|
| Just to explain the background of the situation: Currently there are eight groups vying for ownership of the Washington Nationals. One group includes former Secretary of State Colin Powell, another includes former Republican Senator Peter Fitzgerald. However, the contenders are not just Republicans since yet another group features billionaire George Soros who of course founded America Coming Together and donated 20 million dollars in hopes that President Bush was not re-elected. However, (at least) one Republican has a problem with George Soros' group being in contention. Rep. Tom Davis (R-Virginia), ironically after warning MLB about the political battle he supposedly does not want, has came out in an attack on George Soros' group. The original statement was: "I think Major League Baseball understands the stakes, I don't think they want to get involved in the political fights." Davis' warning, however was the first mention of a political battle. He then told The New York Times: "We finally get a winning team. Now they're going to hand it over to a convicted felon who wants to legalize drugs and who lives in New York and spent $5 million dollars trying to defeat the President? How's he going to get him to come out to the opening game?" Yes, I too had a problem understanding Davis' reasoning at first. There is no complex way to explain it but, Tom Davis opposes the group buying the Washington Nationals simply because George Soros would be a minority investor. Why does he oppose George Soros being a minority investor? Because George Soros happens to be a convicted felon who supports the legalization of drugs, lives in New York, and spent his own money trying to keep President Bush from being re-elected. Now, if you will allow me to attempt to break down Mr. Davis' argument.
"George Soros is a convicted felon." Okay that is true, but what grounds is that to exclude him from owning part of a baseball team? I've been a baseball fan all of my life and as much as I've read about the league, I don't ever remember hearing or reading of a rule in the league, that a convicted felon cannot be part owner of a baseball team.
"He wants to legalize drugs." As much as we all may disagree with Soros on that issue, legalization of drugs falls under the category of a casual political opinion. What Davis is suggesting is that the approval of a potential buyer of a baseball team should be similar to approving a member of the Supreme Court or Ambassador to the UN. I'm sure that isn't what Davis wants, but it sure can be interpreted that way.
"He lives in New York." I interpret the New York statement as meaning one of two things or a mixture of both. Perhaps he does not want George Soros involved with the Washington Nationals because George Soros does not live in Washington. If that is the case, there is most definitely no rule in Major League Baseball that the owner must live in the city in which the team plays. However, the other reason Tom Davis may site New York residency as grounds for not allowing Soros to own the team is simply because Davis is a Republican and New York is New York. Simply said, New York is in the northeast and Republicans tend to hate the northeast because the residents are more likely to disagree with Republicans than most other regions. That is the easiest way to explain why Davis would not want a New York resident owning a baseball team. As idiotic as that Republican viewpoint may sound to a normal nonpartisan American, it is still an accurate glance into the conservative Republican's psyche.
The fourth reason, "He gave money to help defeat President Bush." The rebuttal to this argument reflects the rebuttal to both the second and third arguments. Reflecting the second, it is stupid to test future baseball team owners of their political opinions before allowing them to take control. Reflecting the third, Republicans hate people who disagree with them.
And of course, Davis' final argument: "President Bush will not want to come to opening day." I am sighing at the stupidity of this argument. Who gives a damn whether or not President Bush comes to opening day. When none of his other arguments work, Tom Davis decides to site the importance of President Bush coming to the Washington Nationals opening game. Well, I know that I would not lose any sleep over it. Ask any resident of Washington, DC if they care. Is it reasonable to assume that a majority of Washington Nationals fans would care?
