Andiamo a Berlino!!!!!

Tears started to well up in my eyes as I sat and watched the Italians 3 minutes away from the end of the second overtime seemingly destined for penalty kicks. During the 4th of July, a living room full of Italian-Americans sitting on the edge of their seats were anxiously awaiting the outcome. This team cannot go out like that I kept thinking.

After the Italians won a corner for what seemed to be the 30th time, I was urging them to place the ball AWAY from the long reach of Jens Lehmann. What happened next was INCREDIBLE.

2 minutes from penalties, Del Piero took the corner and put it out of the reach of Lehmann. The ball was headed out by a German defender but went right to the feet of Andrea Pirlo at the top of the box. SHOOT IT! We were screaming at the tv but Pirlo instead dribbled parallel to the goal dragging 4 German defenders with him. As everyone including the German defense thought he would shoot, Pirlo calmly and deftly passed the ball to a waiting Fabio Grosso who one-time the ball PERFECTLY.

We watched as the ball curled around the futile outstretched arms of Lehmann and glided around the back of the net.

The reaction was priceless. Grosso's astonishment and celebration was almost an exact carbon copy of the celebration going on in the room (not to mention that it is reminiscent of Marco Tardelli's magnificent goal in '82!). In fact, Simon Evans of Reuters said it best of the Palermo player's reaction:

For the Italians it is the image of the World Cup so far -- the look of utter disbelief on the face of Italy Fabio Grosso when he celebrated his vital goal in the semi-final win over Germany.

The wide-open eyes and yelling mouth as Grosso shook his head, while racing deliriously around the pitch, reflected not just his amazement at a beautifully taken strike.

A minute ago tears had been on the verge of flowing at the very thought of penalty kicks. Now, tears were creeping up at the uninhibited bliss of such an outcome at the very last minute of the game.

After the Germans gave one tremendous push at the goal a minute later, the omnipresent Cannavaro headed the ball to safety, then stole it away from the German midfielder who chested it down. Cannavaro passed on to Totti who saw a running Gilardino. A perfect pass met Gilardino with only one defender to beat. Gila brought him to the top of the '16 where he played with the ball only to catch another running Del Piero come into the box. Gila had a remarkably timed backheel that Del Piero deftly slotted home in the upper right corner.

The game was over. Euphoria ensued. My emotions had run the gamut between extreme sorrow to extreme jubilation. The Italy Germany game became an instant World Cup Classic. A great game by all means and an even greater finish that put the Azzurri thru to the final - and deservedly so.

Italy will face France in the final - trying to exorcise the demons from losses to Les Bleus in WC '98 quarterfinals and the Euro 2000 final. Please win! It would place the perfect exclamation point on an improbable storybook run.

Forza Italia!

Germany Awaits!

Ukraine provided no match for the Italian powerhouse. Germany awaits in the semifinals!

In the past, Italy has had Germany's number but as hosts Germany have some great advantages. Including a never beaten run where they play in Dortmund!

But, for now, let us relish the victory over Ukraine and the masterful play by Zambrotta, Gattuso and Luca Toni!

Forza Gli Azzurri!!!!

And Another Examination of the Aussie Foul!

This one includes helpful freeze frames and commentary!

Diving?? Yea, OK!

Here's a good angle from the Italy vs. Australia game that should at the very least stop people from crying about a Fabio Grosso dive. You can clearly see Neill's hand connect with Grosso's left foot.

To the Quarterfinals!

Ecstatic! My reaction to Totti hammering home a deciding penalty kick in the last minute of stoppage time can only be accurately described by my brother - "I felt sorry for you cuz I thought you were about to cry."

Say what you will, once again poor officiating marked this game although it didn't have to. A ridiculously harsh penalty that gave Materazzi the send off with a direct red certainly gave the tough Aussies what they needed. However, the stingy Italian defense shut down every effort the Aussies gave and ultimately a very late break by Fabio Grosso in the Aussie box in which he faked and avoided a tackle on one Socceroo defender and then almost avoided another - his right foot was free while his left got caught on the body of a second sliding Aussie defender. The penalty was awarded and Totti calmly slotted it through.

Let the hating on Italians ensue. It's nice to sit back and listen to the namecalling from embittered fans - I'll take it if it means the Azzurri keep progressing, exorcising demons along the way. Hey, call it revenge against Guus Hiddink's VERY fortunate Koreans in '02. And Totti was there to put the ultimate nail in the coffin.

The call in the box was a hard one to make. I agree. The defender missed the ball but impeded an unobstructed path to the goal (it was just Grosso and the Aussie GK at that point). Tough call to make but ultimately you can't let something like that go.

And, to let everyone know, I feel no sympathy for Guus Hiddink - especially after his postgame comments:

'Even when Materazzi was on the park we controlled parts of the game and
then when we were sent off, we assumed full control,' he said.

'Then we fully dominated against a team that is much more highly ranked
than us, before we got caught out in the last minute and if you see the replay
there is no doubt it wasn't a penalty.'

In a game of few chances, Hiddink said his team at least tried to play
attacking, creative football - in stark contrast to the Italians.

'Italy just tried to play on the counter-attack and we tried to play
another style, a style that is more attractive for the spectators to see but
that (counter-attacking) is their style,' he said.

'The Italians wanted to play defensively, they love to play with a wall
(across the back) - they don't think about attractive football, they just think
about the result.'

Hiddink - you're an idiot. Creative football? You had a man advantage for basically the entire second half and only managed 4 shots on goal. Count them! 4! Who cares what type of football a team plays in terms of attack if it means winning at the end! "They just think about the result". Of course we do you idiot! What are we supposed to be thinking about, solely entertainment??

Think about that one - you have 4 years to sit on it. Let's just say payback kinda sucks, doesn't it?

Enough!

I love the U.S. It's my country. However, when it comes to Calcio (aka football, futbol, soccer, etc.) I have always rooted for the Italians - the country of my ancestors. Sorry if that offends people, but that's how it's always been and that's how it'll always be. The U.S. has my support in everything else - American football, baseball, basketball, etc. Now, that said, all the hype leading up to the World Cup has been circling around the strength of the U.S. and their chances after such a successful run in '02. Always being a skeptic when it comes to Americans and "soccer" (I lost a bet with my buddy Ryan about who would proceed farther last WC, Italy or the U.S.), I had my doubts about this highly-touted team - albeit silent doubts. Now, with the first round done and the Americans sent packing all I've heard is the continual complaining and downright whining from U.S. supporters who actually know about this "World Cup" competition going on. The U.S. apparently can blame ALL of their disappointing WC performances solely on the refs shoulders and the horrific officiating.

PLEASE! I can't tell you how much constant bemoaning from these fans as if the U.S. is the only squad to suffer from bad calls. I'm not going to point out all the counterpoints to such nonsense as it takes quite the energy out of me arguing with hardheads who couldn't tell you the difference between a free kick and a penalty kick but feel the need to inform the informed about what warrants a red or yellow card. SO, I will let a soccer analyst/columnist list the American's problems going into and proceeding through their very short stint in this World Cup.

