Monday, December 31, 2007

Republican Nominee

The primaries are upon us. I sure wish we'd move these back into spring and make the conventions worth something. They are not worth the time and effort. They should be reduced to one day under the current voting process -- there is no strategy or anticipation, only boredom and inevitableness.

In the primaries, I firmly believe one should never vote for the person one thinks can win in the national election. Rather, one should vote for the person he feels has the best stance on the issues and demonstrates the best possible leadership for this nation.

The person I think will do the best, of those who are officially running for the Presidency, is Duncan Hunter. His core principles are more in line with mine than any other candidates. I agree with his positions on key issues including Right to Life, Judicial Appointments, Marriage, Educational Choice and Home Schooling, Hate Crimes & Sexual Orientation, Second Amendment, Tax Relief and Tax Cuts, Marriage Penalty Tax, Alternative Minimum Tax, Antiquated Taxes, Balanced Budget, Property Rights/Eminent Domain, Federal Obscenity Laws, Gambling, National Endowment of the Arts, Health Care Reform, Foreign Policy Issues, Illegal Immigration, United Nations and Trade.

I also like Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson, although not as much as I like Hunter. I feel these three are the closest to the conservative positions on the whole.

I do not favor Rudy Giuliani (still can't believe he's a Republican), John McCain (great American, poor Senator, absolutely lousy Republican) or Mike Huckabee (though I did at one time). These candidates are all center-left -- they are good on a few conservative issues but lack backbone and consistency in conservative principles. They are to the right of Clinton, Obama and Edwards but that's not saying much.

Saturday, December 29, 2007

The Mitchell Report

I have been thinking about and listening to commentary and denial from those accused since The Report to the Commissioner of Baseball of an Independent Investigation into the Illegal Use of Steroids and Other Performance Enhancing Substances by Players in Major League Baseball, the Mitchell Report, was released. In short:
For more than a decade there has been widespread illegal use of anabolic steroids and other performance enhancing substances by players in Major League Baseball, in violation of federal law and baseball policy. The response by baseball was slow to develop and was initially ineffective, but it gained momentum after the adoption of a mandatory random drug testing program in 2002. The use of human growth hormone has risen because, unlike steroids, it is not detectable through urine testing. This report, the product of an intensive investigation, describes how and why this
problem emerged.
Of the around 80 players named, a few have record and Hall of Fame implications: Andy Pettitte, Miguel Tejada, Jason Giambi, Gary Sheffield, Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens. (Mark Mcguire and Sammy Sosa were not mentioned.)

There is no doubt in my mind these players were involved in injecting some performance-enhancing drug into their bodies. Whether is was for rapid healing or strength-promoting, they were all guilty. I also believe this is a partial list only -- that their are other players involved but their identity was not discovered or there was not enough evidence to disclose their names.

This effort by MLB to control the problem is weak at best. The owners don't care about drug use. They care about paid-for seats, concessions, team-logo gear and media rights. The Mitchell Report is a PR effort exclusively.

What it does is vindicate certain players, namely Bonds. If Clemens gets into the Hall of Fame, then there is no justifiable reason Bonds should not be allowed also.

Athletes do whatever they can to get and stay at the top. It is their livelihood. There is too much money to do otherwise.

Friday, December 28, 2007

Pakistan Matters


For the past three years since I have writing this Web log, I have provided some opinion on Pakistan. Pakistan matters.

A nuclear nation with 165 million people, 97 percent of them Muslim, they are in the middle of the global war on terror. If only one percent of the people consider themselves extremists, that's a large number of extremists. Everyone of those 1-2 million people hate America and would love to see every single one of us (non-Muslims) dead.

Even though al-Qaeda is taking credit and appears to be getting credit, this is terrorism at its "finest." Regardless of how Mrs. Bhutto died yesterday, the extremists benefit from anarchy -- anything not resembling a democracy.

Musharaf has his work cut out for him. I do not think his assignation "forensics" results are going to appease the masses. Public distrust for him is a given -- he lead a coup. Too bad he did not engage America, Britain and Russia specialists in the investigation yesterday.

