Gilbert Arenas, you will be missed (by one fan, at least)

The first time I really started caring about the Washington Wizards was during the 2004-2005 season. That was the first year in forever that they were actually good. They had this guy on their team- Gilbert Arenas- who could just blow by anyone. No one could stop him. I remember watching Game 5 of their series against the Bulls. I remember that buzzer-beater shot Arenas hit over Kirk Hinrich to give them the win and eventually send them into the second round of the playoffs for the first time in about 20 years. The opening sentence of the article in the Washington Post the next day went something like this- "The Washington Wizards blew a 20 point halftime lead and then a six point lead with 30 seconds left. But Gilbert Arenas bailed them out. Hey, that's what superstars do." For the first time in forever, the Wizards had a bona fide superstar on their team, and things were looking up.

And this wasn't just your average, generic superstar. Arenas seemed to get it like no other NBA player could. He knew how to connect with fans, because, he said, he was still a fan himself. It wasn't about the money or the fame for him. It was just about playing the game he loved. Back then, he seemed like the nicest guy in the world. I remember hearing one story about how he heard about this little boy whose home had been destroyed in a fire and whose parents had been killed, and just took him in and paid for everything. I heard another about how some random fan sent him a message on Myspace, and not only did Gilbert respond, he actually got the kid a job as Wizards ball-boy. He started a program where for every point he scored in a home game, he'd donate $100 to a needy DC school. He had that crazy blog where he would tell the truth exactly as he saw it- no platitudes, no hesitation. Who couldn't love him?

On the court he was pretty good too. In 2006, the Wizards played in one of the most exciting playoff series ever against the Cleveland Cavaliers. Even though they lost in the first round, it was okay because Gilbert Arenas and Caron Butler were just going to get better and Antawn Jamison was in his prime. Back then, it seemed like they had the whole world in front of them. Then, they had that amazing start to the 06-07 season. I remember seeing Gilbert score 60 points against the Lakers- he was unstoppable man- then, after promising to drop 50 on the Suns, he actually scored 54 against them. I remember watching him hit two ridiculous game-winning threes (in the same week!), and just walk off the court as if nothing had happened. I still imitate his arms raised, back to the basket celebration when I play basketball with my brother or friends. For a while the Wizards had the best record in the Eastern Conference and Arenas was the front runner for MVP. When asked about the team's success, Gilbert said that their "swag was phenomenal". Who else but Gilbert would say something like that?

And then, in one second, on one play, it all came crashing down. Arenas got injured and was out for the year, and the Wizards ended that season getting swept by the Cavs in the playoffs. Then, being the idiot he is, Arenas tried to return from his injury after only like three months when he should've waited at least seven months. What followed were two seasons in a row lost to injury.

And then Gun-gate happened. This time you couldn't excuse it as just Gilbert-being-Gilbert. Arenas had always tiptoed the line of decency with his inane comments and weird pranks. That's just who he was. But this time, he'd gone way too far.

People asked me why I still liked him. Why was I still a fan of someone whose jersey I was too ashamed to wear to school? Why was I a fan of a thug, a lunatic? The reason is because of all those times he carried the team on his back to victories. Because of all those clutch shots he hit. Because of all those memories he provided. Because, for five years, Gilbert Arenas WAS the Wizards. I realize I'm being irrational here. This guy wasted three whole seasons for the Wizards. He screwed up everything for this franchise. But you have to take the bad with the good. John Wall, if you can provide even half the happy memories that Gilbert did, I'll be satisfied. I hope you can help me move on.

College Rejection

So I had applied to Columbia as an Early Decision candidate back in the beginning of November. The decisions came back a couple of days ago and unfortunately I wasn't accepted
:(. I'm obviously disappointed by this, but at the same time I'm not crushed. I realize that Columbia is one of the most selective schools in the country and, regardless of how intelligent I think I am, there are hundreds of other kids in the country who applied who think the same exact thing and are just as qualified, if not more so, than me. I was reading collegeconfidential.com (a momentary weakness, it won't happen again, I promise), and saw that one of the few people on the thread to say they got accepted was some guy from a tiny school in Iowa who works on his farm every day, had an SAT score in the 2200's, was on the varsity football team, and had been the star of two school plays (yes, I know this could be made up, but I'm inclined to believe it). I realize there's no way I can compete with that. Honestly, I wasn't 100 million percent sold on Columbia anyways. Don't get me wrong, I love it a lot and I did want to go there (which is why I applied Early Decision in the first place), and this isn't a cop-out, but I wasn't really sure if I would've been able to adjust to the fast-paced city life that is NYC. I would have figured it out eventually, but it might have adversely affected my college experience.

I try not to, but my rejection does make me second guess myself. I know my SAT score and GPA were high enough to get in, and I'm pretty certain that I did all I could within my ability to burnish my extracurricular resume (and I feel my extracurriculars should have been sufficient for Columbia), so it keeps on coming back to my essay. Did my personal essay make me sound too conceited? Too underhanded and dishonest? Maybe it just wasn't written well enough? But when I look at my friends' essays and compare it to mine, to me mine seems to be a lot better written and have a much better communicated message than their's. Maybe it was my "Why Columbia" essay? I'll admit to having looked up random famous Columbia professors on Google and included them in my essay, and maybe Columbia saw through that.

So what's next for me? I definitely want to get into Georgetown. That's my new #1. Georgetown is also a very selective school, but I'm hopeful (and even confident) that I can get in. The only problem with applying to Georgetown is that I'm going to have to take another SAT II, because they require three, and one of their essay questions asks about my "goals in life". I don't know what my goals in life are- I'm only 18 man. Whenever I get that question in person I try to deflect it, so it's annoying being forced to formulate a well-crafted answer to it. (Georgetown, if you somehow find this blog and are reading this, please know that I still love you and would be extremely honored to attend your college.) (Other colleges that might read this, know that my love of Georgetown doesn't diminish my love for you and I'd still be grateful to be accepted into your school.) In addition to the Georgetown essay, I now have to write 10-15 more (relatively short) college essays for the other eight to nine colleges I'm applying to. It's going to go back to the school-clubs/sport-homework-college apps-sleep cycle that I was on while applying to Columbia. Four years from now, when I graduate, I hope it'll all be worth it, and my rejection from Columbia just a bump in the road. Only time will tell, I guess.

