By Jacob Bodnar

Hopefully I wouldn’t be fooling anyone if I said that I didn’t watch the Miss USA pageant. As a matter of fact I don’t think I’d be fooling anyone if I said that no one watched the Miss USA pageant.

However, at least one person watched it, and they were able to see a great display of courage and honesty.

By now you’ve all seen what happened. Celebrity blogger and most irritating person in the world nominee Perez Hilton asked Miss California, Carrie Prejean, a loaded question about gay marriage. Instead of dancing around the question and giving and middle-of-the-road politically correct answer, Prejean spoke her mind, and said she believed that marriage was between a man and a woman.

For the record, if she had danced around the question, I’m betting Perez would have nailed her for that too.

I should preface this column by saying that I support gay rights. Notice there was no mention of marriage there. I’ve come to the conclusion that marriage is between a man and a woman, that’s simply what it was intended for. Historically speaking it’s almost always been that way. I have no problem giving gay couples the same amount of government privileges that heterosexual couples receive, but I don’t think it’s the state’s job to define marriage. Hell, I don’t even think the state should recognize “marriage,” it’d be easier if marriage was left as a religious sacrament and everything was provided under the heading of a “civil union.”

Either way, I support gay rights. I half agree with Miss California, after all I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, but I’m not sure where she stands on the bigger picture of governmental rights, so I can’t say that I agree with her one hundred percent.

But that’s really not the point. My biggest peeve stemming from this ordeal has been the response to Miss California and her comments.

After the show, Perez Hilton made a video in which he called Prejean a “dumb b****.” Way to stay classy Perez. He claimed that she shouldn’t have expressed her opinion because it somehow alienated her as a contest.

Uh…what? Since when did speaking your mind and having an opinion count against you? If we ask that of our politicians why not ask it of everyone?

Of course the gay community was outraged over this incident. I’m sure there were some that respected her point-of-view, but all the ones I heard used the opportunity to call her names and poke fun. Their reaction only hurt their cause more.

I heard one person this week say that her answer was absurd because she was vying for Miss USA and her view should represent that of the entire country. Apparently the title of Miss USA transforms you into a blank screen in which the entire country will just project their beliefs onto.

Forget the fact that the country is split on the issue, America has been known as a country that speaks its mind. We shouldn’t be tearing Miss California down for being “oppressive” or a “dumb b****” we should be propping her up as someone who spoke her mind and didn’t dance around the question, especially while under immense pressure.

Others have said that they dislike Miss California not because of her answer but because she didn’t articulate it very well.

Please, that’s simply a smoke screen for hating her because of her opinion. I have no problem with people disagreeing with Miss California, like I said I might be one of those people, but can’t you at least respect her for standing up for what she believes it. After all that answer probably lost her the pageant, she gave up a dream so she could speak her mind honestly. That’s extraordinarily commendable. It’s so rare in this country we usually only seen courage and poise like that in movies.

Instead of tearing down Miss California lets applaud her. You may not agree with what she said, but at least give her the respect she deserves for saying it.

Jacob Bodnar is the host and producer of the weekly conservative podcast, The Current Podcast. His shows and columns can be accessed at http://www.thecurrentpodcast.com He also blogs at JacobBodnar.com

Home Base: New York City, New York.

Persona: Sean is one of the most polite talk radio hosts on the air. He avoids crass name-calling and shoutdowns. Yes, he’ll refer to “libs” as the reason that everything is going to Hell, but that’s to be expected of a conservative talk radio host. He prefers to rely on ad hominem arguments and glittering generalities to get the job done, rather than insults and hangu-ps… for the most part.

Ego. He tries to do humble, and sometimes even pulls it off. But Hannity has taken a “solemn vow” to protect us from the horrors of liberal thought, and solemn vows tend to lean towards the arrogant side of the ego spectrum. He sees himself as the quintessential patriot, so if he ever reads this he will appreciate it being updated on Independence Day. He also believes that anyone with any liberal leanings is not patriotic, which is another piece of evidence that he’s arrogant enough to think that he’s always right on every issue. In truth, he has a fair amount of logic in many of his arguments, but not so much as he’d like to imagine.

