In January of 2005, former House speaker and possible Republican presidential candidate, Newt Gingrich, published a book titled "Winning the Future." Who would have thought that a president, one whose ideology could not be more diametrically opposed to Gingrich's, would then use that title as the theme of his State of the Union address just six years later? Yet that is exactly what happened this past Tuesday. In a 61-minute speech, President Barack Obama talked about his plan and his vision for how the United States can "win the future" and firmly establish ourselves once again as the dominant world superpower.
Honestly, Obama sounded more as if he was delivering a campaign speech in preparation for the 2012 election. The tone of the speech was positive and uplifting, no question about it. But it was very vague and did not offer any specifics of the president's plan to get from point a to point b. It was also too cheery, almost as if the president was in denial over the current economic crisis and unacceptably high unemployment levels. The word many pundits chose to use in describing him was "disconnected," as if he was living in his own little world in the ivory tower of the White House.
Though on the surface he may have given the impression that he was moving closer to the center in an attempt to reach across the aisle, his speech was merely socialism cleverly disguised. If you view the text in its entirety, then you soon realize that its major theme had to do with big government. To President Obama, big government is the answer, the panacea that can cure all of our society's ills. He wants the government to lead the way on education, information technology, biomedical research, and spreading high-speed passenger rail across the United States. Huh? High speed rail? Did he really say that?
Let's look at how the government has fared in "leading the way" and showing the private sector how it's done. First, there's the U.S. Postal Service. They posted an $8.5 billion loss in fiscal year 2010, and will now be forced to close 2,000 post offices around the country this year. In the meantime, FedEx and UPS continue to generate profits. Amtrak has lost $13 billion over the past decade. And our president wants to focus on building more high-speed trains? This is beyond my comprehension. What about public schools? Do you see them out-performing the privates on standardized tests? Please. If this is how our government is going to lead the way, then I for one have no desire to follow.
Will our president ever realize that some things, in fact many things, are better left to the private sector? Microsoft and Google have done just fine with information technology. Why would the government come out and say that they can do it better? Companies like the Biomedical Research Alliance of New York (BRANY) have made many advances in this field over the past year. So why would you want the government to interfere? Oh, I know. I get it now. The federal government has shown over time what a wonderful job it does managing Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, so now we should not only let them oversee healthcare, but information technology and biomedical research as well. Sure, go ahead. Makes perfect sense to me.
Throughout his speech, the president continually used the term "invest." We need to invest in education, high speed trains, etc., in order to get to where we need to be. Well, "invest" is just another word for "spend." Although he called for a spending freeze, he did not cease in advocating "investment" in these areas. So if I am to understand correctly, for every dollar we "invest," a dollar in another section of the budget will need to be cut. Fine. But the president did not give any specifics on where he would make cuts in order to "invest." Where's the plan, Mr. President? I'm not getting it. Moreover, is he not aware that throwing money at public schools will not improve the quality of education? We spend more per pupil in inner city schools than the suburbs, yet their performance consistently falls short. And no, it is not necessarily the result of the child's socioeconomic background. We have charter schools in inner cities that are performing very well and spending far less to educate their students than other public schools. It can be done, but increasing the amount of money you spend to educate public school children is not the answer.
Even worse is the fact that a spending freeze will accomplish almost nothing. Our national debt has grown to $14 trillion, and we are likely to meet the debt ceiling ($14.3 trillion) some time over the next month or two. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) just announced yesterday that this year's projected budget deficit is $1.3 trillion. So how is a freeze on spending going to help? Did the American people not send a clear message last November that they want spending cuts across the board? Right now, the Republicans are intent on looking for ways to cut over $2 trillion from the budget. Obama took a dig at them in his address when he said that making such deep cuts was like removing the engine from an airplane. Really, Mr. President? So what you're saying is that if we leave the airplane alone, it will keep flying? Well someone needs to inform you that the plane is actually about to crash, and that removing trillions of dollars worth of dead weight is the only way to keep it from doing so.
There's no question that the president's speech will have an emotional effect on several Americans. It will give them a warm, fuzzy feeling and make them more optimistic about our country's future. But even many of Obama's supporters saw right through what he said. The lack of details surrounding the budget and how we're going to be able to do everything the president promised remained a sticking point for politicians and voters alike. There was actually less applause during this State of the Union address than any other one during the past two decades. Some Democrats later said that they were left scratching their heads, almost in disbelief of what they had just heard. A focus group consisting of 26 people (13 Republicans and 13 Democrats) rated the speech as poor, and only 6 of the 13 Democrats said that they would vote for Obama in 2012.
As we begin the second half of President Obama's term, one thing is crystal clear to me. He has no intention of stepping back from his socialist philosophy and will continue to push for more spending and bigger government. He is either in denial or living in another world altogether. Clearly, he did not hear the message of the people in the mid-term elections and he will not abandon his plan to transform the very fabric of our society. As long as he is in office, he will do his best to convince us that government is the answer to everything, every question and every problem that currently exists in America. That is never going to change.
It will be interesting to see what happens with this year's budget. Clearly, the President and Republican-controlled House are far apart in what they intend to do. There's a wide chasm between a spending freeze and cutting $2 trillion, so one has to wonder where the two will meet along the continuum. We also have to accept the possibility of a government shutdown, something we haven't seen since 1995.
I can only hope and pray that we get our finances in order and regain our fiscal health. It is imperative that we do so if we are to retain our status as the world's superpower. China is hot on our tail, and they'd be more than happy to seize that title from us. But clearly more spending and bigger government is not the way to go. One major advantage we've always had over the Chinese is innovation/entrepreneurship. This is better left to the private sector, and the less the government intrudes, the better. Though the president's goal is admirable, his plan for attaining it is flawed and misguided. More spending and bigger government is not the way to win the future. Instead, it will lead us down the road to perdition.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Is Bankruptcy the Answer?
Those U.S. States which are currently mired in an epic fiscal crisis continue to be the talk of the town in Washington. I've discussed this issue at length in prior posts (see "Share the Debt?" and "Oh boy, Illinois!"). But now there are new developments that virtually obligate me to revisit the issue, developments that could forever change the future of public employee pensions and the municipal bond market.
As I've mentioned before, the prospects of a federal bailout for those states that run out of money is slim to none. Senator John McCain laughed in response to receiving that question in an interview on Fox News Channel. More recently, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Virginia) stated that under no circumstances will Congress consider a federal bailout for cash-strapped states. Also, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) offered the following assessment: "Should taxpayers in Indiana who have paid their bills on time, who have done their job fiscally be bailing out Californians who haven't? No. That's a moral hazard that we are not interested in creating."
Given the sentiment on Capitol Hill, what then are states like California, Illinois, New York, and New Jersey going to do if they reach a point where they can no longer pay their bills? The answer may lie in a controversial plan being discussed among several lawmakers that will allow these states to declare bankruptcy. Current bankruptcy law allows municipalities, but not states, to seek protection in federal bankruptcy court. Extending the same option to states will allow them to escape the crushing debts they have incurred as the result of excessive borrowing and spending. But is this really the best way to go?
There are strong advocates on both sides of the issue. House Republicans and Senators from both parties are interested in pursuing this option, with nudging from high-profile bankruptcy lawyers and even former House speaker, Newt Gingrich, a potential Republican presidential candidate. But they are treading very carefully, since it would be difficult to get a bill through Congress given the constitutional hurdles and the complexities of bankruptcy law. They are also cognizant of the fact that fears of even the discussion of such a law could make the states’ problems worse by discouraging investors.
On the other side, you have Democrats who are concerned about pensions for public employees and retirees, bond investors who fear that they'll wind up at the end of the line as unsecured creditors, and even former Bush adviser, Karl Rove. Allowing a state to declare bankruptcy will enable it to alter contractual obligations to public employees and retirees, dramatically decreasing their pensions. Thus it comes as no surprise that people like Charles M. Loveless, legislative director of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, are mounting a massive effort to lobby against it. Karl Rove has stated publicly that bankruptcy should not be considered until all other options have been exhausted. Rove believes that bankruptcy will make it much harder for states to borrow money because lenders will fear they might never get paid back.
Make no mistake about it; allowing the states to declare bankruptcy will have dire consequences for stakeholders. To understand this fully, look no further than the town of Prichard, Alabama. Prichard is the first known municipality in the United States to declare bankruptcy, having done so in 2009. As a result, they stopped sending pension checks to retirees. The town was sued, but to no avail. How can a court force a town to pay out pensions if there is no money to do so? That left almost 200 retirees with no income, but in some cases, a tragic outcome.
