Featuring Ivan Trembow's Self-Important, Random Rants on Mixed Martial Arts, Video Games, Pro Wrestling, Television, Politics, Sports, and High-Quality Wool Socks

 
Sports--- Steroids, Rafael Palmeiro, The Same Old Story, Leprechauns, and Baseball's Holding Pattern
Steroids are back in the headlines with Baltimore Orioles star Rafael Palmeiro having been suspended for violating Major League Baseball's steroids policy. More than anyone else, it was Palmeiro who came out of the Congressional steroids hearings in March with the best public image. While Mark McGwire repeatedly said that he wasn't there "to talk about the past," and Sammy Sosa hilariously relied on a Spanish interpreter after he magically forgot how to speak English, Rafael Palmeiro was consistent and firm as he pointed his index finger at the Congressional panel and said, "I have never, ever used steroids in my life."

The Timeline of Events with Palmeiro, and the Steroid That was Found in His Body
After Palmeiro was called a steroid user in Jose Canseco's book when it was released in February, and after emphatically denying that he had ever used steroids at the Congressional hearings in March, the complete timeline of events with Palmeiro has only become clear in the past week. Following an extremely slow start in April, Palmeiro's batting average and home-run output shot up drastically in May. We now know that May was the month in which Palmeiro took a steroids test that would come back positive.

Palmeiro was notified about the positive test in early June, and he started an appeals process at that time. In July, Palmeiro celebrated the huge milestone of his 3,000th career hit, in what now seems like a dirty and perverse celebration since Palmeiro knew at the time that he had just tested positive for steroids. Finally, Palmeiro's appeal was denied and his suspension was handed down (and thus made public) on the first day of August.

The illegal steroid that was found in Rafael Palmeiro's body was Stanozolol, which is best known for being the steroid that Olympic track and field star Ben Johnson was caught using in 1988. Stanozolol was also the steroid that was found in MMA fighter Kimo Leopoldo's body after a match in 2004, and in Tim Sylvia's body after a UFC fight in 2003, and in Fernando Vargas' system after a boxing match in 2002. Also in 2002, Stanozolol was one of the three different kinds of steroids that were found in the body of MMA fighter Josh Barnett. James Toney tested positive for steroids after winning a boxing match earlier this year, although in Toney's case the steroid found in his system was not Stanozolol; it was Nandrolone.

The Same Old Story from Someone Caught Red-Handed, and a Possible Explanation
The story given by Rafael Palmeiro when the news broke of his steroid suspension was the same story given by almost everyone who has ever tested positive for steroids, essentially saying, "Golly gee, I have no idea how such a high quantity of steroids could have gotten into my system! I certainly didn't put them there!"

As I wrote back in 2002 during the height of Josh Barnett's lies when he was caught with an extraordinary amount of steroids in his system, it's almost as if these athletes expect the public to believe that a Magical Steroid-Wielding Leprechaun is going around injecting people with steroid shots, against their will and without their knowledge.

As far as I know, if you're looking for a case of someone standing up like a man upon testing positive and admitting what he did, the only two prominent cases are MMA fighters Tim Sylvia and Kimo. New York Yankees slugger Jason Giambi falls somewhere in the middle of the "accountability" pack, as he admitted in front of a California Grand Jury that he knowingly took steroids for years, but then hid behind non-existent, invalid legal reasons that he said prevented him from talking about the situation in front of the media. The vast majority of offenders take the cowardly approach of continuing to lie, even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Apparently, what we're supposed to believe is that Fernando Vargas and James Toney must have been victims of the Magical Steroid-Wielding Leprechaun. Barry Bonds, according to his own Grand Jury testimony that was published in the San Francisco Chronicle, took illegal steroids but claimed to have done so unintentionally, so perhaps the Leprechaun got to him as well. Mark McGwire, if he had been man enough to admit at the Congressional hearings that he took steroids instead of pleading the Fifth Amendment and refusing to answer the questions, would have surely said it was unintentional and blamed it on something equivalent to the Magical Steroid-Wielding Leprechaun.

Rafael Palmeiro? A victim of the Magical Steroid-Wielding Leprechaun. Ryan Franklin, the Major League Baseball pitcher whose steroid suspension came down exactly one day after Palmeiro's? The Leprechaun did it. And Josh Barnett? He must have been the victim of an entire family of Magical Steroids-Wielding Leprechauns, as his toxicology results showed that he was practically a walking steroids pharmacy when he failed his drug test in March of 2002.

Baseball's Penalties (or Lack Thereof) for Positive Steroids Tests
With Rafael Palmeiro and Ryan Franklin being suspended this week, the number of Major League Baseball players who have tested positive for steroids this year is now up to eight. As with any drug-testing program, you're only going to catch a small percentage of the people who are taking banned substances. So, if there have been eight positive test results so far this season, there have probably been at least 80 players who "beaten the system" via various methods.

It's an understatement to say that baseball's punishments for positive test results are a joke. While superstar players like Rafael Palmeiro stand to face the de-facto punishment of public scrutiny and media attention for their positive test results, a non-superstar player like Ryan Franklin only faces one day of newspaper headlines and a ten-day suspension. That's it.

Even with a stubborn, obstructionist union chief like Donald Fehr having worked hard for years to stunt the progress of any steroid-testing in baseball, MLB commissioner Bud Selig still lacks the political willpower to stand up and do something about it. When Donald Fehr says ridiculous things with a straight face, like his claim that drug-testing of players brings up "privacy issues," Selig doesn't have the willpower to call Fehr on his bluff and respond with something like, "Players have a right to 'privacy' to take substances that are illegal in the United States?"

Selig has proposed a much tougher punishment system that would suspend a player 50 games for his first positive drug test and 100 games for a second offense, followed by a lifetime ban for a third offense. That seems reasonable to me, and is far better than the current system.

If there was ever a week during which Selig could have stood up and demanded that the union allow these tougher penalties to go into effect, it would have been this week. The fans, the media, and even most players would have been on Selig's side, and Fehr would have had no choice other than to retreat with his tail between his legs and allow the tougher punishments for players who test positive in the future.

Instead, because Selig doesn't have the testicular fortitude to play hardball with Fehr in public, Selig hasn't said a word about the situation this week. This has made Selig look particularly bad, as the media wonders why he won't come out from his under his desk and say something about the situation.

The Sad Irony for Major League Baseball
Ironically, due to the fact that Major League Baseball is unlikely to ever implement tougher steroids punishments as long as Bud Selig and Donald Fehr are in the same holding pattern, the possibility is growing larger that the United States Congress will pass a law that imposes the punishments of the World Anti-Doping Agency on baseball players who test positive for steroids. The powers-that-be in baseball would have no choice but to comply, due to the anti-trust exemptions that they enjoy under the law as a controlled monopoly.

Under the World Anti-Doping Agency system, a baseball player would be suspended for two years after one positive test result, and would be banned for life if he ever tested positive again. If this system is forced onto baseball, it would make Selig's proposed punishments look like a slap on the wrist by comparison, and it would be an absolute nightmare for the union. Nice job, Mr. Fehr.

Labels: Politics / Current Events Commentary

posted by Ivan Trembow at 10:23 PM

Permalink/Single Page for This Post ------ E-Mail This Post to a Friend

Click here for the Ivan's Blog Site Feed

 
During a segment this week on the MSNBC show "The Situation with Tucker Carlson," the discussion turned to the topic of an 11-year-old girl in Fresno, California who was arrested for throwing a large rock at a boy's head. Tucker Carlson argued that the girl was being treated too harshly, and repeatedly said things like, "She's eleven years old!" and "What kind of damage could an eleven-year-old possibly do?"