Pre-election Link Dump

I don't usually do this, but I read a couple good articles that I think you all should read too. Also, I need to post something and this is not very time-consuming:

• http://finance.yahoo.com/news/5-Campaign-Fibs-About-the-usnews-2615553179.html?x=0

So this article talks about election myths. It really does a good job and everything it says makes a lot of sense. It is nonpartisan, so don't try to label this as Democratic propaganda. While most of the myths have been propagated by Republicans, it does take Democrats to task over some of their myths.

• http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/25/news/economy/macguineas_british_austerity_plan/index.htm?hpt=C2

While the British actually do something about their debt, we're still stuck in gridlock back here in the US. Republicans and Democrats always talk about getting rid of the debt, but none of them actually do anything because getting rid of the deficit requires hard choices- cutting millions of government jobs, raising taxes, cutting entitlements, etc. Republicans are going to sweep into power promising to cut the debt, and unless something changes, they're not going to do anything.

• http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/archive/2010/10/24

This is so true. The Republicans don't have a single idea about how they're going to cut the debt (how can you lower taxes and lower a trillion dollar deficit? There isn't enough even close to enough spending to cut to accomplish that ). Democrats, meanwhile, have already taken a significant step in reducing the deficit with their health care overhaul, which is estimated by the non-partisan CBO to cut $500 billion + from the deficit over the next 10 years, and are trying to lower the deficit by $700 billion more over the next 10 years by raising taxes on the rich.

• http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/10/29/zakaria.create.jobs/index.html?iref=allsearch

I don't agree with everything this guy says, but most of what he advocates makes a lot of sense. The stimulus plan wasn't just for jumpstarting our economy in the present but was also designed to build our economy for the future, with an emphasis on preparing it for the new green revolution.

• http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/sports/blogs/pick-and-roll/Arenas-on-whether-hell-play-in-Wizards-opener-Youll-see-105702528.html

This is old news, but Gilbert Arenas is so crazy.

What does Roger Federer have left in the tank?

The US Open is in full swing, and once again, Roger Federer faces a make-or-break tournament, as the media increasingly believes that his time on center stage is up. We've been here before. Two years ago, at this exact same time, Federer looked to be in serious trouble; he had not won a major all year, had been crushed by Rafael Nadal in the French Open final, he had been taken down on his favorite surface, grass, in that epic Wimbledon final, and he was increasingly losing in the early rounds in the lesser tournaments . The pundits said that Nadal, and maybe even Novak Djokovich and Andy Murray, had overtaken Federer forever. Instead, Federer handily won his fifth US Open in a row and revived his career, eventually breaking the record for most Grand Slam titles ever won by one man.

That's not to say that we'll see the same thing happen again. There are some differences between 2008 and 2010. For one, Federer is two years older now, and since tennis players peak at a notoriously young age, it can legitimately be argued that Federer is now past his prime, which would not have been true two years ago. Secondly, in 2008, when it came to the majors, Federer only lost to the best. He lost to Nadal twice and #3 Novak Djokovich once. This year, he has lost to someone he had never previously lost to before, Robin Soderling, and someone who was not even a top-20 player at the time, Tomas Berdych. That does not bode well. Those losses have stripped from Federer the psychological edge he held over most opponents at all the major championships, which is something that cannot be underestimated.

Another difference between 2008 pre-US Open and 2010 pre-US Open, this one positive, is the momentum that Federer and Nadal had entering the event. In 2008 Nadal was at his highest point and Federer was at his lowest. Nadal looked like a shoo-in champion after winning the last two majors and performing well in the US Open Series. This year, Nadal entered in somewhat of a summer swoon and Federer entered riding high after two finals appearances in a row at minor tournaments and one tournament victory. Since Nadal always picks it up in the majors, I do not expect his recent downturn to last, but I think Federer's upturn will.

Before delving into Federer's future, the first question that must be answered is how well he will play in the US Open (and before delving into that I have to admit that I'm a big Federer fan). How well he does at this tournament, I believe, will tell a lot about what the rest of Federer's career holds for him. If he loses early (quarterfinals or before), I believe that he will fade fast and won't remain much of a factor for long. On the other hand, if he wins the whole thing, I think he's here to stay and will be competing with Nadal in major finals for a long while.

So how do I think he'll do? I still think Federer is much better than Djokovich, his presumed semifinal opponent, and I don't see him losing to Novak at this tournament. Given his current streak of good play, both pre-US Open and during it, I also don't see him losing to his next two presumed opponents (as of the writing of this blog post) Jurgen Melzer and Robin Soderling (who is the biggest threat here). I also don't see him losing to any other random opponent who crops up. However, I don't think Federer is better than Nadal, nor will he ever be again, therefore I think that he'll lose to Nadal in a hard-fought, four to five set final.

I think my prediction for Federer's US Open sums up my prediction for the rest of Federer's career as well. He'll remain the second best player in the world for a while- up to 2014 even; but he'll never again be the best. He might win another major if Nadal loses in the earlier rounds or if he pulls off the finals upset over Nadal, but it won't happen very often. However, given what he's already accomplished in his career, what's wrong with that?


So did I miss anything? Did I misrepresent some issue? Even though i know this is more of an esoteric topic to you all than my other posts, comments would be appreciated.

The "Ground Zero" mosque and freedom of religion

There has recently been some furor over a proposed interfaith mosque, tentatively named the Cordoba House, that is being built near where the World Trade Center once stood (if you're unclear exactly what I'm talking about, I suggest you click the link). This mosque has been demonized as insensitive because some feel that it would be celebrating the religion that caused the deaths of thousands of innocent people. These people say that the mosque would be like a victory flag for al-Qaeda, planted on the ashes of those they murdered. This is, of course, not true, for several reasons.