As I've mentioned before, the prospects of a federal bailout for those states that run out of money is slim to none. Senator John McCain laughed in response to receiving that question in an interview on Fox News Channel. More recently, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Virginia) stated that under no circumstances will Congress consider a federal bailout for cash-strapped states. Also, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) offered the following assessment: "Should taxpayers in Indiana who have paid their bills on time, who have done their job fiscally be bailing out Californians who haven't? No. That's a moral hazard that we are not interested in creating."
Given the sentiment on Capitol Hill, what then are states like California, Illinois, New York, and New Jersey going to do if they reach a point where they can no longer pay their bills? The answer may lie in a controversial plan being discussed among several lawmakers that will allow these states to declare bankruptcy. Current bankruptcy law allows municipalities, but not states, to seek protection in federal bankruptcy court. Extending the same option to states will allow them to escape the crushing debts they have incurred as the result of excessive borrowing and spending. But is this really the best way to go?
There are strong advocates on both sides of the issue. House Republicans and Senators from both parties are interested in pursuing this option, with nudging from high-profile bankruptcy lawyers and even former House speaker, Newt Gingrich, a potential Republican presidential candidate. But they are treading very carefully, since it would be difficult to get a bill through Congress given the constitutional hurdles and the complexities of bankruptcy law. They are also cognizant of the fact that fears of even the discussion of such a law could make the states’ problems worse by discouraging investors.
On the other side, you have Democrats who are concerned about pensions for public employees and retirees, bond investors who fear that they'll wind up at the end of the line as unsecured creditors, and even former Bush adviser, Karl Rove. Allowing a state to declare bankruptcy will enable it to alter contractual obligations to public employees and retirees, dramatically decreasing their pensions. Thus it comes as no surprise that people like Charles M. Loveless, legislative director of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, are mounting a massive effort to lobby against it. Karl Rove has stated publicly that bankruptcy should not be considered until all other options have been exhausted. Rove believes that bankruptcy will make it much harder for states to borrow money because lenders will fear they might never get paid back.
Make no mistake about it; allowing the states to declare bankruptcy will have dire consequences for stakeholders. To understand this fully, look no further than the town of Prichard, Alabama. Prichard is the first known municipality in the United States to declare bankruptcy, having done so in 2009. As a result, they stopped sending pension checks to retirees. The town was sued, but to no avail. How can a court force a town to pay out pensions if there is no money to do so? That left almost 200 retirees with no income, but in some cases, a tragic outcome.
Nettie Banks, 68, a retired Prichard police and fire dispatcher, was forced to file for bankruptcy herself. Alfred Arnold, a 66-year-old retired fire captain, had to return to work as a shopping mall security guard in an effort to keep his house. Eddie Ragland, 59, a retired police captain, accepted help from colleagues, bake sales and collection jars after he was shot by a robber, leaving him badly wounded and unable to get to his new job as a police officer at the regional airport. But far worse was the retired fire marshal who died in June. Like many of the others, he was too young to collect Social Security. “When they found him, he had no electricity and no running water in his house,” said David Anders, 58, a retired district fire chief. “He was a proud enough man that he wouldn’t accept help.”
Could this catastrophe occur on a grander scale? Does the situation in Prichard, Alabama offer a glimpse into the future for several U.S. states? If so, then prepare for descent into a maelstrom of uncertainty, crisis, and pandemonium. But there is still time to save the ship from sinking, though states will need to endure deep, painful budget cuts in order to do so. They'll have to sacrifice educational programs, employee benefits, state parks and recreation, and so many other things that state residents hold dear. Clearly, this route is the lesser of two evils, and one that governors will pursue if they have any common sense at all.
It continues to boggle my mind that public employees in New Jersey lash out at Governor Christie and secretly wish for his sudden and painful death. Do they not understand what is going on? How can it be that tens of thousands of people are so engrossed in their own needs and wants that they are completely oblivious to how close their state is to the verge of bankruptcy? Well, I've got news for them. If they don't get on board and start supporting the governor's agenda, then they could wind up like Nettie Banks, Alfred Arnold, Eddie Ragland, or worst of all, Prichard's retired fire marshal who died all alone in his home. In order to avoid going down this road, massive spending cuts and major concessions from the public employee unions will be necessary. In the end, let's hope and pray that sanity prevails so that New Jersey, as well as all the other cash-strapped states, doesn't suffer the same fate as Prichard.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
The New Holy Innocents
Over 2,000 years ago, a very tragic event occurred in the land of Judea. King Herod the Great, in response to an announcement by the magi that the "King of the Jews" had been born, ordered that all male infants in Bethlehem be executed. This event came to be known as the "Massacre of the Innocents," and the children who were killed came to be known as the "Holy Innocents." They are considered to be the first Christian martyrs, and were eventually canonized as saints by the Roman Catholic Church. Every year we celebrate their feast day on December 28th. I have developed a devotion to them over the course of my life, and often ask for their intercession, especially during trying times.
In this day and age, a new group of holy innocents has emerged. They are the many children who have been slaughtered through the horrific, but legal, act of abortion over the course of the last 38 years here in America. For it was on January 22, 1973, that the U.S. Supreme Court legalized abortion in the case of Roe vs. Wade. It was a controversial decision that dramatically changed the landscape of our country.
By now, we've all heard the arguments on both sides. The "pro-choice" activists (who I will more accurately refer to as "anti-life") claim that life does not begin until the moment we are born. A fetus is not a human being. "It" has no rights. "It" can be discarded like yesterday's trash. "It" is not entitled to life, liberty, and happiness like all other Americans. To the anti-life movement, abortion is not a social issue. It is a personal issue, one to be decided by a woman in consultation with her doctor. It's her body, and thus her choice.
For the life of me, I have never understood how someone can possibly believe this argument. When you see the graphic images of those children who have been murdered through abortions, how can someone deny that they are human beings? The anti-life movement would rather us not be able to view these images, or for pro-lifers to display them during peaceful protests. Why? Because ignorance is bliss.
Those of us who are pro-life know full well that life begins at conception. We need not say why, because God has already said it for us:
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations." (Jeremiah 1:5).
Thus Sacred Scripture tells us that God has a plan for us even before we are born. To destroy that life is to destroy God's plan, and to intentionally destroy God's plan is an evil act. Nothing can be more straightforward.
The anti-life argument that abortion is not a social issue is extremely short-sighted. To say that it doesn't have a direct effect on the moral compass of our nation is to deny the truth. To argue this point, I turn to two future saints: Pope John Paul II and Mother Teresa of Calcutta.
Pope John Paul II called our culture a "culture of death." To him, nothing epitomized this characterization more than the legalization of abortion. If we allow the most innocent human beings to be directly attacked and brutally murdered, then what message are we sending? Mother Teresa backed up the pope's argument by stating that a society which allows abortion will always be plagued by violent crime. How can you tell people not to kill each other in the streets when you are permitting them to kill innocent babies? Mother Teresa said that society will never be able to fully recover unless it first recognizes the grave evil that results from the acceptance of abortions.
There has been some progress in reversing this travesty, but not nearly enough to get to where we as a civilized society need to be. The ban on partial-birth abortions (abortions in the last trimester of pregnancy) is a small step, but it merely implies that life doesn't begin until a fetus reaches the age of six months. How can someone arbitrarily say that life begins at six months in the womb, or five months, or four months? It is completely illogical. Life is life, and it begins at the moment of conception.
What really upsets me about this issue is how the anti-life movement has managed to place the burden of proof on pro-lifers. Here's what I mean. The anti-lifers have basically said, "If you believe that life begins at conception, then prove it. Prove it beyond the shadow of a doubt." But why is that acceptable? Why is the burden of proof not on the anti-life movement, who should have been forced to prove beyond any doubts that life does not begin at conception? After all, they are the ones who are committing, or at least supporting, an act. When you act, you must be able to justify your actions. You must be able to give a legitimate reason for why you're doing what you're doing. But they have never been forced to do so, and that is a massive miscarriage of justice.
I have argued in previous blog posts that as America has drifted further and further away from God, and religion has become less and less a factor in our lives, the evil we see on a daily basis increases in both frequency and severity. Abortion is yet another perfect example of this. Look at what has led up to it. Is the lack of sexual morality not the major reason why abortion is so commonplace? When children were better instructed in faith and morals, unwanted pregnancies were extremely rare. As religion became less relevant and sexual morality less prevalent, the number of unwanted pregnancies exploded. Common sense should tell us that there would be no need for abortions if this casual attitude toward sex never developed.
One thing I want to make clear is that I am fully aware that having an abortion is rarely an easy decision for a woman. It must be especially hard if the woman is an innocent victim of rape or incest. But another fact that the anti-life movement has tried to sweep under the rug is that having an abortion can lead to extreme psychological and emotional distress. Many a woman has fallen into deep depression and suffered irreparable damage by going through with the decision to have an abortion. So while the decision itself can be excruciating, the act is often far more devastating than the woman could have ever imagined.
