Just in time for the Apocalypse: Unionized College Football!

          A preliminary ruling yesterday by the National Labor Relations Board threatens to undermine the very fabric of college football.  And it has nothing to do with the idiotic “celebration penalty.”
          An NLRB regional director ruled that Northwestern University football players are considered employees, and as such, can join unions.  I can’t wait for the day when college football players go on strike demanding shorter practices, later kickoffs, less conditioning and more interviews with Erin Andrews.
          Jokes aside, the push behind all this is the (correct) assertion that the athletes are unpaid contractors who enable universities, and their surrounding communities, to reap millions and millions of dollars.  Activists with potentially-lucrative union due dollars signs in their eyes have played the “exploited racial angle” for some time.  But who is the victim here?
          Division-one College Football recruits freely enter into a private agreement with a University.  They agree to perform a task for the university in exchange for free education, room and board, tutoring, medical care, equipment, supplies and God-knows-what-else. 
          Let’s do some math.  Depending on your source, the average out-of-state tuition at most major colleges runs in the neighborhood is $25,000.  Most division-one football players spend five years on campus.  We start off with $125,000 up front.  That includes all of the room and board, books and such.
          In addition, athletes are provided with every piece of equipment they will need to compete.  That includes a seemingly-endless supply of free shoes, which run well over $100 these days.  There are also miscellaneous bits of equipment they get to keep.  We’ll conservatively place this value at $3,000.
          Not covered in a regular student’s room and board is the limitless access to tutors that athletes have---not to mention unfettered access to state-of-the-art training equipment and the like.  Hard to put a dollar value on that.  Lets conservatively guess $10,000.
          Now let’s say Johnny Football blows out his knee.  He gets free arthroscopic surgery and rehab; plus anything else required to recover.  I have no idea how much this would cost.  In addition, if the injury is career-ending, most colleges will keep him on scholarship to allow him to complete his degree.
          Suffice to say there is no way to accurately tally what a college football player gets in return for his services; but it’s not chicken feed.  These benefits are clearly known when each high school football stud signs a letter of intent to play college football.
          More important than the tangible benefits behind this arrangement is this:  The colleges are offering a chance.  A chance at a college degree which will immeasurably improve one’s earning potential.  Whether or not the athletes take advantage of that chance is entirely up to them.
          It is much like life.  We are given various opportunities to reach our goals.  Some are obvious---others are not.  But in each case; our success or failure is almost entirely dependent upon the choices we make.
          The university and the athlete are entering into what could be a mutually-beneficial agreement.  Since both sides now the terms going in, it seems to be that there is no “victim” here…and there sure as hell is no reason to allow independent private contractors, like the football players, to form a union.
          The full NLRB will have to confirm the ruling, which will then undoubtedly be subject to a flurry of appeals and counter-appeals, etc.  I have lost all faith in the government and our justice system to arrive at what I feel is the proper decision.

More equal than others

          Last year at this time, the Obama Administration was using the fresh horror of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings to make Gun Control the dominant issue in Washington political debates.  All signs indicate that this year’s Cause Du Jour will be “inequality.”

          Where do I begin?  I suppose overriding all other arguments is the fact that if I don’t trust the person who defines what’s fair and equitable; I’m probably NOT going to agree with whatever definition they come up with.  Little else needs to be said; but I’ll say it anyway.

          The notion that we can eliminate all kinds of inequality is infantile.  Somewhere, someone is going to have a little more than you---someone is going to have a little less than you.  Deal with it.
          There are a myriad of reasons why this is the case.  The economy, life decisions, and a number of other things over which people have absolutely no control.  To think that we can ameliorate all these factors and produce equitable outcomes for all is dangerous.  It gives birth to terrible ideas.

          But this is precisely how a Statist like the President works.  ALL things are subject to Government manipulation.  Those who subscribe to this theory are married to the myth of the infallibility of The Collective.

          When you add it up, you get a record number of people on Food Stamps, an unemployment “safety net” that is damned close to becoming a permanent entitlement---and you get the subtle reinforcement of the obscene notion that your happiness and well-being are tied inexorably to the whims of Washington.

          When the President bleats about “inequality” in the coming weeks, rest assured he’s not pushing for equality in the classic sense.  He is talking about shifting more and more power to Washington.  Period.  To quote from one of my favorite movies, “That’s what he does!  That’s ALL he does!”

Are the times a'changin'?