Politics. Oh, this one’s a conservative of the highest order! I respect Hannity for his consistency. He’s against gay marriage and too much gun control, and for just about anything George W. Bush supports… with the exception of W’s immigration policies. There isn’t a known Democrat or liberal, however, that can’t raise the Hannity ire by opening their mouth. If Hillary Clinton says the sun will rise in the East, Hannity will say her compass is wrong.

Rhetoric. Hannity is fond of “shootouts” with those who oppose his political views. He will find a conservative viewpoint and a liberal viewpoint, and his idea of “moderating” the “debate” is to jump in on the side of the conservative guest. This is the closest he gets to shouting down a caller; he’s fond of talking over the liberal guest in these cases. His use of host-power (we don’t have enough time, etc.) is most noticeable during these occasions as well.

Quirks. Sean Hannity believes wholeheartedly in conspiracies. He thinks the “liberal media” and the “libs” are always trying to secretly overthrow George W. Bush. This is his single greatest weakness; nobody cares enough about anything on Earth enough to coordinate a massive conspiracy – somebody somewhere is going to give up the secret because it’s more valuable to open their mouth than close it. He lacks this fundamental understanding of human nature.

Terence P Ward is a freelance writer specializing in business and web writing. His website at http://theplanwriter.googlepages.com provides links to writing samples and information on hiring him to provide articles, blog posts, business plans, and copy of all types.

The Mixed Martial Arts has exploded in the past year in the United States with names such as Liddell and Slice getting celebrity treatment around the country. For a long time, boxing and pro wrestling were the only avenues for fight fans to explore. But the mixed martial arts offer more technique than boxing and more reality than fake wrestling.

Some argue that wrestling is the most important aspect of the mixed martial arts. After all, whoever has a thorough knowledge of the ground game can control the fight. So it is no surprise that many pioneers in the MMA world are NCAA and world class wrestlers.

But what seems to be not tolerated by the purists in the MMA world is pro wrestlers crossing over to the MMA world. Ken Shamrock, one of the pioneers of the MMA in the U.S., often got knocks from the media and fellow competitors for being involved in the WWF. Brock Lesnar, the former NCAA heavyweight champion, gets mocked by fellow fighters for making his name in the pro-wrestling business. In fact, some believe Kimbo Slice, the street brawler, has a better reputation in the MMA world than Lesnar.

The MMA community is a big cult these days. Folks are passionate about this sport, and those who have not paid their dues are not respected in the MMA community. But Brock Lesnar made his career by winning the NCAA heavyweight championship. He is a world-class wrestler and a superb athlete. He even had a try out for the NFL and almost made the team. So like many others, he has put the time and effort to train and prepare for his MMA career.

MMA fighters are not paid nearly as well as boxers. In addition, their careers are not as long as boxers, which means they will have to find ways to secure their retirement by the time they are 40. It’s no surprise that Shamrock, Barnett, and many others have tried their hands in the pro-wrestling circuit. After all, pro-wrestling is less taxing on the body, and the money could be significantly better than the one earned by most MMA fighters today.

The MMA fans respect those who sweat and bleed in the MMA business. But what they don’t understand is the amount of effort that goes behind preparing for every single fight. Is Brock the best MMA fighter in the world? He is not. But he will be considered the top athlete in the UFC if he beats the legend Randy Couture. It would be outrageous if he didn’t get proper credit for that.

In America, we have a judicial system that takes criminals and punishes them. However, once they have served their allotted time in prison, they are released to the community to get their life back together. Why should Michael Vick be any different?

Michael Vick has done some terrible things in his life, who hasn’t? I would bet that there are some other professional athletes who have done worse things than Vick and have not been caught. Vick got caught, and served his punishment till the end. He never once pulled a Paris Hilton and cried his way back home, or used his star power to weasel out of prison. He took his punishment and faced the consequences. Even when he was released, he conformed to meet with his parole officer, followed his rules of house arrest and took a full time construction job to start paying for his debt.

There are some people who get out of prison and never learn their lesson. Vick has learned his lesson. He has lost nearly everything, but still wants to chance to play again. I think he should get the chance.

To me, when his time is fully up, he is just as much of a free man as you or I. He should be reinstated to the NFL and get the chance to play, if he can hack it.