Several years ago, I did volunteer work at St. Joseph's Social Center in Elizabeth, New Jersey. They had a soup kitchen, collected clothes for the needy, and offered counseling services for substance abuse and women who were considering having an abortion. One day, I sat in on one of the counseling sessions and marveled at how one of the counselors convinced a young woman to carry her pregnancy to term. When the young woman left, I complimented the counselor and praised her for her uncanny insight. Only then did she tell me that she once had an abortion herself, and that the guilt was so overwhelming that it nearly drove her to commit suicide. Thus she had decided to dedicate her life to educating young women and preventing them from making the same mistake she did. I could never forget her story and how her voice resonated with the determination to help others make the right moral choice.
I still truly believe that one day, America will look back and realize the mistakes that led to her decline. Our leaders will save the ship before it sinks, by leading people back to God and back to having faith and morals. Once we get there, we as a nation will realize how horrible abortion is, and what a grave mistake it was to legalize it all the way back in 1973. The plaintiff in that case, Ms. Norma Jean McCorvey, has come full circle and now realizes that what she did was wrong. Just as she herself has realized the error of her ways and become a staunch pro-life advocate, so I believe that our entire country can one day do the same.
In this day and age, a new group of holy innocents has emerged. They are the many children who have been slaughtered through the horrific, but legal, act of abortion over the course of the last 38 years here in America. For it was on January 22, 1973, that the U.S. Supreme Court legalized abortion in the case of Roe vs. Wade. It was a controversial decision that dramatically changed the landscape of our country.
By now, we've all heard the arguments on both sides. The "pro-choice" activists (who I will more accurately refer to as "anti-life") claim that life does not begin until the moment we are born. A fetus is not a human being. "It" has no rights. "It" can be discarded like yesterday's trash. "It" is not entitled to life, liberty, and happiness like all other Americans. To the anti-life movement, abortion is not a social issue. It is a personal issue, one to be decided by a woman in consultation with her doctor. It's her body, and thus her choice.
For the life of me, I have never understood how someone can possibly believe this argument. When you see the graphic images of those children who have been murdered through abortions, how can someone deny that they are human beings? The anti-life movement would rather us not be able to view these images, or for pro-lifers to display them during peaceful protests. Why? Because ignorance is bliss.
Those of us who are pro-life know full well that life begins at conception. We need not say why, because God has already said it for us:
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations." (Jeremiah 1:5).
Thus Sacred Scripture tells us that God has a plan for us even before we are born. To destroy that life is to destroy God's plan, and to intentionally destroy God's plan is an evil act. Nothing can be more straightforward.
The anti-life argument that abortion is not a social issue is extremely short-sighted. To say that it doesn't have a direct effect on the moral compass of our nation is to deny the truth. To argue this point, I turn to two future saints: Pope John Paul II and Mother Teresa of Calcutta.
Pope John Paul II called our culture a "culture of death." To him, nothing epitomized this characterization more than the legalization of abortion. If we allow the most innocent human beings to be directly attacked and brutally murdered, then what message are we sending? Mother Teresa backed up the pope's argument by stating that a society which allows abortion will always be plagued by violent crime. How can you tell people not to kill each other in the streets when you are permitting them to kill innocent babies? Mother Teresa said that society will never be able to fully recover unless it first recognizes the grave evil that results from the acceptance of abortions.
There has been some progress in reversing this travesty, but not nearly enough to get to where we as a civilized society need to be. The ban on partial-birth abortions (abortions in the last trimester of pregnancy) is a small step, but it merely implies that life doesn't begin until a fetus reaches the age of six months. How can someone arbitrarily say that life begins at six months in the womb, or five months, or four months? It is completely illogical. Life is life, and it begins at the moment of conception.
What really upsets me about this issue is how the anti-life movement has managed to place the burden of proof on pro-lifers. Here's what I mean. The anti-lifers have basically said, "If you believe that life begins at conception, then prove it. Prove it beyond the shadow of a doubt." But why is that acceptable? Why is the burden of proof not on the anti-life movement, who should have been forced to prove beyond any doubts that life does not begin at conception? After all, they are the ones who are committing, or at least supporting, an act. When you act, you must be able to justify your actions. You must be able to give a legitimate reason for why you're doing what you're doing. But they have never been forced to do so, and that is a massive miscarriage of justice.
I have argued in previous blog posts that as America has drifted further and further away from God, and religion has become less and less a factor in our lives, the evil we see on a daily basis increases in both frequency and severity. Abortion is yet another perfect example of this. Look at what has led up to it. Is the lack of sexual morality not the major reason why abortion is so commonplace? When children were better instructed in faith and morals, unwanted pregnancies were extremely rare. As religion became less relevant and sexual morality less prevalent, the number of unwanted pregnancies exploded. Common sense should tell us that there would be no need for abortions if this casual attitude toward sex never developed.
One thing I want to make clear is that I am fully aware that having an abortion is rarely an easy decision for a woman. It must be especially hard if the woman is an innocent victim of rape or incest. But another fact that the anti-life movement has tried to sweep under the rug is that having an abortion can lead to extreme psychological and emotional distress. Many a woman has fallen into deep depression and suffered irreparable damage by going through with the decision to have an abortion. So while the decision itself can be excruciating, the act is often far more devastating than the woman could have ever imagined.
Several years ago, I did volunteer work at St. Joseph's Social Center in Elizabeth, New Jersey. They had a soup kitchen, collected clothes for the needy, and offered counseling services for substance abuse and women who were considering having an abortion. One day, I sat in on one of the counseling sessions and marveled at how one of the counselors convinced a young woman to carry her pregnancy to term. When the young woman left, I complimented the counselor and praised her for her uncanny insight. Only then did she tell me that she once had an abortion herself, and that the guilt was so overwhelming that it nearly drove her to commit suicide. Thus she had decided to dedicate her life to educating young women and preventing them from making the same mistake she did. I could never forget her story and how her voice resonated with the determination to help others make the right moral choice.
I still truly believe that one day, America will look back and realize the mistakes that led to her decline. Our leaders will save the ship before it sinks, by leading people back to God and back to having faith and morals. Once we get there, we as a nation will realize how horrible abortion is, and what a grave mistake it was to legalize it all the way back in 1973. The plaintiff in that case, Ms. Norma Jean McCorvey, has come full circle and now realizes that what she did was wrong. Just as she herself has realized the error of her ways and become a staunch pro-life advocate, so I believe that our entire country can one day do the same.
Friday, January 14, 2011
Playoffs? Let's Talk About...Playoffs!
Today, the second round of the NFL play-offs will begin with two intriguing match-ups. In the early game, the Steelers will host the Ravens in what is sure to be a knock-down, drag-out slobber-knocker. They'll be meeting for the third time this season after having split their two regular season contests. In the night game, the Green Bay Packers travel to Atlanta to take on the Falcons.
The Steelers and Ravens always match up well because they play very similar styles of football. Traditionally, both teams are known for hard-hitting, staunch defensive units that are extremely effective at stopping the run and causing turnovers. On the offensive side of the ball, neither team could ever be confused with San Diego's old "Air Coryell." They have always been run-first offenses bent on shoving the ball down their opponents' throats, then using it to set up the pass. Both of their match-ups this season were decided by three points, so it would be difficult to imagine this game not being close. Joe Flacco has never beaten Ben Roethlisberger head to head, but I think this is the game where he finally breaks through. He's been a bear on the road in the play-offs, and I think Jersey Joe will get it done at Pitt and keep the Ravens rolling.
If I were the Falcons, I'd be more than a little nervous. Yes, they had a great season and deserve to be the number one seed with homefield advantage throughout the NFC playoffs. The Dirty Birds have three great offensive players in Matt Ryan, Michael Turner, and Roddy White, each of whom can carry the team on their shoulders. I also have a lot of respect for an organization that cut ties with Michael Vick and moved on to draft a young player out of Boston College as their franchise quarterback. To me, it is very satisfying to see how well this situation has worked out for them, and I am very happy for Arthur Blank and the entire Falcons' organization.
But Green Bay comes into town as a VERY dangerous team. Everyone knew they had a lethal passing attack. Everyone knew they had play-makers on the defensive side of the ball, especially Clay Matthews and Charles Woodson. But after Ryan Grant went down for the season in week one, their rushing attack became anemic, even bordering on non-existent. That made them one dimensional, and thus it was a stretch for anyone to predict a deep playoff run for the Pack. Yet last week in Philadelphia, a young RB named James Starks stepped up and rushed 23 times for 123 yards. Starks didn't even play in the first eleven games, nor did he play in weeks 15 or 16. But he came through big-time when his team needed him most, and if he can do the same this week, then I believe the Packers will leave Atlanta with a win and an NFC Championship Game berth.
