It's Almost Inauguration

Just two days before he is sworn in as President of the free world, Obama spoke in front of the Lincoln memorial to thousands of gatherers. The anticipation is insane. By the looks of the already massive crowds, D.C. is going to be a tight fit on Tuesday. Tonight at 2 in the morning, my bus leaves for LaVale, Maryland. No plane for my group, so 14 hours later, we'll be there. LaVale is a couple hours outside of the Capital, but because of enormous security and traffic issues, it'll take about 4 hours to pull up. None of us have any expectations of getting remotely close to the swearing in, but it doesn't really matter. JumboTrons are scattered all over and they'll have a great sound system. One prediction said up to 4 million people could be attending the Inaugural address. After that, only a maximum of 350,000 people are allowed on the parade route, so we have little hope for that as well. Either way, it's pretty historic so I'm anxious to get there. Obama's to be sworn in at 11:30 I believe, so make sure your TV's are on. (Not sure what time that is in other time zones). Don't be lazy, look it up! When I get back on Wednesday, I'll cover some of my trip.

Courage the Cowardly Dog - Disturbing?

Courage the Cowardly Dog must be one of the creepiest cartoons out there. On a scale of creepiness, the online show "Salad Fingers" is for adults, what "Courage" must be for kids. (For those of you not familiar with "Salad Fingers" here's a link to it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3iOROuTuMA). A show that deals with situations like alien abductions, burglaries, invasions, kidnappings, and of course demented monsters hellbent on killing the main characters either makes this show incredibly entertaining or disturbing to children. It depends on the kids.

The show has characters like a demon who stalks puddles, cannibalistic pigs, a deformed hunchback, clowns, moles that are werewolves, a deranged mad scientist, and not to mention a particular mental, pedophile-looking man named Fred seen in the first image of my posting. Tell me that's not freaky. I think, as an adult, these characters in cartoon form weird me out because a good majority of them pose like ordinary, everyday people. Door to door salesmen, people on street corners, doctors, motel owners, among others. Some of these are the quirky people that we read about in the news after they hacked somebody up. To see all of these guys presented in an innocent cartoon gives it a very disturbing effect. Now, I'm not here to complain about the show. I love it. I actually admire the producers. It was an odd contrast to the cartoons it played alongside: Ed, Edd and Eddy, Dexter's Laboratory, Powerpuff Girls, Johnny Bravo, etc. But even without deeply thinking into the situations or characters, it still has some frightening content. So parents know your kids! I understand how badly you want them to enjoy such an original, classic cartoon, but you may have to wait an extra year or two. You don't want them afraid of walking near a puddle that a demon could live in. You don't want them afraid of being haunted by a dead mummy.

It's most likely that the kids watching the show won't picture themselves trapped in the truly horrible situations that the main characters sometimes face. The same can be said that they won't connect the plethora of creepy characters to the likes of people around them. Generally, the show makes a solid balance of the lighthearted and fearful elements. But still, when that occasional dark, musical score builds up and that reoccurring, disturbing character comes around, a few kids might be changing the channel. I hope it doesn't come to that, but they might be better off with Blue's Clues. Blue's pretty dull, but definitely a safer dog than Courage.

Obama's Cabinet

So President-Elect Obama has been drawing some criticism by the left, liberal, political wing for his cabinet picks. They have been questioning whether or not his selections represent the "change" he campaigned on. I admit the President-Elect has chosen a large number Clinton administration people to serve under him including his Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel, his economic counselor Lawrence Summers, Attorney General Eric Holder, Commerce Secretary Bill Richardson, and even Hillary Clinton herself. He has opted to keep President Bush's Secretary of Defense Robert Gates at his post and picked someone outside the political realm, scientist Steven Chu to head the position of Energy Secretary. I'm certain liberals bawled their eyes out when Gore wasn't hired. But even being a more left democrat myself, I still admire these picks. Obama is putting the country in front of his political beliefs. This is one of the most dramatic times in the past century, we are fighting two wars, the economy is a mess, and the environment needs a change of course. During President Clinton's administration, the country saw eight prosperous years. Domestically, we were doing well, making gains and improving as a nation. Our international relations and image abroad was significantly more respectable. Clinton had people in his office who seriously understood how to run the country inside out. Is it not intelligent for Obama to hire these people especially during such a volatile time? I'm not sure if his critics would prefer him to pick a majority of fresh faces to hold the posts or what. Without a team ready to go on day one, how could we expect him to get anything done? Those first 100 days are going to set the stage for his Presidency.

