Ugg, Math Sucks

Let's, once again, talk about the mind-numbingly simple to understand and hard to fix problem of budget deficits. The federal government budget deficit is a function of two very easy to understand factors. One is income. The government gets income mostly from taxes and selling certain good and services. The other is spending. Spending is further divided into two catagories, non-discretionary (that's spending that is required by law), and discretionary (that's spending that is not required by law).


Now, for the sake of clarity, let's agree on one simple concept. If you cut taxes, without reducing spending, that reduces revenue to the government, thereby increasing the deficit. If you increase spending, without increasing taxes, that also increases the deficit. There are those who will argue that either of those scenarios are not true long-term because either may lead to economic growth. When we have job growth, we have more folks paying taxes. That new revenue obviously shrinks the deficit, but unless you are capable of seeing into the future, you can't guarantee that.

Certain policies carry greater odds of increasing revenue than others. For example, if the government hired 100 workers to work on building a road, those workers would cost the government money (even as they pay taxes), but the purchase of equipment and supplies to build the road reaches far out into the economy, possibly spurring growth. Those 100 workers having a paycheck would presumably mean that they would buy things, possibly further spurring growth. This has a reasonable chance of growing the economy because there are several mechanisms by which it could work.

The theory behind simply cutting taxes is that citizens with more dollars in their pocket will spend that money, encouraging growth. So far, we have seen that people are using that money more to pay down debt. Furthermore, because this doesn't directly put more people to work, demand doesn't increase for private companies. If demand doesn't increase, there is no reason to hire more workers. So, while simply cutting taxes could work to spur economic growth, it has fewer mechanisms to achieve that goal.

Please, please note that both of these policies INCREASE the deficit. Neither of them cut the deficit. A person advocating more spending and a person advocating more tax cuts are both advocating adding to the deficit. Let's also be clear on that.

Let's take a more simple example. In your own budget, if you take a pay cut at work (in the government's case this equates to a tax cut), you have to spend less money. If you do not, you will go into debt. Likewise, if you increase your spending, you had better increase your income or you will go into debt. We all weigh these types of choices in our lives on an almost daily basis. We also weigh long-term choices. For example, if you decide to go to college and take out loans, you want to choose a career path that allows you to make a salary that will make it possible for you to pay off that debt. However, because we can't see into the future, we have to be very careful with these types of choices. This is really no more sophisticated than a carefully crafted gamble.

Ok, so Republicans ran on a platform that included, almost exclusively, reigning in "out of control government spending". Their message was that the debt and deficit was a threat to our republic and must be addressed immediately. Fair enough. Let's take a look at some ideas put forth by new and old Republicans.

The Bush Tax Cuts

Republicans have made their number one priority extending the Bush tax cuts for all Americans. They claim that those tax cuts are necessary to spur economic growth. This is dubious at best considering we have had those cuts in place for nearly all of the 2000's and we are where we are. However, putting that aside, what will that do to the deficit? According to the Treasury Department, extending the cuts for all will ADD $3.7 trillion to the deficit over the next 10 years.

Most Democrats have suggested allowing the tax cuts to expire, which will happen January 1st if Congress fails to act, only for Americans making more than $200,000 per year or couples making more than $250,000 per year. The tax rates for those Americans would go from the current rate, 33% and 35% for the top two brackets, to the pre-Bush tax cut rates of 36% and 39.6% respectively. To be clear, we are talking about a 3% increase for the 2nd highest bracket and a 4.6% increase for the highest bracket. Extending the tax cuts for the rich accounts for $700 billion of the $3.7 trillion cited above.

So the difference between the two parties boils down to Democrats wanting to add $3 trillion to the long-term deficit by extending the tax cuts for couples making less than $250,000 and Republicans wanting to add $3.7 trillion to the long-term deficit by extending the tax cuts for all. For the sake, once again, of clarity, $3.7 trillion is not smaller than $3 trillion.

Nukes

Back in April, President Obama and Russian President Medvedev agreed on a new START treaty. President Reagan stated the negotiations for START I, which was signed by President Bush in 1991. This new treaty would require us to cut our nuclear arsenal down to a paltry 1500 nukes. I'm not sure how many times that many nukes would destroy the Earth, but it seems rather obvious that if we got to the point where we needed to use 1500 nukes, we've already lost.

Such a treaty requires 3/4 of the Senate voting yes to ratify. The Republicans are lead in this debate by Senator Jon Kyl who has stated that he will not allow this treaty to be ratified during the looming lame duck session because he wants $15 billion in additional spending to "modernize" our nuclear arsenal. Again, that's $15 billion ADDED to the deficit by the fiscally conservative republicans.

Health Care

I think it's fairly clear that Republicans would like to repeal health care. Let's also be very clear by using the Republicans' own media mouth piece, Fox News, to make a point: the health care bill will reduce the deficit, according the non-partisian Congressional Budget Office (CBO), by at least $1 billion over 5 years and "creates absolutely no deficit over that period of time." That FOX NEWS article is found here.

It isn't just the CBO with those favorable projections though. The also non-partisian Government Accountability Office (GAO) noted that the health care bill gives "notable improvement to the debt outlook if fully implemented."

So, to bring our score up to date, the Republican plan to shrink the deficit includes adding $700 billion in the form of extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, spending an additional $14 billion on nukes when we already have enough to destroy the Earth...well more than once which is all that matters, and repealing the health care bill which is set to shrink the deficit by $1 billion/year in the near term, and up to $1 trillion over a decade.

Defense

The waste found in defense spending is a subject for a whole series of boring blog posts, so I'll let you do some googling yourself, but suffice to say it's a bit ridiculous. For example, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (an awesome piece of machinery) currently has an extra engine built for every plane. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said that we don't need the extra engine, but Congressmen from both parties have over-ridden his request at an upfront cost to taxpayers totaling $4.2 billion.

This is just one example. For their part, some freshmen Republican Congressmen, such as Kentucky's Rand Paul, have said that reducing defense spending should be on the table. He was very quickly rebuked by the completely shameless John McCain who claims that defense spending should be untouched.

Considering the staggering costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, both completely unpaid for and debt funded, in addition to the above mentioned dubious defense expenditures, surely some savings could be found in defense.

Let's be serious here folks. Republicans are the same as they've always been. They talk of being fiscally conservative, but they are not.




Note that the debt increased significantly during the Republican administrations Reagan (Mr. Fiscal Conservative), Bush 41 and 43. The debt did not increase at all as a percentage of GDP under democratic administrations Carter and Clinton. The story is yet to be written for President Obama, although it will likely rise significantly during his 1st term considering we are incurring massive tax revenue loss due to high unemployment, massive expenditures due to two rather stagnant wars, and a totally absurd bunch of proposals by Republicans.

Now, none of this is particularly hard to understand. Republicans SAY they are fiscal conservatives who care deeply about debts and deficits. They ACT by championing policies that add to that debt and those deficits. As always, even in Washington, addition makes bigger and subtraction makes smaller.

Kevlar Bullshit

Way back near the beginning of his Presidency, Barack Obama vowed to created a "deficit reduction panel." The purpose of this panel was to inject some reality into an all-to-unreal conversation. Republicans have been harping for two years on the increasing budget deficit (projected to eclipse $1 trillion for the 3rd straight year). To ensure we are on the same page here:

The "budget deficit" is simply the difference between how much money the government brings in in revenue (i.e. taxes) and how much it spends. This number starts over every fiscal year. The "national debt", on the other hand, is the sum of budget deficits over time. For example, if we had a deficit of $10 for the last 4 years, we'd have $40 in national debt. It is actually, and you better sit down, a bit higher than $40. Try not to be bothered by these large numbers though. While the nuts and bolts of fixing the problem is quite complex, understanding it is as simple as balancing your checkbook. If we spend more than we bring in...we'll be in debt.

The Republicans ran on a platform of "reigning in out of control government spending". Their first order of business is to permanently extend the Bush tax cuts for everyone. Democrats would like to only extend those tax cuts for individuals and couples making less than $250,000 per year, and the 3% tax cut to expire for those making more. The Republican plan would cost the nation $700 billion over the next decade. Put another way, it will ADD $70 billion a year to our budget deficit for the 10 years. I'm no math major, but ADDING $700 billion to something does not make it smaller.

Anyway, back to the "deficit reduction commission". Confronted with the reality of such absurd proposals, Mr. Obama decided to use a Republican idea and created the commission (composed of civilians and government officials and equally divided between Republicans and Democrats). The Republicans, of course, quickly filibustered their own idea to protect against being seen doing something. President Obama created the panel by executive order. That panel came out with their initial suggestions yesterday. Let's go over the proposals and see how badly poor people are getting screwed by the latest "ideas" coming out of Washington. Quickly, let's again remember that historical irresponsible lending and investing by Wall Street banks got us into this mess. Remember also that our budget deficits are NOT ONLY THE RESULT OF SPENDING, but also the result of less tax money coming in. That's what happens when unemployment is almost 10%. That's 10% of the workforce not paying taxes. On to the proposal.