First of all, the name that the building is most often referred to as- the "Ground Zero mosque", has led many to believe that it is situated right next to or maybe even on top of the former World Trade Center. This is false. The proposed mosque/community center would be a full two blocks away from Ground Zero. In New York, two blocks is like twenty miles because of the density of the city. There are, in fact, quite a few mosques or Muslim prayer areas already within two blocks of Ground Zero, including one in the building that would need to be demolished for the Cordoba House to be built. Are all of these mosques monuments to terrorism also? If the Cordoba House isn't allowed to be built, why should all these other mosques be allowed to exist?

Secondly, the claim that this mosque would be akin to an al-Qaeda victory flag is completely untrue, because the whole idea of the mosque/community center is as a bulwark against jihadist Islam. The proposed iman (preacher) of the mosque, Faisal Abdul Rauf, is well known for his preachings condemning the 9/11 attacks and terrorism in general. Rather than encouraging terrorism, this mosque would help prevent it.

But the most important reason that the proposed mosque should be allowed to be built is because it would send a message to the rest of the world. America is unique in that it's a nation founded not on ethnicity but on ideals. Two of the most important of these ideals are freedom of religion and freedom of speech. These two principles have been abused numerous times in the past, but many had believed that America had finally turned a corner on its ugly history and was finally ready to live up to the ethos on which it was founded. Support and understanding for the construction of the Cordoba House would have been the ultimate symbol of this new tolerance and egalitarianism. We had a chance to show the terrorists that no matter what they did, no matter how badly they wounded us, they could never touch that which is at the core of our country: freedom. And we blew it. We showed that we have not turned the corner from the segregation and religious intolerance of years past. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said it best: "We do not honor [the 9/11 victims'] lives by denying the very constitutional rights they died protecting." Somewhere, Osama Bin Laden is laughing and watching us do his job for him- radicalizing more Muslims against the US. If we had accepted and supported this mosque, it would have sent a powerful signal to Muslims the world over, that we are not at war with Islam and rather that we respect it as a religion. Instead, we now could see an increase in homegrown terrorism as Muslims see this debate as the true face of America, and ignore the innumerable good things about the country. Rather than waging multiple wars in foreign countries, perhaps the best way to hold back terrorism in America is by taking a long, hard look at our country and what it stands for.

So did I misrepresent the issue? Did I overlook something? Did I make any factual errors? Comments would be appreciated.

College search

Senior year is fast approaching, which means the questions about college have only intensified, to the point where the first question I am asked by any adult I meet is "So which college are you going to?" To the chagrin of most of these people, I don't have an answer to this question (well, not really). Apparently, because I haven't decided what college I'm going to go to yet, I am destined to live a sad, destitute life. What I don't understand is how I'm supposed to already know what college I want to go to when there are over 4,000 colleges in America, the vast majority of which I've never even heard of.

Even if you know what major you want to pursue in college, which is a big if (how are you supposed to know what we want to do for the rest of our life after just 17 years?), that still doesn't narrow the options down much, because most mainstream majors are available in pretty much every college. Obviously, some colleges are known for being strong in certain majors, but in reality you can pursue almost any major at every college.

If you've decided to go to one of Virginia's lovely in-state public colleges, that narrows down the options quite a bit; especially if you have good enough grades to take out all the crappy in-state schools and narrow it down to the likes of UVA, Virginia Tech, VCU, and William and Mary. I luckily (or maybe not so luckily) have the option to go anywhere in the country for college, meaning that all these in-state schools are just one of many possibilities for me.

I recently visited one college possibility, Georgetown, and it looked nice and all; the campus is pretty stunning, the academics are amazing, and the opportunities for internships are great, but I could say the same thing about a large number of colleges. What really separates a Georgetown from a UVA or a Princeton really? This confusion has left me with the odd situation of evaluating colleges based on their selectivity (Virginia Tech is not selective enough, for example, and Harvard is too selective) rather their merits; because I don't know enough about all these colleges to be able to tell the difference between each one's individual assets and liabilities.

Hopefully I'll figure this thing out before too long. I have high expectations for a college hunting trip I'm going to be taking up Northeast in a couple of weeks. Maybe I'll get an even stronger version of that "I-can-imagine-myself-here vibe" than I got at Georgetown. Or maybe a ray of sunlight will fall on my face and I'll realize "this is the place I have to be", and all these college problems will be solved, and whenever someone asks me "what college are you going to?", I can answer confidently "NYU (or Columbia or Princeton)", instead of stuttering and trying to deflect the question. You can only hope, I guess.

A Change of Pace

Looking back on my blog, I realized that I never really wrote an About Me/Introductory entry to explain what Outspoken is all about, so this post will serve as a very belated explanation post, as well as the start of a new direction for Outspoken.

I started this blog to express my opinions on different issues, mainly political and sports-related. I'm really opinionated so I thought it would be a good idea to have an outlet for my viewpoints. This isn't really a blog about my life. I don't want to make it one because, first of all, I don't really want everyone with an internet connection to be able to know what's going on with my life, and secondly, because I don't think anyone would want to read about the daily minutiae of my life. That said, I do want to try to use things that have happened in my life to illustrate my points and opinions. This is something I haven't really been doing lately but hope to do more of in the future.

When I started this blog my goal was to try to write one entry a week. I have obviously fallen quite a bit behind on that schedule. For a while I was posting just once a month; now I've gotten it up to once every two weeks, but I'm really going to try to get it up to once a week from here on out. One way I plan to do that is by changing the type of blog posts I write from long, well-researched manifestos to shorter, more off-the-top-of-my-head musings. I've probably been writing too much about politics lately and not enough about everyday stuff so that's something I'm also going to try to change, since everyday stuff lends itself to shorter posts anyways.