Obama's selection of Secretary of Defense couldn't be more crucial. The war in Iraq is as unpopular as ever and even the Bush administration has reached the Status of Forces Agreement, which calls for troops to depart the country by the end of 2011. The focus is shifting to Afghanistan. Obama wants this. Robert Gates wants this. I was talking to a family friend, Tim Manning, who works under Governor Bill Richardson as the Director of Homeland Security for New Mexico and he completely supports the idea of keeping Gates on the team. He believes it is in the country's best interest to have someone involved in our current situation that has a better grasp of it to handle these matters. Tim's as left as they get. It doesn't matter if Gates is a Republican, he serves at the pleasure of the President. He does what he is instructed to do and finds the best means to do it.

As for our energy crisis, I was twiddling my thumbs hoping for the President-Elect to choose Al Gore for Energy Secretary. His reputation speaks for itself and ideally he would be the most qualified man for the job, but we saw how that turned out. You can't blame this one on Obama though! Turns out Gore passed on the opportunity, saying he has much more he needs to do on his own. Sadly, I think he is right. Whenever he is needed, I'm sure he won't hesitate to advise. He should still be thoroughly involved with the administration and especially with Steven Chu. Now, I didn't know much about Steven Chu to begin with, but I've really warmed to the idea of having someone heading this post who is right in his specific field. Like Gore, he too has won a Nobel and has been an outspoken advocate of alternative energy. He has been across the globe speaking in conventions and meeting with people who I'm sure will help him accomplish his and Obama's intentions. The President-Elect boldly set American goals for the next decade to cut off our dependency on foreign oil and who better to lead that charge (if not Gore!) than a scientist. He has no political ties. He owes no favors. Whether you're Democrat or Republican, how can you complain about that?

There is one criticism that has surfaced that spans from Bush's administration into Obama's: whether or not a woman should be in the position of Secretary of State. Some countries don't allow women to have jobs or speak their opinions so should we be sending one to speak with their leaders? I think so. I believe it sends a message that we are a nation founded on freedom. If an African-American is the President of the United States of America, that should speak for itself. It should almost be intimidating for some of these countries to see our leaders. Even the most withdrawn countries understand our image as the "land of opportunity and liberty." Internationally, the name Clinton garners much respect. President Clinton has established strong ties with foreign leaders and associates that will reflect well his wife. Not to mention, Hillary has spent her fair share of time abroad as First Lady, Senator, and as a Presidential candidate. It is a solid post for a Clinton to fill and I expect her to accomplish much.

That's about all I have in me. In the end, a poll shows 82% are happy with Obama's selections so maybe I am wasting my time arguing, but this is a major transition period, well-worth the debate. Just a little something for the other 18% to think about.

MLB and the Salary Cap

Is it fair that the annual salaries of New York Yankees stars' Alex Rodriguez, C. C. Sabathia, Mark Teixeira, and Derek Jeter all surpass the entire team payroll for the Florida Marlins? How can teams be expected to competitively pursue players on the free agent market if big money teams like Boston, New York, or L.A. have the ability to easily outbid their opponents? Because of the big market teams' vigorous spending, small market teams and their fans suffer. The minute a star enters free agency, the wealthy franchises step up to the plate in a bidding war. Small teams don't even stand a chance. If a hard salary cap was introduced, teams like the Pittsburgh Pirates, Washington Nationals, Kansas City Royals, among others, would have significant opportunities.

The way the payroll cap works is that teams on the verge of going over budget will have to resist so they don't receive a hefty tax for doing so, thus eliminating them from absurd, numerous free agent and trade signings. This gives more teams the ability to compete in signings and reduces a player's bidding pressure. Now you may say that this cap reduces the player's options to choose a team around the league because many would fear to go over budget. But how is that any different from 3 quarters of the league not being able to afford players now? When Barry Zito of the Giants in 2007 received a 7-year 127 million dollar contract what do you think Johan Santana of the Mets thought the following year? He could make more. So he gets a 7-year 151 million dollar contract. When a month ago, C. C. Sabathia saw how bleak the free agent pitching market was, what did he think? More money. His contract tops Santana's at 7-years and 161 million. I wonder what will happen when Brandon Webb or Roy Halladay hits the market. I bet the pattern is going to keep going. I think players deserve to be well paid. In some cases, their popularity puts people in the seats. They sell jerseys, baseball cards, and all kinds of junk. But should their price tags be so high that they eliminate offers from more than half of the league? It could be more reasonable. With the cap, new expectations for contracts could be formed. If pitchers saw restrictions in budgets across the league, I am certain they would be satisfied with lower contracts. Pitchers have dealt with less money the decades and decades before this. They could survive now and still live lavishly.

As of right now, there is no way the Nationals could sign a guy like C. C. Sabathia. Even if they could, there's no reason for him to want to play there. The team has suffered for years and years because of its lack of money and opportunities. Most of these teams depend on the prospects that they bring up. But what happens as soon as they get Rookie of the Year or put up big numbers? They can't afford them anymore. Then off they go to the big franchises. Something needs to be done. If small teams were able to put a consistently winning team on the field, their attendance will easily spike. If they sign a superstar, they'll sell more merchandise. Maybe they will be able to afford to build a nice, new stadium. With the salary cap, each team has a fighting chance. Their fans could be happier. Their players could be reassured that their ball club has equal opportunities. Free agents might be more attracted to a smaller franchise that has the potential of a big one. Much can be said.