The writing was on the wall people! The U.S. wasn't good enough and you can credit that to a number of things. It's unfortunate that they play in CONCACAF - football's equivalent to the CFL. Hopefully in the future they can step up their game. I hope they do!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Warning Signs
Andrea Canales

If the penalty call had not been botched so badly.

If the red card had not been pulled so quickly.

If the shots that hit the post had just gone in.

If the goal had not been called for offsides.

"If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs and blaming it on you," Rudyard Kipling once wrote, obviously prophesying the fans' reaction to the U.S. team's efforts in the 2006 World Cup.

All the maybes aren't flying this June, though.

After all, it's not as though the U.S. couldn't see what was coming.

So the country couldn't seem to get the benefit of a call. That's not new at the World Cup.
One also might take notice of the fact that the U.S. isn't very popular in Europe, either.
Of course, world events shouldn't affect a sporting event, but the clue of the ripple effect probably could be found even before the tournament kicked off. Not a single American referee made the FIFA cut for the World Cup. American referees have been at more World Cups than American teams have; the sudden omission was not a good sign.

More telling was the assumption by many that the World Cup automatically would kick up the intensity and focus of the players. It happened in 2002, but that kind of lightning is hard to bottle.

The Americans had a tepid offense in many games leading up to the World Cup. They tied Jamaica, a team that didn't even make the final round of World Cup qualifying, 1-1. They barely defeated Poland, 1-0 on a fluky goal. They lost to Morocco, a team that didn't qualify for the Cup, by the same score. Only another bizarre goal saved the team from being shut out against Germany in a 4-1 trouncing.

There were excuses every time, though. The best players weren't present. Training had drained energy from the team. One slipup had changed a game the U.S. dominated. If the U.S. team had nothing else completely ready to go at the World Cup, the justifications had been rehearsed thoroughly.

Unlike, for example, Landon Donovan's preparation at forward. One might think that if Donovan was going to spend half of the World Cup in that position, at least one of the lead-up games would have featured the team using him there as practice for the real thing.

There also was more negativity in the air at the World Cup -- and not just because having U.S. practices blanketed in security made them a depressing reminder of the need for such measures.

Coach Bruce Arena continually was trying to put out the fires started by player comments. First, there was DaMarcus Beasley's about how much he disliked the secretiveness and uncertainty of the lineup. Then, there was Bobby Convey's statement that the players were unsure of their roles. Eddie Johnson's declaration comparing the World Cup to a war didn't help matters, either.

On the other hand, perhaps the most surprising proclamations were those by Arena himself. After the team's first game, a comprehensive defeat by the Czech Republic, he was sharply critical of certain players, apparently oblivious to the risk of further eroding their confidence while group play was still ongoing.

He then curtly established that the players were fine with his statements, even though Beasley had taken issue with them. Arena blamed the media for overblowing a rift that wasn't there, but it was hard to verify such a claim when media access to Beasley was denied completely.

Despite the U.S. complaints about cards and calls, a valid point was brought up when Arena was asked directly whether he had planned beforehand to prepare his players for how tightly the games were going to be called. FIFA had trumpeted its intention to crack down on cynical fouls and even had set up a special page on its Web site, complete with photos of examples of plays referees had been instructed to card.

Arena admitted he did not show the Web page to his players, saying instead that he expected them to be "professional."

Indeed, it's not as if Pablo Mastroeni didn't know it was incumbent on him to avoid harsh tackles unless they were completely necessary.

Even before the tournament, Oguchi Onyewu was aware that his size makes him a bit of a card target.

Perhaps it was too much trouble, taking into account the factors and coming up with a game plan to help mitigate the circumstances of anti-U.S. perception, the track record of weak scoring, the issues of discretion concerning player performance and the reality of FIFA's new standards on fouls.

Perhaps such signals were lost in the flush of confidence given by the team's supremacy over CONCACAF rivals.

"I would tend to think that if it's not broken, don't fix it," Arena said during a news conference. He was referring to Ghana's potential strategy, but the statement revealed something of his own sentiments, as well.

A more proactive approach might have served the U.S. squad better.

Few might have been willing to admit how vulnerable the U.S. team was, though. Without any superstars or credible depth, the one major asset the Americans possess is their cohesive teamwork. If that is compromised in any way, other elements waver.

The signs were there, the writing on the wall, but as with that Web page, no one bothered to see it.

Italia 2 Czech Republic 0

So much for the #2 ranked team in the world! A well deserved victory over a team that simply felt overwhelmed. It's unfortunate that Nedved and Co. had to dip out of the tournament like they did but big show of support to Ghana - the virtual dark horses to make it out of the real Group of Death!

Was the Ref in the wrong??

The U.S. have no one to blame but themselves for the 1 - 1 draw with the Azzurri. Much has been said about the poor officiating but when it comes down to it, the U.S. played a very rough, physical style of football. Your players should know better when a game is being called very tightly - De Rossi's send off was very appropriate - and such incidents should have alerted the players as such.

What possessed Mastroeni to slide in with both feet up 70+ yards away from his goal? Furthermore, why would Pope slide from behind when he already had a yellow in hand? I think the U.S. team spent as much time slide tackling as the Italians found themselves on the ground. Call it diving or whatever you'd like, but the U.S. needs to learn how to play a type of defense that doesn't call for a sliding challenge on every attempt.

Now both teams seemed tied together in their fate. The U.S. needs the Italians to beat the Czech in order for them to realistically advance with a win against Ghana. Ghana is without their 2 goal scorers, the U.S. is without their 2 defenders. It should be an interesting game.

I leave you with an 8 minute clip that recaps the Italy - U.S. game. Look closely at the fouls and the type of play that the U.S. is in engaging in. In fact, watch the progression of Gilardino's goal. Behind Gilardino you can see Onyewu practically tackling an Italian player who is trying to make his way towards the ball. Physical? Yes. Plenty of fouls? Definitely. Blaming the refs? Whining.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrF8FHVuBjw

'Moggi told us we will win'

After yesterday's encouraging match, ESPN's Italian football representative Roberto Gotta shares his thoughts:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Moggi told us we will win"

HANOVER - One thousand kilometres away from the calcio scandal, although it takes less than two hours to fly from central Italy to Hanover, the Azzurri gave itself a huge push towards respectability with their win over Ghana.

World Cup opening matches have a tendency to spring surprises, especially when a traditionally good team meets a debutant, but in Italy's case the fear of the unknown was never going to be as strong as the chance to at last put the events of the past month, which may have changed the face of Italian football forever, behind.

The Ghana match proved to be a valve for discharging the tension, the nervousness, the acrimony and the boredom that had been building up in day after day of practice: listen to question, give standard reply, practice again, listen to a different question that sounds the same, give the same answer with different words.