Can he physically play in the NFL? I highly doubt it. It is hard to think that, even an athlete of his caliper, can take 2 years off and not miss a beat. He was a great quarterback when it came to scrambling and moving, but his arm was already sub par at best. I personally think, if he was to get reinstated, he would not be able to comeback full swing. He will not be able to help any NFL team and his comeback will be nothing more than a one time story on SportCenter.

But I truly hope that Vick gets the chance to prove me wrong.

Good Luck Michael Vick. You still have a long road ahead.

Crazy World Of Sports is a sports blog that is dedicated to all sports. Sports are an amazing event that can united the world, or tear it done. It creates heroes and martyrs. It is nothing short of amazing. But in sports, there is a crazy world of fans, players and other stories that get missed. Stories full of emotion, passion and wrong doing. It is a crazy world of sports, and our blog catches it. Visit us at http://www.crazyworldofsports.com

Ron Paul’s obnoxious supporters like more traditional political activists can spin and delude themselves about election results. But the Iowa caucus results could not be clearer: The vast national desire for political change is manifesting itself through support for both Democratic and Republican change-candidates. Despite Paul being flush with money and having a large number of workers in Iowa, he was solidly rejected as the leading change agent.

Even with a huge historic turnout of about 348,000 participants, Paul did not attract significant numbers of independents that could easily participate in the Republican caucuses. They went to Obama, Edwards and Huckabee.

On the Democratic side, of some 232,000 people that turned out for the caucuses, nearly doubling what it was four years ago, about 70 percent wanted change and went for Obama and Edwards, roughly 150,000 participants.

On the Republican side, of the 116,000 participants, about 40,000 change-voters went for Huckabee, compared to 11,600 that chose Paul, giving him fifth place. That 10 percent for Paul was very close to the 9 percent found in a Des Moines Register poll of likely caucus voters (margin of error 3.5 points). Interestingly, like Paul, Huckabee also wants to eliminate the federal income tax.

In both parties, change-voters totaled about 200,000. So Paul received just 6 percent of that large fraction, and just 3 percent of the total of all caucus participants in Iowa. Paul was first in only one county, Jefferson, with 36 percent

Edwards was absolutely correct when he summed things up this way: “The one thing that is clear from the results in Iowa tonight is the status quo lost and change won.”

With all the hoopla from Paul supporters about younger people being for Paul, that’s not what the Iowa results showed. Younger people seeking change and inspiration flocked to Obama, in particular. There was no demographic in Iowa that overwhelmingly went for Paul. Sure, Paul beat Giuliani, but Paul’s effort in Iowa was much bigger than Giuliani’s.

None of these results will impact Paul’s supporters nationwide. Earl Ofari Hutchinson wrote a great article on Alternet.org: “Ron Paul is Scary, But Those Who Cheer Him Are Even Scarier.” He was right when he said: “The scariest thing about GOP presidential contender Ron Paul is not his fringe, odd-ball racial views. It is that people take him seriously.” But now Iowa has thankfully shown that the vast majority of Americans, especially those seeking political change, reject Paul.

After losing badly in Iowa Paul said: “The other candidates talk about tinkering with the status quo. We don’t want to tinker; we want to change the status quo.” He said that his campaign is on the upswing and gaining support among independents, frustrated Republicans and unhappy Democrats. Just one very big problem: The Iowa results show that all these people are much more likely to vote for other Democratic and Republican change-candidates.

Paul’s supporters claim that he will do much better in New Hampshire where Libertarian Party members hold a number of offices. I don’t think so. Several polls taken before the Iowa results found Paul at just 5 to 9 percent. Will Paul get a big boost from Iowa? I don’t think so. Paul had predicted he could finish in third place in Iowa, and many of his supporters think he will do that in New Hampshire. I don’t think so. Paul will likely finish fifth in New Hampshire, in large part because more independents will go to Obama and McCain.

When Paul first ran for president as the Libertarian Party candidate in 1988, he won just 0.54 percent of the vote. Iowa shows that his second presidential bid will not produce much better results. Paul is definitely not tapping in a major way into the national populist movement, major desire for political change, anti-status quo sentiment, or even the anti-Iraq war issue. Clearly, other Democratic and Republican change-candidates are doing much better. This reality will not affect Paul’s passionate, cult-like followers that are solidified like cement in their belief that Paul can and should be our next president, something that Paul himself probably never really believed.