He should postpone the parlimentary elections for a few weeks. Bhutto's party needs time to nominate a new party leader.

A stable Pakistan matters. Musharaf may not be the ideal leader but he has done a decent job give what he has to work with. He has not solved the militant Islam problem in the western provinces. Al-Qaeda likes it that way. Terrorist can only succeed if anarchy rules. The media hopes so; but I don't.

Sunday, December 23, 2007

Mountain West Conference Bowls

Three down and two to go.

Utah started it offer in San Diego in the Poinsettia Bowl. Navy was a formidable foe. Navy owned the first half, Utah the second, almost allowing the Midshipmen back in. What is amazing is that Utah has won seven straight bowl games. They'll be stronger next year with few graduating seniors; should battle BYU for the MWC title again.

New Mexico dominated Nevada in their own bowl game -- the New Mexico Bowl -- winning 23-0. Congrats to the Lobos in their first even bowl victory.

Although not a BYU fan, I do pull for MWC teams during bowl season and most out-of-conference games. BYU is really making me mad with their luck. It is bound to balance out. Last year beating Utah on a last second play and this year, getting a first down deep in their own territory on a 4th and 18 and going to win a game they almost allowed Utah to win (BYU outplayed the Utes). UCLA, not that good of a team this year, seems to match up well against BYU. All UCLA had to do was make a chip-shot field goal. But as the corny BYU players said, "we never give up and knew we could do it." How many chip-shots are blocked or missed? Very few. BYU got lucky. BYU hung on to win the Las Vegas Bowl 17-16. Good for them and their players; too bad for UCLA.

We still have TCU playing Houston in the Texas Bowl and Air Force taking on Cal in the Armed Forces Bowl. I like the MWC but hate their TV contract...worse contract for fans ever created.

Update: The MWC finished their bowl campaign 4-1: TCU beat Houston in the Texas Bowl but Air Force lost in the Armed Forces Bowl to Cal.

Tuesday, December 18, 2007

Bali Climate Agreement

Kyoto accord for climate control was not ratified by the U.S. (thankfully) because there was no teeth in it -- developing countries had no reason to control emissions. The Bali agreement engages all countries in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, among a full range of other pollutants.

I have no problem with businesses and governments attempting to do their parts at creating a cleaner and more hospitable world. No one wants to live in pollution. However, the whole motivation behind these environmentalists groups and summits is based on the assumption that man has caused the warming of the earth and man, from some recent arbitrary point in normative time, can fix it.

We can reduce our greenhouse gas emissions but it is not going to have any impact on global climate. To assume that people of the world wants some arbitrary emissions target by some years is egotistical. Both are wishful thinking at best.

What has caught my eye during these discussions is how easy it is for environmentalists to blame the wealthy for all of society's problems and assume they are the ones that should cover the costs.

Environmentalists tend to think government is the answer to all problems. They want to see higher taxes and larger and more extensive governmental program. On the local stage, they want the wealthy citizens to cover a bigger burden of the costs (they already do). On the international stage, they want the wealthy nations to cover the costs. They are good at spending other people's money.

Environmentalism, as it has become defined by the MSM, is liberalism. When it comes down to it, they want someone else to solve the problem; i.e., pay for it. They are great at playing the vicarious victim of the earth. Unfortunately, they are doing a good job.

Monday, December 17, 2007

Declaration of Religious Beliefs

An interesting Letter to the Editor appeared in the 14 December Wall Street Journal. Barry Augenbraum from St. Petersburg, FL, like a many people, feels Romney's speech should have focused more on social Mormonism facts like marriage, tithing, service and the Word of Wisdom. These are things most non-Mormons can appreciate. When the speech mentions Jesus Christ, even once, that is out of bounds. Why?

Romney said in his Faith in America speech: "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind." Mr. Augenbraum said he would "never vote for a candidate who believes that he should be making that message part of his qualification for president."

The lives of Mormons are tightly coupled with its doctrines. Christ is the center of our faith. All other things are appendages. We marry for time and all eternity, pay tithing, render service and obey the Word of Wisdom because of our faith in Christ and his teachings.

