Monday, September 26, 2011

Dungy's right: Punish them

A republican senator, Lindsey Graham has now said we should consider military action against nuclear-armed, super-populated Pakistan.

Republican representative in the house Michelle Bachman said on TV that a vaccine that does not have harmful effects is "potentially dangerous" then said "I didn't make that claim nor did I make that statement...."

Except that she did....I watched it. It's still on the internet.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry declared in the latest Republican presidential debate that he had never advocated turning Social Security over to the states.

"Let the states do it," he said last year.


My fellow republicans, you cannot sweep this shit under the bridge by saying all politicians are liars. You cannot ignore this crap anymore.

You are allowing BLATANT LIARS to distort easily checkable facts and yet they still have supporters.

With all this considered, I am currently of the opinion that barring major changes in the way republicans do business, I will not vote for a single, solitary one in the 2012 elections.

I'll vote third party, or I'll vote democrat, or I'll abstain. But I'm not letting them get away with this anymore.

Supporting one of them supports them all, and the ones not speaking out about these lies are complicit in them.

Now the the obvious response I'm going to get from my conservative brethren is going to be two-fold.

1. A vote not for the republicans is one less vote against the democrat's agenda.
Yup. That's the case alright, but too bad. My conscience is clear here. I cast my vote for candidates, not against others. If an issue of any kind is on my ballot, I'll vote for or against based on what's right, even if the republicans like it. I just won't vote for them.

2. But the pro-life movement...bla bla bla
Yes I am still vehemently pro-life and I don't want to vote for a pro-choice candidate but here's a situation to consider, albeit a crazy one.

Candidate Bill is pro-choice. He went to Yale, ran a successful company, has been a senator for 10 years and is a democrat who supports inadequate economy fixes involving raising taxes on everyone.

Candidate Bob is pro-life. He went to Sacramento State and narrowly escaped connection with a cheating scandal. Failed as a talk radio host, was a CEO at a company with some ethical concerns and often makes inaccurate statements about the economy.

Given a choice between the two, the correct decision is to abstain or vote for Bill. But I imagine most of my fellow conservatives would stop reading after the first sentence.

Abortion is an unimaginable horror, but we have a nation to run. The hard truth is, a dumb ass, even one with the noble goal of ending abortion, is not going to be a better leader than a smart person who wants to keep it legal.

And right now folks, I gotta say the brains of the national candidates are working better on the left. I don't like most of their policies, but they're not out there just making shit up left and right and lying about it.

They're trying to govern as best they can. All I see republicans doing is arguing, lying and holding things up.

I'm not rewarding them for their bad behavior.

Friday, September 23, 2011

An ode to Fall

So a weird thing happened this morning. I got to work really early, (6 something, had to be in at 7) and I was struck with the inspiration to write a poem.

In high school and early in college I fancied myself a poet but I've only written two or three in the last few years. The medium isn't my strong suit as a writer.

Nevertheless, fall is my favorite time of year, and inspiration made me write. My ego makes me share.

Enjoy.

Winter, fall, summer, spring
There's a time for everything
Though if I dare have the gall
I'll make my case alone for fall

The leaves fall down as spirits rise
A sight so pleasing to the eyes
A jacket's worn but not a coat
And that is why fall gets my vote

Winter's snow looks nice as well
Although it makes the roadways hell
Christmas lights are great I guess
But snow-soaked boots make such as mess

Summer, how cherished was it once
Days of freedom, sun, and fruit punch
But as we age, we also sweat
So summer gets our sweet regret

Spring is lovely and so damn close
At times it feels just like fall's ghost
It smells of hope and things to gain
But for my taste, there's too much rain

So back again we come to fall
The greatest season of them all
Of football games and camping trips
Election time and fire pits
Halloween and candy coma
Turkey day's sweet aroma
Christmas deals at every store
All of this and so much more

Winter, fall, summer, spring
There's a time for everything
If it were mine to make the call
Again my friends, I speak for fall

Wednesday, September 21, 2011

The Fix is in. My plan for fixing college football

There is a new story almost everyday published somewhere about an NCAA football playing school being sanctioned or facing some other problem.