In conclusion, despite what you may gather from this entry, I don't give a rat's ass who buys the Washington Nationals. I am not a Washington Nationals fan, and whether or not George Soros buys the team will not be a factor in how I go about my daily life. However, the thing that bothers me is that Davis and likely other Republicans want to make a political issue over this. Think about it: the government is already involved at my place of work, the institution where I get my college education, and my church. These are all necessary places for the government to get involved. However, as soon as the government gets involved in the sports I watch, I begin to worry that the government is growing to well over it's intended size. | | |
| I believe our biggest problem right now is our dependence on foreign oil for survival. Maybe it's the fact that I'm sick of paying $2.70 for a gallon of gas. I rarely find myself defending the Bush Administration, but I think they realize there is a problem. Actually, if they were to come out and admit that Iraq was about oil, I wouldn't be surprised or offended. If we had complete control over Iraq, we have control over a bigtime oil source. Of course, if it was about oil, they didn't put too much effort into thinking about the future. They didn't expect 2000 deaths, a violent insurgency, and a loss of faith at home. We need to realize now, that if we control Iraq, we control a whole lot of oil. The fact is, we need oil. However, a war that would cost over $200 billion wasn't our best bet. We definitely need oil, but why not drill for it in the Appalachians. Hey, nowadays I would even say go ahead and drill in that wildlife reserve in Alaska. Now I'd say our best bet is to invest nearly everything into researching hydrogen and others as an alternative source. Hydrogen is renewable and it's only forseeable byproduct is water. But until we find a way to mass produce that, I would suggest extensive drilling in the Appalachians and elsewhere. If there is a massive strike there we would at least be less dependent on foreign oil than we are now. In the words of the great 21st Century scholar Kevin Murphy, "If we strike in the Appalachians, we would be in good shape until we used all of it up callously." | | |
| "A decision was made on your application AUGUST 19, 2005. You have been admitted to the university and will receive further information by mail. Welcome to Ohio State"
This was the message I saw yesterday when I checked my application. I'll be heading to Columbus in January to become a student at The Ohio State University. Once January rolls around, you won't be seeing much of me if you are still in Tuscarawas County. | | |
| Have any of you seen the news today. Guess who is calling for the assassination of the democratically elected President of Venezuela? None other than Pat Robertson! Ladies and gentlemen, this is completely asinine. Hugo Chavez was elected legitimately. Robertson is even going against executive orders by fellow Republicans Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan. It's a very rare occasion where I am forced to commend the current White House, but I thank them for dismissing this suggestion. Robertson even accused Chavez of attempting to turn Venezuela into "a launching pad for Communist infiltration and Muslim extremism all over the continent." Now Chavez is a left-wing populist so I can understand the Communist infiltration statement. After all, when will Republicans ever give up on the old days of the Red Scare? But Muslim extremism? How? Chavez isn't a Muslim, and 98% of Venezuela's population is Catholic. Pat Robertson fans, Republicans, ultra-conservatives, answer me this question: How would Venezuela possibly become a breeding ground for Muslim extremism if Hugo Chavez remained in charge? Another question for the same group answering the first: How could you take anything Pat Robertson says seriously? This is the same guy who claims that activist judges are a greater threat to America than terrorists calling their threat "more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings." This next quote of his is my favorite: "maybe we need a very small nuke thrown off on Foggy Bottom to shake things up." Foggy Bottom is the nickname of the State Department's headquarters in Washington. Pat Robertson, in all his wisdom of what is morally right (sarcasm), actually advocated nuking the State Department. Why don't Republicans make this guy their unofficial spokesman? Hell, that would make being a Democrat a whole lot easier. | | |
| I have an idea!
In the past and recently, there has been a lot of disagreement between Christian and secular groups about the issue of school prayer. Christian groups want to allow school prayer, and secular groups do not.
My opinion: While it is most definitely wrong to make children pray if they wish not to, it is also wrong to deny students the opportunity.
My idea: Why not have public schools impose a credit system for group gatherings. For example, a student uses one of a certain amount of credits given per year to leave study hall and organize a group gathering for prayer or other reasons. Students could leave study hall for one period and meet with a group to pray in an unused room. This way, students are offered the opportunity to pray in school, but they are still not imposing or making other students feel awkward when they don't want to pray. These credits don't even have to be used for prayer. They can be used for discussion, support groups, etc. | | |
|