By Terrance J. O’Brien

By now you probably heard that Manny Ramirez, the super star outfielder for the Los Angeles Dodgers, was suspended 50 games for illegal drug use. He becomes another baseball star that is a willing participant in the steroids era.

He is suspended without pay. This costs him $7.6 million in salary or $152,000 per game.

What Did the Suspension Really Cost Him?

It is not just the $7.6 million, he lost in wages, but also what he could have earned on the $7.6 million, had he been able to invest it.  This missed opportunity to invest his money often referred to as Lost Opportunity Cost.

Manny is probably in the 40% tax bracket. This bracket includes federal, state, and local income taxes. It could be higher, but for calculation purposes, we will use 40%. His take home pay is about $4.6 million or $92,000 per game. He probably doesn’t need this money for his basic living expenses. Most of the money could have been used for savings or investment.

The $4.6 million invested at 5% in a tax free environment would have yielded, over the next 25 years about $15.5 million. This is $310,000 per game not $152,000 per game as originally reported.    Manny is 36 years old. The current life expectancy for a person that age is another 48 years. The cost of the suspension, over his lifetime, when factoring in Lost Opportunity Cost, is a whopping $47.8 million or $956,000 per game.

Do the numbers on Michael Vick if you think a 50 game suspension is costly. He is the former quarterback for the Atlanta Falcons who was suspended from football, and jailed for sponsoring illegal dog fighting. It is reported he lost over $100 million in salary and endorsements. This is not including the missed opportunity to invest or Lost Opportunity Cost. This $100 million could easily be close to $1 billion when you start looking at the true cost.

The Lesson

These bonehead decisions by these star athletes carry huge costs. The costs are not only monetary.   Their reputation and more importantly the perception as pillars of the community and role models will forever be tainted.

Terrance J. O’Brien, President

We guide our clients through the complex and often confusing financial information highway. Much of the information supplied by the financial institutions and the financial press is simply opinion not fact. We begin by teaching the rules of the money game. We will teach you our strategies that are verified using simple math.

Our focus is recapturing wealth you may be losing unnecessarily and unknowingly. Recaptured wealth may have a huge impact on you personal financial net worth.

http://www.wealthandsafety.com

By Amit Thard

Michelle Obama recently volunteered at a D.C. food bank, trying to raise awareness for the cause and inspire more people to get involved with the cause. It was also a great PR opportunity for the first family. However, Michelle Obama, America’s newest fashion icon appeared wearing her usual J. Crew clothes and $540 sneakers. Now the Obama’s are the darlings of the main stream media and they are well aware of that. So the question is, was it appropriate for Michelle Obama to wear such expensive shoes to such an event?

Initially, this may seem like a trivial issue. The Obama’s are millionaires and they can certainly afford to wear such expensive shoes. However, given the mood of the country and the fact that people are loosing their jobs and cutting back on their expenses, is such opulence from the first family appropriate? The behavior of the first family sets a tone for others to follow. It is a small gesture, but if the Obama’s cut back on their extravagance, they will just connect better with the people of the country and show that they sympathize with their pain.

The Obama’s are well aware that their actions are under a constant microscope. The press laps up anything that they do and they should show better judgment in the way they present themselves. Instead, when Michelle Obama was asked about the shoes, she scoffed and said, “They’re just shoes”. Well Mrs. Obama, an extra $540 would really help a lot of people with their bills. It is really hard for someone to see you wearing these shoes and then talk about how you struggled to come up in life and how you understand their plight.

Barack Obama is probably most controversial Presidents of the United States. However, in the midst of all his fame, we should not forget that he is answerable to the American people. http://www.whois-barack-obama.com is a site that analyzes the President, his policies and all decisions that affect our lives.

By Rick Lawrence

Who would win a debate between Bill Maher and Rush Limbaugh? I ask this rhetorically, since I truly have no preference; you may think of Maher and Limbaugh as polar opposites, I see them as one-in-the same, Maher the Democratic champion on HBO, Limbaugh the conservative radio icon. The strategy is the same for both these two: bash the other side, develop a loyal audience, generate fans that accept you and reject your counter-part.