While I agree with what Tucker Carlson said about this particular case with the girl in Fresno, I have to say that Carlson is livng in La-La Land if he really believes that it's just not possible for an eleven-year-old to be violent, or to commit a serious crime. That was the larger point that Carlson seemed to be trying to make in the discussion, and that's a dangerously naive world-view to have.

In fact, people who are under 18 years old do commit violent crimes and sometimes murder, and they often get away with it just because they're under 18.

Many gangs in the United States go out of their way use juvenile gang members to carry out violent crimes or murders, specifically because they know that a juvenile offender will get a relative slap on the wrist compared to an 18-year-old who commits the same exact crime with the same exact intent.

Maybe you'll remember the case of Lionel Tate, who beat a six-year-old little girl to death in 1999 when he was just 12 years old... only to be released from prison because he was a minor and therefore he couldn't have possibly known what he was doing.

If there's anyone reading this who is thinking, "No one who is that young could possibly do something malicious like that," then you should read this post that I made on Ivan's Blog a couple of months ago:


Convicted murderer Lionel Tate, who viciously stomped and beat a six-year-old girl to death in 1999, is back in prison after allegedly pulling a gun on a pizza delivery man and threatening to shoot if the delivery man didn't hand over the pizza boxes. Tate is also alleged to have assaulted a 13-year-old boy shortly before the armed robbery took place. As you may already be thinking, the biggest question in a case like this is: "Why on earth would a convicted murderer be out on the street in the first place?"

The sick, but true answer is that if you're under 18 years old here in the United States and also in much of the world, you can get away with just about anything. If you want to brutally beat a little girl until she dies from a wide variety of internal injuries, the message that the justice system has sent is: Go right ahead! If you're tried and found guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison, "human rights activists" ranging from the ACLU to the United Nations to even the Vatican will cry about how you shouldn't be punished, and how surely nobody under 18 is conscious of or responsible for what they're doing. Never mind about the rights of the six-year-old girl who Tate beat to death; what's important in the eyes of these activists are the rights of the murderer. Eventually, you'll be set free and you will have gotten away with murder.

That's what happened to convicted murderer Lionel Tate after serving three years (three years!) for the murder of Tiffany Eunick, and he has now been arrested for the second time since being let go from prison. Prior to being arrested for armed robbery this week, Tate had also been arrested in late 2004 for carrying a knife late at night on the streets of his neighborhood after he had gotten into an argument with someone, which was a weapons-related violation of his probation that still didn't result in a prison sentence. Now Tate has been charged with armed robbery, as well as assaulting a 13-year-old boy.

Tate is now 18 years old and legally an adult. If Tate had committed armed robbery and assault a few months ago when he was still 17, there would be people crying right now that he's a "victim," and that he should not have to face any kind of significant punishment for armed robbery or any other crime that he commits.

Even now, bleeding-heart fools like Katherine Federle of the "Justice for Children Project" (that's apparently justice for children who commit murder, not children who are murdered) are wailing about "saving Lionel" and "rescuing Lionel." In fact, Federle took it a step further and said that the only reason Tate can't be "rescued" now is because the justice system was too hard on him previously (you know, for making him serve three years in prison instead of no prison time for murdering Tiffany Eunick). I'm all for counseling and psychological treatment in cases like this, but only in the context of the murderer still being behind bars--- not out on the street where he or she could do who-knows-what to anyone at any time.

It's not known what defense Tate's lawyers will use this time around, but it probably won't be, "Pro wrestling made me do it!" Despite the fact that it was only the position of Tate's lawyers for a few months, and it never amounted to anything other than a desperate defense tactic in court, and it was later acknowledged as a fabricated claim, to this day many in the mainstream media still use the term "the pro wrestling murder" whenever Lionel Tate's name is in the news.

You see, the first ridiculously flimsy defense offered by Tate's lawyers after he murdered six-year-old Tiffany Eunick was that he was just imitating pro wrestling. They even wanted to turn the case into a full-fledged circus by calling Hulk Hogan and The Rock to testify (about what, who knows?). After that didn't pass the muster in court, the "pro wrestling defense" was retracted, but not before the murder was forever branded by the media as "the pro wrestling murder."

World Wrestling Entertainment would later sue the fraudulent Parents Television Council (PTC) for, among other things, using the Lionel Tate case as the centerpiece of its anti-WWE campaign, even after Tate's new lawyers admitted that the "pro wrestling defense" had been a fabrication, according to a public apology issued by the PTC. (Click here to read the PTC's full "retraction" statement.)

The second ridiculously flimsy defense offered by Tate's lawyers, and the one that they ultimately stuck with, was that he leaped from a staircase and accidentally landed on Tiffany Eunick, causing her to hit her head, but he didn't mean to hurt her. That defense had no validity and was proven in court to be false by the fact that an autopsy showed Eunick didn't just have head injuries (a fractured skull and a severely swollen brain, to be exact)... she also had a punctured lung, severely bruised kidneys, a broken rib, internal bleeding, cuts and deep bruises all over her body, and a liver area that was beaten so extensively that a piece of her liver had actually become detached during the beating.

Forensic experts testified that Tate may have had to beat on Eunick for over fifteen continuous minutes in order to produce the huge variety and severity of injuries that she suffered. After the jury convicted Tate of first-degree murder, the judge ruled during the trial's sentencing phase that the murder of Tiffany Eunick was particularly "cold, callous, and indescribably cruel."

Tate was sentenced to life in prison, but later set free and put on ten years of probation when it was ruled that because he was under 18 years old, he "couldn't understand" the gravity of the charges against him during his trial. Keep in mind, this is not someone who is mentally handicapped or has a learning disorder or anything like that, nor have his lawyers ever tried to claim anything of the sort... he simply "couldn't understand" the gravity of the charges because he was under 18 years old.

We live in a world now where gangs regularly go out of their way to use juvenile gang members when there's a murder that the gang wants to be carried out, because they know full well that the worst-case scenario is that the under-age murderer might have to go away for a few years. Is that a surprise to anyone, given the example set by cases like the brutal beating death of Tiffany Eunick? If you can get away with maliciously beating a little girl to death just because you're under 18, what can't you get away with?

According to the terms of his probation, which he has now violated for a second time, Lionel Tate is technically supposed to be returned to his former status as someone who is serving a life sentence in prison. That's what should happen according to the rules of his probation and the rules of common sense, but I can't honestly say I expect that to happen. After all, Tate's case is now in the hands of the same system that failed to serve justice for the murder of Tiffany Eunick in the first place.

Labels: Politics / Current Events Commentary

posted by Ivan Trembow at 10:33 AM

Permalink/Single Page for This Post ------ E-Mail This Post to a Friend

Click here for the Ivan's Blog Site Feed

 
Tom Cruise's Latest Meltdown Leads to a Serious Look at Scientology
Unless you've been living under a rock for the past week, you have likely heard about Tom Cruise's latest televised meltdown, in which he strongly and almost menacingly disagreed with Today Show host Matt Lauer about the benefits and risks of psychiatric drugs and the mental health field in general, which Cruise is strongly against as a member of the Church of Scientology.

Cruise's position on the matter first drew public attention when he said that it was "dangerous and irresponsible" for Brooke Shields to take a prescription anti-depressant and see a psychiatrist after she was diagnosed with a severe case of postpartum depression following the recent birth of her child. Postpartum depression is a very real and very serious medical condition that has led to the death of many new mothers, which is what made it so galling to much of the American public for Cruise to be offering his unsolicited advice on what Brooke Shields or anyone else should or shouldn't be doing to manage their own personal health.