The other way I plan to increase my production is by having a lot more time to write. For the past five weeks I've either been on vacation, or interning (full time) on weekdays and taking an SAT prep class on weekends (and Friday nights). Before that I had to go through Junior year and all the work that ensued. None of that left much time for writing my blog, although that's not really an excuse for my dismal output. Next week, however, my internship will end, and my SAT prep class has already ended. The only work that's going to be left for the rest of summer is college stuff (visits, essays, etc.), this blog, and doing a little volunteering for Gerry Connolly. In addition, the coming school year is going to be my senior year, which means less work than junior year (I hope). So next week I hope to be back with a more substantive, though not too-substantive, entry.

Concerned Citizens of Utah's holy crusade against the Illegals

A little less than two weeks ago an upstanding anti-Illegals group from Utah mailed multiple government and news organizations a list of 2,300 Illegals that they had been secretly watching for the past year and demanded that these Illegals be deported back to Mexico immediately (if you have no idea what I'm talking about I suggest you click on this link). The list included the names of the Illegals, their birth dates, workplaces, home addresses, phone numbers, Social Security numbers, names of their children, and the due dates of pregnant women on the list. The group, humble as they are, decided to remained anonymous, as they had no desire to bask in the glory of their righteous crusade (not to avoid prosecution for what some insignificantly say was a criminal act). I'd like to spend this blog post hailing these men for their brave actions and defending them from their misguided critics.

Everyone knows that we have a problem with illegal immigration here in America. By coming here illegally, Illegals unfairly take the jobs meant for hardworking white Americans, causing mass unemployment. If town halls are any guide, and they are, it was the Illegals who caused this recession, along with 9/11 and the dot-com crash. Some inconsequentially argue that the U.S. economy is actually dependent on Illegals, since the Illegals take the thankless but necessary jobs that no one else would take and since they work at such a cheap price that businesses are thus able to lower their prices and compete in the world market. However, these people are missing the much larger point that Illegals are destroying our country.

Luckily, action is being taken to stem the Illegals tide. The brave state of Arizona recently passed a tough new measure requiring police officers to ask all Mexican-looking-people for proper ID whenever they stop these people for any crime or violation whatsoever. Since this essentially means that all Mexicans who aren't US citizens have to carry their green cards with them wherever they go, this law will also have the positive unintended side effect of driving many legal immigrants out of the state, allowing more jobs for real American citizens. Ridiculously, the federal government is suing Arizona to stop this law from taking effect because they claim that the US Constitution gives the federal government absolute authority when dealing with foreign relations, of which immigration is a part. As one who has strenuously opposed many of the federal government's actions because of their unconstitutionality, I would never support an unconstitutional law, otherwise I'd be a hypocrite, right?

But this post is about the actions of the brave group in Utah, not of Arizona, of which I'll say no more. Outrageously, rather than immediately deport all the Illegals on the list sent by the group, the state of Utah has tried, and it seems succeeded, to find and arrest the brave men who created the group in the first place! What part of illegal do these people not understand? When the Illegals stepped foot in this country without proper papers, they forfeited all their rights, and that is what this brave group in Utah has realized. Yes, normally what these people did would be wrong and against the law, but whenever dealing with a situation like this we can't forget: these are Illegals we're talking about.

Why we need a climate-change bill now

The recent oil-spill disaster, while heart-rending, has had one positive effect. It has focused the nation's attention on the danger of offshore oil drilling and the importance of getting rid of our dependence on oil by changing the way we get energy. It has also convinced President Obama to take a firmer stand in favor of a climate change bill getting passed this year.

There are multiple reasons why a climate change bill needs to be passed. But the most important, by far, is that global warming is happening right now and will ruin our ecosystem (and by extension, our economy) if we don't do something soon. There is no disputing the reality of global warming. Even Sarah Palin, tea-party extraoardinare, agrees that global warming is occurring, although she has been vague about whether it's caused by humans or not. If you don't believe in global warming, I'm not even going to argue with you because, for one, I'm not a big science buff, and two, there's no point arguing with people who just won't accept facts.

The only way to stop global warming is to convince people to stop polluting. What is the best way to do this? By making it more expensive to pollute, of course. That is the core of what the Senate's American Power Act (APA) and the House of Representative's American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACESA) would do. It would charge the 7,500 biggest power plants and factories between $12 and $25 per ton of carbon emitted. The goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 and by 80% by 2050, something an Environmental Protection Agency analysis says this bill will do.

Now energy producers will probably pass the extra money they have to pay in taxes on to consumers in the form of higher energy bills. Luckily, the climate change bill under consideration in the Senate sends 75% of the profits received from the carbon tax back to consumers. As a result, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the APA would only cost consumers $146 a year. That's only $12 a month, or one Starbucks coffee a week. And with the increase in energy efficiency mandated and incentivized by the two climate change bills under consideration, this bill would actually significantly lower energy prices in the long run. In addition, because of the progressive element of the energy rebates, those who could least afford higher energy prices, the poor, actually will have to pay less on energy bills (by about $40 annually) than they normall would.

All of this runs contrary to Republican claims that a climate change bill will result in massive price shocks running through our economy. This myth has been perpetuated most significantly by the Heritage Foundation, which issued a report last year saying that the House of Representatives-passed climate change bill would cost the average household $1,500 a year. The CBO, which is much more trustworthy than the very conservative Heritage Foundation, tells a much different story, and due to its nonpartisanship should be trusted much more than the flawed Heritage Foundation report. Most likely, when you hear an opponent of the climate change bills quoting a study showing the damaging effects of this climate change bill, they will be talking about the thoroughly untrue Heritage Foundation study and any comments they make should be viewed through this filter.

Another major goal of the two climate change bills under discussion is to greatly increase the amount of energy Americans get from renewable energy sources. The APA would do this by taking 25% of the profits received from the carbon tax and using that to subsidize renewable energy and encourage renewable energy research. No one can say that increasing renewable energy production is a bad thing, and this bill does a good, although not great, job of achieving this goal.