          Its gotta suck to be a Democrat right now.  Let me be more specific.  Its gotta suck to be one of the suckers who fell for “Hope and Change.”
          Barack H. Obama was presented to us (largely by a fawning press) some six years ago as a Demigod…a man capable of ending racism, cancer, global warming, and canker sores. Many took the bait and have yet to let go, despite an avalanche of evidence to the contrary.
          The news in the past two weeks has been less-than-flattering for our Commander-In-Chief.  Between the Benghazi testimony, the IRS revelations, and new information about the Justice Department seizing phone records from the Associated Press…well, let’s just say Jay Carney has been putting in some overtime studying Advanced Spin Doctoring.
          The Benghazi lies may be the most egregious of these three kerfuffles, but it’ll be hard to gauge the President’s culpability.  Its obvious to anyone paying attention that he knew very quickly that this was a targeted terrorist attack, and not a spontaneous reaction to an unseen video.  That he would trumpet that line of thinking for nine days after the fact tells me all I need to know about where his concerns lie.  Does it amount to an “impeachable offense?”  Probably not.
          The IRS scandal is a different animal, though.  People don’t need to be educated about the IRS.  Their potential for abuse is well-known, and they’re about as popular as rug burn.  Every day we’re finding more and more evidence that this was NOT limited to a couple of low-level operatives in Cincinnati.  The ghost is Richard Nixon is smiling.
          Is this the future of Obamacare?  IRS agents and low level functionaries making decisions of life and death for conservatives?   This is not fear-mongering, folks. 
          This is the typical Obama crisis management tactic: deny it happened, promise to vigorously investigate it, blame it on low level rogue employees, and accuse conservatives of “playing politics.”  This is what happens when you elect a campaigner instead of a leader.
          I've always thought it would take a cataclysmic event to open people’s eyes…to expose the fraud that is the President...to end his Svengali-like effect on his followers. I had feared it would be a tragedy, but perhaps the prospect of his using the IRS as his henchmen will be enough to turn the tide.  One can only "hope."

Online with an unconnected government.

          Nothing stifles growth and innovation like the heavy hand of government.  As if we need another demonstration of that aphorism, I fear we’re about to get one.

          The Senate could vote as early as today on a bill that would give states the power to require online retailers to collect state and local taxes on internet purchases. Under the bill, the sales taxes would be sent to the states where a shopper lives.  Right now, states can only require stores to collect sales taxes if the store has a physical presence in the state.

          The main reason that the United States has taken the lead in the Internet Economy is that the Federal Government has taken (for the most part) a hands-off approach.  In comparison to other parts of the economy, the Internet is relatively unregulated.  This “Wild West” landscape has allowed American researchers and entrepreneurs to make wonderful developments that the rest of the world has yet to catch up to.  US ingenuity has produced operating systems and accessory devices that are being used across the planet.  American companies have pioneered the field of e-commerce.  Domestic software companies have lapped their overseas competitors in almost every sector.

          The Digital Boom is a testament to what can happen when the Federal Government stays the hell out of our business.  It is an object lesson in what can happen when creative people are left to their own devices, allowed to fail, and allowed to keep the fruits of their success.

          I’m surprised the gravy train has lasted this long.  I guess I should be grateful that the Robber Barons in Washington have allowed this largely untapped source of revenue to go on unabated.  It appears the salad days will soon be over.

          What if we could apply the Government’s behavior the past 20 years on the IT economy to other sectors?  Wouldn’t it be great if we could allow businesses a chance to innovate without knowing that any success they achieve will be short-lived?  How cool would it be for creative folks to be unfettered by regulations that exist mostly to justify the existence of regulators?

          To the government, I quote Bruce Willis’ lines from “Die Hard.”  “You’re not part of the solution---you’re part of the problem!  STOP being part of the f*cking problem!!!”

Useful props

Mr. and Mrs. Wheeler:

You have my deepest sympathies. As a parent, I cannot imagine the hell you have gone through in the past few months...and I pray that I never do.

You may or may not be aware of a key fact. The proposals currently before Congress would have done NOTHING to prevent your child from being murdered. The sponsor of the bill admits it. As a matter of fact (something else you may be unaware of) the sponsor of the bill has stated that her ultimate goal is weapon confiscation. Not sure if you had heard that. Its true.

Given those facts, I hope you understand my (and others') resistance to these proposals. 

In your grief, you may be unaware of another fact. The President and his fellow Liberals are using you like a Shake-and-Bake bag. You will be discarded once you serve your purpose. The President doesn't like you, or anyone else...other than himself. In his eyes, you are useful idiots and nothing more.