On Sunday, the Seahawks will make the trip to Soldier Field to take on the Bears. Sorry, Seattle fans, but do you really think a sub-.500 team belongs in the championship game? No way. The Bears will find a way to win this one and host the NFC Championship. It will seem like old times, and I mean very old, when the Packers roll into Chicago the following week. This rivalry has existed since 1921 and is currently the league's longest with the two teams having met each other a total of 181 times.When you think of all the great players who have participated in this rivalry, from Hutson to Sayers to Starr to Butkus to Payton to Favre, you could probably form an all-time NFL team from those players alone. Hopefully this one will also be a classic that only adds to the rich history between these two franchises. My prediction is that Green Bay will come out on top and complete the sweep of three road playoff wins to advance to the Super Bowl.
OK, now for the big one. The last game of the weekend will take place in Foxborough, MA, where the New York Jets will battle the New England Patriots. These teams faced each other just weeks ago, with the Pats laughing their way to a 45-3 rout. How then can the Jets possibly turn it around so soon and manage to get the upper hand this time? They can't. Sorry, Jet fans, but it's not going to happen. The J-E-T-S come into this game as 9-point underdogs, and with good reason. Regardless of what Rex Ryan may say, there is no way that this team can forget how badly they got destroyed on this same field just weeks before. Psychologically, it's virtually impossible.
In previewing the NY-NE match-up, I can't help but think of how another New York team upset the Pats in the post-season just three years ago. That would be the New York Giants, who defeated the 18-0 Patriots by a score of 17-14 in Super Bowl XLII. But I would argue that this situation was very different. I will never forget the last game of the 2007 regular season, when Coach Tom Coughlin made a conscious decision to play all of his starters in a home game against New England. The G-Men had nothing to gain. Their playoff seeding had already been determined, but Coughlin did not want to hand the Patriots an automatic win as they were striving to become the first 16-0 team in NFL history.
On the first play of that game, Eli Manning threw a long pass down the middle of the field to Plaxico Burress, who leaped over two Patriot defenders to come down with the reception. Right then and there, you knew it was going to be a game. And it was. The Giants hung tough with the Patriots all night, and even won the battle at the line of scrimmage. But New England won the war, and left the Meadowlands with a win to cement their place in history at 16-0.
In all my years of watching NFL football, I never saw a loss do so much for a team's confidence. Up to that point, the Giants could have been considered the worst 10-5 team ever. They looked lethargic, turned the ball over too many times, and were fading quickly down the stretch. But something happened in that game. Somehow, trading blows and standing tall against the league's best team gave them a burst of energy that transformed them into an entirely different team. Big Blue went on to win three play-off games on the road, at Tampa Bay, at Dallas, and on the frozen tundra of Lambeau Field. They earned a rematch with the Patriots in the Super Bowl, with many so-called "experts" not giving them a chance to win. But Giant fans knew better, because we saw how our team hung with them just weeks before. Why would anyone doubt that they could do so again?
When the Giants pulled off an incredible feat and ruined the Patriots' dreams of a perfect season, many NFL fans could not believe what they had witnessed. But again, you have to remember that the Giants had a psychological edge in that they had played the same team just weeks before and proved that they could match up well with them. Now if the Giants had lost that game, say 45-3, then there's no way that they pull off the upset in the Super Bowl. Coughlin's decision would have backfired in that his team would have known that they were not in the same league as New England. But in the end, the coach made the right call and deserved all the credit he received for leading the Giants to their third Super Bowl victory.
If the Jets had played well against New England last month, then I would say that they'd have a good chance of upsetting the Patriots at home. But given the severity of the beatdown, I don't see how the Jets can rebound. Sure they beat the Pats in their first meeting, but that was a long time ago. This last loss is still fresh in their minds, and they are not going to be able to overcome it. The Patriots will go on to host the AFC Championship against the Ravens, and will advance to the Super Bowl to face off with the Green Bay Packers in a rematch of Super Bowl XXXI. Should my prediction come true, I'll be rooting for Aaron Rodgers to bring another championship trophy to TitleTown, USA. As for wearing a cheese on my head, well...that's not gonna happen.
The Steelers and Ravens always match up well because they play very similar styles of football. Traditionally, both teams are known for hard-hitting, staunch defensive units that are extremely effective at stopping the run and causing turnovers. On the offensive side of the ball, neither team could ever be confused with San Diego's old "Air Coryell." They have always been run-first offenses bent on shoving the ball down their opponents' throats, then using it to set up the pass. Both of their match-ups this season were decided by three points, so it would be difficult to imagine this game not being close. Joe Flacco has never beaten Ben Roethlisberger head to head, but I think this is the game where he finally breaks through. He's been a bear on the road in the play-offs, and I think Jersey Joe will get it done at Pitt and keep the Ravens rolling.
If I were the Falcons, I'd be more than a little nervous. Yes, they had a great season and deserve to be the number one seed with homefield advantage throughout the NFC playoffs. The Dirty Birds have three great offensive players in Matt Ryan, Michael Turner, and Roddy White, each of whom can carry the team on their shoulders. I also have a lot of respect for an organization that cut ties with Michael Vick and moved on to draft a young player out of Boston College as their franchise quarterback. To me, it is very satisfying to see how well this situation has worked out for them, and I am very happy for Arthur Blank and the entire Falcons' organization.
But Green Bay comes into town as a VERY dangerous team. Everyone knew they had a lethal passing attack. Everyone knew they had play-makers on the defensive side of the ball, especially Clay Matthews and Charles Woodson. But after Ryan Grant went down for the season in week one, their rushing attack became anemic, even bordering on non-existent. That made them one dimensional, and thus it was a stretch for anyone to predict a deep playoff run for the Pack. Yet last week in Philadelphia, a young RB named James Starks stepped up and rushed 23 times for 123 yards. Starks didn't even play in the first eleven games, nor did he play in weeks 15 or 16. But he came through big-time when his team needed him most, and if he can do the same this week, then I believe the Packers will leave Atlanta with a win and an NFC Championship Game berth.
On Sunday, the Seahawks will make the trip to Soldier Field to take on the Bears. Sorry, Seattle fans, but do you really think a sub-.500 team belongs in the championship game? No way. The Bears will find a way to win this one and host the NFC Championship. It will seem like old times, and I mean very old, when the Packers roll into Chicago the following week. This rivalry has existed since 1921 and is currently the league's longest with the two teams having met each other a total of 181 times.When you think of all the great players who have participated in this rivalry, from Hutson to Sayers to Starr to Butkus to Payton to Favre, you could probably form an all-time NFL team from those players alone. Hopefully this one will also be a classic that only adds to the rich history between these two franchises. My prediction is that Green Bay will come out on top and complete the sweep of three road playoff wins to advance to the Super Bowl.
OK, now for the big one. The last game of the weekend will take place in Foxborough, MA, where the New York Jets will battle the New England Patriots. These teams faced each other just weeks ago, with the Pats laughing their way to a 45-3 rout. How then can the Jets possibly turn it around so soon and manage to get the upper hand this time? They can't. Sorry, Jet fans, but it's not going to happen. The J-E-T-S come into this game as 9-point underdogs, and with good reason. Regardless of what Rex Ryan may say, there is no way that this team can forget how badly they got destroyed on this same field just weeks before. Psychologically, it's virtually impossible.
In previewing the NY-NE match-up, I can't help but think of how another New York team upset the Pats in the post-season just three years ago. That would be the New York Giants, who defeated the 18-0 Patriots by a score of 17-14 in Super Bowl XLII. But I would argue that this situation was very different. I will never forget the last game of the 2007 regular season, when Coach Tom Coughlin made a conscious decision to play all of his starters in a home game against New England. The G-Men had nothing to gain. Their playoff seeding had already been determined, but Coughlin did not want to hand the Patriots an automatic win as they were striving to become the first 16-0 team in NFL history.
On the first play of that game, Eli Manning threw a long pass down the middle of the field to Plaxico Burress, who leaped over two Patriot defenders to come down with the reception. Right then and there, you knew it was going to be a game. And it was. The Giants hung tough with the Patriots all night, and even won the battle at the line of scrimmage. But New England won the war, and left the Meadowlands with a win to cement their place in history at 16-0.
In all my years of watching NFL football, I never saw a loss do so much for a team's confidence. Up to that point, the Giants could have been considered the worst 10-5 team ever. They looked lethargic, turned the ball over too many times, and were fading quickly down the stretch. But something happened in that game. Somehow, trading blows and standing tall against the league's best team gave them a burst of energy that transformed them into an entirely different team. Big Blue went on to win three play-off games on the road, at Tampa Bay, at Dallas, and on the frozen tundra of Lambeau Field. They earned a rematch with the Patriots in the Super Bowl, with many so-called "experts" not giving them a chance to win. But Giant fans knew better, because we saw how our team hung with them just weeks before. Why would anyone doubt that they could do so again?