A Basic Summary of What Cruise Said in the Interview
It was when this subject was brought up by Matt Lauer on The Today Show that Cruise's demeanor changed and the conversation became heated. Here's a brief summary of the interview in the form of excerpts from the Washington Post:

"Anybody who watched the actor's performance on NBC's Today Show witnessed an unsettling transformation. The movie star, who has long embraced Scientology, launched a full-bore assault on the psychiatric profession, sticking to a script that his church has been promoting for decades. Cruise looked like a man possessed, leaning insistently forward in his chair, hammering Lauer when the host suggested that some people were actually, you know, helped when doctors prescribed psychiatric drugs. Lauer sparred with Cruise specifically over whether it made sense for Brooke Shields to have sought therapy and taken antidepressants for postpartum depression -- a decision that Cruise had previously criticized.

Forget medical research: "There is no such thing as a chemical imbalance in a body," said Cruise, who prescribed vitamins and exercise for depression. "The thing that I'm saying about Brooke is that there's misinformation, okay? And she doesn't understand the history of psychiatry. She -- she doesn't understand, in the same way that you don't understand it, Matt."

"Psychiatry is a pseudoscience," he told host Matt Lauer, later saying: "You don't know the history of psychiatry. I do."

And the meltdown continued: "Matt, Matt, Matt, Matt, Matt, Matt, you don't even -- you're glib. You don't even know what Ritalin is," Cruise said. "If you start talking about chemical imbalance, there's no such thing as a chemical imbalance. You have to evaluate and read the research papers on how they came up with these theories, Matt, okay? That's what I've done."

Lauer called Cruise's command of the subject "impressive," but noted, "I'm not prescribing Ritalin, Tom. . . . I'm simply saying I know some people who have been helped by it."

At one point, Lauer seemed fed up: "You're telling me that your experiences with the people I know, which are zero, are more important than my experiences. . . . And I'm telling you, I've lived with these people and they're better."

Cruise then accused Lauer of advocating Ritalin."

What Cruise Said That is True, and What He's Overlooking
Is Tom Cruise correct in his statement that psychiatric drugs are prescribed far too often? Absolutely. Prescription drugs in general are prescribed too often, and it's a serious problem. If that were all Cruise was saying, I would have no problem with that statement, and neither would most people. What most people have a problem with is the fact that Cruise takes it a step further by echoing the teachings of the Church of Scientology and saying that people should not seek or obtain any therapy or medication for any mental health reason, period.

While it's an accurate statement that psychiatric drugs are prescribed far too often (especially to children), it would be intellectually dishonest for Cruise or anyone else to make that statement without also acknowledging the equally huge problem of people who don't seek any form of help for mental health-related problems. The majority of people with depression, bi-polar disorder, or other mental health problems never seek help, and many of them end up dead as a result.

In fact, if everyone in the world who suffers from a mental disorder were to take Tom Cruise's advice and not seek any form of therapy or take any medication for it, people would die as a result. One of the most in-depth articles that I have seen on this particular aspect of the story was written by columnist Ken Braiterman and published this week in the New Hampshire Union-Record. Here are some brief excerpts from the article (accessed via Google News):

"Tom Cruise's irresponsible, ideology-based denunciation of psychiatric medicine could actually kill somebody. Is he suggesting that people with mental illness should think themselves well or die trying? ... Schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and major depression are life-threatening illnesses. Ten percent of people with schizophrenia, 15 percent with bipolar disorder, and 20 percent with major depression commit suicide. These percentages do not include people who were never diagnosed because they never sought help, people who kill themselves one day at a time through substance abuse, or people who die in preventable accidents because the illness has impaired their judgment ...

Should we as a nation waste those lives because of an ideology Tom Cruise learned from Scientology? Where this discussion becomes a matter of life and death for some people is when a group like the Church of Scientology claims it has a mental discipline that will enable people to stop taking their medicine, or not seek treatment. The implied message is that if you are taking medicine you are not as good and strong as you can be. This is pure stigma. Encouraging people to stop or avoid treatment can ruin their lives and families — or kill them."

Cruise Actually Serves as an Advertisement for Psychiatric Drugs
The most ironic thing about Tom Cruise's appearance on The Today Show is that he's a self-proclaimed expert on mental health, and yet he showed himself once again to be the exact opposite of a well-adjusted, mentally stable person. From jumping up and down on couches on The Oprah Winfrey Show in an attempt to prove that his relationship with Katie Holmes is not a publicity stunt; to laughing maniacally at anything Jay Leno or David Letterman said, as if they had just told the best joke of all time on his appearances on The Tonight Show and The Late Show; to losing his temper at the drop of a hat on The Today Show, Cruise has demonstrated that whatever he's currently doing for his own mental health is not working.

Author Pamela Wilson, a self-described advocate for children and families, took it a step further by writing on BellaOnline (accessed via Google News), "It could be that his outspoken behavior has a positive effect for families. He might have done more to advertise the prescription medications available for treatment... by his discussion with Matt Lauer than all the drug companies combined, especially if mothers recognize the symptoms that their children share with him, and discover one of those medications does benefit their son and daughter. Mothers take on enough responsibility, guilt, and stress without having to worry about what a movie star thinks about the choices they make in giving themselves and their children the best possible life."

The Church of Scientology's Long Battle with Psychiatry
It's easy to dismiss all of this as the rantings and ravings of an overzealous celebrity, but to actually take an in-depth and serious look at Scientology only raises more questions about the religion.

Scientology has been at odds with psychiatrists and psychologists since it was founded by former science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard in the 1950's, as detailed in a lengthy article by Salon.com's Katharine Mieszkowski. Mieszkowski writes, "Scientologists have maintained that the very notion of mental illness is a fraud" because of the views of Hubbard, "who proclaimed that psychiatry was an evil enterprise, a form of terrorism, and the cause of crime."

In an article called "Today's Terrorism" published by Hubbard in 1969 and quoted in the Salon article, Hubbard wrote, "The psychiatrist and his front groups operate straight out of the terrorist textbooks. The Mafia looks like a convention of Sunday school teachers compared to these terrorist groups... The psychiatrist kidnaps, tortures and murders without any slightest police interference or action by western security forces."

In addition, the Washington Post reports that Hubbard wrote in an internal policy statement: "Our war has been forced to become to take over the field of mental healing on this planet in all forms." This kind of mentality was supported more recently in 1995 by the church's current leader, David Miscavige, who told the International Association of Scientologists in Copenhagen that the church's two main goals in the coming years were to "place Scientology at the absolute center of society and to eliminate psychiatry in all its forms."

Mark Plummer, who was a Scientologist for 14 years, further supports the notion that the organizers of Scientology want to eliminate the mental health field as we know it. Plummer told Salon's Mieszkowski, "Their goal is to take over entirely the field of mental health... Their beliefs stem from Hubbard's dogma that psychiatry is evil. Scientology teaches that psychiatry views people as 'meat bodies' without a spiritual aspect, and that Scientologists alone should be allowed to treat mental illnesses."

In addition, the Citizens Commission on Human Rights, which was founded by Hubbard in the late 1960's, states on its web site, "No mental diseases have ever been proven to medically exist." The CCHR's stated purpose is to "investigate and expose psychiatric violations of human rights." According to the Salon article, the CCHR's Los Angeles headquarters features an exhibit called Psychiatry Kills that "links psychiatry to Nazism, apartheid, and school violence... the shooting spree at Columbine High School is blamed in part on anger management classes that the shooters allegedly attended."

Mieszkowski's article also details what people are supposed to do if they are becoming a Scientologist and have ever taken a recreational or prescription drug in the past. According to the Scientology handbook, Answers to Drugs, purification treatments offered by the Church of Scientology include "sweating out drug residuals and other toxins by taking saunas and jogging," in addition to "taking the vitamin niacin, oils, and other minerals, a detoxification service which is available under expert supervision in Scientology organizations around the world."