I'll put it this way...if a loved one of mine were killed by a madman with a gun, I would get no satisfaction out of stripping human rights from people who had nothing to do with it. Indeed, I would feel pretty shitty if that happened.

I pray you find whatever peace and solace that you can. I hope that peace is not predicated on your ability to negatively impact the millions of law-abiding Americans who simply do not trust a most-untrustworthy Government with a key element of our personal security.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/13/obama-has-newtown-mom-fill-in-for-his-weekly-radio-internet-address/?fb_action_ids=3049466771327&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582

1973: The Washington Post leads the way into the probe of an illegal wire-tapping scandal that brings down a Republican Administration. The Post is (rightfully) lauded by their peers and by the country at large.

2013: The Washington Post lauds the person who illegally wire-tapped a Republican Senator's office. They focus not on the illegal act, but the information that was gleaned from it---calling it, "audio gold."

Just keep telling yourself there is no media bias. The Presidential also has your best interests in mind. The President would NEVER hike taxes on the middle class. The Government would NEVER come after our guns. "That could NEVER happen here."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/david-corn-and-mother-jones-find-themselves-with-another-audio-scoop/2013/04/10/dd37a8a0-a21b-11e2-82bc-511538ae90a4_story.html

Translation: Kiss my ass, nannies!

"I have the right to do whatever I wish with my property. 

If I own a pile of wood, I can set fire to it even if it is currently nailed together in the shape of a barn. 

Cigarettes may not be healthy for me in the long run, but I have the freedom to smoke them anyway. Drinking alcohol may or may not have negative side effects, but even if it does, the government has no authority to prohibit you from consuming it, even if it is "in your own best interest." 

Since when do we let the government decide what is or isn't good for us? What the hell does Congress know about nutrition, anyway? (For that matter, what does Congress know about the Constitution?) 

If the government can use force whenever something is "in our best interest" then government should force everyone to wake up at 6am every morning for calisthenics in the front yard. Fast food establishments should be torn down and replaced with bars that serve carrot juice and alfalfa sprouts, since - "it's in your best interest." 

This paternalistic attitude that "the government knows best" and that you are merely a helpless child is insulting and reprehensible."

- Michael Badnarik

Gun for me, but not for thee

Here lies an astonishing combination of arrogance and ignorance. Yet, there are those among you who have no qualms about letting people like this make all of your basic life decisions for you. That's bad enough. That you also want these people to make basic life decisions for ME as well...we have a problem. Big problem.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/03/dem-congresswoman-mocks-concerned-pro-gun-senior-citizen-youd-probably-be-dead-anyway/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=story&utm_campaign=Share+Buttons

Cola Wars

Victories for us "Conservatarians" are becoming harder and harder these days.  That's why I was inordinately happy last night when a New York State Judge struck down Nazi Bloomberg's attempt to save the unwashed masses from the evils of large Coca-Colas.  It's probably a Pyrrhic victory, since some liberal judge somewhere up the judicial food chain will likely uphold this latest version of a Nanny-Stater's wet dream...but I'll take my good news wherever I can find it these days.

Just how short-lived this victory may be was driven home when I read a new poll from Marist University.  It showed that while 53% of New York City residents opposed the soda restrictions, 42% supported it.  42%!  Wow.  I can't stop thinking about that number.

I guess I live a sheltered life and hang around only a small group of like-minded people.  I cannot think of one person I know who would support something like this.  Not one.  I can't even think of casual acquaintances who would think this was a good idea.  Yet 42% of New Yorkers surveyed think that the Government making such a basic decision for us is a good idea.

What do I make of this?  Are the demographics in the Big Apple so skewed that a near-majority have no problem with something I think is among the most odious proposals I've ever heard?  Is the rank-and-file of Danville and Pittsylvania County really THAT different from New York?  Am I hopelessly out of touch?  Or could it be something much more sinister?

Are we now witnessing the first real fruits of decades of education that is designed more to indoctrinate than illuminate?  I can only imagine what this poll would have been like if it were administered in, say 1980.  My guess is that MUCH fewer than 42% would support such an idea.  What has happened in the intervening generation?

I have often said that President Obama is not the worst thing in this nation.  The worst thing is an electorate that could vote for someone who has made no secret about his love affair with central command politics.  Are we past the point now where people are more than willing to give up what I consider to be rudimentary decision-making power, just so we can keep our brains free to absorb the latest reality TV series?