When the Giants pulled off an incredible feat and ruined the Patriots' dreams of a perfect season, many NFL fans could not believe what they had witnessed. But again, you have to remember that the Giants had a psychological edge in that they had played the same team just weeks before and proved that they could match up well with them. Now if the Giants had lost that game, say 45-3, then there's no way that they pull off the upset in the Super Bowl. Coughlin's decision would have backfired in that his team would have known that they were not in the same league as New England. But in the end, the coach made the right call and deserved all the credit he received for leading the Giants to their third Super Bowl victory.
If the Jets had played well against New England last month, then I would say that they'd have a good chance of upsetting the Patriots at home. But given the severity of the beatdown, I don't see how the Jets can rebound. Sure they beat the Pats in their first meeting, but that was a long time ago. This last loss is still fresh in their minds, and they are not going to be able to overcome it. The Patriots will go on to host the AFC Championship against the Ravens, and will advance to the Super Bowl to face off with the Green Bay Packers in a rematch of Super Bowl XXXI. Should my prediction come true, I'll be rooting for Aaron Rodgers to bring another championship trophy to TitleTown, USA. As for wearing a cheese on my head, well...that's not gonna happen.
Lessons from Tucson
It has now been almost one week since Jared Lee Loughner opened fire at a Congress on Your Corner event in Tucson, Arizona. America suffered a national tragedy as six people were killed, including a federal judge and a nine year-old girl, and several others seriously injured, including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. In my view, there are many lessons to be learned as a result of this horrific crime and the events that have followed it.
The first lesson we need to learn is that more security is needed at public events where politicians are scheduled to appear. I fully understand that public officials want to make themselves accessible to their constituents, and it is quite admirable that so many of them fear losing touch with the needs of the people whom they serve. But in this day and age, you're asking for trouble if you allow the average citizen to have such close contact with leaders without being searched. I mentioned in my previous post that I was shocked at the lack of security when I attended Governor Christie's town hall meeting in Paramus. Given where I was seated, I could have pulled a gun and fired at least three shots before anyone could have stopped me. I appreciate the governor's position that he will not be motivated by fear, but there is a fine line between fear and imprudence. Having more security at these events is not only wise, it is obligatory if you really want to ensure the safety of everyone present.
The second lesson we have learned is that the liberal press will jump on every opportunity they have to demonize the conservative movement. The New York Times, MSNBC, and several other media outlets blamed pundits such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck for the shooting. They criticized the Tea Party, and they singled out Sarah Palin for the cross-hairs she had placed on a map to highlight districts where incumbent Democrats were vulnerable to defeat in the past election. This is a page straight out of Rahm Emanuel's playbook: let's take a tragedy and use it to our political advantage any way that we can. It is a despicable tactic that should be denounced by those on both the left and the right.
Next, we learned that the liberal media could not have been more wrong in their assertions. When the smoke cleared and the investigation proceeded, several interesting facts began to emerge. It was discovered that Jared Lee Loughner did not watch cable news, did not follow politics that closely, and was actually registered to vote as an independent. He was a pot-smoking, skull worshipping atheist who had read the Communist Manifesto. If you were going to demonize anyone over this incident, you'd then have to look to the atheists, drug addicts, and Communists. In the end, all the liberal media did was erode their credibility even further, if that is even possible.
Another lesson we learned is that a memorial service for a national tragedy, or any tragedy for that matter, should not be held on a college campus. I was disgusted by the rally-like atmosphere at the service, where students whooped and hollered and clapped their hands like they were at an Arizona Wildcats' sporting event. Later, it was revealed that the White House was stunned by this behavior and never expected it to happen. That's understandable, but what I can't comprehend is why something was not done about it. President Obama could have gone to the microphone, put up his hand, and simply said "Please." I think that one word would have sent the message needed to make the tone more appropriate for such a solemn occasion.
But I think the most important lesson we learned is that mental illness is an issue that needs to be at the forefront of our nation's agenda. The only reason that politics became associated with the tragedy is that both a congresswoman and federal judge were shot. President Obama can make calls to tone down the political rhetoric all that he wants, the reality is that it had nothing to do with the shooting. The real issue we need to discuss is how to combat mental illness in such a way so as to prevent such an incident from occurring yet again.
When you look at the statements given by Loughner's friends, former classmates, former teachers, etc., the profile of a mentally ill young man clearly emerges. From the bizarre things he said to the socially unacceptable stunts he pulled to his laughing out loud for no apparent reason, it is obvious that this is someone in dire need of psychological help. Yet he never received the help he so desperately needed. Why not? It is quite evident that he was not the type of person who was going to seek out help on his own. Someone needed to refer him, or even have him committed. But who?
We now know that Loughner had previous run-ins with the law. He was arrested at age 16 for underage possession of alcohol. He has also been arrested for possession of drug paraphernalia, and the police had been called several times to his home for domestic disturbances. As of right now, we don't know exactly what the domestic disturbances were about. But my guess would be that his parents feared him and that they were the ones who called the police on him for behavior that they deemed to be dangerous. I could be wrong, but that is my best guess based upon what we know so far.
Loughner attended Pima Community College, where both his classmates and teachers grew to fear him. They suspected that he might one day pull a gun on them, based on his bizarre statements and erratic conduct. He also had run-ins with the campus police there, often times because of his rudeness in the school library. In the end, the college decided to expel him.
So when we look back at this chain of events, we must ask whether anything could have been done along the line that might have prevented Loughner from carrying out his evil task. The local police knew his situation. His family was clearly aware that something was wrong. The college he attended knew that he had severe mental issues. Yet nothing was done, despite the fact that Arizona's criteria for having someone committed is less stringent than most other states.
And so, the final and most important lesson we need to learn from the Tucson tragedy is how families, schools, local police departments, and mental health professionals can work together to get people the psychological help they need. It is now estimated that over 25% of adults suffer from mental illness at some point during their lives. There is no telling what someone will do when they are severely depressed, having a manic or psychotic episode, or suffering from schizophrenia. Such people need treatment, whether through counseling, medication, or both. Looking back, it is very sad for me to think that these lives could have been saved if Loughner received the help he needed and simply took a pill once or twice a day. I hope that our federal and state governments will take a long hard look at this issue in light of what has happened. We need to come up with strategies to deal with this issue effectively, or at least effectively enough to prevent another Tucson-like tragedy from taking place.
The first lesson we need to learn is that more security is needed at public events where politicians are scheduled to appear. I fully understand that public officials want to make themselves accessible to their constituents, and it is quite admirable that so many of them fear losing touch with the needs of the people whom they serve. But in this day and age, you're asking for trouble if you allow the average citizen to have such close contact with leaders without being searched. I mentioned in my previous post that I was shocked at the lack of security when I attended Governor Christie's town hall meeting in Paramus. Given where I was seated, I could have pulled a gun and fired at least three shots before anyone could have stopped me. I appreciate the governor's position that he will not be motivated by fear, but there is a fine line between fear and imprudence. Having more security at these events is not only wise, it is obligatory if you really want to ensure the safety of everyone present.
The second lesson we have learned is that the liberal press will jump on every opportunity they have to demonize the conservative movement. The New York Times, MSNBC, and several other media outlets blamed pundits such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck for the shooting. They criticized the Tea Party, and they singled out Sarah Palin for the cross-hairs she had placed on a map to highlight districts where incumbent Democrats were vulnerable to defeat in the past election. This is a page straight out of Rahm Emanuel's playbook: let's take a tragedy and use it to our political advantage any way that we can. It is a despicable tactic that should be denounced by those on both the left and the right.
Next, we learned that the liberal media could not have been more wrong in their assertions. When the smoke cleared and the investigation proceeded, several interesting facts began to emerge. It was discovered that Jared Lee Loughner did not watch cable news, did not follow politics that closely, and was actually registered to vote as an independent. He was a pot-smoking, skull worshipping atheist who had read the Communist Manifesto. If you were going to demonize anyone over this incident, you'd then have to look to the atheists, drug addicts, and Communists. In the end, all the liberal media did was erode their credibility even further, if that is even possible.
Another lesson we learned is that a memorial service for a national tragedy, or any tragedy for that matter, should not be held on a college campus. I was disgusted by the rally-like atmosphere at the service, where students whooped and hollered and clapped their hands like they were at an Arizona Wildcats' sporting event. Later, it was revealed that the White House was stunned by this behavior and never expected it to happen. That's understandable, but what I can't comprehend is why something was not done about it. President Obama could have gone to the microphone, put up his hand, and simply said "Please." I think that one word would have sent the message needed to make the tone more appropriate for such a solemn occasion.