All of these clean energy power sources would need to be built and managed by someone, and as a result both the House and the Senate climate change bill would create a significant number of jobs. According to a report by the nonpartisan Peterson Institute, the American Power Act would create 203,000 new jobs per year between 2012 and 2020. The slightly-more-partisan Climate Works estimates that the bill will create 440,000 more jobs per year in the same time period. That's a lot of jobs, and completely disproves doomsday scenarios predicting that this bill would cause the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs per year.

The final, and in my mind, least important, reason we need a climate change bill passed is to protect our national security. Currently we spend billions of dollars on oil coming from unstable Middle Eastern countries. A lot of this money is funneled into terrorist organizations that are actively engaged in trying to kill Americans. If we could stop this indirect funding, why wouldn't we? Now there is a caveat. Renewable-energy sources such as solar cells and wind turbines also need natural resources to function, and some of these resources are found mostly or only in unfriendly countries. For example, the mineral lanthanum, which is necessary for solar cells and wind turbines, is only available in China. However, the amount of lanthanum and other minerals we'd need to import for renewable energy sources pales in comparison to the amount of oil we import right now, so on balance a switch to clean energy would still significantly improve our national security.

All of this, by the way, doesn't take into account the huge benefits of stopping global warming. None of the studies conducted can quantify how much money or how many jobs climate change would destroy (even in just the next 10-20 years), and thus how much money would be saved by a climate change bill. But isn't that the main point of the bill, to stop climate change? Almost this entire blog post has been trying to disprove the perceived problems a climate change bill would cause, without touching on the benefits. Speculation says that we'd be saving hundreds of billions of dollars if we were able to stop climate change. We'd be averting mass casualties, the loss of entire cities and industries, and who knows what else. My point is, both the House of Representatives and the Senate bill would still accomplish all the goals that a strong climate-change bill should, while also turning the perceived drawbacks of such a bill into benefits. So what's with all the outrage?

So did I misrepresent something in this post? Am I completely off the mark in my analysis? Comments would be appreciated.

Gilbert Arenas and the Wizards

I know I've already talked about Gilbert Arenas' future with the Wizards, but a lot has changed in the past two and a half months since that last blog post. Specifically, the Wizards got the 1st pick in the NBA draft, aka John Wall. With Wall, also a point guard, set to join the team, some critics are now saying that Arenas is expendable and should be traded as soon as possible. Now, let's just pretend that Gilbert Arenas is no longer a useful player for the Wizards and is in fact a used up husk, which I would like to emphasize is not true at all. Going down this line of thinking, lets say the Wizards shopped around for a player to trade Gilbert Arenas for.

Numerous sources are saying that with his huge contract, legal trouble, and the vast amount of time he's missed over the past three years, the best the Wizards would be able to get for him would be to swap him for someone like Eddy Curry or Hedo Turkoglu, both of whom have very bad contracts. Now, no one can argue that this would be a good trade. The Wizards would essentially be trading Arenas for nothing. So why not just keep Arenas for now and wait until at least the trade deadline next year for a better deal? Playing Arenas next year will result in his trade value going up dramatically as people realize that this guy can still play pretty well. Even if you are one of those guys who thinks Arenas stinks now, you can't argue that he'd hurt his trade value by playing next year. So instead of getting an Eddy Curry for Arenas, you could be getting a high draft pick or a Carlos Boozer. Doesn't this make sense?

Other people are saying that since the Wizards wouldn't be able to get anyone worthwhile in a trade, they should buy out Gilbert Arenas' contract now and let him become a free agent. They say he needs to go now because the Wizards need to start rebuilding as soon as possible and can't wait until next year to get rid of him. The thing is though, building a championship team takes time. It's not going to be done in 1-2 years. So what's the problem of delaying by a couple of months? It's more important to get it right than to do it fast. Besides, getting rid of Arenas wouldn't even speed up the team's rebuilding at all because the only thing his leaving would free up is more money, which they have plenty of already. In addition, to buy out Arenas the team would have to pay him the $80 million he's still owed to essentially go away. $80 million is a lot of money. People (even rich owners) don't just have that kind of money laying around. If Ted Leonsis wasted $80 million on Arenas then he would have lot less money to do more important stuff, like signing free agents to help the team out or buying another draft pick. Luckily, Leonsis has already stated firmly that there's no way he's buying out Arenas' contract.

The most ludicrous reason that people are saying Arenas should be shipped out for is that he is a cancer who cannot be allowed to interact with John Wall, as he would corrupt Wall and turn him to the dark side. Lets get this straight- Arenas is not a thug or a Sith lord. He's stupid and immature, yes, but not a cancer. This is the guy who wakes up at 2 AM to go to the gym to shoot hoops. He dribbles a basketball as he's walking in his house. He sleeps with his basketball. He doesn't go out to clubs and bars, instead staying at his hotel to watch infomercials (no joke- Arenas actually claimed he does this in an interview, although some claim he made it up). Arenas would not corrupt Wall. Just because he's immature doesn't mean that Wall should be kept as far from him as possible. I'd also venture that this whole gun situation has caused Arenas to realize that he needs to get his act together and that we will see a changed Gilbert Arenas next year.

The point is, even if you look at Arenas as an over-the-hill bad contract, there is absolutely no reason to trade him right now. So can any of you think of a reason he should be traded this summer? Comments would be appreciated.

Texas' High-Minded, Principled Stand

I'm sure many of you have heard of the changes that Texas is making to their high school history curriculum, changes that will be voted on on May 21. I would like to spend this blog post commending the upstanding gentleman from Texas' Board of Education for their brave quest to uphold our common American beliefs. As principled conservative and Texas school board member Don McLeroy (who tragically has been voted off the board because of what his critics incorrectly call "a far-right indoctrination campaign") pointed out, "academia is skewed too far to the left", and these reforms put Texas schoolbooks back in the center of American politics. Some of the changes include deemphasizing Thomas Jefferson from Texas's curriculum because of his radical views on religion (he was a deist) and on the separation of church and state. Here in America (or at least in Texas) we know that government is essentially run by the Christian church and any non Christian politician is someone who should be watched closely for terroristic leanings and should probably be waterboarded just in case.