Those that share Mr. Augenbraum's opinion either prefer a non-believing President or one that keeps his beliefs to him or herself. The more we know about a candidate, the more informed we will be.

Mr. Augenbraum, who claims to be of a serious religious commitment, appears to have a problem with admitted Christians. Are silent ones okay?

Serious religions can span from satanists, Wiccas, pagans, Voodooist, supremacist groups and environmentalists to Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Catholicism and Southern Baptists. Should candidates disclose their religion or lack thereof? If they do, are questions related to their specific beliefs reasonable?

America is a nation founded, in part, on freedom of religion, allowing all men to worship how, where, or what they may. The bulk of the founders were religious, namely Christians. It is refreshing to hear a national leader and serious presidential candidate declare his or her religious beliefs. A doctinal disertation is not required or desired.

Friday, December 14, 2007

Global CO2 Tax

Every religious organization needs funds in order to operate. Most use member donations; i.e., tithing. But for those that adhere to the religion of environmentalism, they try to get their money through government means, namely taxation.

At the UN Climate Conference in Bali -- their religious retreat -- some are proposing a global tax on carbon dioxide emissions in order to save the Earth from catastrophic man-made global warming. Yea, right.
Finally someone will pay for these [climate related] costs,” Othmar Schwank, a global tax advocate, told Inhofe EPW Press Blog following the panel discussion titled “A Global CO2 Tax.” Schwank is a consultant with the Switzerland based Mauch Consulting firm. [Put in any environmental associate you'd like...Algore or gravitas-possessing, UN lover.]

Schwank said at least “$10-$40 billion dollars per year” could be generated by the tax, and wealthy nations like the U.S. would bear the biggest burden based on the “polluters pay principle.”

The U.S. and other wealthy nations need to “contribute significantly more to this global fund,” Schwank explained. He also added, “It is very essential to tax coal.”
The haves vs the have-nots. They desire to steal from the rich and give to the poor, or said another way, to their personal bank accounts and power bases.

Environmental church members, like those associated with the Friends of the Earth, advocate the transfer of money from rich to poor nations.
“A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources,” said Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth.
Lunatics. Environmental wackos. Liberals.

Thursday, December 13, 2007

Algore Bashing America in Bali

The first thing that came to my mind when I heard Algor ranting in Bali was "dipwad."
"My own country, the United States, is principally responsible for obstructing progress here in Bali."
To think that America is trying to stop the Asian, Africans and Europeans from taking their own actions to reduce their so-called global footprint is foolish. They can believe and do what they want.

I know there are people who buy into the rant hook, line and sinker -- those members of the church of global warming or the religion of environmentalism. They will believe that his speech will go down in history as an oratorical milestone in the fight against global warming. But I believe the exact opposite. I believe they are lunatics.

America should do what is the best interest of America. Thankfully, Algore does not speak for America, although he thinks he does. It is beyond comprehension why half of those voting in 2000 voted for this man. I can only assume that the majority of those people dislike Bush more. But Algor? The guy's either mental -- George Costanza's "its not a lie if you believe it" -- or a con artist.

His man-made global warming con will go down in history as one of the greatest cons ever. He wins an Oscar (for propaganda), the Nobel Peace Prize (peace?), and venture capital fund (his greatest prize) for bogus claims and politically-motivated science.

As a Clinton protégé, as soon as he leaves America and gets an international audience, he feels it is his right to bad mouth his homeland. Algore is not only a con artist and lunatic but also a sell-out.

Wednesday, December 12, 2007

Medvedev as Putin's Successor


Dmitry Medvedev is Vadimir Putin's heir apparent, the probable next President of Russia.

The 42 year old Leningrad State University-educated lawyer has been part of the Putin's KGB and St. Petersburg insiders since he began working with Putin in 1991 in St. Petersburg city government. He became then PM Putin's deputy chief of staff in 1999 and Putin's 2000 presidential campaign manager. In 2000, he was named chairman of the monstrous, centrally-control Gazprom (still is). In 2003, he because Kremlin chief of staff. Since, 2005, he is the first deputy PM, now Putin's presidential successor. In his current role, he is responsible for health care, education, housing and agriculture.