But I think the most important lesson we learned is that mental illness is an issue that needs to be at the forefront of our nation's agenda. The only reason that politics became associated with the tragedy is that both a congresswoman and federal judge were shot. President Obama can make calls to tone down the political rhetoric all that he wants, the reality is that it had nothing to do with the shooting. The real issue we need to discuss is how to combat mental illness in such a way so as to prevent such an incident from occurring yet again.
When you look at the statements given by Loughner's friends, former classmates, former teachers, etc., the profile of a mentally ill young man clearly emerges. From the bizarre things he said to the socially unacceptable stunts he pulled to his laughing out loud for no apparent reason, it is obvious that this is someone in dire need of psychological help. Yet he never received the help he so desperately needed. Why not? It is quite evident that he was not the type of person who was going to seek out help on his own. Someone needed to refer him, or even have him committed. But who?
We now know that Loughner had previous run-ins with the law. He was arrested at age 16 for underage possession of alcohol. He has also been arrested for possession of drug paraphernalia, and the police had been called several times to his home for domestic disturbances. As of right now, we don't know exactly what the domestic disturbances were about. But my guess would be that his parents feared him and that they were the ones who called the police on him for behavior that they deemed to be dangerous. I could be wrong, but that is my best guess based upon what we know so far.
Loughner attended Pima Community College, where both his classmates and teachers grew to fear him. They suspected that he might one day pull a gun on them, based on his bizarre statements and erratic conduct. He also had run-ins with the campus police there, often times because of his rudeness in the school library. In the end, the college decided to expel him.
So when we look back at this chain of events, we must ask whether anything could have been done along the line that might have prevented Loughner from carrying out his evil task. The local police knew his situation. His family was clearly aware that something was wrong. The college he attended knew that he had severe mental issues. Yet nothing was done, despite the fact that Arizona's criteria for having someone committed is less stringent than most other states.
And so, the final and most important lesson we need to learn from the Tucson tragedy is how families, schools, local police departments, and mental health professionals can work together to get people the psychological help they need. It is now estimated that over 25% of adults suffer from mental illness at some point during their lives. There is no telling what someone will do when they are severely depressed, having a manic or psychotic episode, or suffering from schizophrenia. Such people need treatment, whether through counseling, medication, or both. Looking back, it is very sad for me to think that these lives could have been saved if Loughner received the help he needed and simply took a pill once or twice a day. I hope that our federal and state governments will take a long hard look at this issue in light of what has happened. We need to come up with strategies to deal with this issue effectively, or at least effectively enough to prevent another Tucson-like tragedy from taking place.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
My First Town Hall
Today, I attended a town hall meeting with Governor Chris Christie at the Elks' Lodge in Paramus. This was my first time attending one of these events, so I wasn't quite sure what to expect. Needless to say, it turned out to be an interesting experience.
The first thing that really stood out to me was the lack of security. One would think that after what happened in Tucson, AZ this past week, security at the town hall would be super tight. I went there fully expecting to be patted down and/or scanned by a metal detector. But that didn't happen. Those who were attending simply walked right in and were immediately escorted to an open seat. To be quite frank, I found this a bit disconcerting. Governor Christie has incited some strong feelings, both good and bad, among his constituents during his first year in office, and he has been a lightning rod for both criticism and controversy. Thus I couldn't help but wonder why security at the event was so lax. I'm sure it has something to do with the costs involved, but it still boggles my mind. I guess you'd have to say that Gov. Christie is a very brave man!
It was advertised that doors would open at 10am, but they actually opened up much earlier than that. The governor walked in at approximately 10:40 to a rousing ovation. It was standing room only, and the event did in fact reach its maximum capacity, forcing authorities to turn some people away. By my estimations, there were approximately 300 people in attendance. All of the local politicians were there of course, and the governor acknowledged several of them when he came into the room.
He started the meeting by reiterating his talking points from the State of the State address last Tuesday. Governor Christie explained in detail why we need to continue to cut spending, how the pension fund is $54 billion in the red, and that the state employee health benefits fund is even worse off. The governor informed us that the average cost of health benefits for state employees is $22,000 per year. Employees themselves only cover $900 of that cost, with the state picking up the tab for the remaining $21,100. This is why the fund for health benefits is now over $60 billion in the red, and the governor emphasized that state employees need to contribute more to their health plans, both in the way of premiums and co-pays.
Governor Christie then spent a good 5-10 minutes discussing teacher tenure. He picked two women in the audience and asked their names. When the first one identified herself as Mary, he asked her to imagine that she was a teacher and he was her principal. The governor then played the part by pretending to have her in his office for her end-of-year evaluation. He told her what a wonderful job she did, how much her kids love her class, how well they've done with their grades and test scores, and how well-respected she is by the parents and her colleagues. For this, he said, you'll receive a pat on the back and a 4% raise for next year.
Then he turned to the second woman, whose name was Trish. He proceeded to tell Trish what a terrible job she had done over the past year. Her kids didn't enjoy being in her class, they performed poorly in their grades and on the standardized tests, several parents complained about her, and she's often the last one to report to work in the morning and the first one to leave. For that, the governor said, we'll give you a 4% raise.
The point he was making is that this is what happens when teachers have tenure. Those who deserve to be rewarded more get the short end of the stick, while those who deserve to be penalized and/or disciplined for poor performance actually get rewarded. The governor then said that he was more concerned about the Marys of the state than the Trishes. Why? Because they might become discouraged and start doing less and less, since they are not rewarded any more than their colleagues who don't work nearly as hard. They may even leave the state or leave the teaching profession altogether. Through tenure reform, the governor is hoping to keep the stars of the teaching profession (and he acknowledged that there are many), while dumping those who simply don't deserve to be in charge of educating our children. I thought he did an excellent job in getting this point across.
When it came time to take questions, I was amazed by how many hands went up. If I guessed correctly and there were roughly 300 people in the room, then at least 100 of them raised their hands. The governor proceeded to call on people, often picking those who stood out for one reason or another. One gentleman had on a bright multi-colored sweater, while a woman who got picked was wearing a scarf with a unique design. The governor called on another lady because she was wearing orange and blue. Later, he would state that his being a huge fan of the New York Mets influenced this decision. That was the only time during the entire meeting that he actually got booed. He then blamed it on the Yankee fans and showed his sense of humor by calling his team a bunch of sad sacks. "Why would you boo us? You've got 27 championships. What do we have? I think we might even already be mathematically eliminated for the 2011 season!" he said to rousing laughter and applause.
In all, I would say that he took seven or eight questions. Most of them had to do with personal situations. It just so happened that of the very few who had the opportunity to address the governor, two of them were mothers of autistic children. Obviously, they expressed concerns over the possibility of cuts being made to special education, and the governor assured them that education for autistic children was one area that would not be cut. Another lady expressed discontent that she had a house built and was trying for months to get her certificate of occupancy. His staff took her contact information and promised to help her. Yet another had been trying to reach the state controller's office for four months. Governor Christie asked her is she was a betting woman. When she said no, he responded, "Well rest assured, you can safely bet that you'll get a response now!" His staff took her contact information as well.
By about ten minutes after noon, the governor expressed his regret that he would now have to leave and could no longer take questions. As you might guess, there was a collective sigh among the audience, and he responded by saying, "Hey, what are you all upset about? I actually have to go back to Trenton." He clearly meant that while he had to go and deal with the angry politicians and massive problems that were awaiting him, we would get to return to the comfort of our homes.
Overall, I was impressed by the governor's candor, the fact that he was able to articulate his positions clearly, and his ability to think on his feet. I thought there were a couple of obscure questions that might catch him off guard, but he took them in stride and offered up an intelligent response without the least bit of hesitation. What surprised me the most about him was his sense of humor. When you view the bombastic manner with which he confronts his attackers in all of those YouTube videos, one would hardly imagine that a softer side of him could possibly exist. But he drew laughs from the audience on several occasions, and shared a couple of personal stories as well that gave us a great deal of insight into who this man really is and where he comes from.
I would definitely attend another town hall meeting with the governor if the opportunity presented itself. I was disappointed that I did not get the chance to address him though. With the report of his task force on higher education being released this past week, the timing was perfect for me to share my experiences from my ten years as a university administrator. I felt I had something to offer, but in the end it was not to be. Maybe next time.