Each dismisses their opponent as wrong, wrong on anything, wrong on everything; they are mirrors of each other, just as the mirror reflects, a reverse image of the other. A symbiotic relationship is developed to each other, they need each other, they feed off each other; like lawyers need lawyers to make a living, Maher and Limbaugh need each other to develop their fans; Maher and Limbaugh mirror the two political parties, each needing the other to develop their constituency.

All this would be harmless entertainment, except for the damage that is done; arrogant media phonies distract us from our task; they polarize society, they fracture society, and society starts to crumble; they leave the problems mounting, solutions lost to the rhetoric.

This style of argument is all the rage, we see it everywhere; we see it in talk radio, we see it in television talk shows; we see it at political conventions, we see it on the congressional floor; we see it in the halls of justice, we see it on the mean streets; people are in each others’ faces, there is no listening, there is only shouting; communication is not the intent, positioning is the purpose, and from that positioning comes only polarization.

If war is the goal, then this is the road; for when sides stop listening, there can be no peace; if progress is the goal, if solutions are truly sought, there is better process, a process that brings solutions.

History has witnessed many political battles, some which are yet to be resolved; yet history best remembers those where compromise found a way; the U.S. Constitution is one such example.

You might think that after the revolution won independence, government would be congenially formed; the Americans fought side-by-side to the same goal, and that goal now achieved, should bring them together; yet, the prospect of division is always present.

Even in its first days, America was split by two political philosophies: some states demanded a weak central government that would not infringe on states’ rights, other states saw the need for a strong central government necessary to survive foreign threats, and slavery was always much the protagonist between the two. These dividing philosophies threatened drafting of a constitution, these two philosophies threatened the formation of the United States.

The debate continued for months, resolution was close to lost; yet, the founding fathers knew what was at stake and that resolution must be found. In that spirit, they put aside their differences to reach a greater goal; they found the strength to write the U.S. Constitution.

What remains most remarkable is that in this intense political battle, the two sides were able to find a solution, not with a patchwork product that resembled their bickering, but with one of histories greatest documents. British Prime Minister William Gladstone, in 1878 called the U.S. Constitution the “…most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man.”

Respect for the other side leads to communication, communication to compromise, compromise to solutions; America needs leaders daring enough to embrace these skills.

America has such a better example to follow; we don’t need Maher versus Limbaugh.

Rick Lawrence, June 6, 2009
DemosResPublica.com

After obtaining a degree in political science, I embarked on a career in insurance and government. For the last 21 years, I have worked for local government and government associations. I have written articles, as well as manuals, assisting local government in effectively managing their activities and exposures. I have also provided training in these areas, been a frequent speaker at educational seminars, and acted as President of an association of governmental employees.

During this time, I continued an interest in the politics that is embedded in government and where politics is leading this nation in the Twenty First Century.

Rick Lawrence, June 6, 2009 Ricklawrence13@live.com
http://www.DemosResPublica.com

Have you heard of the third most popular talk show host in the radio world? Michael Savage is a powerful, intuitive, informative talk show genius! If you haven’t heard his amazing talk show I suggest you find a local radio station that carries his show

I have been a Michael Savage fan for about three months. I discovered his amazing show when I was driving home from college. On my way home, I was browsing through the radio stations, seeking something to maintain my sanity on the three hour drive. I suddenly stumbled upon a talk show that began talking about deep life issues including current issues!

Ever since the moment I found his show I have tried to listen to him every possible chance I have. My knowledge of my country has expanded greatly due to the informative news Michael Savage brings his fans. His show covers everything from the wacky political arena to the meaning of life. If your mind and soul are in search of a passionate adventure, you have found it!

“Can we survive after the last eight years?” Michael asked one day. His concern for the country i always present in his lectures. Hopefully, with the help of passionate speakers and figures, like Michael Savage, we will be able to make it through this difficult time.

His show is going through an exciting transition. Currently, he is the third largest talk show host in America and is the second largest conservative talk show website! The future is bright…

http://michaelsavagefan.blogspot.com/