So, Tom Cruise's radically anti-drug positions are not just the feelings of one celebrity. Cruise is merely echoing the teachings of Scientology. More than anything else, Cruise's positions on drugs are a symptom of what happens, and what myths are believed, when one takes the church's teachings on drugs at face value. For example, it should come as no surprise that Cruise recently said in an Entertainment Weekly interview that "the drug methadone was originally called Adolophine" because "it was named after Adolf Hitler," a statement that was refuted in the same article by Entertainment Weekly.

The Founding Text of Scientology
The founding text of Scientology is L. Ron Hubbard's book, "Dianetics." Many different versions of the book have been published over the years, but the core principles that Hubbard wrote about when the book was first published in 1950 are still many of the core principles of Scientology in 2005.

In another article in Salon's excellent and very in-depth multi-part series on Scientology, Laura Miller reviewed the original 700+ page book in an attempt to understand Hubbard's core beliefs. One of the basic underlying beliefs is that the human brain itself is "utterly incapable of error," but through thousands of times of being reincarnated in different bodies, flaws in the brain called "engrams" are soldered into the circuitry of the mind. Engrams, which are described as parasites, are supposedly created in the mind when one is unconscious and at the same time suffering from any kind of pain or fear.

One can only become a "clear" (which is an optimum individual devoid of any engrams) by cleansing one's self of all engrams through a process called "auditing," which is done with a help of a higher-level Scientologist using a device called an "E-Meter." The most significant engrams are supposedly created prenatally, starting with the moment of conception and continuing through the body's development in the womb as a fetus.

It is this specific theme that crops up throughout the book, and is what caused Miller to write that Hubbard himself appears to have been a "very disturbed man" who was "anything but clear of past traumas."

Miller writes of a "sad and scary narrative that must have had particular power for Hubbard," and which is a recurring theme throughout the book. The story that is revealed throughout the book in small pieces is that of a pregnant woman who tries to abort her pregnancy on her own, and of her husband who also tries to abort the baby by constantly punching his wife's pregnant stomach. The baby is still born, only to be physically and verbally abused by his mother as a child, and his grandmother takes care of him when the child becomes sick.

Miller writes that the book is "haunted" by the recurring theme of this "horrific tale," and that "you can glean a picture of Hubbard as a man wrestling with mental illness, who saw his mind as a potentially super-human machine beset by invaders and parasites."

Tom Cruise's Status in the Church of Scientology
Finally, in yet another extremely in-depth article, Salon's James Verini writes about the widespread belief among religious scholars that based on his recent statements and behavior, Tom Cruise has likely reached the level of "OT-VII," which is the second-highest rank in the Church of Scientology, behind only "OT-VIII." The "OT" is short for "Operating Thetan," the Scientology word for soul, followed by roman numerals indicating what level of "OT" someone in the church has achieved (with eight being the highest rank).

Cruise has been a Scientologist for approximately 20 years, but only recently has he started to make statements like this (from a German newspaper interview in April): "I myself have helped hundreds of people get off drugs. In Scientology, we have the only successful drug rehabilitation program in the world. If someone wants to get off drugs, I can help them. If someone wants to learn how to read, I can help them. If someone doesn't want to be a criminal anymore, I can give them tools that can better their life."

J. Gordon Melton, the author of "The Church of Scientology" and director of the Institute for the Study of American Religion in California told Salon, "In the OT levels,, you're finding out that you're a thetan, that you've come into bodies before. Part of what you're trying to learn is exteriorization, how to get out of your body. You also learn that you carry a lot of encumbrances from past lives." Melton also said that the number of people with OT-VII or OT-VIII ranks is only in the hundreds worldwide.

The Salon article also quotes Stephen Kent, a sociology professor at the University of Alberta in Canada who has written articles about Scientology and Hollywood. Kent says that Cruise's statements and behavior would seem to strongly indicate that he has reached OT-VII, and that the groundwork was laid for something like this to happen when L. Ron Hubbard issued specific instructions in the 1960's to recruit celebrities to the Scientology movement. Kent is quoted as saying in the Salon article, "There was a whole series of policies that talked about celebrities as opinion-makers. He (Hubbard) suggested to get celebrities on their way up or their way down. To get them on the way up meant that if they became famous, they might attribute their success to Scientology. On the way down meant that if their careers got saved they could do the same."

The article says that reaching the highest OT levels in the Church of Scientology would take one to three decades and would cost anywhere from $30,000 to several hundred thousand dollars, which would be a huge expenditure for the average person but is a relatively small amount of money for a movie star. A Scientologist cannot even reach the level of OT-I until he or she has been thoroughly "audited" and declared to be a "clear," as previously explained in the "Founding Text of Scientology" section of this article.

According to the Salon article, referencing a book that was released by the Church of Scientology, "Part or all of OT-VII and OT-VIII teachings must be performed in the church's headquarters in Clearwater, Florida, or aboard the Freewinds, a ship that houses parts of the church's upper management." It is also stated that even lower-level OT members are strongly encouraged to sign covenants of faith that are supposed to last for many lifetimes, with the typical duration of these contracts being one billion years (and you thought Brock Lesnar's six-year no-compete clause was extreme).

The Role of Aliens in High-Level Scientology Teachings
Where this gets much more bizarre and unbelievable is that according to the same Salon article by James Verini and a separate article by ABC News, in addition to countless other articles, members at the OT levels of Scientology are taught about the role of alien beings in the past, present, and future of the Earth.

Though they have leaked out en masse over the years (starting in the 1980's), these revelations are only taught by the church to members who are at a level of OT-III or higher. However, the church's official web site still talks about the concept of a "space opera" with the statement, "The space opera has space travel, spaceships, spacemen, intergalactic travel, wars, conflicts, other beings, civilizations and societies, and other planets and galaxies. It is not fiction and concerns actual incidents."

The ABC News article says the following about the teachings that start at the OT-III level: Members at this level and higher are taught "the story of Xenu, a galactic warlord from 75 million years ago, who buried billions of people from other planets in Earth's volcanoes. The souls of these space creatures constantly interfere with humans, and one of the missions of Scientology is to help shed these spirits."

Critics of Scientology point out that even if you believe every other aspect of the story, many of the specific volcanoes that Hubbard lists in the OT-III documents were only formed in the past 75 million years, and would not have even been in existence 75 million years ago.

If you want to get a better sense of just how bizarre the teachings are at the OT-III-and-higher levels of Scientology, there are numerous web sites devoted to the subject, from pro-Scientology, anti-Scientology, and neutral points of view. An actual manuscript of the specific teachings that start at the OT-III level can be found on this page in the section called, "Space Opera as Theology: Scientology's OT III."

A far more detailed listing of the OT-III documents can be found on this page. This link is to a web site created by Karin Spaink, who was sued by the Church of Scientology for being among the first to publish the OT-III documents. Spaink has emerged victorious in court multiple times, upholding her right to publish the documents. According to the Scientology teachings outlined on that page, someone at a higher OT level (which may include Tom Cruise) would supposedly be able to "act independently of his physical body, and could cause physical events to occur through sheer force of will... and would be capable of dismissing illness and psychological disorder in others at will."

Also, much more in-depth analysis of the world-view that emerges when people believe the teachings that begin at the OT-III level can be found on this page. While the Salon article quotes a scholar as saying that some Scientologists take the story of Xenu literally and others don't take it literally at all, the page at the above link says that taking it literally is not optional at the higher levels of Scientology: "In order for scn (Scientology) to 'work' at the upper levels, the person must accept the OT-III incident as a literal and factual matter. If the person does not experience the fragmented condition as a 'conscious and literal fact," or if he cannot accept Hubbard's interpretation of the psychological phenomena expected at this level, the person is labeled a 'bypassed case' and is sent back to re-do his lower levels."