Reform the Tax Code

This is a good principle to start with. Many correctly note, and my buddy Brody can attest, that the tax code is too complex. It is probably fair to estimate that if you have to hire outside help for doing your taxes, it's too complex. It is riddled with deductions in this special circumstance, but not that. It has tax loop holes for companies and rich folks that poor folks don't have access to. This panels idea is to...wait for it...cut taxes! Yes, while we are bringing in such low revenue, the panel suggests the historical unsuccessful at doing anything good technique, cutting taxes.

But wait, they say, we are going to eliminate some of those loopholes and deductions so that we will still raise more revenue. Ah, ok. So which ones?

Mortgage Deduction: Let's see, who will this screw? Middle and low income families are struggling to stay in their homes as it is. In case you've been, well probably you'd have to have been dead, foreclosures are a problem, to say the least. If you take away the mortgage deductions many of those families may not be able to stay in their homes. This is truly one of the few major tax breaks that comes for middle and low income families. Ok, 1 for 1.

Employer Health Insurance Deduction: Now, at first this seems like it would hurt business owners. However, a moderate amount of thinking will make you realize that this would provide the political cover for companies to stop offering employee health insurance. Even with the new health care bill, buying private insurance will be more expensive and more difficult. Again, screwing the middle and low income folks. 2 for 2.

Social Security

The plan here to to lower the "cost of living" (COLA) increase that comes to seniors. Who needs that COLA? Certainly not folks who have a nice retirement portfolio. Also, the plan would gradually raise the retirement age. It is also here that you can make an argument that poor people aren't getting screwed as much, as the plan suggests paying out more social security to lower income folks and less to higher income folks. A bold step indeed considering the fact that most wealthy folks don't depend on social security much, if at all, because they have their own nice retirement accounts. Also, remember that many companies are rolling back pension plans for their work-force, so those old "middle class" jobs are not providing that service as often as they used to. However, raising the retirement age screws poor people. Studies show that people working in lower income jobs don't live as long as those working in higher income jobs. There are a lot of sociological reasons for this that I'm sure you can imagine, but the point is, by raising the retirement age for all, you are, again, screwing the poor people the thing they look forward to the most, quitting their shitty job, until it may be too late. 3.5 out of 4 for the race to screw poor people the most.

Medicare

The plan here suggests that seniors pay a co-pay for their services. Now this sucks for all seniors, but if you have the "extra" cash to pay for it, you'll be pissed but live. If you don't have the "extra" cash, then what? Again, screwing poor people. 4.5 out of 5.

This proposal is supposedly a "starting point" for discussing the "painful" choices that we have to make about our budget future. We all must "sacrifice" they say. If by "we", I think the rich guys mean "us". The panel really made those 5 main suggestions along with some other less drastic ones. Out of those 5, 4.5 screws poor people. Some starting point. So let's set the picture again for you:

Wall Street bankers and rich government officials game the system since 1980 deregulating banks, making bad loans, "creating" financial products that mean nothing but cost everything, commit fraud on a historic scale both in foreclosing on people's homes and the "investment" packages they sold containing those mortgages. In addition they lobbied Congress for the Bush tax cuts, which overwhelmingly favored them and apparently did nothing to improve the economy or create jobs like conservative dogma suggests. Fact is, they were in place through most of the 2000's and we are still where we are. Fact is, they have been, and are, in effect right now and we have almost 10% unemployment. The argument Republicans are making is, "let's keep doing exactly what we are doing and maybe we'll get a different result."

All that is true, plus the fact that our tax dollars bailed out those banks and auto companies. Plus the fact that those same banks are still foreclosing on those people who bailed them out by circumventing the law. And now they put forth a plan that calls for "shared sacrifice" that appears to only be shared by us.

President Obama, for his part, has waited to make comment until the official report is released, which should be around Dec. 1st. What he should of said..."Poor people are not going to pay for our sins. This report is complete bullshit, and go fuck yourself."

Or something like that...

The Importance of Being Barefoot

One of my favorite strength and conditioning authors, Martin Rooney, wrote an article today outline why he believes training barefoot is a great idea. While I'll leave all the particulars to Mr. Rooney, I certainly agree with him.

That article will cover many of the reasons that barefoot training is good for anyone, but for my sport (mixed martial arts) I think it is obviously essential.

Now, you certainly can't go into your local LA Fitness or YMCA completely barefoot and start lifting or running. It is possible to lift in socks, but any small pieces of glass or rocks can be problematic. To combat this, I purchased Vibram Five Fingers (picture above). I've had my Vibrams, as the lingo goes, for 8 months or so. Here's a quick pro/con list for you.

Pros
Feel great on your feet

Allows you to take advantage of the benefits of barefoot training, but provides some protection from injury and the elements.

Great conversation starter

Machine washable

Very versatile (i.e. you can use these for jogging, sprinting, hiking, lifting, jumping, etc. There are different models of shoe to fit your specific needs.)

Seem very durable so far

Cons
You have to be willing to take a step back before enjoying all the advantages of training barefoot.
-To expand on this, if you are used to running 3-5 miles a day, or you do lots of plyometric jumping and training, you will have to lower your volume significantly for awhile to allow your feet to properly condition to being asked to carry the load again. When you wear regular shoes, the high heel, arch support, and thick soles do some of the work your feet will normally do. This naturally de-trains your feet. You will need to work up to running (especially sprinting or long distances) before jumping right into full training

In a related story, you will also have to learn to run properly. Many runners tend to heel strike hard in their gate. The gel, air, or thick insoles in their running shoes allow them to get away with this. When you train barefoot you have to learn to be on the mid-foot/balls of your feet. The good news is, you'll naturally start doing this when you run barefoot. The bad news is, you are probably not conditioned to it. Therefore you'll likely experience a lower level of performance in the short-term. Don't worry, it's all worth it.

Even though they are machine washable, they still stink bad. Trust me.

They have released newer models since I bought mine, but my version of the KSO model doesn't provide good protection at all against stepping on rocks or sticks. This can be annoying because it dictates where you can run.



All in all, I really recommend giving them a shot. Enjoy!

Low Carb Snicker Doodle Cookies

As the holiday season approaches, we all know that we will be faced with a sobering choice between our fitness goals and pleasing our palate. But with a few good recipes, you can eat some delicious desserts and still keep trekking towards your fitness goals. Note: this is not a low calorie food, but a low carb food. I'd advise you that keeping carbs low is a major key to fat loss, but don't forget that total calories matter a lot. Here's the wonderful recipe for low carb snicker doodle cookies:

1.5 cups Almond Flour
3/4 cup Splenda
3/4 cup (1 stick) butter (You can use margarine, of course, but the trans-fats are worse than the butter. I like the butter made with a touch of Olive Oil. Moderation makes butter fine.)
1/4 cup Brown Sugar Splenda (Note that this is a sugar and splenda blend. You can cut a few more carbs out by using a whole cup of regular Splenda here, but the small amount of brown sugar shouldn't hurt much. Moderation folks!)
1 egg
1/2 tsp. vanilla
1/4 tsp. baking soda
1/4 tsp. cream of tartar (optional)

Put half of the almond flour, and all the rest of the ingredients, in a bowl and mix thoroughly. After mixing, add the rest of the almond flour and mix evenly. Batter should be fairly stiff. Put batter, covered, in the fridge for 1 hour.

Mix to roll the cookies in:

2 Tbsp. Splenda
2 tsp. Brown Sugar Splenda
3/4 tsp. Cinammon

Preheat oven to 350F. Roll batter into balls and roll each ball in the sugary mix. For thinner, crisper cookies, smash the balls into thin sheets. For thicker, gooey-er (word?) cookies, leave as balls. Bake 14-16 minutes. Immediately transfer to a cooling rack. Makes 8-10 cookies.

Enjoy!!!

Beautiful Judo

I ran across a link to this fight in the Bellator organization. Rick Hawn is a former Olympian in Judo who is enjoying a very successful start to his MMA career. In this fight, he executes a wonderful throw to set his opponent up for a quick finish. Judo as a base art has enjoying varying levels of success so far in MMA. It does, however, contain the inherent work ethic and ability to fight well in the clinch that gives wrestling so much success in MMA. Perhaps the difference lies in the use of the gi in many Judo throws, as well as the lack of ground work in Judo tournaments. Satoshi Ishii is another interesting prospect. He was the 2008 Olympic Gold medalist in heavyweight Judo. He has started off his career in Japan, and has looked promising to this point. I have long admired the power and grace in Judo throws, and look forward to the day when more and more high level Judo players develop no-gi games and bring another alternative to wrestling. Enjoy the video!

Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear

The major theme of both The Daily Show and The Colbert Report is that the debate in this country is being controlled by ideological zealots, or media companies who can't figure out how to report the news without making it seems as if an atomic bomb is about to drop on us, while the vast majority of Americans are reasonable people who want reasonable solutions. They both approach this theme by using satire to make folks laugh, but intentional or not, both shows have a point and we'd be wise to listen a bit. Let's take an example:

Christine O'Donnell is running for Senate in Delaware. Now, if you have followed the race at all, or even caught a blurb about it on a news program, you probably know that Ms. O'Donnell admitted to "dabbling in witchcraft" at one point in her life. You also know that she appeared on MTV 14 years ago to say that masturbation is immoral. New organizations love this kind of stuff because it makes people talk, but I'd like to present another angle.......who gives a shit? If you are looking for someone who has never said or done anything questionable in their entire life to vote for, well, good luck!

The problem with Ms. O'Donnell is that she is ignorant. She has little knowledge of the Constitution, which she claims as her guiding light. She has mislead people time and time again about her education credentials. She has also presented no actual plan to address any issue we face today. But, the reality is, most people don't know about those issues at all. I talk to people who say, "who is Christine O'Donnell?" One quick reminder about masturbation and *bam* the memory is jogged.

The media, however, emphasizes the most extreme and ridiculous presumably because they feel that's what we want to know. My guess is that it's less about that being what we want to know, and more about that's all we hear. At any rate, the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear is about trying to chill out that rhetoric a bit.

The rally is about showing people that the extreme fringes of the debate in this country shouldn't be the driving force. Rather, reasonable people should get together to solve some problems. People are encouraged to bring signs to the rally, but they should be, well, sane! In fact, the rally has set up a website to post some ideas for sane rally signs. A good example: I disagree with you, but I'm pretty sure you're not Hitler.

Anyway, check it out. The wife and I are going and would be happy to carpool if anyone is interested. The rally is free to attend (FYI: so are most of the museums in D.C., so it could be a pretty inexpensive weekend getaway), and on October 30th.

Be Sane!

Football Dogma

I love football. I love the chess match. I love the concept of getting 11 people to work together towards a common goal, even it it means self-sacrifice. Indeed, football is the ultimate team game.

We folks in Indianapolis have long been spoiled by watching one of the great franchises in the sport. But, just for curiosities sake, how does a team consistently win games in the NFL? Turn on ESPN sometime, and you'll hear a certain dogma.

Now, to be fair, ESPN employs some pretty good former NFL players, while I was not a very good former high school player. To be sure, Mark Schlereth, Merrill Hodge, Darren Woodson, and Co. know the game very well. They have played it at a high level and won Super Bowls. But one of my recent pet peeves has been watching the veins on Mark Schlereth's head pop out as he breathlessly proclaims that a football team has to get physical and run the football, while stopping the other team from running the football on the football field during the football game. As a side note, I love how he assumes he is talking to an audience of goldfish, so he must remind us several times mid-sentence that is talking about the sport of football.

At any rate, this has often annoyed me because these sermons come at the expense of the Colts. Every year we hear the analysts put the Colts down after both wins and losses in which they give up a bunch of rushing yards, or fail to run the ball many times. Obviously, despite the doomsday predictions, the Colts remain successful year in and year out.

But do the analysts have a point in most other cases. It is fair to say that many rules might not apply to the Colts because they have Peyton Manning. Do you HAVE to run the ball well and stop the run to win a Super Bowl or, at least, your division? I visited Pro Football Reference's website, looked up team stats from 2000-2009, and recorded data on every playoff team from that time frame.

Let's talk offense first. A quick glance at the list shows that the best running team in the league (note that the official stat the ranks the teams is rushing yards), made the playoffs 7 out of 10 seasons. However, the average rush offense rank for Super Bowl winners was only 13.5, while the average rank for Super Bowl runner-ups was 16th. And the story has only gotten worse for the Wish-Bone fans recently, as only 2 out of the last 8 Super Bowl teams have posted top 10 rushing offenses.

The playoffs, though, can be a bit misleading for a strategy's actual success. After all, late season injuries, inclement weather, the extra time and focus to prepare for a teams attack, and just the "ball didn't bounce our way" factor that exists in single games can make trends a bit harder to identify. So looking at division winners should provide a more accurate view. Over the course of an entire season, some of those hard to control for factors should average themselves out. For this analysis, I took out the 2000 season because that was the last year before the new divisional alignment. There have been 72 division winners since 2001, and their average rush offense rank is 13.2.

Does this mean that a team need be only average at running the ball to win games? It would even be accurate to point out that in some of these cases a team's rank is probably elevated over their actual effectiveness. Indeed if a team is at a elite level, they are probably ahead late in games. Being ahead late in games means running the ball a bit more to keep the clock rolling. Even so, an average ranking shoots some holes in the story that you absolutely have to run the ball well to win.

I would make that same argument, to an even greater degree, in the case of rush defense. Most fans are familiar with the strategy of running the ball early and often to "wear out" a defense. As the game ticks down into the last quarter or so, a team should be churning out the most yards rushing, as they are facing a tired opponent. But elite level teams are often far enough ahead late, that their opponents can't run the ball because of the clock. In 2007, for example, the Patriots boasted the 10th ranked run defense in the league. They were a very good defense, no doubt, but it helped that they lead many of those games by 3 touchdowns or more in the 4th quarter.

The average rush defense rank for Super Bowl winners since 2000 is 10.2. For the sake of clarity though, I should point out that in 2006, the Colts had the 32nd ranked rush defense in the league. Therefore, throwing out that statistical outlier, the average rank drops to 7th. Runner-ups boasted an average of 9.9, while division winners posted a 11.6 ranking.

What do these stats show? Simply that you can win without running the ball and stopping the run at a very high level, but your chances certainly do improve if you perform at an average rate at least. Passing tells a similar story, though it has been more important recently. The average pass offense ranking for Super Bowl winners is 14.7, and losers is 7.2. However, of the last 8 Super Bowl teams, 5 have posted top 10 passing offenses (compared to 2 posting top 10 rushing offenses).

So are the analysts wrong? Well, the stats can still be misleading. While a running play is defined as a underhanded pitch or handoff to a player, is it really that different from a screen pass or 2 yard slant or hitch? The Colts often use wide receiver screens or quick slants in place of traditional run-between-the-tackles kind of plays, but they still act as running plays in that offense.

Whatever the case may be, Colts fans shouldn't fret when the analysts proclaim that they can't win due to a bad performance or two stopping the run. We've been here before, seen this movie, and still won. Now you have the stats to back that up. Of course, as the old saying goes, 'there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.'

UFC 119: This Pro Makes His Picks

UFC 119 signals the arrival of major label MMA to my de-loved home, Indianapolis. While the UFC tends to reserve big-time title fights for big-time cities, this card features several good matchups with quality prospects performing for a chance to move up the ladder. Furthermore, this card features three Indianapolis area fighters who will look to show their mettle before their hometown fans. Here's a look at the matchups that make the event:

Sean McCorkle vs Mark Hunt

Fans of the now defunct Pride Fighting Championships know that Mark Hunt is a dangerous opponent. Built like a bowling ball (listed at 5'10" and 250 lbs) and possessing dynamite power, Hunt has faced many of the very best in the world including: Mirko Cro Cop, Fedor, Josh Barnett, Alistair Overeem, and Wanderlei Silva. And while he fell short in terms of record (5-6), Hunt was able to defeat both Cro Cop and Silva in consecutive New Years' Eve shows. The problem for Hunt is that those shows came in 2004 and 2005. In fact, he has lost 5 straight fights and last claimed victory in May of 2006.

Sean McCorkle is a local fighter who is built as the prototypical modern MMA heavyweight. He stands 6'6" tall and has had to cut weight hard to make the 265 limit. He is a very athletic and powerful guy, but has imposed those advantages on *ahem* less than top level opponents in local shows.

Keys
McCorkle has two major battles to fight here. First, he must manage the emotions of fighting in his hometown, in front as many people as watched his other fights combined, for the premiere organization in the world. He must remain calm, execute his game plan, and not get discouraged if he finds Mark Hunt to be a slightly tougher out than his past opponents.

To the meat of the fight, however, McCorkle must maintain range very wisely in this fight. He holds a 8" height advantage (at least) over Mark Hunt. Hunt, however, doesn't need much time to land one of those heavy looping shots on McCorkle's chin. If he does, the fight can quickly turn south for the local boy. McCorkle must use his jab wisely, circle to his right when on the outside, and clinch at every opportunity. He can use the cage and his size advantage to lean on Hunt and wear him down. Hunt's lack of a ground game will be evident, and the steroid--but not beef--free version of Big Mac should capitalize.