The protégé will operate in a puppet regime under Putin who is barred by the Constitution from running for a third consecutive term. Apparently Medvedev will make Putin his PM once he is president.

Medvedev speaks English and has pro-western tendencies. He has little experience in foreign affairs. But as part of Putin inner circle -- the siloviki -- they have lead the nation in economic reforms -- the average citizen has more money through higher wages, pensions and welfare payments. The siloviki has assume greater control and influence over regional governments and NGOs including the media.

Russia has become a different country, stronger and more prosperous. Nationalism is strong. Their leaders are power hungry. They are maintaining and increasing this power base this by doing what is best for Russia and its citizens.

They have not fared well in global affairs. They struggled against NATO in Serbia and the UN in Kosovo and Iran. They are buds with the Syrians and have welcome Hamas leaders in Moscow. They have felt threatened by NATO's plan for missile defense in eastern Europe and by US military bases in the ex-Soviet "stan" states. They failed to gain membership in the WTO.

Presently, Russia is not spending money on military -- 5 percent of the US's. Instead, they are getting their house in order, albeit through the Russian democracy way. America needs to engage Russia, giving them the respect they deserve. We need their help in fighting terrorism. Russia can be our friend or our enemy. They will never be our best friend but the relationship should be cordial. We'll have more success engaging Russia in economics and diplomacy than ostracizing them.

Monday, December 10, 2007

Spanish in Presidential Debate

Just what was the purpose of translating the questions and answers from last night's Republican presidential debate in Miami into Spanish?

I did not watch the debate -- I get no news from TV -- but when I heard this morning that it was translated into Spanish, I really had to scratch my head. Univision either saw a marketing opportunity (doubtful), marched to the liberal agenda (probably) or pandered to the hispanics (definitely).

Only citizens vote. To become a citizen, you need s solid working knowledge of English. So why pander?

Thumbs down to Thompson, Romney, Giuliani and Huckabee for agreeing to the terms. Thumbs up to Tancredo for boycotting.

Friday, December 07, 2007

Romney's "Faith In America" Address


Mitt Romney gave one of the greatest political speeches in our era. It was patriotic, inspiring and presidential. It was not a speech on religion; it was a speech on the roots and founding of this nation.

It made me feel grateful that I was born an American. It made me thankful to live in a nation that allows all men to worship how, where, or what they may.
"There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us. If so, they are at odds with the nation's founders, for they, when our nation faced its greatest peril, sought the blessings of the Creator. And further, they discovered the essential connection between the survival of a free land and the protection of religious freedom. In John Adams' words: 'We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people.'

"Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.
This is one of the greatest quotes every spoken from the political pulpit. Natural law is at the foundation of our secular law; core to our inalienable rights and our freedoms.

He inspired those capable of being inspired. He disappointed others who either religious bigots or lack an understanding of the country's founding. He received ho-hum coverage by the typical media outlets. He did not address Mormonism or specific doctrines, much to the media's chagrin.

As a political speech, he also stated his core leadership principles.
--I will put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law.
--A President must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States.
--Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world.
--I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty.'
--Foremost do we protect religious liberty, not as a matter of policy but as a matter of right.
--Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me. And so it is for hundreds of millions of our countrymen: we do not insist on a single strain of religion – rather, we welcome our nation's symphony of faith.
His candidacy should be defined by these principles and beliefs. Voters much chose whether he is the right man for the the job and vote accordingly.

Romney faces an uphill battle to win the Republican nomination. His problem is not his politics or professionalism rather the fact he is a Mormon. It has become clear that Mormonism is not mainstream enough to trump those that belong to the religions of atheism, agnosticism, environmentalism, secularism and liberalism. (However, they do not provide the same scrutiny to Senate Majoroity leader, Harry Reid, who is also a Mormon.) Many Christians, regardless of denomination, have let their ignorance and bigotry rule--"no way will they vote for a Mormon.". The Americans United for the Seperation of Church and State organization was upset he did not mention Jefferson, Madison and American non-believers.

Americans United also take issue with his "freedom requires religion" comment. It seems to me Romney was talking about the nation as a whole, not specific people. You can be free and a good American as a non-believer. But America's strength is its religious foundatation. The further we get away from being a God-fearing nation, the less freedoms we will have and the closer we will be to becoming a fallen nation.