Other wonderful changes the school board is making include less references to Latino culture, the removal of hip-hop as an important cultural movement, and an explanation of how affirmative action has hurt the country. I have always decried affirmative action, as I decried the 14th and 15th amendments, as attempts to subjugate the white race. These gentlemen from Texas understand that African-Americans and Mexicans have contributed nothing to American society and thus should not be honored. Why, if they could, I'm sure these gentlemen would have tried to repeal the mistake that was the Civil Rights Act and return blacks to semi-servitude.

Another long-overdue fix that Texas has proposed is the changing of the word "imperialism" to "expansionism" in all textbooks due to imperialism's negative connotation. I have often thought that the U.S. army's attempt to kill all of-age male Filipinos in the early 1900's to stop the uprising there was overblown due to its necessity to win that war and subjugate that inferior race, and this change adopted by Texas will fix that and other problems.

Finally, the wonderful men from Texas are also turning their watchful eye on more recent history. Textbooks will now be required to explain how Title IX (the program that requires all girls and boys school sports to be equal) and other liberal programs had "unintended consequences" such as giving funding to any girls sports at all, which most (in Texas at least) find to be overstepping the bounds a woman should stay in. Also, conservative activists such as Phyllis Schlafly will be getting a bigger role in new textbooks. Shlafly, as you know, opposes equal rights for women, something that would be an abomination under god.

How does this affect us? Well since Texas is the largest buyer of textbooks in the country, many companies make their textbooks to Texas' standards, and other counties are forced to buy those. Just think, Texas' strong conservatism influencing textbooks here in Vienna, Virginia! I can't wait!

Oklahoma's despotic new abortion law

A couple of days ago Oklahoma passed two laws that force all women who want an abortion in the state to listen to an ultrasound of their fetus before the abortion is performed, and even more egregiously, allow doctors to lie to their patients about the state of the patient's pregnancy if they believed that the information would lead to the patient performing an abortion. How anyone can defend this, especially the second part, I have no idea. I'm not going to get into the abortion debate in this post, but the illegality and immorality of these laws is amazing. Starting with the second law, Oklahoma is, in essence, telling doctors that they should perform their jobs wrong. Am I the only one who recognizes how ridiculous that is? The effects this law would have are chilling. Patients could no longer trust their doctors at all to tell the truth about their pregnancy. Every Oklahoman woman will now, for the entire length of their pregnancy, have a little doubt in the back of their mind about the health of their baby. There will be no peace of mind for an Oklahoman mother. Furthermore, if it turns out that a couple is going to have a deformed baby, they will now not know about this until the baby is actually born. The emotional maelstrom that this will cause for thousands of Oklahoman families is wrong and unfair. And what if the baby is so deformed that it does not survive outside the woman's body? Is it okay to allow doctors to not inform families of this devastating possibility? This law could have broad-reaching economic effects as well. Many who live close enough to Oklahoma's border might decide to go to special pregnancy clinics outside of Oklahoma because they cannot have peace of mind with an Oklahoma doctor. That's tens of millions of dollars that could be leaving the state.

Moving on to the first law, it's hard to dispute this part without getting into the whole abortion debate, which I refuse to do. But I will say this; this sounds an awful lot like what the southern states did to get around the 15th amendment (giving blacks the right to vote) back in the early 1900s. In fact, it's the exact same strategy. Both groups were saying 'The act itself cannot now be taken away, so we'll make it as hard as possible to commit the act, while still allowing it to be legal.' It has changed from poll taxes to ultrasound hearings, but the spirit is the same. Furthermore, do the wonderful congressman of Oklahoma realize the scarring effect this could have on a family? Abortion is not an easy decision to make, and to require the parents to listen to the babies heartbeat right before performing the procedure is grotesque and macabre (I can't wait for the comments saying that this is why the procedure shouldn't be performed in the first place).

Luckily, there is no real way this law will pass muster in a court when it is sued for its illegality. The law requires a woman to have an operation performed on her body (the ultrasound) that she does not want. The government has no power to do that. It also requires the doctor to perform the procedure, which it also doesn't have the power to do. Furthermore, I'm unsure, but I bet there are federal laws requiring doctors to disclose all information to their patients. This law would go against that, and federal law always supersedes state laws. The number of ways this law is unconstitutional make it highly improbable that it will stay on the books for long.

So can any of you find any way to defend this law? I will not engage in any debates about abortion, but you're free to comment whatever you want.

Jason Campbell: the franchise QB who was never given a fair chance

     Unlike most people, I was sad to hear that Donovan McNabb had been traded to the Redskins. While I agree that McNabb is an upgrade over Campbell right now, he is clearly not the team's franchise quarterback (he has probably three good years left in the league). The Redskins had a franchise quarterback in Campbell. With the worst offensive line in football (he was sacked 3rd most in the league), some of the worst receivers, and a revolving door of different offensive systems, Campbell played pretty darn well. He had a 64.5% completion percentage, which was 10th best in the NFL and better than Tony Romo, Eli Manning, Carson Palmer, and Donovan McNabb, among others. His overall passer rating was 86.4, not great, but good enough for 15th best in the NFL (out of 32 QBs) and better than, among others, Carson Palmer, Vince Young, and Matt Ryan. While he didn't have amazing stats, Campbell did increase his statistics every year in every major category, showing room for further improvement. The point is that Campbell was a good quarterback who had a chance to get a lot better and turn into a real franchise cornerstone for the Redskins and the Redskins blew it.
      When examining any trade the main question has to be, 'how will this help the team compete for a Super Bowl'? Even with McNabb the Redskins will still suck next year. Those who say they can make the playoffs next year just because of McNabb are crazy. They will still have one of the worst offensive lines in football, regardless of who they draft. Their running backs are the best running backs in the league three years ago, but today all are over the hill.While their young wide receivers showed progress last year, overall their receiving corps still sucks. Their defense is pretty good, but their cornerbacks are all fairly bad. So McNabb won't be any use this year. While the Redskins could legitimately become serious contenders three years from now, there are significant doubts to that as well. After that it's unsure how good McNabb will be. McNabb seems to be a stopover until the Redskins draft a "real" franchise QB, despite the fact that they already had one in the first place in Jason Campbell.