Inside the Hanover Stadium, only a couple of banners reminded onlookers of what has been left behind, smouldering, in Italy: and one of them reassured the Azzurri, because (former Juventus general manager) 'Moggi told us we will win'.

Italians abroad are never the biggest travelling army you'll see, because club loyalty is so strong it sometimes fogs the sentiments of fans, and there's never going to be a mass exodus like the England supporters, rather a migration of individuals and groups of friends in search of some good, violence-free, pure football. But the blue contingent inside the stadium managed to keep a reasonably noisy level of support, although never close to Mexico's on Sunday or England the day before.

That their night ended with the loudspeakers booming a rendition of Azzurro, Adriano Celentano's most famous song, was only fitting, although 24 hours earlier Mexico had been greeted at the final whistle by... another great Italian song, Volare (actual name Nel blu dipinto di blu), whose link to the talented Central Americans eludes me.

Italian fans do not have a song specific to the national team: they're usually adapted from club songs, but most of them are so short and simple, not to mention old-fashioned, that one is truly inclined to believe in the fact the Azzurri draw a different, more family-oriented type of supporters from club sides.

Ghana were all but unknowns, of course: Appiah played for Brescia and Juventus and considers Marcello Lippi a mentor, Sulley Muntari has been at Udinese for a few years and Michael Essien's performances for Chelsea are on Italian satellite TV every week, so it was not like Italy were playing Haiti, like they did in 1974, when they got stung by a goal which at least jolted them into action and a 3-1 win.

Getting over first-day nerves and the fear of a false start with the tough matches still to come was huge for Italy and Lippi, whose calm demeanour in the post-match press conference spoke volumes about how he felt.

As Lippi put it, had Italy lost, their next match against the USA would have been 'very, very difficult'. A draw with Ghana would have made it only 'very difficult', whereas now no adverb is needed, it is simply going to be a difficult game, next Saturday in Kaiserslautern.

The final scoreline, 2-0, is a bit flattering to the Azzurri, who had their positives and their negatives from this opening match, so better clarity lets look at the good and the bad.

Positives

• Andrea Pirlo looked much better than he had in the last part of the season with Milan. He directed play and conducted his usual clinic in how to position his body while receiving a pass in order to kick the ball with maximum effect and minimum effort. He intercepted more than his regular share of passes and, of course, opened the scoring with a shot from outside the area following a corner which Ghana failed to clear and then close down properly

• Nesta, more than captain Cannavaro, was a rock in central defence, his experience far more suited to this game than the Ghana forwards' youthful exuberance. He appeared to suffer no ill effects from the injury that had made his presence in the starting line-up doubtful until a couple of days before the game.

• De Rossi's push on Asamoah Gyan in the second half looked like a penalty to me. The Ghanaian's momentum helped him fall, but De Rossi clearly pushed him away from trouble with both hands, and that ref Simon waved play on obviously ranks as a positive for the Azzurri. In the other controversial moment inside the Italy area, though, Asamoha clearly dived. He, after all, has been studying for his diving certificate in the best possible place, Italian football, the Serie B, with Modena. You go to England to learn English, you spend time in Iran to learn tapestry, and you join an Italian team for diving lessons, even though the sea is one hour away.

• Toni and Gilardino did not score, but in the words of Pirlo their intelligent movement and their knack at switching positions and thus becoming moving targets helped the midfielders direct their passes more safely. Toni again showed why he's been a revelation in the last three years, with a control and right-footed shot on the run which hit the underside of the bar.

• De Rossi gave an assured performance, especially in helping take the heat off Pirlo, and displayed his game in a nutshell: strong tackling, a tendency to be a little over the top, a powerful shot, a knack for late runs into the area that allow him to use his other great asset as a strong header of the ball.

• Iaquinta scored his first goal for Italy and he clearly couldn't believe it. Neither did the fans and most of the media, who'd been puzzled by Lippi's decision to call up the Udinese striker, who's had a troubled domestic season, ahead of Livorno striker Cristiano Lucarelli. His introduction, replacing Gilardino, had drawn an unusually muted response from the Italy fans, a vastly different reaction from the huge cheer that erupted from the stands when Del Piero later replaced Toni. Iaquinta's claim after the match - no tongue in cheek could be detected, despite close inspection - that he could be 2006's version of Paolo Rossi is better left untouched, unless circumstances dictate otherwise. And I suspect they will.

Negatives

• Italy allowed Ghana too many shots from outside the area, and must be thankful Essien and the other midfielders couldn't shoot straight, except for the Chelsea man's dipping shot which Buffon did well to palm away for a corner. When you consider the Czechs have Rosicky and Nedved, you know Italy must make a better job in this part of the field, where Ghana often employed one-twos to free one of their players for an unobstructed view at goal, albeit from afar.

• Zambrotta's injury meant Zaccardo started on the right of defence. He did a reasonable job, but his presence means the attacking burden on that side is left to Perrotta, who's had an excellent season for Roma doing just that - albeit from a more central position - but cannot match Camoranesi in that category, and once Lippi brought on the Juventus winger Italy had better chances on the right side, with Zaccardo staying at home.

• Italy could not put away the match until ten minutes were left, and great teams don't leave it until the end to do that.

• Francesco Totti's return to the starting line-up yielded the expected results: the Roma captain had some good passes, a couple of nice touches, a free kick from long distance that forced Kingston to make a difficult save and looked the part as the Messiah - only with shorter hair than we're used to - until fatigue and a kick in the left leg moved Lippi to replace him with Camoranesi, who took his place on the right side thus steering Italy from the 4-3-1-2 to a 4-4-2.

Totti had a nice gesture at the end, consoling Roma teammate Kuffour after the Ghana defender's under hit back pass had allowed Iaquinta to pounce on it, round the goalkeeper, score and take a few moments before taking it all in. He then proceeded to mention that 1982 goalscoring hero. See, we never mention the war, but Paolo Rossi is a much nicer subject, isn't he?

Italia 2 Ghana 0

Italia victorious over a strong Ghana team. Hopefully Gli Azzurri can continue against a U.S. team that was overmatched by the Czechs.

Remembering United Flight 93

While eating lunch at the Gasthaus in the Union yesterday, I was watching CNN and its coverage on the release of more phone calls from United Flight 93. CNN was able to get Todd Beamer's father on for a brief interview. Todd Beamer was one of the men who stormed the cockpit of the hijacked plane and successfully caused it to miss its intended course. Todd also uttered words that would become famous with "Let's Roll". I just wanted to post the comments that Beamer's father made yesterday because they were quite striking. It's very easy to forget about 9/11 and the emotions that poured afterwards. It's always good to sit back and remember the heroes from 9/11:

"You know, my -- my creator, God, created me with a free will, to accept him, reject him, to live my life as I please, and in all manners of religion and speech and what we decide to do with our families. Those precious freedoms came at a great cost.