Salary cap or not, baseball is supposed to be America's pastime, not just a select fews.

Longtime Brave John Smoltz Signs Elsewhere, Signals Shift in Owner Principles

In a surprising turn, it looks like free agent pitcher John Smoltz is all but set to sign with the Boston Red Sox. For 21 seasons, Smoltz has become one of the most well regarded athletes the Atlanta Braves has ever groomed. His talents both as a starter and a reliever are credentials of a Hall of Famer. He is the only player ever to compile 200 wins and 150 saves. Smoltz is an eight time All-Star. He has also won a distinguished Cy Young and Rolaid's Relief Man of the Year Award. Last year, at the age of 41, the man became the 16th player in history to notch 3,000 strikeouts. But with all these accomplishments, Smoltz has faced his share of struggles. Throughout his career he has battled with his shoulder. In the year 2000, Smoltz was forced to undergo Tommy John surgery. His comeback the following season sent him to the bullpen, but he made a dominating use of his time. It only took three more years for Smoltz to find his way back into the starting rotation. In his first season back, he went 14-7 with a 3.06 ERA and 169 strikeouts, helping Atlanta to a 14th consecutive division title. It was the post-season though that reintroduced the pain in his shoulder. Battling pain, Smoltz's following two seasons were very successful. He logged over 200 innings, struck out around and above 200 batters, while reaching double digits in wins. Unfortunately, it was his milestone 2008 season that ended in disappointment. Recording his 3,000th strikeout with a 0.78 ERA and 3 wins in 4 strong games, Smoltz's season was looking bright. But his next start ended within 4 innings and a trip to the disabled list. He returned in June as a reliever but in a shaky appearance, blew his first save opportunity in years. Almost immediately he was shipped back to the DL. A week later he was destined yet again for Tommy John surgery. I doubt he knew at that point his career as a Brave was over.

Last month, Smoltz showed significant improvement in his arm. He has been seen throwing a football 55 yards and delivering all of his pitches off a mound. Smoltz is expected to be ready by mid-May, definitely by June. Because of Atlanta's lackluster moves on the free agent and trade market, it was almost certain they would sign Smoltz. At this point, they have lost out on bids for stars Jake Peavy, A.J. Burnett, and Rafael Furcal leaving around 30 million dollars to work with for payroll. It is an insult to the players and fans that Atlanta did not step up their offer for the man. He has been a clubhouse leader who has many times almost single-handedly carried the Braves with his talent and presence. If there is anyone to take a risk on, it is him. He not only deserves it, but has proved critics wrong before. Smoltz recently spoke out saying he felt taken for granted by the Braves and he most definitely was. I am putting my money on the management figuring he would accept any offer because of his age and situation. Good for Smoltz for sticking with his principles. I wish him the best of luck in Boston. The Red Sox are looking at a powerful rotation consisting of Josh Beckett, Daisuke Matsuzaka, Jon Lester, Tim Wakefield, Clay Buchholz, and eventually John Smoltz. With the additions of Japanese star Junichi Tazawa, Brad Penny, Rocco Baldelli, and a healthy David Ortiz, the Sox are looking at pretty competitive future within their division.

Smoltz's departure punctuates a unique market this offseason. Today, San Diego faced a tough revelation. 16-year Padres veteran Trevor Hoffman agreed to a contract with the Brewers. The other day, career Phillie Pat Burrell accepted an offer to play for the Rays. And it looks like Andy Pettitte was unimpressed with an offer from his longtime Yankees. It seems like the priorities of baseball management are shifting. A lot of players aren't getting proper respect from their organizations. The fair money isn't going to the people who made the teams what they are, but to the pricey guys on the market. The New York Yankees are happy to spend $420 million on Sabathia, Burnett, and Teixiera, but what happens when they're signed? Not enough money for Pettitte. Grumblings say the Yanks are shopping veteran Hideki Matsui and homegrown Melky Cabrera. The money is still there to hold on to them. Even the smaller market Braves can't argue differently. They could have met Boston's offer for Smoltz, but chose a different route. Their focus left their still capable Hall of Famer for the pursuit of big name free agents like Derek Lowe, when they could have easily done both. They think, "how dare we offer more money to a man who should be willing to accept less for his team?" Don't give them up because they want a higher amount of money, which at many times they may deserve. Give them up because you feel they can no longer help the organization. It's a shame that it happens, but I guess that's modern baseball for you. Who's the next to go after Smoltz?