The first thing that really stood out to me was the lack of security. One would think that after what happened in Tucson, AZ this past week, security at the town hall would be super tight. I went there fully expecting to be patted down and/or scanned by a metal detector. But that didn't happen. Those who were attending simply walked right in and were immediately escorted to an open seat. To be quite frank, I found this a bit disconcerting. Governor Christie has incited some strong feelings, both good and bad, among his constituents during his first year in office, and he has been a lightning rod for both criticism and controversy. Thus I couldn't help but wonder why security at the event was so lax. I'm sure it has something to do with the costs involved, but it still boggles my mind. I guess you'd have to say that Gov. Christie is a very brave man!
It was advertised that doors would open at 10am, but they actually opened up much earlier than that. The governor walked in at approximately 10:40 to a rousing ovation. It was standing room only, and the event did in fact reach its maximum capacity, forcing authorities to turn some people away. By my estimations, there were approximately 300 people in attendance. All of the local politicians were there of course, and the governor acknowledged several of them when he came into the room.
He started the meeting by reiterating his talking points from the State of the State address last Tuesday. Governor Christie explained in detail why we need to continue to cut spending, how the pension fund is $54 billion in the red, and that the state employee health benefits fund is even worse off. The governor informed us that the average cost of health benefits for state employees is $22,000 per year. Employees themselves only cover $900 of that cost, with the state picking up the tab for the remaining $21,100. This is why the fund for health benefits is now over $60 billion in the red, and the governor emphasized that state employees need to contribute more to their health plans, both in the way of premiums and co-pays.
Governor Christie then spent a good 5-10 minutes discussing teacher tenure. He picked two women in the audience and asked their names. When the first one identified herself as Mary, he asked her to imagine that she was a teacher and he was her principal. The governor then played the part by pretending to have her in his office for her end-of-year evaluation. He told her what a wonderful job she did, how much her kids love her class, how well they've done with their grades and test scores, and how well-respected she is by the parents and her colleagues. For this, he said, you'll receive a pat on the back and a 4% raise for next year.
Then he turned to the second woman, whose name was Trish. He proceeded to tell Trish what a terrible job she had done over the past year. Her kids didn't enjoy being in her class, they performed poorly in their grades and on the standardized tests, several parents complained about her, and she's often the last one to report to work in the morning and the first one to leave. For that, the governor said, we'll give you a 4% raise.
The point he was making is that this is what happens when teachers have tenure. Those who deserve to be rewarded more get the short end of the stick, while those who deserve to be penalized and/or disciplined for poor performance actually get rewarded. The governor then said that he was more concerned about the Marys of the state than the Trishes. Why? Because they might become discouraged and start doing less and less, since they are not rewarded any more than their colleagues who don't work nearly as hard. They may even leave the state or leave the teaching profession altogether. Through tenure reform, the governor is hoping to keep the stars of the teaching profession (and he acknowledged that there are many), while dumping those who simply don't deserve to be in charge of educating our children. I thought he did an excellent job in getting this point across.
When it came time to take questions, I was amazed by how many hands went up. If I guessed correctly and there were roughly 300 people in the room, then at least 100 of them raised their hands. The governor proceeded to call on people, often picking those who stood out for one reason or another. One gentleman had on a bright multi-colored sweater, while a woman who got picked was wearing a scarf with a unique design. The governor called on another lady because she was wearing orange and blue. Later, he would state that his being a huge fan of the New York Mets influenced this decision. That was the only time during the entire meeting that he actually got booed. He then blamed it on the Yankee fans and showed his sense of humor by calling his team a bunch of sad sacks. "Why would you boo us? You've got 27 championships. What do we have? I think we might even already be mathematically eliminated for the 2011 season!" he said to rousing laughter and applause.
In all, I would say that he took seven or eight questions. Most of them had to do with personal situations. It just so happened that of the very few who had the opportunity to address the governor, two of them were mothers of autistic children. Obviously, they expressed concerns over the possibility of cuts being made to special education, and the governor assured them that education for autistic children was one area that would not be cut. Another lady expressed discontent that she had a house built and was trying for months to get her certificate of occupancy. His staff took her contact information and promised to help her. Yet another had been trying to reach the state controller's office for four months. Governor Christie asked her is she was a betting woman. When she said no, he responded, "Well rest assured, you can safely bet that you'll get a response now!" His staff took her contact information as well.
By about ten minutes after noon, the governor expressed his regret that he would now have to leave and could no longer take questions. As you might guess, there was a collective sigh among the audience, and he responded by saying, "Hey, what are you all upset about? I actually have to go back to Trenton." He clearly meant that while he had to go and deal with the angry politicians and massive problems that were awaiting him, we would get to return to the comfort of our homes.
Overall, I was impressed by the governor's candor, the fact that he was able to articulate his positions clearly, and his ability to think on his feet. I thought there were a couple of obscure questions that might catch him off guard, but he took them in stride and offered up an intelligent response without the least bit of hesitation. What surprised me the most about him was his sense of humor. When you view the bombastic manner with which he confronts his attackers in all of those YouTube videos, one would hardly imagine that a softer side of him could possibly exist. But he drew laughs from the audience on several occasions, and shared a couple of personal stories as well that gave us a great deal of insight into who this man really is and where he comes from.
I would definitely attend another town hall meeting with the governor if the opportunity presented itself. I was disappointed that I did not get the chance to address him though. With the report of his task force on higher education being released this past week, the timing was perfect for me to share my experiences from my ten years as a university administrator. I felt I had something to offer, but in the end it was not to be. Maybe next time.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Oh boy, Illinois!
In previous posts, I've discussed the dire financial situation in many of our states. I also pointed out the four states that are in the most trouble, namely California, Illinois, New York, and New Jersey. Well yesterday, one of those states took a drastic step to close their monumental budget gap. In Illinois, state lawmakers worked overnight to pass a 66% increase in the rate of personal income tax, from 3% to 5%. They also increased the corporate tax from 4.8% to 7%. They worked to push it through as the lame duck session expires, since Republican gains in the legislature would have made it impossible to pass. In the end, the tax hikes passed by the bare minimum majorities of 60-57 in the House and 30-29 in the Senate.
What a disgrace. For the life of me, I cannot begin to comprehend what these politicians were thinking. Did they not get the message from voters on 11/2/10? Are they even listening? Essentially they're telling the taxpayers, "Due to the way we've mismanaged and overspent our funds over the past several years, we now have to take more of your money." They're treating their constituents like pack animals, putting the burden on their backs and stacking it higher and higher to see just how much they can carry. It is absolutely disgusting.
In this economy, what do they think will happen as a result of these tax increases? People are already spending less, so will they spend more now that they'll be paying $1,666 in taxes for every $1,000 they paid last year? Will people want to move to Illinois now that the tax rate has increased, or do you think more will leave? Will businesses be flocking there to pay a 7% tax rate, or will more businesses consider moving out of state? Of those businesses that stay, will they hire more workers or hire less? The answers to these questions are so obvious that I need not address them.
What's even more disturbing is that the legislature claimed that the tax cuts are only temporary. Sure, and maybe the Cubs will win the World Series this year too. Please. That statement is as disingenuous as they come. Everybody in the Illinois Statehouse knows that these tax hikes will become permanent eventually.
As House Minority Leader Tom Cross, R-Oswego, said, "It's a cruel hoax to play on citizens to say this is temporary."
Illinois Governor Pat Quinn actually defended the massive tax increase and vowed to sign them into law as soon as they reach his desk. He is in complete denial, dismissing the notion that the increase in corporate taxes will decimate businesses. Like his fellow Democrats in the legislature, he feels entitled to take more money from the people he serves to solve the state's budget woes. Just another tax and spend liberal who believes that the money we make belongs to them, not to us.
Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey has been a polarizing figure during his first year in office, but I would pose a question to those who are so against his determination to balance the budget by cutting spending. Would you really prefer to live in a state that doesn't think twice about raising the income tax level by 66%? Do you want to live in a state that drives out businesses and decimates their hiring practices by increasing the corporate tax from 4.8% to 7%? I don't see how anyone can answer "yes" to either of these questions. But if you did, then do yourself a favor. Move to Illinois, because such massive tax increases will not be instituted under Christie's watch.
I'm very interested to see what comes of the tax hikes in Illinois. I'll be following the situation closely to see if businesses leave, if hiring goes down, if unemployment goes up, etc. My prediction is that the Democrats will rue the day they pulled this political stunt in the dead of night, ramming it through the lame duck session before more Republicans could take office. They'll live to regret it, and pay the ultimate price for ignoring the message of the voters. They say that the only two sure things in life are death and taxes. But come next election, the Democrats in Illinois will find out that those two things are one and the same.
What a disgrace. For the life of me, I cannot begin to comprehend what these politicians were thinking. Did they not get the message from voters on 11/2/10? Are they even listening? Essentially they're telling the taxpayers, "Due to the way we've mismanaged and overspent our funds over the past several years, we now have to take more of your money." They're treating their constituents like pack animals, putting the burden on their backs and stacking it higher and higher to see just how much they can carry. It is absolutely disgusting.