      So did I misrepresent some of the facts in my post? Am I overestimating Campbell's skill? Comments would be appreciated.

What the Wizards should do with Gilbert Arenas

        On Sunday Ernie Grunfeld announced that Gilbert Arenas would be back with the Wizards next year. Although a lot of people may not agree with me, I think this is great news. Grunfeld's announcement might not mean much, however, as the new owner, Ted Leonsis, might decide to replace Grunfeld with one of his own guys. When Leonsis takes over, he will have four options with Gilbert Arenas. He could try to void his contract, which really isn't possible due to the fact that a player can't be punished by both the league and the team for any one action (the NBA already suspended Arenas for the rest of the season) and because a player needs to commit a "violent felony" for a contract to be voided. Arenas' felony was clearly not violent, as he didn't physically attack Crittenton.
        Leonsis could also try to trade Arenas. But due to his legal trouble, any deal the Wizards would get for him would be far, far worse than his actual value (I'm talking a Gilbert Arenas for Devin Harris swap as a best case scenario). If the Wizards want to trade Arenas, they need to hold onto him at least until next year's trade deadline so that he could recover some of his value.
        Another option the Wizards would have is to buy out Arenas' contract for around $40 million. That is a ridiculous sum of money and would cancel out the benefits getting rid of Arenas would provide- financial flexibility, because it would greatly reduce Leonsis' budget for signing a free agent (he doesn't have unlimited money you know). Also, without Arenas no free agent would want to come to Washington. Who would want to join a team whose best players are Andray Blatche and whatever rookie the Wizards draft next year? No amount of money would lure any big name free agent to a team in such desperate straits.
        So that leaves only one real option for the Wizards: keeping Arenas and playing him next year. But, I propose the Wizards go even further than just keeping Arenas for another year: I think they should rebuild around him as one of the cornerstones of their franchise. Overlooked in the Wizards awful season this year is that Arenas actually played pretty well, especially in December. Over the year he averaged 22.6 points and 7.2 assists, which would make him the 11th and 9th best scorer and passer in the NBA,  respectively. But remember, he was coming back from pretty much two years of inactivity. It took him about a month to knock off the rust, so if we look at his December stats, when he averaged 25.2 points and 7.6 assists, he would rank 7th and 9th in the NBA in points and assists respectively. That is a player who you can build your team around, at least stat-wise.
        Arenas wouldn't be the only scoring option on the team or perhaps even the best one. Imagine this as the Wizards starting lineup next year: PG: Arenas, SG: Evan Turner, SF: Chris Bosh, PF: Andray Blatche, C: Javale McGee. That's a pretty good lineup right there. While getting Bosh might be a bit of a stretch, the Wizards do have a very good chance of landing Turner and at least some high-caliber free agent (maybe Stoudamire?). Yes their bench would probably suck, but if the Wizards keep Arenas they could be only two years away from seriously competing in the playoffs again.
        So am I misrepresenting Arenas' skills in some way? Do you think any of the other options the Wizards have in regards to Arenas makes more sense than the one I advocate? Comments would be appreciated.

Healthcare Reform

Before I go any further, I'd like to say, to those of you who already didn't know, I'm very liberal. Now that healthcare reform has finally passed, I'd like to offer my opinion of it. I've yet to meet one person who could offer a coherent reason reform isn't a good idea. The number of times I've heard the words "government takeover" and "socialism" in the argument against healthcare is ridiculous.

Here are some facts no one can debate:
1. Healthcare reform will cover over 30 million additional people, or almost all uninsured Americans once illegal immigrants are discounted.
2. Healthcare reform will stop ridiculous insurance practices like denying people due to pre-existing conditions (I heard one story of someone being dropped because of having the pre-existing condition of zits) and dropping them when they're sick. This is undeniably a good thing.
3. Healthcare reform will significantly lower the federal deficit (by over 1 trillion dollars in the next 20 years!). That is according to the official and nonpartisan cost estimator- the Congressional Budget Office. I don't know how people can argue that healthcare reform will add to the federal deficit when the report saying it won't is staring them right in the face.

On Friday I went to President Obama's speech at George Mason University and, obviously, there were a lot of protestors. Three of them came marching towards us holding up the obligatory Obama-as-joker and Obama-socialist signs. But the last guy was holding up a sign saying "Healthcare is NOT a right." This confused me. Do conservatives actually think that healthcare shouldn't be given to all? That when someone gets sick and there's a cure out there that can save their life, they should be permitted to die because they just don't have enough money to pay for it? That guy holding up the sign obviously had healthcare, or else he wouldn't be holding up that sign. How would he feel if he was lying on a bed dying and the doctor told him they couldn't save him because he didn't have healthcare and when he was arguing that he deserved to be saved the doctor just told him "Healthcare is not a right." I'm pretty sure that only a small minority of people oppose healthcare reform for the same reason as this guy, but if I'm wrong feel free to correct me in the comments section.