It makes we wonder what a similar poll would say ten years from now.  20 years down the road.  It also makes me shudder.

Lock and load!

I have never been a conspiracy theorist.  The mindset that there's more than meets the eye in every instance has always struck me as imbecilic.  It assumes that there is a nefarious undercurrent to all things.  

It doesn't pass the logic test.  If you think 9-11 was an inside job, stop and think for a minute.  Think about the staggering number of people who would have to be "in" on the conspiracy, at least to some degree.  Now think about how damned difficult it is to keep three or four people quiet about someone's surprise birthday party!

All-too-often, conspiracy theorists concoct scenarios that would confuse Rube Goldberg.  It assumes an amount of acumen and cleverness that I'm sure our government does not possess.

It's also been my experience that conspiracy theorists are among the most miserable people I've met...socially, at least.  Perhaps dreaming up scenarios with black helicopters circling over their heads gives them a sense of importance...that they matter enough to warrant dark forces to conspire against them.  The reality---that they're not that important---is less appealing.

Having said all that, I will admit that I'm NOT getting warm fuzzies by what I'm reading in regards to the Department of Homeland Security.  Today's news informs us that DHS is purchasing 2,700 light-armored tanks.  This is on top of previous reports of their stockpiling ammunition....somewhere between 1.6 and 2.1 billion rounds, according to estimates.

I realize that there is a police function to DHS and I'm sure the agents would prefer being armed with something better than a pocketknife...but the timing is curious.  At a time when gun control measures are all the rage, when ammunition for the rank-and-file is becoming scarce, and when the White House is occupied by a man who had no compunctions about using drones to target Americans...well, let's just say I'm on guard.

I think I'll hold off getting fitted for a tinfoil hat...but my eyes are wide open.  The only thing I hate more than conspiracy theorists is when conspiracy theorists are right.

Wake me when its over

All you need to know about the idiocy of the current conference realignment craze in college sports is this:  Boise State was *this* close to joining the Big East.  That's right; the school in Idaho was prepared to join a loop originally named for it's small schools in the nation's northeast corridor.   I could stop right there, but I won't.

The latest foray into a geography major's nightmare came this week when North Carolina and Virginia got overtures to join the Big Ten (which has 12 teams.  The Big 12 has 10 teams.  Keep up with me, here).  If accepted, they would join West Virginia as teams that have a majority of their conference opponents in different time zones.  Under this scenario, North Carolina would eschew conference affiliation with Duke (eight miles away) and North Carolina State (20 miles away) for epic conference clashes against the like of Iowa, Minnesota and Nebraska.  Dean Smith is rolling over in his grave!   What?  He's not dead yet?  Well---scratch that last part.

Geography and tradition matters in college sports, especially in the sport that pays the bills---football.  It is about rivalries that date back to the 19th century and remain relevant today.  It's Michigan/Ohio State, Harvard/Yale, Auburn/Alabama, Averett/Ferrum.  (may be stretching it a bit on that last one.)

I'll put it this way.  When West Virginia knocks off Baylor in an epic Big 12 tilt (remember, they're the conference with 10 teams), to whom do their fan brag?  How many West Virginia fans come into contact with Baylor grads?  How does the casual West Virginia fan get excited over matchups with Iowa State, Kansas or Texas Tech?   If North Carolina flies the coop, how many of their fans will travel to Purdue or Rutgers?   If they win, what will they say to their die-hard Demon-Deacon co-workers?

During football season, on any given Sunday at my church, there are tons of light-hearted discussions on the previous days' football follies.  Virginia Tech fans lord over Duke supporters, Tar Heels rib Wake fans; Wahoos have their way with pack-backers.  And round and round it goes.  How much of this fellowship and interest will be lost if our respective teams routinely play conference games against teams a thousand miles away?

I understand the reason for the mass movement.  I like a dollar bill as much as the next guy.  Fox/ESPN/ABC and the like are flashing major dollars for their next television deals.  Their numbers gurus (falsely) assume that certain markets will bring in more revenue.  They're packaging these deals and holding cable TV providers hostage to carry those networks on their basic tier.

There are several problems with that, but I'll just focus on a couple.  First, markets do not equal viewers.  I'm sure the Big Ten wet themselves when they secured Rutgers, thinking they would get the coveted New York market.  Uh, no.  You don't.  Rutgers athletics is not even a blip on the Big Apple's radar.  Notre Dame gets more press in the New York Times.  They won't give the Big Ten (the one with 12 teams) the New York market any more than Boston College has brought the coveted Boston Market (the demographic, not the restaurant) to the ACC.