It is unfortunate that all the presidential candidates have not seconded his College Station, TX speech. This speech will certainly help Mitt Romney's candidacy. Will he win the nomination? Doubtful. (I am not even sure who I will vote for in the primary.)Sadly, most voters will not listen to it and even fewer will read it. American presidencies are decided not by an evaluation of candidate's stance on the issues, leadership and experience, rather by sound bits, MSM spin and a poorly informed population.

Wednesday, December 05, 2007

Iran's Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities

It has been a couple of days since the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (under Mike McConnell leadership) released its National Intelligence Estimate Key Judgments: Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities. The key judgement are:
A. We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program1; we also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons.

B. We continue to assess with low confidence that Iran probably has imported at least
some weapons-usable fissile material, but still judge with moderate-to-high confidence it has not obtained enough for a nuclear weapon.

C. We assess centrifuge enrichment is how Iran probably could first produce enough
fissile material for a weapon, if it decides to do so.

F. We assess with moderate confidence that Iran probably would use covert facilities—
rather than its declared nuclear sites—for the production of highly enriched uranium for a weapon.

G. We judge with high confidence that Iran will not be technically capable of producing and reprocessing enough plutonium for a weapon before about 2015.

H. We assess with high confidence that Iran has the scientific, technical and industrial capacity eventually to produce nuclear weapons if it decides to do so.
What strikes me as strange is that the same experts in 2005 stated that Iran was determined to develop a nuclear weapon. The Judgment mentions that Iran halted their efforts due to international pressure. But in 2003, what pressure? The invasion of Iraq? I don't think so.

Are we to assume that Iran is pulling a Lybian "see the light" action? Are we to assume that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is to be trusted and should be brought into the friendship fold?

The Democrats and the MSM responded as one would have expected, going off on some kind of "Bush lied;" he wants to take us into another war; Iran is lead by peace-loving leaders that we should trust, love and welcome.

I also would expect G.W. Bush and the Republicans to play dumb on one hand and defiant on the other, expressing the need to stay the course and eliminate Iran's nuclear program.

In my opinion, the Judgements seem a bit too political. The NIE's main authors, ex-State Department officials (Fingar, Van Diepen, Brill), are known "anti-Bushies." Perhaps the intelligent community is going the opposite way in Iran than they did Iraq in 2003? A short-term CYA effort?

It is clear that Iran has not abandoned it nuclear program -- that is still going forward full tilt. What is lacking is supporting evidence of is their nuclear weapons program. We know they know how to fit a warhead on a ballistic missile. We know they are enriching uranium on a large scale, violating UN mandates.

How can we trust our own group of bureaucrats who by their own admission do not have adequate intelligence inside Iran? As stated in today's WSJ 'High Confidence Games' opinion piece, "our intelligence services are supposed inform the policies of elected officials, but increasingly their judgements seems to be setting policy."

Tuesday, December 04, 2007

Putin Ideology Moving Forward


I am fascinated at how each countries chooses and prefers their unique form of government. Russia in particular seems to prefer strong central government with key industries centrally controlled. He has a established economic stability and has succeeded at raising the living standard for most Russians.

Vladimir Putin's United Russia party earned 64 percent of the votes, receiving up to 315 of the 450 seats in the next Duma. They have accomplished this most likely by fraud, deceit and general disregard for the law. But it seems that most Russians don't care.

His popularity is at a levels most politicians can only dream of obtaining. He has ruled, not so much with an iron hand, but with a "for the motherland" attitude. He's done an admirable job of controlling the means in Russia's key industries like energy.

Russians like the social safety net from low, but existing pensions to poor, but existing healthcare. The do not know any better.

Putin and the United Russians will empower and enrich themselves by giving the average citizen the basics. It is communism meets democracy meets oligarchy meets man's greedy tendencies.

Basic human rights will exist only if it does not interfere with United Russia's and its members' ability to prosper. The few rule the masses. We have it everywhere; Russia is just doing it the way its culture seems to allow and encourage.