And certainly, we grieve every time we hear that another American has made the ultimate sacrifice for us. But I'm -- I'm confident that we'll continue to do whatever it takes to preserve our way of life.

Because our enemy does not have -- does not have the word "surrender" in his dictionary. And we must not have the word "retreat" in ours."

Idiocy, Irony and the Illegal Immigration Movement

My most recent article as published in the UWM Times:

Idiocy, Irony and the Illegal Immigration Movement

Tell me what’s wrong with this picture: thousands of illegal immigrants take to the streets to protest for their rights to become U.S. citizens…while waving Mexican flags. To use comedian Carlos Mencia’s expression, “Dee dee deeeee”! I certainly cannot be the only one who sees the utter ridiculousness in the way illegal immigrants are crying for their “rights”.

There has been a lot of dialogue coming from the pro-illegal immigration crowd. Many of them are claiming that the America’s recent resolve to crackdown on illegal immigration is nothing more than racism. Therefore, their protesting is the start of a new civil rights movement. Timeout. Not only are these people illegal they also need a brief history lesson about the last civil rights movement in the United States:

The civil rights movement of the 1960s centered around the denial of basic rights to a whole group of United States citizens – African Americans. These rights were guaranteed to them under our U.S. Constitution. To make it even more obvious, African Americans were originally forced to come here. They had no choice. They didn’t hop a border to escape the depressing state of their homeland and make a better life by working cheap labor. In fact, African Americans worked for free, as slaves. After slavery ended, things gradually got better for them; however, it wasn’t until the push from the civil rights movement that African Americans truly reached equality status.

The present situation is exponentially incomparable. Where do you find the audacity to claim you have the right to work in a country that you snuck into? There is no inherent “right” for you to sneak into this country illegally, shirk that nation’s laws and then look like idiots when you protest about your illegal status. I don’t think there has ever been a movement that has been so clueless about the issues. Sure, they can amass very large numbers to protest, but their rhetoric is uninformed . Don’t believe me?

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa addressed a crowd of 500,000 last Saturday, “There are no illegal people here today.” He added: “America was built on the backs of immigrants.” Why yes, immigrants did help lay the foundation for America, Mayor Villaraigosa, but they came here legally – a very distinct point that you are blurring.

One protestor remarked that he was here “to make sure that Mexicans get their freedom, their rights.” Comments from these adults have a trickle-down, “dumbing”-effect on the recent student protests.

The students have shown to be even less informed. Reading the accounts from these “walk-outs” is quite entertaining. One student asked why illegal immigrants are being “treated like criminals.” This kid answered his own question! I’d suggest that he look up the word “illegal” for starters. He’d also find that a synonym for “illegal” is “criminal”. Imagine that!

Here are some other interesting and ironic facts: Some of the student walkouts took place on a day honoring the memory of Cesar Chavez. Funny they would dishonor a man who stood for labor.

Furthermore, students have been replacing American flags with Mexican flags at several schools. In one instance, student protests resulted in the American flag flying upside-down and underneath a Mexican flag. While you may be outraged at first, you might not have realized the stupidity of their actions. An upside down flag represents “distress” and is used as a signal in instances of extreme danger to life or property. See the irony? These kids think they are showing disrespect for the flag, but in actuality they are signaling to everyone that United States is in trouble.

These protestors do not know what exactly they want. All they know is that they don’t want to be deported back to the country they left. Instead, they’d like to keep the emotional attachments for their homeland by displaying Mexican flags while profiting off of a better life here in America. A majority of these people consider themselves Mexicans first – with no desire of assimilating into American life.

Teddy Roosevelt put it best when he said, “if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American… we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”

I have not heard one argument from these protests that can justify why the United States should allow people to stay as citizens when they broke one of our laws as soon as they crossed our border. One of the most claimed reasons as to why they should stay is that illegal immigrants are needed to do the jobs Americans won’t do. Just say, “West Virginia Miners”. There is no job that Americans won’t do; however, they will lose out when businesses hire illegal immigrants because they can pay two to three of them for the wages of one American.

Even the statistics don’t back up the illegal immigrants’ argument. Statistics from the Pew Hispanic Center show that illegal immigrants make up 24 percent of workers in agriculture, 17 percent in cleaning, 14 percent in construction and 12 percent in food production. If you do the math, that leaves hefty percentages in favor of Americans or legal immigrants working these off-limits jobs.

Furthermore, this harms poor Americans the most, because they're the group that generally ends up competing with illegal aliens for jobs on the low end of the pay scale. The unchecked flow of unskilled labor significantly lowers wages for entry-level jobs, which in turn renders all poor Americans, including millions of teenage workers, less than competitive.

Perhaps the greatest problem with allowing illegal immigrants to shirk the system is the message it delivers to those who are trying to come here legally. Giving these illegals amnesty is a slap in the face to those who have patiently been waiting in line and our own law. Since when is it okay to ignore our own laws? Any way you look at it, it is not fair. You cannot convince me that just because a person has been here for five years he should be able to stay when there have been people waiting in line for the same amount of time who still have not made it here.

The point is this: Instead of living off of the profitability of our country and maintaining their native identity, Mexicans should put pressure on their government to make the changes necessary for their country to achieve prosperity. Mexican President Vincente Fox doesn’t feel the need to stop his people from leaving his country. That speaks volumes about the nature of this debate. Our leaders in Washington need to step up to the plate and not give in to the demands of 500,000 people who cannot even vote in our elections. The absurdity in caving in to their demands is obvious – especially when their own protests display the lack of understanding of our history and culture. There is a right way in handling this, but if we choose to let outsiders tell us how to run our country we will lose in more ways than we think. After all, if they think they can intimidate Americans they are severely mistaken; yet if they think they can intimidate our legislature that’s a whole different story I’m afraid.

Scalia, Sixpacks and Sanity

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has always been one of the more outspoken justices on the SCOTUS. His latest speech to the New England School of Law truly shows what a gem of a justice the U.S. has on the highest court in the land.

Scalia has long been a strict constructionist on the Supreme Court and does not abuse his position. In fact, he decried the "judge-moralist" era by comparing judges to "Joe Sixpack" in showing that neither are more qualified than the other to decide issues of morality. I agree with Scalia whole-heartedly. This might surprise all the liberals who CRINGE every time they see or hear the name "Scalia" but Antonin does not believe that questions on abortion and gay marriage are NOT to be decided by the courts, but rather the public through elected legislatures. He stated that "anyone who thinks the country's most prominent lawyers reflect the views of the people needs a reality check."

Justice Scalia also assumed rather correctly that a judge with his views could NEVER get elected to even the U.S. Court of Appeals much less the SCOTUS. Frankly, the stupidity of labelling liberal judges as "mainstream" or "moderate" is blatantly evident:

"What is a moderate interpretation of (the Constitution)? Halfway between what it says and halfway between what you want it to say?" he said.