While advertisers may crunch faulty numbers and come up with outlandish TV deals for the next cycle, this will not be sustainable.  Casual fans interest in many of the marquee teams will wane as they play more and more games against unfamiliar opponents who are far, far away.  Folks also have more on-line viewing options than ever before.  Soon, cable providers will decide they will NOT be bullied into carrying conference networks that nobody is watching.

But the biggest damage is to college football's most precious commodity: tradition.  I don't want to live in a world where Texas doesn't play Texas A&M on Thanksgiving weekend.  Where Oklahoma and Nebraska's storied rivalry is relegated to the history books.  Coming soon, no more Duke/UNC basketball; at least not from an in-conference standpoint.  Is that the way to protect your product long-term?

Wake me up when this shit is over and tell me where the Hokies land.

Gunning For Freedom

OK, folks...so here's the deal.  I'm assured by my liberal colleagues that any legislation coming down the pike on gun control in the coming weeks will deal ONLY with so-called "assault weapons."  I am touched by the number of them who assure me they have no objections to handguns, shotguns low-powered rifles, etc.  Well that's a relief!

There are several potential pratfalls, though.  Number one---the definition of an "assault weapon."  I shiver at the prospect of people who sh*t their pants every time the word "gun" is mentioned, being charged with defining something that can be fairly complicated even for a gun enthusiast.  Sorta like having a life-long vegan determine what's a good cut of veal.

Secondly, we have evidence of the efficacy of an assault weapon ban.  In short, it didn't work.  All it did was drive up the cost of assault weapons.  Shockingly, criminals were still able to obtain them---in large numbers.   If only they would follow the law!!

There's the "camel's nose under the tent" argument.  It's a cliche---but its a cliche for a reason.  It is ALWAYS the way freedoms are diminished.  Thirty years ago, the thought of requiring restaurants to even have non-smoking sections was laughable.  After they were established, the move began to outlaw smoking all together.

Regardless of your stance on smoking in restaurants, the point is this.  Freedoms are rarely taken away in one fell swoop.  They erode over time as opportunists wear away opposition like waves lapping at a shoreline.  As long as people continue to get their Bread and Circuses, they are only too willing to go along.

And finally, there's this.  Mr. President and other Statists in Washington...WE DO NOT TRUST YOU.  You have proven yourself to be yet another slimeball politician instead of a leader.  You and your ilk are all-too-ready to take advantage of a tragedy to shift more of our basic decision-making power from our homes to Washington.   Have you EVER come up with a solution that would have resulted in less government oversight?  No.  Your default setting is to make as many decisions as possible for us---while providing the requisite amount of Bread and Circuses to placate the masses.

Fortunately, there remain enough of us for whom Bread and Circuses is NOT adequate sustenance.

Letting go...

I have an odd sense of pride about the number of friends I have left of the political center. Especially when one considers how far right I am on fiscal issues. I guess its as close as I'll ever come to being considered open-minded.

As I've tooled up and down my Facebook feed the past couple of days, my Democratic friends have been conspicuous in their silence. Oh, there are a few posts about "binders" "big birds" and the latest idiot GOP candidate to open his mouth on abortion. You know, the "important" stuff. They've had nothing to say about the mounting evidence that the Benghazi controversy is more than just a Presidential miscalculation.

As a sports fan since my childhood, I know a little bit about heroes. Mine growing up were the likes of Pete Maravich, David Thompson, Rod Carew, Hank Aaron, and Kenny Stabler...just to name a few. I worshiped them as only a child could...convinced they were incapable of error, and ready to pounce on anyone who suggested otherwise.

As I grew older I realized this was not the case. It slowly dawned upon me that---yes indeed---Pistol Pete and Skywalker could miss a shot. Hammerin' Hank and Sweet Rod could strike out. The Snake could throw an interception. It was a hard epiphany for a little boy, but I accepted it and moved on. I learned that those I admired on the field of play were like all men...both good and bad, sinner and saint, success and failure. That is as it should be.

I'm worried that some otherwise well-adjusted adults seem to have trouble coming to grips with the notion that their political and social hero is also a flawed man. Barack Obama was presented to the American public as a Demigod four years ago...a man capable of ending racism, cancer, global warming, and canker sores. Many took the bait and have yet to let go, despite an avalanche of evidence to the contrary. In fact, the latest evidence suggests very pronounced "flaws" in judgement.