A Single Statistic Can Cause a Lot of Credibility Damage
I had planned to publish the official Scientology response from Scientology.com to some of the issues discussed in this article, such as the church's views on psychiatry, but it's hard to take anything on the official Scientology web site too seriously once you have visited their "Statistics" section (which you can see here). It's one thing if an organization is going to say, "Our religious beliefs are different than yours," and I can certainly respect that, but it's another thing altogether to insult someone on a common-sense, statistical level that has nothing to do with religion.

To demonstrate the benefits of Scientology in getting people off of recreational drugs, or "street drugs," the Statistics page says that 38.5% of members did not use street drugs prior to joining the Church of Scientology. After joining the Church of the Scientology, 100% of members do not use street drugs currently. That's right... 100 percent.

Okay, that's a bit ridiculous, but maybe they just mean that the vast majority of members no longer use street drugs, which is a claim they could certainly make. Nope. Right after making the 100% claim, the web site actually goes out of its way to emphasize the point by saying, "In a drug-ridden culture, it is a fact that all Scientologists are drug-free."

I'm sorry, but that would be like if the Catholic church said, "No Catholic priest has ever molested a child, ever... not one... zero percent have done it, while one-hundred percent have not done it." In both cases, of course it's a very small percentage and of course you would hope that all members would adhere to the ideal of the church, but to actually come out and say, "It is a fact that all Scientologists are drug-free" shows a strong disconnect from reality that only serves to damage the credibility of anything else the church says.

In any case, what started as a simple article about Tom Cruise's latest public meltdown turned into much more for me, as I learned a lot more about Scientology than I ever thought I would. While I disagree with the vast majority of Scientology's teachings and find most of it to be unbelievable, I also want to stress that I respect everyone's right to believe whatever they want to believe, and I'm not trying to bash anyone's religion here. Unlike Tom Cruise, I'm not going to say that someone doesn't know what they're talking about just because they disagree with me.

Labels: Politics / Current Events Commentary

posted by Ivan Trembow at 11:54 PM

Permalink/Single Page for This Post ------ E-Mail This Post to a Friend

Click here for the Ivan's Blog Site Feed

 
Various Topics--- Today we're talking about spoiled draft picks, fictional "non-fiction" movies, jurors who have difficulty putting together complete sentences, and the mainstream media's continuing ignorance about video games.

Pro Wrestling: Draft Picks Have Been Spoiled by WWE
Thus far in the annual WWE draft lottery, WWE has been making it way too obvious when certain wrestlers are going to get drafted to the other brand. I mean, really, the minute they said on Raw, artificially and out of nowhere, that Triple H vs. Batista at Vengeance is "the final showdown" and the end of their feud, it didn't take a genius to figure out that Batista is going to get drafted to Smackdown in the week after Vengeance.

When Kurt Angle and Booker T's feud on Smackdown was suddenly having a match billed on Smackdown as "their final showdown" with statements like, "Whoever wins this match wins the feud!" it completely spoiled the fact that Kurt Angle was going to get drafted to Raw the following Monday, which is exactly what happened.

Now we've had a blow-off resolution to the feud between The Big Show and Matt Morgan, so would anyone be surprised if one of those two wrestlers is drafted to Raw this coming Monday? Also, in the commercial at the very end of Smackdown for next week's Guerrero vs. Mysterio match, the commercial conspicuously said while recapping the feud, "How will it all end? Find out next Thursday!"

That pretty much gives away the fact that either Guerrero or Mysterio is going to get drafted on Raw the following Monday. Why doesn't WWE just have giant, flashing, neon signs that give away each draft pick before it happens?

Movies: Cinderella Man Takes "Creative License" to a New Level
Cinderella Man may very well be a good movie. Its star, Russell Crowe, seems to be a very primitive man who is physically incapable of going more than a few months at a time without physically assaulting someone in public (as he was most recently arrested for throwing a telephone at the face of a hotel worker), but that shouldn't affect the story being told in the movie, right? Well, how about the fact that the story being told in the movie is fundamentally twisted and false?

In an effort to make the hero of the movie, James Braddock, all the more heroic, the creators of the movie took the creative license that any moviemaker does legitimately have when making a movie "based on a true story," and they violated that creative license by outright fabricating what kind of man Braddock was going against when he won the title in 1935. His opponent, Max Baer Sr, was not a reprehensible monster of a man who took great joy in the fact that two of his opponents died in boxing matches. In fact, boxing historians say Baer was haunted by their deaths.

Baer wasn't an angel, either, but he was no monster. The creators of Cinderella Man saw fit to completely change the facts to suit their movie, even if it meant they were no longer actually making a movie based on a true story. Bob Costas said much the same thing on a recent episode of HBO's "Costas Now," and so have many other people who know a little bit about boxing's history. Hopefully that fact, along with the fact that Russell Crowe may very well be arrested for assault a few more times between now and the next Academy Awards at the rate he's going, will prevent Cinderella Man from winning any major awards in the movie industry.

Michael Jackson Jury May Have Average IQ of Less Than 80
The jury in the Michael Jackson case had the right to come to any decision they saw fit, and you could certainly argue either way based on the evidence in the case whether it was absolutely proven beyond any reasonable doubt that Michael Jackson sexually molested this particular accuser. With that said, is there anyone who has watched the interviews with the Jackson jurors on legal shows like "The Abrams Report" on MSNBC who hasn't come to the conclusion that these are some of the most vapid, confused, dim-witted people to ever serve on a jury?

One of the jurors said that the first vote among the 12 jurors on one of the counts was "7 to 3 to 4" before realizing a few seconds later that those three numbers add up to 14, not 12. Another juror was unable to answer basic, simple questions about certain testimony in the case. Being nervous to be on TV could make you seem somewhat clueless, I'm sure, but it can't make you seem "Jessica Simpson clueless."

Video Games: Mainstream Media Ignorance about Video Games Continues
Does Tucker Carlson really know so little about video games that he thinks none of them involve any creativity, thinking, strategy, or thought development? Does he really think it uses more creativity for a child to be given a ball and told to "go outside and play with the ball," as he said recently on his new MSNBC show, "The Situation with Tucker Carlson"?

I'm wondering if Tucker Carlson ever heard of or played video games like Civilization. How about Populous? Black & White? Final Fantasy? Deus Ex? Theme Park? Theme Hospital? The Sims? Knights of the Old Republic? Sim City? Splinter Cell? Metal Gear Solid? ICO? Fable? Age of Empires? Rise of Nations? Oddworld: Abe's Oddysee? Any of the other Oddworld games? Any of the general manager or "Franchise Modes" in most sports games?

Somehow, I doubt it. Max Kellerman was absolutely right in his response when he said that it's a generational thing. If Tucker had grown up when sophisticated video games were prominent in society, he would understand them and would not make such broad, generalized, blatantly false statements about them. I respect Tucker Carlson and have enjoyed his new show a lot, but on this topic, he's way off the mark.

Labels: Politics / Current Events Commentary, Video Games, World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE)

posted by Ivan Trembow at 3:52 PM

Permalink/Single Page for This Post ------ E-Mail This Post to a Friend

Click here for the Ivan's Blog Site Feed

 
Convicted murderer Lionel Tate, who viciously stomped and beat a six-year-old girl to death in 1999, is back in prison after allegedly pulling a gun on a pizza delivery man and threatening to shoot if the delivery man didn't hand over the pizza boxes. Tate is also alleged to have assaulted a 13-year-old boy shortly before the armed robbery took place. As you may already be thinking, the biggest question in a case like this is: "Why on earth would a convicted murderer be out on the street in the first place?"

The sick, but true answer is that if you're under 18 years old here in the United States and also in much of the world, you can get away with just about anything. If you want to brutally beat a little girl until she dies from a wide variety of internal injuries, the message that the justice system has sent is: Go right ahead! If you're tried and found guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison, "human rights activists" ranging from the ACLU to the United Nations to even the Vatican will cry about how you shouldn't be punished, and how surely nobody under 18 is conscious of or responsible for what they're doing. Never mind about the rights of the six-year-old girl who Tate beat to death; what's important in the eyes of these activists are the rights of the murderer. Eventually, you'll be set free and you will have gotten away with murder.