Almost exclusively of late, these problems relate to the archaic amateurism rules the NCAA insists on enforcing despite the multi-million dollar industry that is college football.

At the crux of it all is this: (skip to ******* if you already understand the situation)

The NCAA says that it's purpose is to foster the academic success of it's "student-athletes." They say that to do this, the players must be students first, and athletes second.
To allow players to receive benefits because of their status (free tatoos, discount cars or outright pay for play), according to the NCAA would be a detriment to them in some way.
Football programs make money on ticket sales, stadium adverting, tv and radio deals, national exposure and more based off the performances of the players on the field. The NCAA says that 85 players per football team can be awarded scholarships for their trouble. Walk-ons get nothing but the experience of playing/practicing college football.
The players likenesses can be used indefinitely at no cost and the player cannot make any money on their own image while in college. In exchange, they may get a quality and often expensive education.


There are others who argue that the players are being exploited. They say the that schools, conference admins, bowl people and others (Nike, Gatorade etc.) are making tons of money while at best a player gets a free education.
At worst, coaches like Nick Saban and Mack Brown make more than $5 million a year while a player has to struggle to balance the demands of school and playing essentially minor league football. If the player isn't well off and traveled a long way for school, sure he gets housing and a meal plan, maybe a few travel dollars, but not money for clothes or personal travel.
Some say players should be paid, some say the NCAA should relax rules about player benefits etc.

***********

The Reality:

NCAA football is minor league football. Call it an extra-curricular activity all you want but the NFL doesn't hold a draft for the top players in the CFL or Arena league, they grab from the NCAA.

Most players playing at the FBS level will never play in the NFL. In 2009, 67 percent of Division I football players got degree.

In 2008 the graduation rates for the BCS conferences broke down in essentially reverse order of athletic success.
1. ACC........72.3
2. Big East...67.4
3. Big Ten....66
4. Big 12.....63.2
5. Pac-10.....61.3
6. SEC........60.5

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

The Fix:

All NCAA universities with football programs get a choice. Adapt a more stringent, version of the NCAA to govern your college football, or become a club team.

This eliminates, if nothing else, the hypocrisy.

-----------
The Club Team
In this example, Stegeman University has the opportunity to cut loose it's football program. The school and football program would remain affiliated in name and branding and whatever financial deal the two sides agree too.

For example, the school, in exchange for the use of it's facilities and existing infrastructure, could lease the stadium, practice facilities etc. They could keep parking revenue. However they want to do it.

Under the club system, totally divorced from the NCAA, the teams would essentially be professional minor league football teams. All the schools that opt-in to this club model would agree on rules just as the NFL has done. With the NCAA out of the picture, the choice of how to compensate players falls to the teams.
They can offer scholarships, straight pay or a combination —within the limits the teams jointly agree upon.

I would suggest a system that offers a relatively low salary and a long term salary cap on the straight-pay side. Even with the lack of rules and new flow of booster money, the cost of straight pay would be high, prompting most teams to likely continue to offer scholarships as the primary way of player compensation.

Under this model, the player's are not student-athletes any more than a student working at Kroger is a student-cashier. They are, if they choose to be, students who play football.

In this world, if a booster gives a kid a $100 handshake or a kid gets a free tattoo for his play, it's not a problem. In fact, it's totally irrelevant.

Yes, this does mean there will be people playing for Stegeman University's football team that do not go to school there. It also means that kids that really don't want to go to college, and who really aren't cut out for it, don't have to lie about their SATs and fudge numbers on GPA to go to a school they're not smart enough to go to anyway. They can still play football there, but honestly, and be compensated for it with pay instead of education.
In recruiting, a kid can still choose where he wants to go based on what is offered.

Why is this plan great?

I'll tell you.

First, college sports makes it's money off fans who love to watch it and buy stuff. They will still do that under this plan. Fans will not care if the left tackle isn't actually a student. He's still wearing Stegeman U colors and battling for the team.