I say this because I want to help. I know its hard to watch heroes fall. It's hard to see someone in whom you're so emotionally invested prove that he's mortal. Its a hell of a thing to have cold reality flung in your face. "If he could just get four more years, he'll show you!!" Much like I used to say, "If Stabler had two minutes he'd win the game!!"

What I'm saying is: its OK to let go. Its alright to admit that things didn't quite work out. No one will blame you if you look at the relationship four years in and decide that you're not where you want to be.

If I could accept my hero's flaws at age ten, you can sure as hell do it as an adult.

A nation of Katrina victims

The Sunday night before Hurricane Katrina hit in 2004, I spent most of the evening gathering as much information as I could on the storm.  Even though I didn't live in the line of fire, I knew that it would be a critical story for our FM station's news the next morning.  The warning bulletins from the usually-reserved National Weather Service were scary.  "Human suffering catastrophic by modern standards" was one that stood out.  It was clear we were dealing with a monster.

We all know what happened.  The storm hit.  The flood waters rose. People died.  Looting began.  Help arrived far too late for most people's taste.

When I saw the news coverage of the mass of humanity inside and outside the Superdome, I didn't see poor, helpless black people.  I saw a group of people that had been sold a bill of goods.  I saw people who had been trained like animals to rely on the state for their most basic needs.  I saw folks who had lived their entire lives under the auspices of bureaucrats---folks who were utterly incapable of helping themselves when the government they had relied on was suddenly not there.

People feel uncomfortable talking about things like this because the overwhelming majority of the victims were black.  We MUST get past this "soft racism."  Fear of making people angry or uncomfortable might be our biggest obstacle to coming up with real solutions to our most vexing social problems.

I find it curious that some on the extreme left claim GOP policy proposals would put blacks back in "slavery."  What is blind and complete dependence on the state, if not slavery?  Is it slavery when you are incapable of providing yourself with the necessities of life without The State stepping in?  Is it charity to assist a group of people to such a degree that they have to make virtually "no" decisions about their day-to-day lives?

At the risk of sounding alarmist and melodramatic, I fear this could be what's in store for the nation at large if we're not careful.  Under the worst case scenario, I see a nation populated by people whose lives are so closely intertwined with the Government that it is impossible to determine where one ends and the other begins.  I see a once-great country with people living in the equivalent of FEMA trailers, waiting for the next check to arrive in the mail.  That nightmare also includes a populace that throws up its hands and wails when disaster strikes---and the entity on which they've relied completely is suddenly unavailable.

A blank check from a nameless and faceless entity is NOT the answer!  Engagement is the answer.  We as Americans and Christians had better get off our collective asses and work directly with those in need.  Sitting back and letting The State handle it is cowardly, counter-productive, and will end up costing us more than we could ever imagine in terms of our liberty and individual freedom.

Wither a playoff...

My two cents on a College Football Playoff...worth every penny!   Unless it includes ONLY conference champions, I'm not interested.  

Yes, I realize that the SEC routinely has two or three of the top ten teams in the nation.   But limiting it to conference champions-only would create unprecedented excitement at the various conference championship games, which would become the equivalent of national quarterfinals.
Think of this scenario.   #1 Alabama and  #2 Florida square off for the SEC Championship.   If at-large teams are allowed into the National Playoff, the SEC Championship simply becomes at battle for seeding...much like every one of the major-conference basketball tournaments.  
Say what you will about the storied Duke-North Carolina rivalry in basketball, but their regular-season and conference tournament games are essentially for bragging rights only.   Both are going to make the NCAA tournament field each year.  The only question is will they be a one-two-or-three seed.

Because of this the ACC will NEVER be able to duplicate the excitement the conference tournament generated when only the winner advanced.   The much-ballyhooed 1974 title game between N.C. State and Maryland is remembered in large part because the loser was stuck in the NIT.  Now THAT'S pressure.
Whether you realize it or not, that "winner-takes-all" scenario is what makes college football so attractive.   It's why fans like me lose sleep over regular-season games that determine if you have a shot at the Crystal Football Trophy or the Music City Bowl Trophy.   A champions-only playoff maintains that pressure while giving us an undisputed National Champion.
I know the devil is in the details.  Will it be a four-team playoff or eight teams?   If it's conference champions only, then which conferences?   What about the existing bowl games...what role will they play?   Good questions, one and all.
But any playoff that allows at-large teams to play for the ultimate title will be a pale simulacrum of the existing system, and subject us to endless hours of arguing which at-large teams get hosed.   No thanks...the basketball tournament has that market cornered.