McCorkle by 2nd round TKO

Sean Sherk vs Evan Dunham

One of the truly great things about undercard fights are the matchups between veterans struggling to stay near the top and prospects struggling to earn a place at the table. This fight is a great example of that. Sean Sherk is a former champion and a very tough fighter. He possesses good wrestling and ground control, great conditioning, a tough chin, and capable striking. In many ways, this is a major crossroads fight for Sherk. He is now 37 years old. Detractors will point to the fact he has lost 2 of 3. Fans will say those losses were to former champ BJ Penn and current champ Frankie Edgar. I will say he is dangerously close to being stuck in journeyman territory now because he may be viewed as better than the bottom guys, but not near the top guys. Journeyman, however, is better than unemployed and that's why this fight is a must win for Sherk.

Evan Dunham is 11-0 and 4-0 in the UFC. He is versatile (2 wins by decision, 1 by submission, 1 by KO in the UFC). He has beaten the guys you'd expect an upcoming contender to have beaten (Marcus Aurelio, Tyson Griffin). This is a big opportunity for him to beat a big name, and a truly high level fighter.

Keys
Evan Dunham has 5 victories in his career by submission, however he will be wise to not try to prove his submission acumen with Sean Sherk. Sherk is well known for his ability to shut down an aggressive submission game and drag you deep into a fight. Against Sherk, you can quickly find yourself down two rounds to none and desperate. That desperation leads to risk taking on your feet, which gets you taken down, and so on. Sherk, however, isn't without his weaknesses. He tends to get caught up in only striking, or only going for the takedown. As such, after the first 2-3 minutes of the fight, he gets predictable. Dunham needs only to use good footwork, a stiff jab and leg kick, and a nice mix of striking and takedowns to frustrate Sherk and get ahead on points early. When behind, Sherk still lacks the offensive skills to finish most opponents.

Dunham by 3rd round TKO

Matt Serra vs Chris Lytle

Two of my personal favorites are set for a rematch at UFC 119. The first fight featured a lot of clinch and cagework and few of the fireworks both fighters are more well known for. Both fighters are skilled on the ground. While Serra has a deeper pedigree, both he and Lytle were controlled and beaten in similar fashion by Matt Hughes' top game. Both fighters have won often by submission, and both fighters lack the dominating wrestling needed to take the other down at will.

Both fighters are also good standing. Both have good chins and are solid punchers. It says here that Serra is a bit more technical, but both fighters are aggressive and both fighters are willing to sit in the pocket and trade. The last fight's relative lack of action may well have been due to a healthy respect for each man's skills.

Keys
Continuing the theme of similarities, the biggest key for each fighter is to be versatile and vary their attacks. Neither man is at all easy to finish, so both men must be willing to do some work throughout the fight to earn points towards a decision win. If the finish comes, so be it. That said, Chris Lytle has the attitude that he fights to entertain the fans. He has a desire, naturally, to finish every fight and to do so in exciting fashion. While this is admirable, it does cause him to be wild in his striking game, and reluctant to take advantage of opportunities in the clinch or on the ground to soften up his opponent either for a finish or a decision. Matt Serra will use his jab and full arsenal of weapons more effectively. Either man winning will make me happy, but...

Serra by decision.

Rogerio Nogueira vs Ryan Bader

Although few would argue that Nogueira is on his way down, in some ways this fight is similar to Sherk vs Dunham. Nogueira is a perennial contender at this point, but is 34 and can't afford losses or setbacks. He is no doubt a win or maybe two away from a title shot and is an excellent, and established, fighter. Bader is an up and comer to be sure. He won The Ultimate Fighter, is 11-0, and beat the very tough Keith Jardine in his last outing. This fight either puts "Lil Nog" in line for a title shot, or propels Bader into the upper echelon of 205 lb'ers in the UFC.

Keys

There are some who believe that Jason Brilz somehow exposed Lil Nog in Nog's razor thin split decision win in May. However, I disagree. Neither Lil nor Big Nog have ever spent much effort defending takedowns. Indeed Lil Nog generally doesn't mind finding himself on the ground given his usual chance to win by submission. Brilz was game, to be sure, but rewatching the fight shows that while Brilz may be been close on a sub attempt, the fight mostly consisted of Brilz taking Nog down and Nog getting the sweep. That said, both Nogueira brothers risk losing decisions in the wrestler dominated UFC, and Bader can be that guy if he's oh-so-careful in this one.

Ryan Bader is a great athlete with a great wrestling pedigree. The danger for him lays in being predictable. Nog can finish the fight in a flash either standing or on the ground, and like his big brother, has the chin and cardio to get that finish in any round. Indeed Nog is the type of guy who you might hit five straight times with a technique, but if you dare to throw it a sixth, he could be waiting with a counter that changes the fight. Bader must have a feel for when Nog is getting comfortable boxing and take him down. Then feel when Nog is getting comfortable on the ground and stand up. He must force Nog to fight all over the cage and never get familiar enough with Bader's attack to find the finish. Bader, however, lacks the skill to do this. Nog will light him up standing and put doubt in Bader's mind early. Bader will dive for a takedown in desperation, get it, and get promptly put to sleep.

Nog by 1st round submission.

Frank Mir vs Mirko Cro Cop

Fights, to borrow from Shrek, are like onions...they have many layers. Layer one pits a classic striker (Cro Cop) vs grappler (Mir) match. Both men are adapt at finishing quickly and violently in their respective areas, and both have the experience to impose their wills. Layer two shows that while Mir is a grappler, he's never been a great wrestler or pressure fighter. And while Cro Cop is a striker, he struggles when pressured and forced to counter punch. Indeed that makes for a strange matchup. Most grapplers would use Randy Couture's strategy for imposing their grappling by pressuring their opponent, mixing in strikes to set up takedowns, and using the cage to stifle any striking offense. These skills, however, have not often been shown by Mir who is more of a classic Jiu-Jitsu player who gets the fight to the ground by his opponent's will, pulling guard, or knocking his opponent down.

Likewise, many strikers would counter Couture's style Chuck Liddell style. Keep your back off the cage, get the wrestler to over-extend in trying to hit or grab you, and counter-punch him to sleep. But Cro Cop is a stalking striker who is far better when he's in the center of the cage and walking his opponent down. He almost stops kicking when pressured and relies on his straight left hand to stop his opponent's advance. While that is a formidable weapon, Cro Cop doesn't throw combinations off that left hand often, and he hasn't shown one shot KO power with it in the UFC.

Keys

This fight has many questions: Will Frank Mir dare to strike with Cro Cop? Mir has shown (see: Big Nog fight) that he can counter punch effectively, but against Cro Cop that is usually a death sentence. If we assume that he can't strike with Cro Cop, how will Mir get the fight to the ground? He has rarely shown a good shot in his career, and Cro Cop has an underrated sprawl. Indeed, Cro Cop has spent his entire career fending off takedown attempts, and he's no pushover in that area. How much will Cro Cop dare to kick knowing his end awaits him soon after his back touches the mat?

My advice to Cro Cop would be to use his right jab, left straight combo over and over and to fire that nuclear left round kick at Mir's ribs and legs through the first, and part of the second round. He can use those sharp, straight punches to keep Mir away and pick him apart. From there, Cro Cop has the patience and skills to eventually put Mir out. My advice to Mir would be to pressure Cro Cop relentlessly. View backing up as a horrible thing and very dangerous. Force Cro Cop into scrambling situations where he can't plant and throw his shots. Use the cage to soften up and slow Cro Cop and look for that takedown, even if it means (and it probably will) pulling guard. As a excellent jiu-jitsu player, Mir must not be afraid to pull guard. From there he should be able to sweep and submit Cro Cop quickly.

This fight, however, is tailor made for a Cro Cop highlight. All the things he struggles with, wrestlers, clinch work, cage control, pressure fighters, are skills Mir doesn't readily possess.

Cro Cop by 2nd round TKO

Yes We Can (or Might be Able to if the GOP Wants it)

In case you are immune to being repeatedly bashed in the head by 24 hour news reports, this is an election year. And *gasp* it isn't just any election year. It's a mid-term election year! Needless to say it's a boon for windbags and pundits, such as myself. So, what does it all mean? A bit of history first:

There have been seventeen mid-term elections since 1942. The party of the sitting President has gained or broke even in the Senate five times. Even more ominous, only twice has the President's party avoided losses for shizzle in the Hizzle, er, House. Needless to say, history suggests the Democrats have the same chance as a hooker at a Southern Baptist convention of coming out on top. Conversely they both are likely to get something stuck up their ass.