That's what happened to convicted murderer Lionel Tate after serving three years (three years!) for the murder of Tiffany Eunick, and he has now been arrested for the second time since being let go from prison. Prior to being arrested for armed robbery this week, Tate had also been arrested in late 2004 for carrying a knife late at night on the streets of his neighborhood after he had gotten into an argument with someone, which was a weapons-related violation of his probation that still didn't result in a prison sentence. Now Tate has been charged with armed robbery, as well as assaulting a 13-year-old boy.

Tate is now 18 years old and legally an adult. If Tate had committed armed robbery and assault a few months ago when he was still 17, there would be people crying right now that he's a "victim," and that he should not have to face any kind of significant punishment for armed robbery or any other crime that he commits.

Even now, bleeding-heart fools like Katherine Federle of the "Justice for Children Project" (that's apparently justice for children who commit murder, not children who are murdered) are wailing about "saving Lionel" and "rescuing Lionel." In fact, Federle took it a step further and said that the only reason Tate can't be "rescued" now is because the justice system was too hard on him previously (you know, for making him serve three years in prison instead of no prison time for murdering Tiffany Eunick). I'm all for counseling and psychological treatment in cases like this, but only in the context of the murderer still being behind bars--- not out on the street where he or she could do who-knows-what to anyone at any time.

It's not known what defense Tate's lawyers will use this time around, but it probably won't be, "Pro wrestling made me do it!" Despite the fact that it was only the position of Tate's lawyers for a few months, and it never amounted to anything other than a desperate defense tactic in court, and it was later acknowledged as a fabricated claim, to this day many in the mainstream media still use the term "the pro wrestling murder" whenever Lionel Tate's name is in the news.

You see, the first ridiculously flimsy defense offered by Tate's lawyers after he murdered six-year-old Tiffany Eunick was that he was just imitating pro wrestling. They even wanted to turn the case into a full-fledged circus by calling Hulk Hogan and The Rock to testify (about what, who knows?). After that didn't pass the muster in court, the "pro wrestling defense" was retracted, but not before the murder was forever branded by the media as "the pro wrestling murder."

World Wrestling Entertainment would later sue the fraudulent Parents Television Council (PTC) for, among other things, using the Lionel Tate case as the centerpiece of its anti-WWE campaign, even after Tate's new lawyers admitted that the "pro wrestling defense" had been a fabrication, according to a public apology issued by the PTC. (Click here to read the PTC's full "retraction" statement.)

The second ridiculously flimsy defense offered by Tate's lawyers, and the one that they ultimately stuck with, was that he leaped from a staircase and accidentally landed on Tiffany Eunick, causing her to hit her head, but he didn't mean to hurt her. That defense had no validity and was proven in court to be false by the fact that an autopsy showed Eunick didn't just have head injuries (a fractured skull and a severely swollen brain, to be exact)... she also had a punctured lung, severely bruised kidneys, a broken rib, internal bleeding, cuts and deep bruises all over her body, and a liver area that was beaten so extensively that a piece of her liver had actually become detached during the beating.

Forensic experts testified that Tate may have had to beat on Eunick for over fifteen continuous minutes in order to produce the huge variety and severity of injuries that she suffered. After the jury convicted Tate of first-degree murder, the judge ruled during the trial's sentencing phase that the murder of Tiffany Eunick was particularly "cold, callous, and indescribably cruel."

Tate was sentenced to life in prison, but later set free and put on ten years of probation when it was ruled that because he was under 18 years old, he "couldn't understand" the gravity of the charges against him during his trial. Keep in mind, this is not someone who is mentally handicapped or has a learning disorder or anything like that, nor have his lawyers ever tried to claim anything of the sort... he simply "couldn't understand" the gravity of the charges because he was under 18 years old.

We live in a world now where gangs regularly go out of their way to use juvenile gang members when there's a murder that the gang wants to be carried out, because they know full well that the worst-case scenario is that the under-age murderer might have to go away for a few years. Is that a surprise to anyone, given the example set by cases like the brutal beating death of Tiffany Eunick? If you can get away with maliciously beating a little girl to death just because you're under 18, what can't you get away with?

According to the terms of his probation, which he has now violated for a second time, Lionel Tate is technically supposed to be returned to his former status as someone who is serving a life sentence in prison. That's what should happen according to the rules of his probation and the rules of common sense, but I can't honestly say I expect that to happen. After all, Tate's case is now in the hands of the same system that failed to serve justice for the murder of Tiffany Eunick in the first place.

Labels: Politics / Current Events Commentary

posted by Ivan Trembow at 9:48 PM

Permalink/Single Page for This Post ------ E-Mail This Post to a Friend

Click here for the Ivan's Blog Site Feed

 
Politics--- Hilarity ensues in the House of Representatives as Rep. Al Edwards of Texas, after presumably finding himself to be aroused by high school cheerleading routines, proposes legislation to ban any "sexually suggestive" cheerleading. Does this man not sound literally just like the stereotypical Senator Tankerbell from Mr. Show in the mid-90s, who wanted to ban anything that might cause him to be "aroused" or "titillated" or "confused"? This is an actual quote from Rep. Edwards:

"It's just too sexually oriented, you know, the way they're shaking their behinds and going on, breaking it down... and the teachers and directors are helping them go through those kind of gyrations."

Labels: Politics / Current Events Commentary

posted by Ivan Trembow at 11:57 AM

Permalink/Single Page for This Post ------ E-Mail This Post to a Friend

Click here for the Ivan's Blog Site Feed

 
Politics--- It is now Judgment Day for the presidential campaigns of George W. Bush and John Kerry, with their fate now in the hands of America's voters (and ten to twenty thousand lawyers being flown around the country in chartered jets). The following is an overview of the poll averages from RealClearPolitics.com, followed by my thoughts and analysis.

Please note that these are NOT the actual results of any national or state elections; these are merely the final poll numbers headed into Election Day.

National Polls
Bush: 48.9%
Kerry: 47.4%
Result: Bush favored by 1.5%
Bush has had the lead in the national poll average to the tune of 1-4 percentage points for the past several weeks, and in the final week it narrowed from the 2.5 range to the final tally of 1.5 percent. Of the 14 final national polls, only two of them are predicting a Kerry victory in the popular vote (Fox News and Marist). Two other polls have it dead-even (Gallup and ARG), while the remaining ten polls all give it to President Bush.

Conventional wisdom for presidential elections is that the incumbent must have a lead of several points in the final national polls in order to overcome the fact that undecided voters usually end up heavily favoring the challenger. The question facing pollsters and America today is whether this is going to be the "typical election" in terms of how the undecided voters break down, or whether this election is unique because of the unusually high percentage of voters who are firmly supporting one candidate or the other.

Swing State Polls

Florida
Bush: 48.2%
Kerry: 47.6%
Result: Bush favored by 0.6%
This state is extremely important for the Bush campaign. Its lead of 1.0 in the RCP Average a week ago has gone up and down over the past week before finally settling in on a microscopic 0.6% lead for Bush. If anything, the state has been trending slightly towards Kerry in the past few days' worth of polls, which has to have Republicans worried. If Bush loses Florida, it will be extremely hard for him to come up with the required 270 electoral votes needed to win the election.

Ohio
Bush: 48.8%
Kerry: 46.7%
Result: Bush favored by 2.1%
This state was exactly tied in the RCP Average one week ago, and since then it developed into a 1-2 point lead for Kerry before swinging strongly in the past few days towards Bush. Of the eight final state polls in Ohio, all but one of them have Bush winning. This has to be particularly troubling for the Kerry campaign because Kerry needs to win Ohio a lot more than Bush does. Bush can actually afford to lose Ohio due to the fact that he appears to be picking up several states that were Gore states in 2000. On the other hand, Kerry absolutely must win Ohio unless he is able to upset Bush in Florida.