Now that I've got the main benefits out of the way (I won't talk about all the smaller benefits like kids being able to stay on their parents plans until they're 26 because there are just too many of them), I'm going to examine all the main arguments against healthcare that have been made and rebut them (No, "socialism" and "government takeover" aren't arguments)
1. It costs too much- It's completely paid for (and then some). How does it matter how much it costs if its paid for? If a bill cost 100 trillion dollars but would save the US 100 googol dollars would people rail against it because "it costs too much"?
2. It raises taxes- Yes, on the super rich. There is not one tax in here that will hurt those making under $200,000 dollars a year unless they're a medium-sized small business owner (although I think most owners of businesses that size get more than $200,000). Unless you're earning that much or are a small business owner, shut up about this bill raising taxes on you. Small business owners aren't really taxed. They're now just fined if they don't provide healthcare to their workers if they have over 50 employees. However, this bill will make it a lot easier for these businesses to provide their workers with healthcare and most businesses with over 50 employees should and do provide healthcare to employees anyways.
3. Its financed by excessive cuts in Medicare- Yes, in this bill the Medicare Advantage program is severely scaled back. That program has the government give private businesses subsidies so they could offer seniors cheap private Medicare plans rather than government ones. But the government has to pay a lot more to finance each Medicare Advantage plan than they pay for regular Medicare plans. Medicare Advantage isn't working and if the money withheld from it results in price increases, seniors can always switch back to regular Medicare with no problem. Other than that, the bill cuts costs from Medicare by making it more efficient. Currently a lot of government money goes to waste financing unnecessary surgeries. Healthcare reform gets most of its money from Medicare by fixing that waste. And to top it all off, this bill would close the doughnut hole gap in the prescription drug program and make it so seniors didn't have to pay ridiculous amounts for medicine. What's wrong with that?
4. It'll raise peoples' premiums- The Congressional Budget Office says that the bill will lower the average premium, not raise it. The Budget Office also says that Americans will probably end up purchasing more expensive plans because the plans will cover more stuff and thus are more cost-effective. Republicans have seized on that second part and said that reform will raise premiums for everyone, which is not true. However, in reality no one really has no idea what this bill will do to premiums. There are so many experimental stuff in it (like adjusting how doctors get paid) that could significantly lower premiums; alternatively there are so many well-intentioned reforms (such as banning denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions) that could have unintended consequences and raise premiums. On balance though, the Budget Office has realized that there are more cost-saving measures in here than cost-raising measures.
5. The American people are against it and Congress was elected to serve the American people and not themselves- That's not an argument; that just shows the Republicans played the sales game better than Democrats did. "Government takeover of healthcare" is so much more visceral than "covers all those uninsured people you don't know" so the Republicans had an easier sales job. Besides, any change worth doing is going to be hard and will be opposed at first, but once people start seeing the benefits of the bill I'm confident they'll eventually support it. Also, a lot of people oppose this bill because it is not liberal enough (about one-fifth according to CNN), and when these people are removed from the equation support and opposition runs about even.


So are there any other arguments you have against the bill that I failed to rebut? Are there flaws in my rebuttal of the points I already put out there? Are the benefits I say the bill has not real? Any comments would be appreciated.

My NCAA Tournament Bracket (click to enlarge)

Below is my bracket for this year's NCAA tournament. I don't normally watch college basketball because I think college play is inferior to the NBA (that's an argument for a later blog post), therefore I really don't know much about any of the teams in the tournament and a lot of my picks are just guess work.

Before I explain any controversial/important picks, first I have a confession to make. I am a big time fan of any mid-major team, due to my support for George Mason. I remember their Final Four run in 2006 and how all of Fairfax was covered in gold and green in support of them. I like to pick upsets wherever I can and this bracket might be a little upset heavy. Now on to the explanations:

Round 1

Temple over Cornell: Everyone is picking Cornell to pull the upset here, making my choice of Temple almost an upset in its own right. While people are right in pointing out how good Cornell is and how underseeded they are, no one seems to be realizing how good Temple is as well. They are underseeded also and I have them going to the sweet 16.
Washington over Marquette: I have to have at least one upset in each region in the first round and this seems like my best bet in the East. I'm not particularly thrilled with this pick.
Sienna over Purdue: Purdue is missing their best player and Sienna has a pedigree for pulling off the upset. Plus, everyone else is going with this pick so I might as well jump on the bandwagon.

Round 2

Xavier over Pittsburgh: I like Xavier a lot. Not just this year, but in general, because they help bring up the image of mid-majors everywhere and they have a cool name. Pitt isn't very good this year- they play way too slowly- and I think they have a good chance of being upset

Sienna over Texas A&M: I need at least one double digit seed in the sweet sixteen, and while I do believe that Texas A&M is a good team, I think Sienna has the best chance of any double digit seed to get to the next round.

Round 3

Butler over Syracuse: This is my big, bold pick. Syracuse isn't that great- they lost to an okay at best Georgetown team in their most recent game; and Butler is on a 20 game winning streak. They know how to play in big games and I think they'll have all the momentum.

Round 4

Baylor over Duke: I don't think Duke is that great and I think Baylor is a good team that could sneak up on Duke. In the end, however, this is just a guess with no real basis to back it up

Championship

Kansas over Kentucky: I have Kansas as my champion because they're the safest pick. They're most likely the best overall team in the league, they have balanced scoring, and they're experienced. Kentucky has two freshman as its best players, ruling them out.

So are my picks and explanations generally on target or am I just a blithering fool? Comments would be welcome.

Cheating

The other day I was talking with my friend about cheating, or as he called it, "consulting with friends", on our english quizzes. After every reading that's assigned in my english class we have to take a ridiculously hard quiz on that reading, and pretty much every Student Assistance Period (basically a half an hour free period at Madison where you can do whatever you want) my friend gets the questions and their answers for the day's upcoming quiz from another student. He feels that since the subject of the quiz isn't something we'll ever use again (which I concede is true) he's justified in cheating because it's not important to actually learn the information. In addition, my friend says by "consulting with a friend" he's rebelling against my English teacher's unreasonably difficult quizzes. He feels that if our teacher is going to quiz us it should only be to make sure that we read the assignment and not to see how well we remember the reading.
In response to my friend's first point, I think that it doesn't matter what someone cheats on; if you get in the habit of cheating it often leads to worse things. If it's okay to cheat on a small reading quiz, then how long until it's okay to cheat on a big math test? On a final? The attitude my friend takes toward cheating, I feel, is self-destructive. In regards to the second point, while I do feel my friend has a legitimate complaint (I make the same objection all the time), i also feel that sometimes life isn't fair and rather then raging against the system my friend should adapt and play by the rules.
So am I hopelessly naive or right on target? Any comments would be appreciated.