.E.M. concerts I've attended. However, there was one part of the evening that left a sour taste in my mouth. There were empty seats all over the auditorium! The ticket brokers had so many tickets for which they were charging exorbitant prices that very few people would pay for them. In the case of R.E.M., they have a very loyal fanbase, but they don't have many new fans. There last few albums have been critically successful, but don't fit in today's music scene of bubblegum pop, misguided hip hop, and fifteen thousand Pearl Jam rip-offs. Most R.E.M. fans have seen them before, and would certainly pay to see them again, but not at $150-$300 a pop. Ticket brokers claim that they provide a necessary service, yet their actions prevented hundreds of R.E.M. fans from attending the Ryman show. The actions of ticket brokers don't reflect the beauty of the free market. Indeed, they undermine one of its most fundamental principles to make a profit, and the victim is the average fan.

For more information on ticket brokers, read the following report, written by the Attorney General of the state of New York: http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/reports/scalping/full_text.html

This article, written by Greg Couch of the Chicago Sun-Times, details the effects of ticket brokers in the world of sports:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/couch/cst-spt-greg31.html

Winning the War on Terror?

2004-12-06T11:43:00.000-08:00

I, like many Americans, have become numb to the terms "terrorism" and "war on terror." The idea of defeating terrorism, in all its forms and wherever it hides, is the centerpiece of American foreign policy in the 21st century. Recently I have become uncharacteristically pessimistic in my thoughts towards the so-called War on Terror. I have been trying to imagine how this might end, and I simply can't. I can't see an end at all. The extreme "we're right and they're wrong" sentiment that exists on both sides of this cultural chasm indicates that neither side is ever going to willing to compromise. And what did we expect, really? When you declare war against a broad "nameless and faceless enemy" in the manner that the Bush administration did in the wake of September 11, you essentially declare war on an entire culture. President Bush referring to the war as a "crusade" certainly didn't help reduce that sentiment.

So where do we go from here, and what really are the ultimate goals? What does a victory in the War on Terror look like? President Bush and other politicians give very political answers when confronted with this question. Save for the campaign slip-up where President Bush said that the War on Terror was not winnable, he usually just says that we will win by staying the course and working hard, and other such nonsense. But looking at the reality of the situation, I can't imagine this War on Terror ending with the level of international peace that we once knew. In fact, I can't imagine it ending well at all, and if the current level of violence and hatred that exists on both sides is indicative of things to come, things will continue to get worse. And unfortunately, when you take an honest look at the situation, the War on Terror is not something that can be won in the traditional sense. Preventing it from turning into worldwide nuclear war should be considered a victory.

The entire approach is flawed, and there has to a drastic ideological shift - on both sides - before we can begin to feel optimistic about the process. The whole thing is a time bomb and there is a breaking point somewhere. In an interesting and frightening bit of honesty on Friday, outgoing secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson said, "For the life of me, I cannot understand why the terrorists have not attacked our food supply because it is so easy to do." Thanks for the hopeful parting words, Tom. I was reminded of an article written in my hometown newspaper, the Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal, a few years ago about a small, hometown grocery store in Tupelo called Romie's. It was an article about how the store had been around for 50 years or so and had never been robbed. Needless to say, the store was robbed the following week. My point is that it feels like we are on the brink of something disastrous, and preventative intelligence will only go so far. Without both sides changing the overarching philosophy and approach to fighting global terror to something that is willing to listen to the voices of the enemy rather than passing them off as extremists and lunatics, then we're just asking for the time bomb to explode.

Barry Bonds

2004-12-03T11:59:00.000-08:00

The San Francisco Chronicle reported today that Giants slugger Barry Bonds admitted to using performance enhancing substances before a grand jury on December 4, 2003, though he claims that he didn't know the substances were anything more than nutritional supplements. According to the transcript, prosecutors confronted Bonds with paperwork alleging that Bonds used substances known as "the clear" and "the cream" as well as human growth hormone, Depo-Testosterone, insulin, and a steroid-masking agent. Bonds only admitted to using "the clear" and "the cream" after receiving them from his trainer. The seven time MVP claims that he thought these were legal substances to treat fatigue and arthritis. Bonds, of course, holds the single season home record of 73, set in 2001. He currently has 703 career homeruns, which puts him only 11 behind Babe Ruth's 714 and 52 behind Hank Aaron's 755.

The disclosure of Bonds' testimony is prompting a number of questions regarding his legacy and the legitimacy of his accomplishments. Should his records and awards be taken away from him? Should he be suspended or banned from baseball? These seem to be some of the questions that are being given the most attention since the report came out. It seems to me that the primary focus should be on fixing the system. The players unions has continuously blocked any real testing. The current system tests players in manner that allows players to basically know when they are going to be tested. Even so, 5-7% of major league baseball players tested positive for illegal substances this year. You can rest assured that the actual percentage of players on illegal substances is much higher. My concern is that Barry Bonds could get blasted and punished and discredited while countless others get off without a scratch. If baseball is willing to suspend Bonds or strip him of his accolades, then they must be willing to do the same to everyone else who they know used steroids.

The reality of the situation is that lots of baseball players are on steroids. Many players who have accomplished great things and set records were probably on steroids (Sammy Sosa, Mark McGwire, etc.) and are every bit as guilty as Bonds. But Bonds is an easier target because, to be frank, he's an asshole. But that shouldn't be reason to punish him more than anyone else. The major issue here should be fixing the system. The system currently in place is one of lax testing and minimal penalties for those who do manage to get caught. And it's really up to players union to come around, since they have repeatedly blocked stricter testing. Let's focus on this part of the issue before we worry about its implications on Bonds' eventual Hall of Fame status.

On the other hand, if someone needs to be made an example of, I can't think of anyone better than Bonds. He really is an asshole.

Here are some opinion pieces on the issue:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6642822/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6642563/
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=olney_buster&id=1937499

Welcome

2004-12-03T08:33:00.000-08:00

So this is my blog, I guess. My name is Scott, I live in Nashville, TN, with my two friends Peter and Wil and our dog, Sammy. I anticipate that this will be little more than space for me to rant and rave about whatever is on my mind at a given moment. I imagine there will be a good bit of politics, some sports, religion, music, and Sammy (the dog, remember?). So, welcome, whoever you are. Unless you're somebody I know who I've told about this, I'm not sure how you found it, but welcome nonetheless.