Pennsylvania
Kerry: 48.2%
Bush: 47.3%
Result: Kerry favored by 0.9%
The common line of thinking a few months ago is that Pennsylvania would be a vitally important swing state, and that the presidency would ultimately be won by the candidate who won two out of three in the Florida-Ohio-Pennsylvania trio. That line of thinking has been undermined in the past couple months by a consistent lead for Kerry in the poll averages, at times by as much as three or four points. The last week's worth of polls have been trending towards Bush and have narrowed the deficit to 0.9 percent, but it is still considered unlikely that Bush will win this state. The belief within both the Democratic and Republican camps is that while it might be close, Kerry will win Pennsylvania. An upset here, while unlikely, would change the whole dynamic of the election because Pennsylvania's 21 electoral votes could easily be substituted for Ohio's 20 electoral votes in the event that Bush loses Ohio.

Wisconsin
Bush: 47.7%
Kerry: 46.8%
Result: Bush favored by 0.9%
If the election is going to come down to any single state other than Florida and Ohio, it is likely to be Wisconsin. The expectation in the last few weeks has been that Bush is more likely than not to win Wisconsin (which went to Gore in 2000), and that is still the expectation despite a narrowing in the last few days' worth of polls. The reason Wisconsin is so important is because if Bush loses Ohio, he will have to pick up either Wisconsin, Minnesota, or Michigan if he wants to win the election, and Wisconsin is easily the most likely of those states to switch over to the Bush column in 2004.

Minnesota
Kerry: 48.5%
Bush: 45.3%
Result: Kerry favored by 3.2%
Up until about a month ago, Minnesota was not really considered a swing state and looked to be an easy victory for Kerry. In the last few weeks of the campaign season, the RCP Average started to narrow to within a few percentage points, then down to one percentage point, and at one point even a one percentage point lead for Bush. However, in the last week polls have shown the state to be swinging back towards Kerry, with four of the six final state polls predicting a Kerry victory. A win here for Bush is considered an achievable but still unlikely upset. Minnesota is extremely important because its ten electoral votes could easily be substituted for Wisconsin's ten electoral votes in the scenario where Bush loses Ohio and needs to pick up one of the northern three states (Minnesota, Wisconsin, or Michigan).

Michigan
Kerry: 48.7%
Bush: 45.2%
Result: Kerry favored by 3.5%
Unlike its neighboring states of Wisconsin and Minnesota, Michigan has not stood out as a swing state with polls favoring both of the candidates. Instead, the polls have consistently shown Kerry ahead, although by a much smaller margin than would be required to say that the state is "safely" in Kerry's corner. Out of Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan, it is clear that Michigan is the least likely to swing in Bush's favor at the last minute.

Iowa
Bush: 47.4%
Kerry: 47.1%
Result: Bush favored by 0.3%
This is a state that Al Gore narrowly won in 2000, but it has been consistently in the Republicans' column by several points over the past several weeks. Last-minute polls by Zogby and SurveyUSA have considerably narrowed the RCP Average, but it is still expected within both campaigns that Iowa is more likely than not to be won by Bush. The booming economy and social conservatism of Iowa make it fundamentally hard for Kerry to win this state, but he remains within striking distance of doing so. If Bush loses Florida or Ohio, part of the contingency package that Bush would have to pick up would include Iowa.

New Hampshire
Kerry: 48.5%
Bush: 47.5%
Result: Kerry favored by 1.0%
Bush narrowly won this state in the 2000 election and is now favored to lose narrowly in this election. Kerry's average lead in the polls has ranged from 1-2 percent in recent weeks, and that pattern has held up in the final week of polling. Nonetheless, New Hampshire is considered easily win-able by either candidate and will be watched very closely because there are a number of scenarios in which the other 49 states could produce electoral ties or near-ties, and it's entirely conceivable that New Hampshire's four electoral votes could end up deciding the presidency.

New Mexico
Bush: 47.8%
Kerry: 46.4%
Result: Bush favored by 1.4%
Al Gore won this state by less than 1,000 votes in the 2000 election, but it has been steadily trending Republican ever since and appears to be a likely victory for Bush. Make no mistake about it, though, New Mexico is one of the final handful of the closest swing states, and its outcome is considered far less certain than the outcomes of states that get more attention like Pennsylvania and Michigan. New Mexico is critical to the Bush contingency plan if Kerry wins Florida. If Kerry wins Florida, a Bush victory in the presidential election would require the very unlikely feat of Bush winning four of the following five states: Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and New Mexico. If one of those four states were to be New Mexico, the election would actually be tied at 269 electoral votes apiece, assuming that there were no surprises in the non-swing states. New Mexico only has five electoral votes, so its outcome won't be watched quite as closely as another key swing state in Iowa with its seven electoral votes.

Nevada
Bush: 51.0%
Kerry: 44.7%
Result: Bush favored by 6.3%
Nevada was a swing state a few months ago and has been incorrectly called a swing state in recent days and weeks by people who haven't been paying attention to the polls, which have sharply favored Bush. I don't expect Nevada to be as much of a blow-out as the RCP Average would suggest, but it would be one of the biggest upsets of Election Day if Kerry were to actually win the state. It's worth noting that Democrats had initially planned to win this election in part by taking over the "Sun Belt States" of New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, and Nevada, which don't have a lot of electoral votes individually but do make for a nice electoral package if you can sweep all of them. That plan has fallen apart in recent months, as Arizona and Utah aren't even remotely close, Nevada is strongly leaning Bush, and only New Mexico is still a toss-up.

Colorado
Bush: 50.0%
Kerry: 44.8%
Result: Bush favored by 5.2%
Colorado was considered to be right next to the Democrats' Sun Belt strategy of making inroads in New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, and Utah, but like all of those states except for New Mexico, it has become a solid Bush state in recent weeks and months. Colorado is still worth keeping an eye on if for no other reason because it appears to be Grand Central Station for election fraud in this campaign season. Statistics show that there are significantly more people registered to vote in Colorado than there are people actually living in Colorado. Nonetheless, a minimal amount of legal effort to challenge fraudulent votes has been focused on Colorado because it's expected to be a win for Bush regardless of the apparent "Vote Early, Vote Often" tendencies.

Hawaii
Bush: 44.7%
Kerry: 43.8%
Result: Bush favored by 0.9%
Hawaii is the wild card of the 2004 election. This is a state that Al Gore won by a whopping 18 percentage points in 2000, which is what made is so shocking in mid-October when two Hawaii polls not only showed a close election, but Bush actually holding a narrow lead. There are reasons for Hawaii to be trending Republican, given that in 2002 it elected its first Republican governor in decades. In an election that could come down to a few electoral votes, the Republicans recognized the importance of Hawaii's four electoral votes by staging a rally earlier this week attended by Dick Cheney, and the Democrats were concerned enough to counter by sending Al Gore to have a pro-Kerry rally. That is significant and shows that internal Democratic polling may also show a very tight race in Hawaii; otherwise they wouldn't have sent Al Gore half-way across the Pacific Ocean when there are lots of other places they could be sending him. Despite all of this, it's still considered slightly more likely than not that Kerry will win Hawaii due to the fact that there have only been two state polls in recent months, and they were both 2-3 weeks ago, and it's just not conceivable in many people's minds that a state could go from an 18-point lead for one party in a presidential election to a win for the other party in the very next election. If the election in the continental United States is deadlocked, it's going to be a very long night because of the time-zone difference and the fact that Hawaii's polls don't close until 1:00 AM Eastern Standard Time.