Anyway, this particular presidency has many extraneous challenges. We are currently mired in two wars that we can't afford and can't win. We are stuck in a global recession. We have a national debt that is too massive for comprehension. We have a trade deficit that is only good for driving up that debt. We need a good energy bill to move us away from foreign oil and a good immigration bill to move us away from having the Beverly Hillbillies guarding our southern border.

To be frank, this is the most challenging presidency since FDR. By the way, in 1942 with the country just out of the Great Depression and just in to WWII, FDR's Democrats lost 45 seats in the House and 8 in the Senate. Thanks for nothing I suppose. At any rate, all signs point to difficulty for the Dems in the 2010 election. Looking at history, that's no surprise.

But while Congressional approval ratings hang very low normally, why is the President's dropping so fast? And more to the point, why is President Obama's political base (like me) wavering in their support?

Before we get all gloom-and-doom about it, a quick survey of recent history shows that this isn't that new. For example, right after President Obama was elected, before he even took office, Politico ran this story proclaiming anger amongst the tree-huggers. And although overlooked by many at the time, this story turned out to be more foreshadowing than we thought about Obama's leadership style and his disappointing of liberals across the nation.

But what are we angry about? After all, the President and Congress have passed a major health care bill, financial reform, and a stimulus bill. Those are not accomplishments to sneeze at. They handled the possibility of a swine flu pandemic well. And even though they may have been a little slow to get involved, the BP well is capped, the reimbursement fund set up, and oil seems to be disappearing from the Gulf quickly. By almost any measure, President Obama's policy achievements have been awesome.

And it isn't the economy, stupid, that we are upset about. Realistically it will take a long time for employment to stabilize. The Obama administration has had, as one should expect in such a situation, apparent successes (programs like "Cash for Clunkers" and the handling of GM and Chrysler) and some things which we don't know about yet (the stimulus bill, financial reform). No matter how you look at it, the administration has moved on trying to improve the economy and they've done pretty well for only being 18 months in.

And while most liberals are upset both about the realization that the climate change bill has melted like snow in a greenhouse, and any immigration bill keeps being deported from Congress, those problems have as much to do with partisan gridlock in Congress as they do with any failing of President Obama.

It is here that you need to understand an important point. If Republicans are going to stay this strongly banded together in opposition, bills can not pass. That's simple math. Many are upset that President Obama hasn't "fought" hard enough. Many of the same members of the "liberal elite" are also quick to point out that for all the compromise and arguing done on the health care bill, not one Republican vote was earned. Just so we're clear, you all want the President, with the huge laundry list of problems that need solving, to give speeches all over the place all the time about us needing to put a price on carbon in this economy even though you willingly admit that it will likely not earn him a single Republican vote. Therefore making it impossible to pass whether he stumps for it or not. Hmmmm...

Now, I obviously want a climate bill as bad as any other liberal, but reality is reality. If Obama had put climate change first, people would say he should have focused on health care. Things got done, choices were made. We'll have to keep fighting if we want climate change legislation.

No, my problem with President Obama has to do with a very common talking point he used in his campaign. Time and time again, then Senator Obama talked about former President Bush's disregard for civil liberties. He promised to cease the practice of holding terror suspects endlessly without trial and, in certain cases, with little or no evidence of their involvement. Adjacent to that promise, Obama vowed to close Guantanamo Bay military prison, end the practice of rendition (the moving of terror suspects to countries where torture is less, shall we say, frowned upon, for interrogation), and abide by the rule of law.

However, here we are 18 months into this presidency and Guantanamo is still open. President Obama has actually fought to keep the right to hold terror suspects indefinitely. Rendition is still in the President's "tool box" to deal with terrorism.

In the end, this is what irritates the hell out of us liberals. When it comes to the firing of Shirley Sherrod or Stanley McChrystal, Obama is decisive and quick, perhaps to his detriment. But when it comes to cleaning up the oil spill in the Gulf, studies are performed and committees made. How about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"? The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, for crying out loud, said he'd like to see the policy ended. Instead, we are doing another study. This is an interesting study because normally the commander of the military doesn't ask the troops if possible future orders are okay. Usually he just gives the orders and they follow it because that's their job.

Perhaps President Obama has focused too much on delivering all the complex and, legislatively, big things he promised. Health care and financial reform were very needed and very hard. Immigration and climate change are as well. While we all hope D.C. can come to some compromises and get these things done; please, Mr. Obama, knock out some of the other things for us.

Put those terror suspects on trial. If they are guilty, lock their asses away for as long as law allows. If they are not, return them to their families and homes. No person deserves to be held against their will when they have done nothing wrong. The only way to find out if we are doing that, and then begin the healing associated with righting that wrong, is to put them on trial. Stop moving people to secret prisons where they are tortured for information. And close Guantanamo. If NYC won't hold the terror trials, I'm sure you know people in Chicago who can make that happen.

I'm not losing the "Hope" yet, but I'm sure thinking that "Yes We Might" makes a shitty bumper sticker.

Wanted: Folks with balls (figuratively is fine) to run this country

The news lately has been an orgy of blame-gaming people parading themselves in front of cameras in hopes of some measure of ass covering. The populists have shouted their claims from on high as well. "BP should be seized!" "President Obama isn't doing enough!" "The regulation failed!"

Progressives are quick to point out that the shady deals that lead to BP having a permit came under the Bush administration. Look folks, I enjoy a good session of Bush bashing (all sex jokes aside) as much as the next person. But the fact remains, his presidency, mercifully, is over. It's time to move on and get from blaming to fixing.

Or perhaps you prefer the stories about BP's, *cough*, spotty safety record. If it weren't for the lives, land, and wildlife ruined from this spill, it would be almost comical that BP had 760 major safety violations. Compare that to Exxon, once themselves the bane of environmentalists (Valdez anyone??), which had only 1.

Here's the truly troubling thing though: this oil spill is quite similar to the economic collapse. In both instances there were warning signs. In both instances there were regulators who "failed to see" the coming crash. In both instances it is nearly impossible to look back and see how they missed the impending disaster. In the case of the financial collapse, investors and regulators were shocked to see that if you give $500,000 loans to people making $50,000/yr with little or no positive credit history, they may default on those loans. Those defaults are bad for communities and drive home prices down. Shocking indeed...

In the case of the oil spill, regulators with the Minerals Management Service didn't think that BP not having a plan to deal with an oil spill was a problem. Then when the oil spill happened...well momma used to always say it was impolite to point fingers.

In both cases there seems to be plenty of blame to go around, and plenty of better writers to tell you who you should blame. The question that nags, though, is "why do regulators seem to suck at their jobs?"

The rationale behind regulation is that businesses will not always be ethical in their pursuit of profit. If you need to sit down, I understand. These things are very surprising. The classic example is the Great Depression. When people got scared due to the stock market crashing and went to the bank to get their money, they found there wasn't any money. That money had been spent already, and the resulting debt was hidden in shadow corporations that didn't actually exist. Oops. So laws were passed that regulated the amount of cash banks had to have on-hand with respect to their deposits and investments. Also, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp (FDIC) was founded that "guaranteed" most deposits that people made. Simple concept: there was a failure in the system and the government built a fix.

So why the major failures recently? Progressives say it's due to the de-regulation under President Reagan and subsequent presidents. While there may be some truth in this, the fact remains that there was an agency designed to regulate deepwater drilling in the Gulf. That agency failed. It wasn't that President Reagan, disagree with him though I may, removed the regulator's power. It was that the regulators failed.

No, the real root problem is that regulators, who are often industry insiders, have tremendous freedom and power to make the rules governing their industry. By now, many Americans are familiar with the fact that Former Secretary of Treasury Hank Paulson was also a former CEO of Goldman Sachs. Bullshit Hank (may not be catchy, but is certainly appropriate) then sold a group of idiots in Congress on the idea of floating a huge loan to banks without any oversight into how those funds were spent. Suddenly banks were extremely profitable again, and we were not. Suggestions that banks like Goldman Sachs used TARP money to buy treasury bonds (essentially using our own money to make us pay them more money) are rampant, but Bullshit Hank did a decent job of preventing us from ever knowing how most of that money was spent.

In the case of the oil spill, regulators accepted gifts and even allowed the oil companies to fill out their own compliance forms. They had to see those safety violations. They had to know it wasn't a good idea to allow drilling under circumstances for which there was no plan to deal with a spill. But they didn't act.

Indeed the new financial reform bill, while well intended, makes these same mistakes. For example, it creates a "Consumer Watchdog" agency with the authority to protect us from the evils of banks. Sounds like a great idea, but mostly is just created because Congress thinks that giving something a stupid name like "Consumer Watchdog" will distract you from the fact that this is not better than what we have. Yes it will have the authority to do lots of things...mostly things that some other agency already has the authority to do. The problem isn't authority, the problem is a lack of action.