It is an honor to have a person on the nation's highest court who interprets the U.S. Constitution as it is supposed to be interpreted. I may not agree with every single interpretation he has ever taken, but the man is consistent - and that is admirable. All the Scalia-haters need to wake up and look at a man who doesn't let his moral views cloud his decision-making.

UWM Baby!

Once again, the underdog UWM Panthers prove why they belong in the Big Dance after they dominated a beaten Oklahoma team. That, and a little later that day Marquette lost to Alabama. Hm, I remember a certain team that beat a better Alabama team a year ago...

UWM's successes in the tournament can only help Rob Jeter and recruiting for our school! We will really miss our seniors though. Hopefully, they can be replaced with the same able bodies.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Davis, Tucker lead No. 11 UW-Mil. past No. 6 Sooners
ESPN

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. (AP) -- Wisconsin-Milwaukee wavered, but never cracked. The Panthers almost never do at this time of the year.
Once again showing why they've stopped surprising themselves in the NCAA Tournament, the Horizon League champions pulled off their third upset in two years by eliminating No. 6 seed Oklahoma 82-74 in the Minneapolis Regional on Thursday.
Boo Davis scored 26 points and Joah Tucker had 24 for Milwaukee (22-8), which blew a 10-point lead only to rebuild it to double-digits again and hold off the favored Sooners to advance to a second-round matchup against No. 3 seed Florida.
"That's where experience comes in," said Tucker, one of five fifth-year seniors who start for Milwaukee.
"You know there's going to be runs in the game. You've got to find a way to stop the runs. … We had to find ways to get baskets and get to the free-throw line. But the most important thing is that we stayed poised."
Tucker, one of the stars in Milwaukee's stunning run to the round of 16 last season, scored nine during a 23-7 surge that carried the Panthers to a 60-46 lead with just over seven minutes to go.
The closest Oklahoma (20-9) got the rest of the way was six. Terrell Everett led them with 21 points on 10-for-20 shooting, but most of his production came after it was too late.
"It was hard to play catch-up," Everett said. "They made their free throws. They did everything right to win the game."
Four starters remain from the team that upset Alabama and Boston College before losing to eventual national finalist Illinois in last year's tournament. But Milwaukee got it done this time without former coach Bruce Pearl, now at Tennessee.
First-year coach Rob Jeter instituted the necessary changes to begin putting his signature on the team, but was also careful to listen and find a way to coexist with the team's veteran leadership.
"You have a group of freshman, you can just tell them what to do," Jeter said. "With seniors who have been around the block, of course they are going to see how far they can go. But with this team, it's all in fun."
Oklahoma finished what many feel was an underachieving season with three straight losses, one of them a 24-point setback at Texas.
Inconsistency undermined the Sooners all year, and it looked like they could be in for a long afternoon when Tucker's high-arcing 3-pointer put Milwaukee up 24-14 with just over eight minutes left in the opening half.
But just as quickly as it appeared the game might be slipping away, Michael Neal hit a 3-pointer and Kevin Bookout made two easy baskets to start a 17-9 run that closed Oklahoma's deficit to 33-31 at the half.
The Sooners closed the gap despite playing the last three minutes of the half without Bookout, who walked off clutching his already taped left wrist after getting tangled with a Milwaukee player and tumbling to the floor.
The Oklahoma forward returned for the start of the second half with his wrist taped even more heavily and finished with 14 points. David Godbold had 15 points and leading scorer Taj Gray had 13 before fouling out in the closing minutes.
Neal, another key to Oklahoma's offense, played with a sore foot and was limited to three points on 1-of-8 shooting.
"I don't want to make excuses, but he just couldn't move," Oklahoma coach Kelvin Sampson said, adding the turning point in the game was a sequence early in the second half when Oklahoma had the ball on four straight possessions with a chance to take the lead, but turned it over three times.
Tucker was only 5-for-14 from the field, but made 13-of-16 free throws to help Milwaukee outscore Oklahoma 26-5 from the foul line. Davis came up big in the decisive surge, too, delivering two long 3-pointers and driving the lane for a difficult layup to put the Panthers up by double-digits.
Oklahoma, which has made 11 NCAA appearances in 12 seasons under Sampson, lost in the first round for the first time since being beaten by Indiana State in 2001.

The Real Revolutionaries

My latest article for the UWM Times:

The Real Revolutionaries

A quick glance at the student body at any university across the United States would easily display the many different groups that students sort themselves into. Within these groups, you can find those who display their political ideology very easily. You will see them walking around in their popularized and commercialized “Che Guevara” t-shirts (I wonder what communist Che would say about his face on a popular t-shirt further representing the successes of capitalism). However, do these students truly know and consider themselves revolutionaries? And if so, what revolution are they exactly fighting for?

In November of 2004, UWM was bombarded with information and propaganda for the upcoming political elections. While there were all sorts of phrases displayed on the sidewalks (and in some cases, the walls), one phrase stuck out: “Viva la Revolucion”.

That phrase along with liberal groups on campus that constantly label themselves as “revolutionaries” has particularly led me to question whether the liberal students on campus are leading a revolution. After all, revolutions usually constitute changes in how things are operated in a system.

First off, it would be helpful to see the actual definition of “revolutionary”. Webster’s dictionary states that being “revolutionary” in essence means “constituting or bringing about a major or fundamental change.” Webster also defines the term “revolution” to be “a fundamental change in the way of thinking about or visualizing something: a change of paradigm.” So according to Webster’s definition, liberal groups on campus must be seeking fundamental changes to the way our universities are being run.

Now, wait a minute. Am I to believe that the strongholds of liberal thought are in need of a good revolution to change the views and ideologies of its faculty and student body? Perhaps, these students do not know what “revolutionary” actually means. It is common knowledge that the university system is the hotbed for liberal and leftist thought.

A quick examination of a university’s faculty would confirm this statement easily. Take the University of Colorado for example. The Wall Street Journal reported several years ago that the number of registered Democrats on the faculty exceeded the number of registered Republicans by an astounding 31-1 ratio. While this statistic is surprising, it really isn’t in the context of ideological composition at such institutions. A recent survey taken among faculty members across the United States showed that 72% of professors view themselves as having a leftist/liberal ideology. That number compares with 15% who claim to be more conservative leaning.

Not only is the faculty comprised of unabashed liberals, but often times the invited speakers to campuses are radical and extreme leftists. In fact, it is almost humorous to examine the lists of speakers who are frequently invited to address university functions. Why do universities seek out communists, socialists and extremists with such gaiety? In fact, it often comes down to small groups of conservative students and off-campus organizations to assemble the funds to invite a conservative speaker to campus.

Furthermore, students are being taught by a faculty that consists of left-leaning members. While I won’t say that all professors incorporate their own beliefs and opinions in their teachings, instances in which professors attempt to indoctrinate their students has been well documented. After all, the only real place left to find such radical thought is the university system. The vast majority of Americans realized the failure of such ideas as communism, socialism and radicalism years ago. Yet, professors don’t want to let go of their foolish dreams and ideas; therefore, it is up to them to teach their students the beauty of these failed systems.