Former Swing States
The following states were once considered swing states, but are now considered to be firmly behind one of the candidates. It's possible but unlikely that we will see an upset in one or more of these states (heavily-favored candidate in parenthesis).

Arkansas (Bush), Maine (Kerry), Missouri (Bush), New Jersey (Kerry), Oregon (Kerry), Washington (Kerry), West Virginia (Bush)

Other States
The following states are not expected to be close at all, and it would be a huge surprise if there were an upset in any of these states. However, only in looking at the final results of the states below will we be able to identify the swing states of tomorrow. For example, if a particular party won a state in 2000 by eight or more percentage points and is heavily favored to do so again, but they end up only winning the state by 2-4 points, that state is likely to be a 2008 swing state.

A perfect example of this would be Ohio, which was considered to be an easy victory for the Republicans in 2000. When Bush only won Ohio by 3.5 percentage points in 2000, it sent chills down the spines of the Republicans and represented a new hope for Democrats. Sure enough, here we are four years later and Ohio is almost dead-even and could very well decide who will be the next president of the United States.

So, don't expect any upsets in the following states, but do expect some of them to become crucial swing states in the 2008 presidential election.

Firmly Behind Kerry: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, District of Columbia

Firmly Behind Bush: Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wyoming

Combined Electoral Count and Analysis
The closest estimate we can get to the final predicted Electoral Count in this election is to assume that the RCP Average leaders are going to win each state, whether it's a landslide like California or a tightly contested state like Florida. Using that math (and giving Hawaii to Kerry), the average of all polls favors Bush to win in the electoral college, 295 to 259.

That might seem like a wide margin for Bush at first glance, but it's really not. If the RCP Averages hold true except Bush loses Florida, Kerry wins the election. If the RCP Averages hold true except Bush loses Ohio, Kerry wins the election. Those are the two most likely scenarios in which Bush could lose, so let's take a look at what would happen in both of them.

Bush is extremely unlikely to win the election if he loses Florida. If Bush loses Florida and all of other states vote as expected, a Bush victory would require Bush to win Ohio and also win three of the following four states: Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, and New Mexico. It is extremely unlikely that Bush is going to win three of those four states, so it is absolutely vital for him to win Florida.

If Bush loses Ohio and all of the other states vote as expected, a Bush victory would require Bush to win Florida and also win two of the following three states: Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Iowa. It's considered about 50-50 whether Bush would be able to win three of those three states, given that polls show him narrowly ahead in Wisconsin and Iowa, and narrowly behind in Minnesota.

So, there you have it. The RCP Averages suggest that Bush is going to win in the electoral college, 295 to 259, but either candidate could easily end up with 300 or more electoral votes. There are also several highly possible scenarios in which the electoral college could also end up being 276 to 262 in favor of one candidate, or 272 to 266, or 270 to 268, or even (God forbid) 269 to 269. The only truly safe prediction is that anything can happen and you should expect the unexpected.

Labels: Politics / Current Events Commentary

posted by Ivan Trembow at 12:42 PM

Permalink/Single Page for This Post ------ E-Mail This Post to a Friend

Click here for the Ivan's Blog Site Feed

 
Politics--- I would like to take a moment to discuss the importance of the electoral college. Contrary to the views of many pundits who do not understand it, the electoral college is vital to having "fair" elections. If it weren't for the electoral college, the candidates could focus their entire campaigns on eight or nine heavily populated states that hold more than half of America's population, and completely ignore the other 40+ states. The founding fathers of this country created the electoral college for that very reason--- so that candidates couldn't just go into heavily-populated areas and "buy votes" by exclusively catering to those areas. Even as it is with the electoral college, it is heavily weighted with the more heavily populated states getting a lot more electoral votes (California's 55 electoral votes are more than double the amount of any other state).

People who do not understand the importance of the electoral college also justify their positions by saying, "The candidates are spending all of their time in ten states anyway!" That is true, but it is also missing the entire point. With a nationwide popular vote instead of the electoral college, candidates could focus exclusively on the eight or nine most heavily-populated states in the country, and they could focus on those same states every single election. With the electoral college, the candidates have to appease all 50 states but spend most of their final campaigning time in 10-15 "swing states."

This is the way it has always been and is perfectly fair because what constitutes a "swing state" has nothing to do with a state's population... instead, the swing states are the states where the polls are the closest, the states where the citizens are the most divided on who they should vote for, and therefore the states where the candidates' visits and words are all the more important in helping the public make up its collective mind.

Also, as states become increasingly more conservative or liberal over time, the list of swing states is always going to be different in any given election. A swing state this year might not be a swing state in 2008 if the public sways strongly in the direction of one party or the other, and there are plenty of non-swing states this year that could very well be swing states in 2008 (including my state of Maryland).

It's a reality of politics that 10-15 states are going to get most of the candidates' attention in the final weeks of a presidential campaign. Doesn't it make more sense for those states to be largely different in every election and determined by which states are the most closely contested, rather than the same in every election and determined solely by which states are the most heavily populated?

Labels: Politics / Current Events Commentary

posted by Ivan Trembow at 11:06 AM

Permalink/Single Page for This Post ------ E-Mail This Post to a Friend

Click here for the Ivan's Blog Site Feed

 
Politics--- I have been following the presidential race and politics in general very closely. The best web site to visit to see the current status of various battleground states and/or national polls is without a doubt RealClearPolitics.com, which surpasses all other sites in its usefulness and clarity because it averages all of the recent poll results for any given state (and also doesn't count polls conducted by partisan Republican or Democratic polling firms).

A simple example of how the RCP Averages work would be Washington State, where there are two recent state polls, one of which has Kerry up by eight points and one of which has Kerry up by seven points. So, the RCP Average is that Kerry is leading Washington State by 7.5. It gets more complicated in other states like Wisconsin where recent polls have Bush up by six, Bush up by one, Kerry up by one, and two ties, thus creating the average that Bush is up by 1.2 in Wisconsin if you average all of the recent polls.

As far as RCP is concerned, Bush is ahead in the electoral college, 234 to 211, in states that both candidates have locked up pretty comfortably, and that's if you outright give Pennsylvania to Kerry and give Iowa and West Virginia to Bush.

The remaining battleground states are Florida, New Mexico, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and the state that the election could very well come down to: Ohio. If you look at the RCP Averages, Bush has very slim leads in Florida (RCP Average has him up by 1.0), New Mexico (1.5), and Wisconsin (1.2), while Kerry has very slim leads in Michigan (2.5), Minnesota (1.3), and New Hampshire (0.7). Amazingly, the average of seven recent polls in Ohio has Bush and Kerry exactly tied with 47.4 percent of the vote going to each of them.

So, as of Saturday, October 23, if you take into account all of the RCP Averages in swing states, Bush is ahead in the electoral college, 276 to 242 (270 electoral votes are needed to become president). This statistic does not give either candidate Ohio's 20 electoral votes since the state is exactly tied, but as of right now Kerry could win Ohio and still lose in the electoral college, 276 to 262.

A couple of factors to consider are the fact that Kerry is screwed if he loses Michigan or Minnesota, where he has been expected to win all along and where his lead continues to narrow. On the same token, Bush cannot afford to lose Florida, where he has been ahead in the polls for months but is currently only ahead by 1.0 in the RCP Average.

One mind-boggling scenario to consider is that if everything stays the way it is right now in the RCP Poll Averages, except Bush wins Ohio and Kerry wins Florida, the electoral vote would be exactly tied at 269 to 269. I'm pretty sure there's a law that if the electoral college ends up tied at 269, Ross Perot becomes president, but I could be mistaken...

Labels: Politics / Current Events Commentary

posted by Ivan Trembow at 5:14 PM

Permalink/Single Page for This Post ------ E-Mail This Post to a Friend

Click here for the Ivan's Blog Site Feed