If Congress wants to really fix regulatory problems in this country, it has to remove much of the rule writing power of regulators. Those regulations need to be in law passed by Congress and signed by the President. Law allows criminal charges to be brought. It allows asses to be thrown in prison. Presidents promising change can't nominate people like Tim "I don't pay my taxes" Geitner to the Secretary of Treasury and then expect a new era of trust and transparency.

There needs to be a fundamental change in how people are selected and nominated to these positions. It doesn't insulate corruption from the system...of course not. But it does give us more power to fight these destructive bastards in criminal court. I just hope that someone on capital hill will soon look over their fat bellies and remember that they have balls. Then I hope they use them.

There Will Be Blood

UFC 114 finally, and I do mean finally, pits Rampage Jackson against Rashad Evans. This fight has been built longer than the pyramids, so it is with great anticipation, and some relief, that we will finally see someone's mouth get (temporarily) shut. This card, however, isn't just about the main event. There are indeed some interesting fights and fighters on the rest of the card. Here's your Vegas betting info:

Non-PPV Fight to Watch

Cyrille "The Snake" Diabate v. Luiz "Bahna" Cain

Pride fans will remember The Snake well. Diabate is a versatile and dangerous striker. He is tall and lanky and is (overzealously) compared to Anderson Silva in terms of striking ability. While that comparison is a bit overblown, he is indeed a dangerous to throw hands with. There was a time, during his old Pride days, that The Snake was able to drive Shogun Rua to search for the takedown because of his striking ability. Of course once the fight hit the ground, Shogun stomped him into oblivion.

Before running into Lil' Nog in his last fight, Bahna Cain was rising fast up the UFC 205 lb rankings. His striking isn't nearly as polished or fluid as Diabate's, but he has more power and has UFC experience under his belt.

This fight has danger written all over it for The Snake. Former Pride fighters have struggled in their UFC debuts, and indeed Diabate lacks cage experience. I expect that to be enough for Bahna Cain to slide by The Snake if the fight goes past 1 round, but don't be surprised if Cain is looking up at the lights early on.

Main Card

Diego Sanchez v. John Hathaway

Diego Sanchez took a redneck wife beating from BJ Penn in his last fight. That beating, presumably, has caused him to rise back to 170 lbs for this fight. Because of his struggles against the very cream of the crop (losses to Koscheck, Penn, Fitch) people tend to discount "The Nightmare". But remember, his record is 23-3. He has been totally dominating in many fights. And even though BJ Penn crushed him, Sanchez showed heart by hanging in there and trying to keep fighting. He has always shown that heart.

Against that backdrop he fights undefeated John Hathaway. Although Hathaway isn't known to UFC fans well yet, he is 3-0 with the organization (including a win over tough Paul Taylor). He has shown the ability to fight the distance and outwork his opponent. He will need all of that in this fight.

The smart money here is on Sanchez. He will come out very aggressive and simply overwhelm Hathaway early in route to a 1st round TKO.

Lil' Nog v. Jason Brilz

Jason Brilz steps in as a last minute replacement for Forrest Griffin. As such, this fight has much more risk for Lil' Nog. In fighting Griffin, a win would have vaulted him into title contention for sure, while a loss would've been defensible and to a former champion. Now I'm not sure what a win does for Nog other than having the virtue of simply avoiding a bad loss.

Brilz is 3-1 in the UFC. He is a good wrestler and an all-around tough guy. He will need to get this fight to the ground, even though he is fighting a Nogueria brother, because he stands little chance of being able to out-box Nog. Nogueria showed his power in his UFC debut by knocking out up and comer Luiz Cain.

While I am a huge Nog fan, and believe that it is very likely he will win easily, be warned: Wrestlers do well in the UFC. If Brilz can avoid the submission, he could ride out a decision victory. Also, remember the case of Nogueria's fight against Sokoudjou in Pride. Soku came in a virtual unknown and stunned Nogueria with his considerable punching power.

Brilz hasn't shown that kind of power, however, so it says here that Lil' Nog will win by 2nd round TKO.

Todd Duffee v. Mike Russow

Last time Todd Duffee fought, had you gone to the bathroom, gotten something to eat, or even blinked you would've missed it. He KO'd Tim Hague in 7 sec. Therefore, we can only say this much for certain: Duffee is a great athlete with a lot of power. Considering that fight was actually last August, it's easy to see that we have more questions about Todd Duffee than answers.

Mike Russow is a tough guy. He also is 1-0 (albeit in far less spectacular fashion) in the UFC. Although he has long since lost the bodybuilding competition to Duffee, Russow may have some tricks up his sleeve. He is known for his cool-headedness and ability to slow the pace of a fight to what he wants. Think of a less skilled and experienced Roy Nelson.

Though I can see ways that Russow could survive an early onslaught and wear Duffee out, I believe the Todd Duffee coming out party is here. Beware landing an early shot that doesn't hurt Russow as much as it appears (and consequently Duffee wearing himself out), and Duffee takes a solid TKO win back to Indiana.

Michael Bisping v. Dan Miller

Two fighters that are well rounded. Two fighters that aren't bad at anything, and aren't great at anything. Two fighters that are very similar. Miller may prefer the submission game, Bisping the striking game, but both guys can do their thing in either venue.

Problem for Miller is that he has lost 2 in a row (Chael Sonnen and Demian Maia) and isn't actually better at any aspect of the MMA than Bisping. Bisping will use movement, timely aggression, and striking accuracy to send Miller home with another unanimous decision loss.

Main Event: Rampage Jackson v. Rashad Evans

Two former champions, both in the UFC and shit-talking, will lace 'em up at UFC 114. There are several things to consider here.

Rashad Evans is no slouch however you'd like to cut it. He has a 19-1-1 record and has shown the ability to win a fight early, late, or by decision. He has the wrestling game to control almost any fighter, and has shown the speed and punching power to end a fight at any moment. Although he hasn't shown much of a submission game, he hasn't been submitted (or even been close) and I certainly don't expect Rampage to change that.

The first key difference I see between these two men is experience. Rashad Evans does hold wins over Michael Bisping, Forrest Griffin, Chuck Liddell's corpse, and Thiago Silva. In reality though, he beat a way-past-it Chuck Liddell, a middleweight in Bisping, a suddenly passive Silva, and a bit of a mystery in terms of real contender status in Griffin. His best test came against Lyoto Machida....he didn't win.

Rampage, on the other hand has fought Wanderlei Silva 3 times (losing to him twice in Wanderlei's prime) Shogun Rua, Forrest Griffin, Dan Henderson, Chuck Liddell (back when Chuck still looked invinciable), Ricardo Arona, Sakuraba, Minowa-man, and on and on. His list of opponents literally reads like a Hall-of-Fame program. While I have doubts about Rashad's ability to deal with Rampage's intensity, strength, and power, I have no doubts about Rampage's ability to deal with Rashad.

Rashad will win if:

Rashad Evans needs to use his superior quickness to get angles to land strikes. He must avoid extended exchanges with Rampage, as Rampage has a granite chin to Rashad's questionable one. He also must avoid coming straight in, even though he's quicker, because Rampage has gotten adept at slipping the first punch and countering very hard (see Rampage v. Wanderlei 3). Rampage has shown vulnerability to leg kicks (see Rampage v. Griffin), and can sometimes appear stubborn in the cage with an unwillingness to adapt. If Rashad can land a few leg kicks early, he should stick with it until Rampage adjusts. Rashad must also trust his wrestling. Rampage has no bottom-game to speak of, therefore any takedown Rashad can secure, count on it leading to damage from the top position. If Rashad feels like Rampage is beginning to load up and trade punches, he must shoot for the double at least to keep Rampage honest.

Rampage will win if:

Rampage must use careful pressure against Rashad. He is the more experienced and skillful striker. Rashad has a bad habit of picking his front foot up much too high when moving. Rampage can time that step and attack during the step. He must cut the cage off and get Rashad near the fence before exploding into a combination. A classic strategy of trying to make it a "fight in a phone booth" is needed here. Attacking too fast, too early, will result in a takedown. If taken down, Rampage must try to get up immediately, for he is at a big disadvantage when under Rashad Evans. Rampage must also respect Rashad enough to admit that Rashad is versatile and dangerous. He must be willing to adjust to what Rashad is doing and punish him for trying leg kicks or takedowns.

Prediction

Rashad Evans has a lot of tools. He also has the advantage of having fought twice since Rampage last fought (well over 14 months ago now). However, that will not be enough. Other than scoring multiple takedowns, there is no way for Rashad to win this fight. Rampage will shake off the rust early and land too many power shots for Rashad to handle. Rampage via 2nd rd TKO.