So, once again, why do liberal students on campus think of themselves as revolutionaries? Maybe they like the term. Not to mention, it looks cool on their t-shirts. In actuality, I think many of them don’t understand what a revolution is. Liberal students are living in the majority on campuses across the nation. There is no need for a revolution when one’s ideologies are being represented in vast numbers. Attention liberals: you aren’t campus revolutionaries.

I say to the liberals who dream of revolutions: you are sadly mistaken. Go ahead and claim to be bringing about change in a setting where incorporating a revolution would involve the removal of yourselves for the sake of conservative thought. Think about it. You are surrounded every day by thousands of other self-proclaimed “revolutionaries” who don’t exactly know who the face on their t-shirts belongs to. It doesn’t matter though because they are fighting against the oppression they so often face on campus! That just sounds funny not to mention ridiculous.

The fact of the matter is that the real revolutionary ideas belong to those who are seeking tolerance of their views. The real revolution is taking place to fight for the promotion of intellectual pluralism. Tolerance, diversity and equality are no longer terms that belong to liberals. It is the conservative movement on campus that seeks these tenets. After all, any other type of political thought that does not fall on the left side of the spectrum is subjected to an amount of hostility.

Liberal universities do not want to see any semblance of conservative thought having an outlet on campus. It is for good reasons that they do so. They realize that after students graduate, the appeal and popularity of liberalism is often replaced by the rational adoption of conservative views and values. Universities know that they only have a short time to indoctrinate their students. Therefore, the presence of another ideology is simply unacceptable. The conservative movements on campus are definitely attempting to seek representation.

This is the change that would constitute a revolution. To go from a system with room for the dominance of only one ideology to a system that encourages and promotes differing political views.
And to all those “Che” t-shirt wearers out there, do you really want to support a guy whose ideal revolution can be summed up with his notion that “the solution to the world’s problems is to be found behind the Iron Curtain”? I didn’t think so.

Stunned? Nope, just whooped!

World Cup hosts Germany were crushed yesterday during a friendly against Italy in Florence. The "Azzurri" dominated the game and beat the Germans 4 to 1 after a delightful performance by some up and coming stars. Luca Toni, who scored in the match, is one of those players who might flourish in what appears to be his only World Cup appearance (he'll be 29 by the time the World Cup rolls around). It is refreshing to see the Italians attack the whole game for once, rather than sit back on a goal's lead. Perhaps Coach Lippi realizes our errors and we'll continue to provide an attacking squad - we certainly have a plethora of talented strikers.

Of course, Italy can also lay an egg come World Cup time. I can't get too confident with Italy having the toughest draw in the World Cup. If they make it out of the group stage, they'll certainly have proven their worth.

And their jerseys are pretty awesome too!

Al Gore! Ha!

I thought I'd address the latest installment in the Al Gore saga by writing my article in the UWM Times about him. So here it is for your enjoyment:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If the Price is Right, He’ll Do It

Sometimes certain things haunt you for so long that you never truly get over them. I know of a person that undeniably is haunted by his past. Just look at this quote from September 23rd, 2002: “Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power. We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”

Before you jump the gun and call out who made that statement, you would be surprised to find out that the previous quote was taken from our former Vice President Al Gore. The 2000’s have been rough for Mr. Gore after looking so promising at one point. This man was a heartbeat away from becoming our 43rd President in 2000. Now, six years later, a very different man emerges from so long ago.

Instead of being in the headlines every day, Mr. Gore finds himself fighting for media attention. Apparently, Gore’s network channel “Current TV” cannot provide him with all the attention he needs. So, Al Gore has been popping in and out of the headlines with some pretty crazy talk.

In 2004, Al Gore delivered a speech in New York before a Move On audience (I’m not quite sure where “Move On” is moving other than their continual movement away from the mainstream). Gore pulled no punches when he attacked the situation in Iraq and the Abu Ghraib incidents as just the natural progression of President Bush’s policies. After all, Mr. Gore claimed that “the abuse of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib flowed directly from the abuse of the truth that characterized the [Bush] Administration's march to war and the abuse of the trust that had been placed in President Bush by the American people in the aftermath of September 11th…David Kay concluded his search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq with the famous verdict: ‘we were all wrong.’ And for many Americans, Kay's statement seemed to symbolize the awful collision between Reality and all of the false and fading impressions President Bush had fostered in building support for his policy of going to war.”

That’s a pretty bold statement considering that his own administration had been making the same comments in 1998. However, we should keep in mind that the man who invented the Internet has never been to keen on keeping his facts straight or his own comments for that matter. Later on in the same speech, Gore revealed his thoughts on how the United States runs its daily operations. Speaking about torture, Gore said that “we all know these things [torture], and we need not reassure ourselves and should not congratulate ourselves that our society is less cruel than some others, although it is worth noting that there are many that are less cruel than ours.”

Remember folks, this man was running to be our torturous nation’s next leader! It’s hard to digest that ridiculous statement but I guess we shouldn’t blame Mr. Gore for appearing delusional and disconnected. He knows how close he was, he knows that he could have continued the Clinton dynasty another four years and he knows that if he would have carried his home state during the election he wouldn’t have to worry about making the news.

After that speech in 2004, it should be no surprise that Al Gore has reappeared in the news after a steady absence from the spotlight. However, this time Al Gore one-upped himself – and that’s a pretty difficult task. This time, the venue was not New York but rather Saudi Arabia. He was to address the annual Jeddah economic forum and for Al Gore the price was right to resume the bashing of America. I wonder if Mr. Gore knew that the forum he was speaking at is sponsored in part by Osama bin Laden’s family – that’s almost fitting for such talk (even though the bin Laden family has tried to distance itself from their “little terror”). What he did know is that the oil money he was pocketing for such an appearance would ease his mind from what he was about to say.

According to Al Gore, the United States committed “terrible abuses” against Arabs after 9/11. They were “indiscriminately rounded up, often on minor charges of overstaying a visa and not having a green card in proper order, and held in conditions that were just unforgivable."

Leave it to Al Gore to use broad and vague language that is not backed up with hard facts. The Arab American Anti Discrimination Committee reported that 1,200 Arabs were incarcerated after 9/11. 725 were held on immigration violations, 100 on unrelated criminal charges, and 360 for possible links to terrorism. How does this number (1,200) compare to the number of Arabs within our borders?

The U.S. Census Bureau shows that there are more than 3 million Arabs within the United States. I don’t know about you but you know what that is in comparison to the 1,200 who were arrested after 9/11? You get .04% of Arabs were rounded up after we were attacked. To claim that an “indiscriminate” number of Arabs were yanked into custody is a ridiculous and careless comment. I see nothing “indiscriminate” about the .04% of Arabs who were brought in.