The teams names, stadiums, jerseys etc. remain the same. The traditions remain the same. The product on the field will not be adversely affected in any way.

What are the drawbacks?
It's untested. The current system is a mess of lies and crap but it functions in some way. Under the current system fans are happy, coaches and ADs are rich and there aren't all that many players bitching too loudly.

-----------
The other way
Remaining in something like the NCAA
The first plan will only be viable to your major programs. Ohio State's, Oklahoma's, Texas. Schools like that and others with the donor base willing to take the risk.

For the rest, it's time to end the bullshit.

Set a scholarship limit that doesn't change based on exceptions. The schools have to choose wisely. Make it a four year deal. If a player is cut, let him transfer immediately and play.

Make it so use of a player's image to make money is only allowed during their college years, after that only with compensation.

Make it so at Crisler University, a player who comes for a year and gets a career ended injury WHILE PLAYING FOR THE SCHOOL IN A GAME THE SCHOOL MADE MONEY OFF OF will be compensated with either his remaining four years, or the equivalent financially.

There are a million things to change in the NCAA but in this level, the non-club teams, you enforce with an iron fist. Too many infractions=death penalty (season suspended, program cut for X amount of time) on a regular basis.

Be real about it.

But if a school doesn't want to deal with that, let them become a club team and do it another way.

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

Ray Dennison died of a head injury playing college football back in the 1950s and his widow wanted worker's comp.

This is from "The Atlantic"
"Did his football scholarship make the fatal collision a “work-related” accident? Was he a school employee, like his peers who worked part-time as teaching assistants and bookstore cashiers? Or was he a fluke victim of extracurricular pursuits? Given the hundreds of incapacitating injuries to college athletes each year, the answers to these questions had enormous consequences. The Colorado Supreme Court ultimately agreed with the school’s contention that he was not eligible for benefits, since the college was “not in the football business.”

Think about that now. Is Ohio State "not in the football business?"

Of course they are. Let's stop pretending.

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

Monday's update on a Tuesday (replacing what would have been John's Attempt To Get Less Fat, update 9)

ED NOTE: Post restored. No edits made.

--
So instead of just the fat updates I'm going to call my hiatus over.

I will blog on Monday, except when I don't. I will blog more than that when I feel like it.

I will include weight loss info in the Monday posts at least.

Anyways here's some random personal stuff.

Went to Lincolshire/Buffalo Grove/Palmetto (aka Chicago area) this weekend for a wedding of two great people I have a lot of respect for. They were Kelli's friends first but I think I can say they're my friends too now and I couldn't be happier for them.

Congratulations on your marriage, Brando and Lulu Hall.

Now for the downer. As much as I loved being a part of their wedding, I hated leaving Chicago at 11 (eastern) and driving through the night and rain and literally handing Kelli the truck keys in the parking lot of my job, where I proceeded to put in a full day.

Was it worth it? Yes. Will I ever make a drive like that again? No.

Last, an interesting thing.

Everyone knows exposure to different ideas and beliefs is a way to better understand them. Some argue that book learning on certain things is insufficient and you need to see it firsthand to understand etc. In the Christian world, this shows up in the argument that usually goes "I believed in (item a) for the most part of the experience at (church b) was more spiritual etc."

I had a similar experience this weekend that should be noted.

Brando and Lulu are for lack of a better word non-traditional, non-denominational Christians. They don't worship like your average Joe but they're truly devout. Their friends and families as far as I can tell are also believers.

The night before the wedding I hung out with Brando and his buddies who looked like they walked out of Hot Topic/Vans shoes commercial. They all have product in hair, piercings, tats etc.

Also, they're all Christians.We drank and talked God all night.

At the wedding the officiant, Charlie, a married father who shares my love of deep dish pizza and whose ordination was never fully explained to me, presided very ably and delivered a solid message for both the bride and groom and those in attendance.

Being surrounded by non-Catholic Christians for an entire weekend had three effects on me.