When We Have Too Much Power

Men, yes even the Pope, are inherently flawed. Imperfect. We have overseen grand displays of character such as the tsunami relief in Indonesia, or the existence and function of the Peace Corps and Red Cross. We have also been responsible for the holocaust, the inquisition, and the "Trail of Tears". This imperfection must be recognized. With that in mind, it is time to abolish the death penalty.

Time ran an article stating the Supreme Court is about to take up a case involving Hank Skinner. Mr. Skinner is on death row in Texas. He has been convicted of killing his girlfriend and her two "mentally challenged" sons. The crime was heinous. The victims were stabbed, strangled, and beaten to death. Mr. Skinner has claimed innocence throughout the process, but that isn't what is bothersome.

The problematic notion here is that Mr. Skinner's trial did not include DNA evidence. Mr. Skinner has long wanted DNA testing, which is apparently available in this case, because he believes it will show him as innocent. The prosecutor in the case has refused, so Mr. Skinner sued.

Now, before you get your panties all in a bunch about convicts claiming innocence, note the fact that 138 people have been released from death row since 1973 when their convictions were overturned. Also note that even though the south has executed 4 times as many people as the rest of the country combined since 1973, they still have by far the highest murder rate at 6.7 murders/100,000 people. No other region in the country has a rate above 5.5. While crime is a very complex issue, this certainly shoot a significant number of holes in the "death penalty prevents violent crime" argument. Or maybe it hangs, or injects, or electrocutes it...I digress.

Anyway, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled against Mr. Skinner's lawsuit. Let's enforce that point a bit. A man is set to be killed by the state when not all legal avenues have been explored to find out the truth about the case. The man is asking for a DNA test. Doesn't this man deserve to have evidence admitted on his behalf that may prove his innocence?Isn't it also true that if indeed the man committed the crime, the evidence will simply confirm this suspicion?

The check of the court system lies in the appeal process. But this check may not function well at all. Take for example the case of Troy Davis. Mr. Davis was convicted of shooting and killing a police officer in Georgia. Needless to say, the case was shaky at best. Congress, always appealing to populist bullshit, had passed a law called the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). This law attempted to allow only one set of appeals in federal court to people on death row. Mr. Davis had appealed, and lost in federal court. Fortunately for him, the Supreme Court bucked that law in his case, and heard an appeal. The obvious rationale here was that a substantial amount of evidence existed putting serious doubt in Mr. Davis' conviction. Justice Scalia disagreed with the decision of the Court to hear the case. In his dissent he wrote, "This court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent."

Stunning. Justice Scalia appears to be arguing that Constitution actually doesn't forbid killing a wrongly convicted person just because they can prove they are innocent. I say "just because" to highlight the absurdity of the claim. Really?????!!!!! The preamble talks about forming a Union that would "establish justice". I don't think killing an innocent man is very just. And even if the Constitution doesn't explicity say that men shouldn't be killed for a crime they didn't commit, I'm sure the founding fathers, albeit perhaps mistakingly, simply assumed that future Supreme Court justices wouldn't be complete morons devoid of common sense and a general feel for what "justice", "law", and, most importantly, "truth" really means.

In reality, this highlights what we all already know. Men are flawed. Giving them the power of finality that comes with a death sentence is a power too great for men to handle. In these cases, men are faced with great conflicts of interest. Many times, the defendant may be innocent of that crime, but guilty of many others. He is a menace. The prosecutorial staff is under tremendous pressure to convict and to be right. The concept of allowing evidence in the case that could show they are in fact wrong, while obviously just, can be at odds with career pursuits and politics.

Whether the death penalty is effective at its presumably intended goal of discouraging violent crime is a topic for another writer. But the argument over whether human beings can handle the responsibility of legally killing other human beings for wrong-doings seems to me to be settled. We can't.

The Red Pill or The Blue Pill

Lost somewhat in the recent national debates over health-care, financial reform and immigration, there are important environment issues to be dealt with. There is a great, if not infinitely frustrating, irony in the notion that we put seemingly everything in front of environmental issues, yet those issues are the ones that most directly effect our health.

Recently, President Obama's (creatively named) Cancer Panel (I know, I know, how many panels and committees are there in Washington?) released a paper that for the first time placed a significant emphasis on the role that our environment may play in the development of cancer. The paper stated that an astounding 80,000 chemicals are currently being used in the United States, while a paltry 200 have been assessed for safety. Previous cancer prevention initiatives had (rightly) focused on lifestyle choices and screening. Epidemiolgists had often put the figure for cancers caused by environmental reasons at 5%. However, the Cancer Panel's report said that figure might be "grossly underestimating" the truth.

Believe it or not, assessing chemicals (or really anything industry does or uses) is far more difficult than you might imagine. A Rolling Stone piece by Jeff Goodell brought the issue of coal ash regulation to the attention of the public--or at least (between bong rips) the Rolling Stone readership.

When coal is burned, there is a substance left over (think burning wood in your fireplace). That substance contains, among other things, some heavy metals. I'm not talking Pantera (R.I.P. Dimebag) heavy metal; I'm talking mercury, cadmium, arsenic. Each year 140 million tons of coal ash is produced. Some of the coal ash is used to make concrete, land filler, plastics, paints, and glass. Some is put into large, unlined ponds. Some people, like the aforementioned Jeff Goodell, believe that those heavy metals from the coal ash leaks into groundwater surrounding their unlined pools and make people living around the area sick.

Other people claim there is no evidence of toxicity to humans citing the Father of Toxicology, Paracelsus, and his claim that "The dose makes the poison." They say that the levels of heavy metals in the ash is low enough that it won't harm people. Paracelsus, though, was talking about acute poisons. In other words, hemlock will kill you, but at a low enough dose it won't. That isn't the same thing as saying constant, low-dose exposure to a poison won't hurt you.

Coal ash has also had some bad, albeit less publicized compared to oil, spills to deal with over the years. No matter how you cut it, this certainly appears to be an issue worth looking into. I contacted our state and federal politicians to see what they had to say about coal ash regulation.

Evan Bayh responded about a topic that was totally unrelated to my e-mail. Thanks for paying attention Senator Bayh.

Other than Senator "already checked-out" Bayh's incoherent response, other lawmakers offered vanilla opinions. State Representative Woody Burton responded, "My position is that technology today is proving scientifically that coal can be used as a clean and environmentally safe way to generate energy." He continued on the topic of regulation and alternative energy sources, "...but I also think that we need to use common sense in approaching the alternative energy issue by using the technology we have to keep clean coal as a source of energy." Senator Richard Lugar, who I'd like to point out responded quickly and with a scan of the actual letter he sent to the President (hear that Senator Bayh!!!!???), said in his letter that he is "hopeful that the EPA will carefully consider how any classification of coal ash as a hazardous material could create uncertainty about the beneficial uses of these products.."

Ok, ok, the point already! The point is this, the burden of proof for designating chemicals hazardous or not lies with the people. In other words, a chemical is automatically considered "safe" if industry deems it necessary for use until it is proven (i.e. people get sick and die) to be harmful to humans. This, as much as any other point, is the problem we face environmentally.

The recent, on-going and likely never-ending, health-care debate focused on many issues. One was cost cutting. Several people pointed out that if we focused more on prevention, we could save money. That theory is based on the idea that if Grandma doesn't get cancer, and no one has to pay for expensive cancer treatments, then paying for that mammogram or anti-smoking literature was well worth the money.

Looking at the quotes for Senator Lugar and Representative Burton highlights the backwards thinking that we have. The assumption is that someone has to prove that a substance containing several known poisons is dangerous to people before it is regulated at all. To suggest that the coal companies prove that it's safe before placing it in unlined beds that can leach those heavy metals into my damn water is considered blasphemous.

The President's Cancer Panel is, in effect, making that same argument. They aren't necessarily coming out and saying that all 80,000 of those chemicals in use cause harm, but they also aren't saying that we should simply assume they don't until people are losing years of their life to chemo. To continue with the coal ash example, it may be true that electric bills would rise if companies were forced to safely dispose of waste. But a couple of quick bullshit meter thoughts on that:

Many industries, from pharmaceuticals to meat packers have to deal with regulation and inspection. They howl and complain about it, but at the end of the quarter, they post big profits more often than not. The reality is, to their credit, they've discovered ways to make money even with regulation. The regulation forced innovation, and that innovation spawned both profit for them, and a better product for us. There is no reason to believe that electric companies too would innovate. That innovation might lead to more efficient recycling of coal ash. It might lead to improved methods of disposal that have high up-front costs, but long-term cost benefits. Those ideas may be shunned due to that high initial cost, but will be welcomed when the companies are faced with fines and the loss of their licenses. Indeed electric bills may rise some, but political pressure from a very unhappy electorate would hold them down. The companies would whine, adapt and overcome.