As ridiculous as Gore’s comments on Arab detainment are, he went one step further to appease the audience he was speaking to (an art form that John Kerry mastered). Apparently George W. Bush and Co. are “playing into al Qaida's hands" by subjecting Saudi visa applicants to special scrutiny, Mr. Gore said. "The worst thing we can possibly do is to cut off the channels of friendship and mutual understanding between Saudi Arabia and the United States.”

I guess Al Gore forgot that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who planned the 9/11 attacks, told interrogators most of the hijackers he selected were Saudis because they had the easiest time getting visas. According to statistics gathered by the Government Accountability Office, before 9/11 only 3% of Saudi applicants were interviewed prior to being issued a visa, and only 1% were refused. All this information can be found in the 9/11 Commission Report but I don’t think Mr. Gore took the time to read that.

When did Al Gore become so “buddy buddy” with the Saudis? After all, wasn’t it President Bush who has such deep ties with the Saudis? Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit.com knows that this recent rhetoric from Al Gore is nothing new because “only Al Gore could come up with the idea of criticizing Bush for not sucking up to the Saudis enough.”

It’s sad to see a man be so utterly consumed with bitterness and contempt for the current President. Sure, there is always the “robbery conspiracy” from the 2000 election; but with all the “what if’s” the fact of the matter is that this man’s words are nowhere close to being presidential or even American for that matter. I guess Democrats and Republicans alike can be thankful this guy is sitting on the sidelines playing the part of the annoying fan rather than being the quarterback of the football team in the big game.

More from the UWM Times

The double standard in racism has been around for a long time. I felt it was time to start addressing the issue - so in our last issue of the UWM Times I wrote about it. Here's my article from the February 9th issue:

It’s Only Racism If You’re Conservative

You can call it the exploitation of one’s political views. You can call it willful ignorance by those who are so easily offended. Whatever you want to call it, the fact is this: shameless people are often too quick to label a statement from a conservative as “racist” – but a blatant racial epithet from a liberal is quickly overlooked.

Why is there a double standard when it comes to racially insensitive remarks? Perhaps, liberals believe they are the standard when it comes to political correctness; therefore, they can be racist and sexist whenever they feel. After all, everyone knows that liberals would never say or do anything that would diminish the worth of all cultures and sexes.

In order to give the proper attention to some of the most offensive remarks that have occurred, a review of these instances is warranted. Therefore, let us revisit some of the stories that might not have received the dominant airtime that it would have if these comments came from a conservative:

The 2004 presidential election was a hotly contested race with very high stakes and in the end Bush prevailed to return for a second term. After the 2004 presidential election, liberals simply could not get over the reelection of President Bush. Despite having the most diverse cabinet in U.S. history, the personal attacks on Bush’s cabinet members were relentless. Previously, Secretary of State Colin Powell had to face the accusations of being “Bush’s puppet”. Funny how that works, considering that if Al Gore would have won the presidency in 2000, Colin Powell was being speculated for the same job. After it was made known that a conservative black woman would be the new Secretary of State, liberals started firing away.

Wisconsin’s own liberal talk show host John Sylvester called Rice “an Aunt Jemima”. Others decried her lack of “competence” for the position. Political cartoons came out depicting Dr. Rice with exaggerated features that looked like they were taken out of the Jim Crow era. Forget about the fact that she is a strong, accomplished woman with a PhD. None of that matters if you’re a conservative minority because then, you’re called a “token”. That’s classy.

One of only two black Supreme Court Justices in the history of the court, Clarence Thomas is “Scalia’s puppet” according to liberals Mary McGrory and the ACLU’s very own Alvin Bronstein. Democratic Senator Harry Reid agrees because “[Clarence] has been an embarrassment to the Supreme Court…his opinions are poorly written”. Poorly written opinions? Has Senator Reid even read one of Clarence’s opinions? Justice Thomas has a proven track record to go along with his extensive background. However, considering he’s a conservative justice on the Supreme Court, he must not be that bright.

These three prominent black leaders have all had to face discrimination due to their political views. The sad reality is that these sort of demeaning comments do not get enough coverage throughout the media outlets. What does it mean when you call a black person a “puppet”? I’m sure that if any conservative leader, columnist or talk show host made a reference to a liberal minority being the “puppet” of another white person the political fall out would be staggering. Calls for the person’s head would be made, retractions warranted and they can forget about ever running for office again. Most likely, it would end in a resignation. In the cases of these three leaders, they are all deemed sell-outs for their views. The racism doesn’t just stop at the national level. In fact, at the state and local level it can be much worse.

Take the recent incidents involving current Maryland Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele, a black conservative Republican. He is currently running for a seat in the U.S. Senate against former NAACP leader Kweisi Mfume. The tremendous amount of racial vitriol directed towards him is unfathomable. So far, Steele has had Oreo cookies thrown at him during a campaign appearance, been called an “Uncle Tom” by his liberal foes and depicted as a black-faced minstrel on a liberal website that contained the caption, "I's Simple Sambo and I's running for the Big House”. Apparently, such degrading treatment is justifiable according to black Democrats.

Black Baltimore Democrat Delegate Salima Marriott believes such actions are not racial. She claims that “if they call him the ‘N’ word, that’s racial…just because he’s black everything bad you say about him isn’t racial”. Oh really? She further states that Mr. Steele welcomes comparisons to a slave who loves his cruel master or a cookie that is black on the outside and white inside because his conservative political philosophy is, in Marriott’s view, anti-black. Conservatives would NEVER be able to get away with such lowly, pathetic stunts to a man who was Maryland’s first ever black man to win a statewide election. No matter how hard you try and say otherwise, there is no justification for the actions against Mr. Steele. Furthermore, remarks don’t have to contain the “N” word in them to be racist. Just ask Rush Limbaugh.

Conservative pundit and a minority, Michelle Malkin knows all about these types of attacks. She’s been called names ranging from “whore of the Republican party” to being told to inject more collagen in her lips so that she can “play the part” better. It’s hard for liberals to get over the fact that there are minorities out there who don’t adopt liberal policies. Liberals simply cannot tolerate conservative minority dissenters. The liberal left does not believe that minorities should have the right to an opinion – unless they espouse liberal ideals. So, they’re labeled as sell-outs.

And now the latest accusations from current chairman of the NAACP, Julian Bond. Bond is no stranger to wild and outlandish comments. Back in 2001, he claimed Bush’s nominees came from the “Taliban wing of American politics… whose devotion to the Confederacy is nearly canine in its uncritical affection”.

Bond, whose organization represents the “advancement of colored people”, has fallen back on attacking his own people. In a speech at Fayetteville State University, Julian Bond compared the Republican Party to the Nazis and called out Colin Powell and Condi Rice. According to Bond, these black conservatives are nothing more than “tokens”. However, later in his speech he claimed that black people “have to fight discrimination whenever it raises its ugly head”. Funny he should talk about discrimination when five minutes earlier he was attacking two black people for being “tokens” of a political party. His speech so offended some members in the audience that one black family got up and left during the middle of his speech. Resorting to name calling appears to be the norm when debating the issues no longer works.