First, I was happily reminded that the word non-denominational doesn't mean lazy, bad Christian. While I'm sure that categorization includes that type, I met a large portion of non-denoms that were to use hyperbole, on fire for the Lord.

I was also reminded that the non-Catholic Christians are in many ways brothers and sisters in arms with the Church, even if they've disowned their parents, metaphorically.

I knew these things already of course, but it's easy for me to get lost in the fray and forget that though they lack the fullness of truth, they are based firmly in it's foundations.

Second, I think now more than ever the Church has a chance to reach them. As readers know, I believe that anyone genuinely seeking the truth of God that tries hard enough and has the chance will be led to the Catholic Church, and these people are desperately seeking.

They're not lost souls, but they haven't found it all yet. They have the Bible, but in many ways it's like having a treasure map without the treasure. They need someone that knows cartography to help them find their way.

And they are not unwilling to hear. We just can't come at them the way we come at Lutherans or Baptists etc. Pure theology won't work. Their central belief seems to be that no one can know everything God knows, and they see Catholics a making that claim.

If we can illustrate the difference between saying we have the fullness of truth, and the fact that we still don't scratch the surface of understanding all that is God, we as a Church can add millions of young Christians to our parishes, saving who knows how many souls.

Third, I've never appreciated the Church so much. It was so great to see so many people under the age of 30 that are madly in love with God, but I saw it in it's context.

They saw God as a hottie. Rocking great looks, seems to be smart and saying all the right things at the club. They're three dates in, and they proposed. They're really willing and serious about making a lifelong commitment.

They know God's eye color and favorite TV show but they don't know God's mom's birthday or how God really feels about the ending of the TV show "Lost."

This is oversimplification of course.

I have to get back to work so I'll cut it off here.

To sum up, glad to see the spirit of God working in so many. Glad to have seen the wedding of two good people. Sad to have driven forever and not slept.

------------
No weight update because I really don't know.

Thursday, September 8, 2011

Something isn't right here.....conservative presidential candidates

So my good friend Dungy has written at some length of the republican presidential field and I just want to add a little bit.

I don't remember if the democratic primaries a few years back included this problem to the same extent, but it seems that the Tea Party style candidates are getting by with a complete disregard of facts.

Fact check websites often call out Bachman, Palin and even Perry for the crazy things they say, but the media seems to only dutifully report what they say. To it's credit, the Associated Press is also doing fact check articles but they're not weaving that information into say their regular debate coverage story.

I know politicians lie and stretch facts. That's normal, if sad. But it seems like these tea party types saw that people liked President Bush's "I'm not a smart man but I know what love is" persona and took it to the next level.

Take this exchange from last night's debate.

PERRY: "Michael Dukakis created jobs three times faster than you did, Mitt."
ROMNEY: "Well, as a matter of fact, George Bush and his predecessor created jobs at a faster rate than you did, governor."
PERRY: "That's not correct."
ROMNEY: "Yes, that is correct."

Courtesy of the San Francisco Examiner
THE FACTS: Romney was correct.
Romney accurately stated that George W. Bush — even without his predecessor — saw jobs grow at a faster rate during his 1994-2000 years as governor than Perry has during his 11 years governing Texas. Employment grew by about 1.32 million during Bush's six years in office. Employment during Perry's years has grown about 1.2 million, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
As for Perry's claim about Romney's record and that of Dukakis, he was at least in the ballpark.
Democratic Gov. Dukakis saw Massachusetts employment grow by 500,000 jobs during his two divided terms, 1975 to 1979, and 1983 to 1991, a rate of more than 41,000 jobs a year.
Romney, governor of Massachusetts from 2003 to 2007, saw employment grow from 3.23 million to 3.29 million, growth of about 60,000 jobs, or a rate of 15,000 a year. That means Dukakis' job growth rate was nearly three times Romney's.

Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: http://www.sfexaminer.com/news/health/2011/09/fact-check-perry-romney-twist-records-debate#ixzz1XMIsTNmW

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

Romney has his share of exaggerations as well to be sure, but at least he seems to be ok with using his brain, not just his don't mess with Texas mojo.

So am I just frustrated, or is there really a dearth of even attempted facts in this group of candidates?

Thursday, September 1, 2011

Finding a better way: Is it possible? Is it worth it?

So I make my return to normal blogging with this post, but it's not super well thought out (surprise right?)

Lately I've been examining a lot of issues from a lot of perspectives but yesterday my buddy/boss Jason said something that has kind of stuck with me.

I really don't recall the words but essentially his point was that:

A, some things are in fact, impossible, and not just as it relates to physics. For example, he pointed out that realistically, assuming that gay marriage is wrong, it is impossible to convince the whole world (or even a substantial majority) of this.

And B, that in the absence of such goals being possible, the next best solution is to create rules. His example, make it illegal, to keep people in line.

While I don't disagree that in the interim between society's agreements on matters, there should be rules and laws and such, I've been beginning to think that we're putting our effort in the wrong place.

Here is how I view the way our country/society does things now:
Bob invents/discovers a drug that makes people in unhappy marriages happy, regardless of any circumstantial changes.
About half the people herald this as great, while about half find it reprehensible.

Lawmakers take a look at their constituents, weigh the options against their future political life, take a stand and become an advocate one way or the other. Because of the populations feelings on this, it breaks down by about half one way and half the other.

Religious leaders (I'm really talking about the usual Christian subjects here) take a quick glance at their established orthodoxy, put the round pegs in the round holes etc. and decide if it's evil or good (nothing seems to be indifferent).

Just like that, we've got a national debate that includes all the goodies. Laws will eventually be passed to the least objectionable solution and so on.
-----

But it doesn't have to work this way, I don't think. Maybe it does.

I believe it's possible -- note unlikely and astronomically difficult -- to avoid this mess.

The question is, is it possible to breed the idea of knee jerk judgements out of us? Instead of hearing the basics and putting something into a category, can we judge it's merits fairly and in due time?

Long story short, I guess what I am saying is that I'd like to see a fundamental change in human behavior on a lot of fronts. One's religion can still be the basis of their belief, but they need to dig a little deeper than "soundbite Jesus" to get to the root of something. One can be a liberal, but just because something might be good for a pro-conservative group doesn't mean it's bad etc.

----

Let's go back to that magic little marriage pill. Is supporting it's legalization likely to be liberals or conservatives?

Both side are afflicted by unhappy marriages I'm sure.
Both want to be happy.
But would liberals be mad that it allows women in abusive relationships to stay in them without punishing the men? Or would they be mad that a gay man could be made to believe he was happy married to a woman?
Would the religious right be upset that it has the ability to make husbands happy even if their wife is leading a side life as a lesbian?

The questions are hypothetical as the pill is but you know as well as I do that somehow the issue will end up splitting along those lines.

---

This blog is disjointed as hell...sorry, I'm out of practice.

---

As a society we've decided that everything fits into a box, which is not untrue on some levels. But there are more than two boxes.

Our effort shouldn't be put to making laws and rules to restrict and control BEFORE we've examined an issue thoroughly. By doing this, we make the rules quick, it gets entrenched on one side or the other, and little more real thought goes into it.

INSTEAD, we should examine the issues thoroughly, then pass a law if one is needed.

Moreover, there is some old Indian (I think) proverb/story about a nation that abolished laws. I don't really remember the story, but I think there is a truth in the idea that laws are needed because we don't want to try very hard to know what is right.

People shouldn't need a law to know not to steal, or to take it farther, they shouldn't need a law that tells them who can and cannot marry.

Somewhere out there the truth of the matter exists, and we should search for that, not just the least objectionable law.

Even in the lives of people like me, who believe the truth of say the Catholic Church, there is not a catechisical argument for or against our hypothetical pill. It requires digging deeper than what we think we know.

Is it possible or worth it to try and change human behavior this way? I dunno. But it was a thought.