However, even if that entire paragraph is complete and utter crap, what sort of defense is it to say, "Well, you may die from cancer because of this waste, but we don't want to lose jobs or pay more for electricity. Good luck." What the hell? This is America. We put a man on the moon. We have been a social, scientific, and political beacon for over 200 years. You are seriously telling me that we can't reconcile the need to safely dispose of coal ash, or safely use industrial chemicals, with the need to make money. It's really ok that our lawmakers say vague things like, "common sense approach to climate change", or "that's not what the American people want, they want a bi-partisan solution" instead of offering up real ideas.

People are opposed to cap-and-trade. Fine. Without using the dumbass phrase, "common sense", or blathering on about the will of the American people (which is a topic for a whole other post. To assume that ANYONE can surmise the wishes of 300 million people from different regions, ethnicities, religions, races, and socio-economic backgrounds is patently absurd), state an idea to deal with greenhouse gases.

How about a truly novel idea, our lawmakers care first and foremost about our health, and second about whose donating to their campaign? Or at least, pretend to.

The Immigrant Song

Much has been written, and much more will be said, about Arizona's new immigration law. You can find the riveting *cough* text here. A quick synopsis of what this bill does:

1) Prevents any town, city, or local division (i.e. a county) from making a law that restricts enforcement of federal immigration laws.

2) The bill spends several pages talking about what can be done to prevent businesses from hiring illegal immigrants. This includes revoking licenses, fines, and filing a lot of paperwork.

3) For the first two...I doubt you'll find much controversy. But the "meat and potatoes" of this bill is:

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

This section, minus the relatively light legalese, simply says that a police officer must check the immigration status of someone who is suspected of being an illegal immigrant. Let's start by tackling that bolded term, "lawful contact".

I did a google search for "lawful contact" and found nothing concrete. I consulted a legal dictionary, and no term was found. In truth, there is no actual legal definition for "lawful contact". I was listening to Sean Hannity the other day when he discusses this bill. He claimed that he didn't see the problem with this because, "if I get pulled over for speeding, the first thing the cop does is check my driver's license." He seemed to be implying that this situation would be the same. But the gray area in defining "lawful contact" concerns many that it made lead to harassment of Latinos. Remember that there are many American citizens of Latino descent. They certainly shouldn't have to "prove" their citizenship anymore than white folks do. I highly doubt, however, than there will be much checking of citizenship papers for the white people living in Arizona.

But, for the sake of argument, let's try the highly questionable exercise of assuming that Sean Hannity is right and this law is nothing more than a reaffirmation of existing law. First, this begs the question, why pass this law at all? If a law needs to be passed in Arizona requiring police officers to check identification during situations such as traffic stops and routine police calls, I'd say the problem is more with the policing in Arizona than the influx of immigrants. This, though, isn't what this bill is about.

The reality here is that "lawful contact" will mean stopping Latinos and checking their identification anytime a police officer wants. Someone close to me, arguing for the bill, said, "it's ok to look white in America." I'm sure that person was saying something out of emotion in a debate and not actual belief, but he hit it right on the head. This bill obviously amounts to racial profiling. But the real purpose of this post is to explore the why behind this bill.

Immigration will be the ultimate test for our politicians over the next couple of years. This debate has layers upon layers, and, honestly, both sides have many salient points to make. It is true that the United States is made up of immigrants and there is some hypocrisy behind making entry into the US very difficult for new immigrants. However, there are real issues to consider here. First, border states do have serious safety and legal difficulties to deal with. The Mexican Drug War has been well publicized here, and most people seem to realize that major veins in the drug trade start on the south side of the Rio Grande and move northward through our border states. This trafficking brings potential violence and some obvious sociological problems that accompany hard drug use.

There is also no doubt that for drug, or other, reasons that potential violence has come to fruition in some capacity. Furthermore, with unemployment at 10% (higher in many places), there is a sense, whether it is real or not is debatable, that Americans are being shoved out of the jobs market both here and abroad. And even if you don't believe that there are groups of Americans clamoring to pick tomatoes; from a human-rights perspective it sure would be nice to see these immigrants earn citizenship so they are privy to minimum wage and labor laws.

Oh, and don't forget the argument about services like emergency rooms, use of highways, use of government services such as fire departments and law enforcement, and the extreme fear Americans have that illegal immigrants will be enrolled in Medicare, Medicaid, or other social welfare programs. Furthermore, some programs like Social Security, (at least in theory) work based on the fact that we pay in over the course of our employed lives, and then get a check that is essentially our own money paid when we turn 65. Even if immigrants gained citizenship at age 50, they won't have paid in nearly as much as you or I.

All of those arguments are real, but mostly just a smokescreen for the real reason behind Arizona's bill. There is a growing sense among white males that they are losing their grip on power in this country. According to the Census Bureau white people will be the minority in this country somewhere around 2050. We see a black man, with a foreign sounding name, as President. He nominated a Latino woman to the Supreme Court. The Speaker of the House, who has garnered a huge amount of attention in the media, is a female. The Secretary of State also sports two X chromosomes. The concept of old, male, protestant, and white being in power is not as much a foregone conclusion as it used to be (although the vast majority of those in power still fit that description).

Even if you agree with my conclusion, beware of dismissing those people as racist and ignorant. It isn't so simple. Remember that change is difficult for everyone. Also remember that there were no doubt tribesmen who suggested kindness and acceptance to their Native American brethren regarding the new white settlers in America. Oops! Even fear in reference to taboo topics such as racism can be real fear.

This fear can lead to very poorly conceived laws such as the one just passed in Arizona. But it isn't enough to whine about the law, we must try and take some action to satisfy those very real concerns of Arizonians and all Americans.

The real weakness (other than the vitriol of racial profiling) of Arizona's bill is that it is much too heavy on enforcement. We have seen over the many many years of America "War on Drugs" that focusing on enforcement is a band-aid strategy that doesn't actually solve a problem. It is very successful, however, at wasting resources and turning an entire group of people against law enforcement and government in general. Here are my thoughts:

1) The first step to solving this problem has to be increasing border security. The only near-term way to alleviate the safety concerns of border state citizens is to work to close down the border more effectively. In addition, there is no way to make a real immigration plan if large numbers of new illegal immigrants enter the country every day. My suggestion is to build military bases along the border. We can fill those bases with troops from the wastelands of Afghanistan and Iraq as they are pulled out of there. I'm quite sure they'd much rather defend their country than someone else's. I'm also sure that life on a Texas or Arizona base with their families near is a big step up over Iraqi barracks.

2) Provide a path to citizenship that is reasonable for both sides. I outlined earlier the financial concerns people have over immigration. The reality is, illegal immigrants are breaking the law. To become a citizen they should have to pay a fine for breaking the law (payment of that fine would end all legal proceedings), take an English class and obtain a certificate, and agree to take some form of G.E.D. type education. If you have a college degree, permanent status should be automatically granted. Though I don't want to get fully into it here, there is a real concern with allowing totally untrained and uneducated people to flood the system. Doing so, especially if they are already past high school age where it is unlikely they have the opportunity for upward mobility, would increase the size of the poorest class in society. That would strain our social safety net even further. Those individuals must show a willingness to catch up to educational standards in this country so they may increase a robust middle class and not a weak lower class.

3) Legalize pot. Budget concerns in the country are abound. Taxing marijuana is good for that, but its also good to undercut Mexican suppliers. Allow American farmers to grow, cut demand for Mexican grass, and that may alleviate the drug wars on our side of the border to some extent. Furthermore, police waste a huge amount of resources pursuing pot dealer and growers. Who cares? Relax people!

4) Pound employers who hire illegal immigrants. A word of caution: doing this without doing at least steps 1 and 2 will result in a large jobless class that will still be here, will still need to eat, and will likely get it by breaking into your house. Poverty is a major driver of crime, especially when those in poverty are living near those with wealth. That said, employers do more to hide illegal immigrants than people realize. Even the small area I'm from (Henry County, IN) has many illegal immigrants working. Everyone knows the farmers there employ Mexicans with, ahem, questionable citizenship status. But nothing is done.

This topic is complex enough for books, let along blog posts. At any rate, read the bill, see for yourself, then smack anyone in the balls who says its a good bill. Now you know better!

***A quick follow-up note: "Lawful contact" was revised to say "lawful stop, detention, or arrest" in an attempt to relieve concerns over racial profiling. This provision doesn't actually mean anything though, because the revision also states that an arrest is not required to question immigration status. I'd be very careful about jay-walking and forgetting to use my turn signal if I were Latino.