It is people like Julian Bond that exploit their own people when they resort to such pitiful tactics. The list continually grows every day and there is little that is done about it. When will people wake up to this blatant double standard and realize that political affiliation does not matter when it comes to racism?

Racism has been a problem throughout our history and has been a problem since before our country began. I realize that liberals and conservatives alike can be offenders in regards to racism and bigotry. However, allowing one group to get away with such obvious racial remarks belittles the cause towards equality. It is time for people to call out these delinquents regardless of their political views if they will resort to attacking the person’s racial composition rather than the issues. If we do not do so, we are merely promoting the racial tension we so desperately want to stop.

Commit To Milwaukee's Phase II If You Don't Value Your Education

Here's my article from the January 26th edition of the UWM Times:


Commit to Milwaukee’s Phase II If You Don’t Value Your Education

Many of you may have received an email in October from the UWM Coalition for Diversity and Access that called for the implementation of the Milwaukee Commitment’s Phase II Plan. For those of you who do not know what this plan entails, here is the basic rundown of the program:

The Phase II Plan has several goals – the most important is to close the achievement gap through retention and graduation. Phase II is a follow-up proposal to the original Phase I initiative. Phase II strives to create more diversity at the UWM campus by enacting several proposals. Mainly, these proposals include accepting not only more students of color, but also professors that resemble the racial composition of the Milwaukee community.

This is a noble cause. At first glance, one could hardly find fault with its earnest attempts at diversifying this campus. However, the proposals in this initiative would raise tuition significantly – thereby undermining its own attempts at creating a “diverse” campus. The proposed initiative does more damage than good.

It is logical for a university to accept students based on their accomplishments during high school. I would rather have students accepted based on their merits and achievements – not their race/ethnicity. What does it say to a student when you accept them because they fell into a category? "Oh, you're important - your grades don'tmatter, but you're important - we let you enter into school because you makeour university look more diverse".

This sort of thinking hurts not only the university, but the student who was accepted. True concern for minority students is not there. Rather, Phase II makes UWM look more concerned about their ethnic composition rather than their dedication to the success of all its students.

I know what most people are thinking by now. This kid is a bigot – he doesn’t care about the diversity of his university. Instead, he would rather let his university become a “cookie-cutter” institution of no racial make-up. Wrong. Is UWM really not diverse? Most people would beg to differ. In fact, statistics from the Milwaukee Commitment show how diverse our campus is compared to other schools within the UW system.

According to its own numbers, in the 2003-04 academic year, while UWM enrolled 16% of all students in the UW system, our proportion of enrollment of students of color in the system is twice that at the undergraduate level (32% of all undergraduate students of color in the UW System) and more than twice at the graduate level (37% of all graduate students of color in the system). Additionally, to the graduating class of 2002-03, UWM awarded one third (33%) of all bachelor’s degrees and more than one half (52%) of all master’s degrees awarded by the UW System to African American students.

These statistics certainly show our campus as the leader in diversity among the other UW institutions. Professors and Teacher’s Aids also resemble a very diverse racial makeup. Just sit in one of your classes and you can agree that our educators do not fit into one racial category.

Going back to the admission of ethnic students, I would love to see minority students accepted into UWM. However, I do not want them accepted with the stigma of being labeled as a "Phase II" student and seen as one who has been successful in his/her academic pursuits. It is vital to respecting the student and the university. We need fairness in university admissions. Do you not see where I am coming from?

Many people think that I might be talking about standardized testing as the yardstick. Many statistics have been thrown out there trying to prove why standardized testing does not work (i.e. timed tests). However, this is not what I mean at all when I call for fairness in university admissions. To clarify, my "fair" strategy is not taking a pre-entry test such as the ACT to determine access to the university. Rather, how you perform in high school gives a good sign of how you will perform in higher education.

Even after examining this statistical data, it is hard for me to look at these figures when other statistics glaringly stick out. For example, truancy rates in the state of Wisconsin are appalling and ridiculous. MPS habitual truancy numbers show an increase from each school period - elementary, middle school, high school - to the point that in 2003, the MPS high school average rate of habitual truancy was 73%! Add in the fact that MPS enroll about 11% of the students in the state, and report more than 50% of all the habitual truants in the state – a large percentage being minorities.

The yardstick I am calling for is not standardized testing. It is the willingness to be successful in high school. These would include activities mentioned by the UWM Coalition for Diversity and Access: community involvement, blue-collar work ethic, etc. It is this dedication that brings about academic success. The responsibility to a student’s success does not fall under one category.

More importantly, parents must be aware and involved in their child’s academic life. Truancy rates would severely decline if parents would accept the responsibility of their child, not pass it off to the government or schools. After all, who has the ultimate responsibility for their child? The obvious answer is the parent. Mark my words: academic achievement and success would skyrocket if parents assume their natural and inherent responsibility.

On a side note, I would be interested in seeing the racial composition of applicants to UWM. This, broken down into locale, would also help to see if minorities are beingunfairly treated in admissions. Are the people we are trying to help evenbothering to apply? At the very least, the people who are serious about attendinguniversity – not those who failed in high school due to lack of interest in education (seenin truancy rates, grades, etc.) – are those who should be studied.

A big concern is the cost of the Phase II initiative. This will most certainlyraise the cost of education. Does this not hurt the same people we are tryingto bring into UWM? Or are we placing the burden of cost on others? Where is themoney coming from to fund this unproven program? These are serious questions that need to be addressed.

One final thing, there is the proposal within Phase II that calls for professors to match the racial composition of UWM's community. This is a very disturbing suggestion. What does this mean? Quite possibly, we could be denying qualified professors positions at our university because they don't pass the litmus test of race! Here is the point: I don't care if you are black, white, yellow, orange or purple. The professors at UWM should be the most qualified people in their field – regardless of race. This remains the responsibility of any university. The denial of qualified professors is the denial of a student’s right to the best education possible.

These are the issues that need to be addressed before we commit to a programthat could damage the university more than preserve it. Committing to this program devalues a student’s education for the sake of outward appearance.

Mr. Abstinence!

It's been a while since I last posted - busy busy busy busy! Anyway, I couldn't pass up this little gem I found while looking at various news reports. Apparently, our good friend Silvio Berlusconi is campaigning hard and with it making some great campaign promises! His latest? Oh, just that he is promising Italians lower taxes, raising pensions and of course, no sex til after the elections! Wow, I'm glad that will win over the voters - we all love leaders who sacrifice! Read the article here to believe it! Hey, you gotta give the guy credit for continuing to make headlines!

Keep visiting the site - plenty of things have happened in the past month since my last post and I will try to bring everyone up to speed!

Ciao tutti!