The 'ol Razzle-Dazzle

Its hard to pick my favorite part of the movie, "Chicago." There's Catherine Zeta-Jones mincing around in a short-dress and a too-cute bob haircut, announcing plans to "rouge her knees." That was nice. There's also Queen Latifah sexily reminding me, "When You're Good to Mama, Mama's Good to You." That's always encouraging.

The part I've been thinking about the most this week is Richard Gere's God-Awful attempt at singing. Don't get me wrong---Shatner's worse. But Gere's turn on "Razzle Dazzle" is reminding me too much of the modern political landscape.

I try my best to avoid social debates. Try as I might, I just can't give a tinker's dam about what someone does in their bedroom. I cannot make myself give two spits about someone's sexual orientation. So long as children and non-consent aren't involved, go for it. I have better things to think about.

Then along comes Sandra Fluke. Her portryal as an innocent law school student who has been denied contraception by the meanies at a Jesuit school would make Billy Flynn proud. Her insertion (no pun intended) into the national political debate is little more than highly-calculated bread and circuses.

When Fluke was denied a chance to speak before a Congressional panel on insurance coverage of contraception; she instead was invited to a "democrats-only" meeting to tell her sob story. The 30-year old woman who can afford a $50,000 a year Law School education complained about not having mandatory contraception coverage into in her health care plan; administered by a Jesuit school. Razzle-Dazzle, folks.

I guess I'm more disturbed that social conservatives would take the obvious bait. Those who are monomanical about abortion and contraception are not known for political restraint. They fell for it, hook line and sinker, and vaulted this obvious plant into the national consciousness. In doing so, they have doggedly kept social issues at the forefront of this Presidential campaign, in spite of the worst economy in over a generation. Way to go, guys.

If you think Fluke is an innocent victim of mean-'ol health insurance companies who refuse to pay for condoms; then I can't help you. Consider this. Less than two miles from Fluke's apartment is a Planned Parenthood chapter. You know, the place that gives away FREE CONDOMS!?!?

This is nothing more than an orchestrated attempt to bring social issues to the front of the table over economic policies. Democrats usually score points when the debate is over condoms, abortion, and reproductive rights. Republicans often win the debate over fiscal policy.

As an aside, I'm old enough to remember when condoms were kept behind the counters and cigarettes were sold out front. How far we've come. BREAD AND CIRCUSES FOR ALL MY FRIENDS!!!"

Penn State: Where do I begin?

This whole Penn State mess is a cautionary tale to any school, church, business, government entity, or civic group. Your instinctual reaction upon hearing bad news may be to circle the wagons, handle it in-house, minimize the PR damage and hope it fades away. That may work where the "bad news" is embezzlement, drunken photos, improper language, or something similar. Those things can be fixed. It does NOT apply when you see a grown man performing a sex act on a ten-year old boy. That cannot be "fixed."

It also underscores the difference between doing what is legal and what is right. I have no doubt Joe Paterno acted within the guidelines of Pennsylvania State Law. But doing the right thing means you sometimes have to get your hands dirty---move outside of you comfort zone---think about more than the here and now. It may mean NOT kicking it down the road.

There was a teacher convicted recently in Northern Virginia on multiple counts of abusing teenage boys. It turns out he had repeated this pattern for decades---including a stint in Danville where he hosted foreign exchange students. The investigation revealed that several school districts in Maryland knew something fishy was going on; but they forced him to resign rather than be prosecuted. They legally washed their hands of him, but allowed him to continue his nefarious career. It was 25 years later before a school district finally decided to do more than just pawn the problem off of someone else.

One of the things we're going to learn soon in his Penn State fiasco is how many young boys Jerry Sandusky abused since 2002, when Paterno was told of the shower incident. Every one of those subsequent offenses could have been avoided if Paterno, the Athletic Director, the School's President, SOMEONE; had simply taken the initiative and decided that protecting children was more important than protecting the school's brand name.

Politics as usual

Given my position as News Director of two area radio stations, I avoid public discussions of local political races. That seems a no-brainer. I have no compunctions about discussing national politics, political philosophy, political history, or much anything else for that matter---but I usually shy away from the local stuff to avoid the appearance of favoritism.

But after listening to the latest salvos fired in a high-profile political race, I feel compelled to throw in my two cents---and its worth every penny!