Monday, December 03, 2007

Chavez Hits a Roadblock


For the western hemisphere, Hugo Chavez's defeat was a victory. Instead of setting himself us as president and dictator for life, his communist regime appears to have stumbled.

Communism is only valid for the destitute and the extremely poor. Give something to anyone that has nothing and their life is better...for the moment. Once they have something -- basic food, clothing and shelter, no matter how menial -- they realize how controlled and limited they are.

Thankfully, there were enough Venezuelans that were unwilling to give Chavez his dictatorial demands.

Chavez will not go away. He will not take this defeat lightly. His ego and arrogance will get the better of him and his fellow countrymen. If he cannot win at the ballot box, he will attempt other means. I cannot see him accepting the "will of the people" and taking a backseat in Venezuelan politics. Officially he will remain in power until 2010. However, more than likely, he will use the courts, presidential mandates and possibly force to achieve his self-serving goals.

We know how pro-government socialists behave. They have shown their colors in Latin America, Africa and Europe. The liberals try to do the same thing in America.

Sunday, December 02, 2007

College Bowls Are Set...Go Bucks!


What a weekend (and season) for college football. It was only realistic that one or both of the #1 (Mizzou) and #2 (West Virgina) would lose. I figured the Tigers would not fare well against Oklahoma but I thought the Mountaineers would trounce Pitt. I was hoping one would lose so Ohio State would get a big to the BCS Championship. They both lost and Ohio State (11-1) is playing LSU (11-2).

Of the BSC eight, Hawaii belongs. Missouri seems to have drawn the short straw; Illinois the lucky one. Misou went from #1 to out of the BSC and the team they beat, Kansas, made it. Only the mess that is the NCAA/BCS.

Nevertheless, the bowls are set. Thirty-two games, 64 teams -- nearly half of all D1 teams are in a bowl.

I really wanted to go to the BCS Championship but at $800-2500 per ticket, only the wealthy and/or idiots would spend that kind of money to watch a football game.

Poinsettia - Utah vs. Navy Dec. 20 (GO UTES!)
New Orleans - Florida Atlantic vs. Memphis Dec. 21
Papajohns.com - Cincinnati vs. Southern Miss Dec. 22
New Mexico - Nevada vs. New Mexico Dec. 22
Las Vegas - UCLA vs. BYU Dec. 22
Hawaii - Boise State vs. East Carolina Dec. 23
Motor City - Central Michigan vs. Purdue Dec. 26
Holiday - Arizona State vs. Texas Dec. 27
Texas - Texas Christian vs. Houston Dec. 28
Champ Sports - Boston College vs. Michigan State Dec. 28
Emerald - Maryland vs. Oregon State Dec. 28
Meineke Car Care - Wake Forest vs. Connecticut Dec. 29
Liberty - Central Florida vs. Mississippi State Dec. 29
Alamo - Penn State vs. Texas A&M Dec. 29
Independence - Colorado vs. Alabama Dec. 30
Armed Forces - California vs. Air Force Dec. 31
Humanitarian - Fresno State vs. Georgia Tech Dec. 31
Sun - Oregon vs. South Florida Dec. 31
Music City - Kentucky vs. Florida State Dec. 31
Chick-fil-A - Auburn vs. Clemson Dec. 31
Insight - Indiana vs. Oklahoma State Dec. 31
Outback - Wisconsin vs. Tennessee Jan. 1
Cotton - Missouri vs. Arkansas Jan. 1
Gator - Texas Tech vs. Virginia Jan. 1
Capital One - Michigan vs. Florida Jan. 1
Rose - Southern California vs. Illinois Jan. 1
Sugar - Hawaii vs. Georgia Jan. 1
Fiesta - Oklahoma vs. West Virginia Jan. 2
Orange - Virginia Tech vs. Kansas Jan. 3
International - Rutgers vs. Ball State Jan. 5
GMAC - Bowling Green vs. Tulsa Jan. 6
BCS Championship Game - Ohio State vs. LSU Jan. 7

Okay Tressel, let's not let down OSU or the Big Ten like you did last year against Florida. Let's win this one! GO BUCKS!