(R) Bill Stanley and (D) Roscoe Reynolds are locked in a tight and costly battle for the redrawn 20th District Senate Seat in Southside Virginia. In what was one of the worst cases of gerrymandering I have ever witnessed, the new district boundaries cut an irregular swath through out area. It looks like a Dragon's Head in front of an old Viking ship. See for yourself below.

The new lines prompted Stanley, who already represents Danville and Pittsylvania County in the State Senate, to move a few miles west to challenge Reynolds in the 20th. More of Stanley's current constituents reside in the 20th as opposed to his redrawn 19th district. Yes, I know its confusing. Keep up with me here.

Stanley's residency has been one of the talking points Reynolds has highlighted in his campaign. His latest ad takes Stanley to task for "abandoning" his current constituents to run in the new district. It takes quite the level of chutzpah to call this an abandonment, especially when more of Stanley's current constituents are in the 20th than in the 19th. Reynolds, it should be noted, voted in favor of the new district boundaries. If he has an issue with them, he needs look no further than the mirror to begin pointing fingers.

One is forced to wonder what Reynolds thinks about fellow Southside Democrat Ward Armstrong. Thanks to a Republican-brokered redistricting in the House of Delegates, Armstrong was drawn out of his seat. Most of his current constituents are in the Ninth District. Like Stanley, Armstrong moved a few miles west for the chance to keep representing as many of his current constituents as possible. Would Reynolds say that Armstrong is "abandoning" his current constituents? Smart money says "no."

Lest ye think I'm picking on Democrats only; here's another beef. In one of his retaliation ads, Stanley made the sharp political move of getting his mother to vouch for his residency. I would think "Mom" would have seriously credibility with most folks. But in the ad, she says, "If Bill promises to bring jobs to Southside, he'll bring jobs."

Unless Bill Stanley opens a business and begins hiring people, he will NOT "bring jobs to Southside." That's not what the government does. Government's role is to create the economic climate by which jobs can be created. Thinking that jobs come from government is incorrect and potentially disastrous.

This race is just a microcosm of the "politics as usual" that has led to the Tea Party, Occupy Wall Street, and a whole steaming stew of general frustration and dissatisfaction among the populace. I'm hesitant to blame either of the candidates, since their campaigns are being largely run by politicos from outside of our area. Those Washington and Richmond-based organizers know what works and what doesn't. Apparently what DOESN'T work is an honest debate, common sense, a frank discussion of the issues, and treating the electorate with respect.

Food for thought...

If the US Government was a family they would be making $58,000 a year, they spend $75,000 a year and are $327,000 dollars in credit card debt. They are currently proposing BIG spending cuts to reduce their spending to $72,000 a year.

Here's the math, folks. The U.S. takes in about $185 billion a month. Monthly liabilities for debt interest, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Prescription Drugs and Military and Federal Payroll total about $170 billion. If we default, it will be by political design rather than necessity.

Gotcha!!

Try to imagine this. You're a politician in the national spotlight. You've had three days of non-stop activities---speaking to people you've never seen, answering a myriad of questions that range from the ridiculous to the sublime. You've had countless microphones thrust in your face, you've eaten quick meals while hundreds of camera flashbulbs illuminate the room, you have not had a decent night's sleep in a little more than a week. At the end of the day, you mutter an inane answer to a question. The next day---GOTCHA!

It seems the only function of media today is to pester newsmakers, be they political or other in nature, until they FINALLY say something you can run with---something that makes headlines---something that makes for a great segue tease out of the commercial break.

One of my Virginia Tech Political Professors, Dr. Bob Denton, told us that everyone will say something stupid, if they talk enough. With the innumerable TV Cameras, Microphones, and Cell Phones waiting to record every politician's utterance; its a wonder it doesn't happen far more often.

As I read and hear the national media's breathless reporting today of Sarah Palin's gaffe on the history of Paul Revere, I am saddened. We are facing a 14 Trillion dollar debt, we have armies serving in hostile zones overseas, we are faced with critical decisions on entitlement spending and Palin makes the "A-Block" of every newscast?? And she's not even a Presidential Candidate!!

Lest ye think I am showing my conservative colors, I felt the exact same way when President Obama caught flak about signing the wrong date in the Palace Book in London last week---or when he misspoke about "57 states."

It would be wonderful if the same collective energy the national media devotes to making mountains out of molehills could be applied to raising the level of debate in this country about the stuff that actually matters. But that wouldn't sell nearly as well. Those of us offended by every hack who makes a lead story out of minor misstep should be more vocal. If not, this "Entertainment Tonight" brand of Gotcha Journalism will continue.