In this economy, what do they think will happen as a result of these tax increases? People are already spending less, so will they spend more now that they'll be paying $1,666 in taxes for every $1,000 they paid last year? Will people want to move to Illinois now that the tax rate has increased, or do you think more will leave? Will businesses be flocking there to pay a 7% tax rate, or will more businesses consider moving out of state? Of those businesses that stay, will they hire more workers or hire less? The answers to these questions are so obvious that I need not address them.
What's even more disturbing is that the legislature claimed that the tax cuts are only temporary. Sure, and maybe the Cubs will win the World Series this year too. Please. That statement is as disingenuous as they come. Everybody in the Illinois Statehouse knows that these tax hikes will become permanent eventually.
As House Minority Leader Tom Cross, R-Oswego, said, "It's a cruel hoax to play on citizens to say this is temporary."
Illinois Governor Pat Quinn actually defended the massive tax increase and vowed to sign them into law as soon as they reach his desk. He is in complete denial, dismissing the notion that the increase in corporate taxes will decimate businesses. Like his fellow Democrats in the legislature, he feels entitled to take more money from the people he serves to solve the state's budget woes. Just another tax and spend liberal who believes that the money we make belongs to them, not to us.
Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey has been a polarizing figure during his first year in office, but I would pose a question to those who are so against his determination to balance the budget by cutting spending. Would you really prefer to live in a state that doesn't think twice about raising the income tax level by 66%? Do you want to live in a state that drives out businesses and decimates their hiring practices by increasing the corporate tax from 4.8% to 7%? I don't see how anyone can answer "yes" to either of these questions. But if you did, then do yourself a favor. Move to Illinois, because such massive tax increases will not be instituted under Christie's watch.
I'm very interested to see what comes of the tax hikes in Illinois. I'll be following the situation closely to see if businesses leave, if hiring goes down, if unemployment goes up, etc. My prediction is that the Democrats will rue the day they pulled this political stunt in the dead of night, ramming it through the lame duck session before more Republicans could take office. They'll live to regret it, and pay the ultimate price for ignoring the message of the voters. They say that the only two sure things in life are death and taxes. But come next election, the Democrats in Illinois will find out that those two things are one and the same.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Westboro Worships a Different God
As we prepare to bury the victims of Saturday's tragic shooting in Tucson, most Americans, decent people that we are, will stand with the grieving families and offer our prayers and support. Most, not all. For once again, members of the Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church will be protesting at the funerals of the victims. They'll be carrying signs, such as "God Hates You" and "Destruction is Imminent," and shouting all kinds of hateful remarks about how America deserves to suffer because we've distanced ourselves from God.
The Westboro Baptist Church has gained notoriety over the past several years by holding demonstrations at the funerals of soldiers killed in the wars of Iraq and Afghanistan. Many of those soldiers died as the result of an improvised explosive device (IED). Thus the church's members are known to carry signs saying, "Thank God for IEDs." They truly believe that God is punishing America for its sins, mostly for being accepting of homosexuals. Though they have also mentioned the evils of abortion and divorce from time to time as well.
So now that they have decided to show up in Tucson, apparently they also believe that the shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, was some sort of messenger from God. They view the victims of the shooting as being deserving of what they got, and all those who grieve as being deserving of their suffering. It is a warped view of a God who is all-loving, all-merciful, and incapable of violating His nature by inflicting harm.
Before going any further, allow me to state that I am a devout Catholic. I believe that abortion is an intrinsically evil act, and I am opposed to divorce. I also believe that homosexual behavior is sinful, and that homosexuality in and of itself is a grave disorder. This is what my faith teaches me, and this is what I believe.
That being said, there is no way that I or any other good Christian could possibly embrace the doctrine being preached at Westboro Baptist Church. In one of my previous blog posts, I discussed how America has been slowly but surely distancing itself from God for decades now. I also showed in that post how disastrous the results have been, using our public schools as a measuring stick. But it is paramount that we all understand what this really means. It means that we are making conscious choices that have dire consequences. It does not mean that God is somehow punishing the human race, hurling down lightning bolts at those who decide to cross Him.
There is an explanation as to why so many of our soldiers have been killed by IEDs. There is an explanation as to why the victims in Tucson were brutally murdered last Saturday. There is in fact an explanation for every evil act that has ever been committed in the history of the world. This explanation is simple, yet profound, and it was expounded by Saint Augustine over 1500 years ago when he addressed "the problem of evil."
The question has been asked many times. If our God is all-good, then why does evil exist? Evil, states Augustine, is a direct consequence of free will. When God created man, He endowed him with free will. In my view, this was done in order to allow for true love to exist. Love, by its very nature, must be a free act. God could have created a race of automatons who simply did what He told them to do. But if He had, then love would have been an impossibility. And so we were given free will, and thus we have the freedom to make our own choices as we go through life. We can draw closer to God, or distance ourselves from Him. We can believe in Him, or reject Him completely. We can choose to do good and abide by His will, or we can choose to perform evil acts with catastrophic results. In the end, it's all up to us.
So let there be no doubt as to why our soldiers die, and as to why those innocent people in Tucson were shot. These things happen because people make the choice to carry out evil acts and harm their fellow man. God isn't the one who kills our soldiers. Terrorists do. God is not the one who carried out the shooting in Tucson. Jared Lee Loughner did. Westboro Baptist Church has it all wrong. God is all-good, and thus incapable of evil. He does not punish us. Rather, we punish ourselves and others by making bad choices and carrying out sinful acts. It is particularly tragic when innocent people are harmed or even killed as a direct result of another person's conscious decision to do evil. But such is the consequence of free will. It is the only way true love can exist, and at the same time it is the only way that evil can exist.
As I write this post, the good people of Tucson have united and are preparing for Westboro's funeral protests. Dozens of volunteers are making "angels' wings" approximately eight to ten feet in length. They will wear these wings in order to shield the protesters from those who come to mourn the victims. Several others will form a wall by locking arms, and bikers have even vowed to cordon off the families from the protesters. Earlier today, Arizona state lawmakers approved emergency legislation that would order protesters to stay at least 300 feet away from the funeral. The bill passed unanimously in the House and the Senate, and is now headed to Gov. Jan Brewer for her expected signature.
The Westboro Baptist Church has gained notoriety over the past several years by holding demonstrations at the funerals of soldiers killed in the wars of Iraq and Afghanistan. Many of those soldiers died as the result of an improvised explosive device (IED). Thus the church's members are known to carry signs saying, "Thank God for IEDs." They truly believe that God is punishing America for its sins, mostly for being accepting of homosexuals. Though they have also mentioned the evils of abortion and divorce from time to time as well.
So now that they have decided to show up in Tucson, apparently they also believe that the shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, was some sort of messenger from God. They view the victims of the shooting as being deserving of what they got, and all those who grieve as being deserving of their suffering. It is a warped view of a God who is all-loving, all-merciful, and incapable of violating His nature by inflicting harm.
Before going any further, allow me to state that I am a devout Catholic. I believe that abortion is an intrinsically evil act, and I am opposed to divorce. I also believe that homosexual behavior is sinful, and that homosexuality in and of itself is a grave disorder. This is what my faith teaches me, and this is what I believe.
That being said, there is no way that I or any other good Christian could possibly embrace the doctrine being preached at Westboro Baptist Church. In one of my previous blog posts, I discussed how America has been slowly but surely distancing itself from God for decades now. I also showed in that post how disastrous the results have been, using our public schools as a measuring stick. But it is paramount that we all understand what this really means. It means that we are making conscious choices that have dire consequences. It does not mean that God is somehow punishing the human race, hurling down lightning bolts at those who decide to cross Him.
There is an explanation as to why so many of our soldiers have been killed by IEDs. There is an explanation as to why the victims in Tucson were brutally murdered last Saturday. There is in fact an explanation for every evil act that has ever been committed in the history of the world. This explanation is simple, yet profound, and it was expounded by Saint Augustine over 1500 years ago when he addressed "the problem of evil."
The question has been asked many times. If our God is all-good, then why does evil exist? Evil, states Augustine, is a direct consequence of free will. When God created man, He endowed him with free will. In my view, this was done in order to allow for true love to exist. Love, by its very nature, must be a free act. God could have created a race of automatons who simply did what He told them to do. But if He had, then love would have been an impossibility. And so we were given free will, and thus we have the freedom to make our own choices as we go through life. We can draw closer to God, or distance ourselves from Him. We can believe in Him, or reject Him completely. We can choose to do good and abide by His will, or we can choose to perform evil acts with catastrophic results. In the end, it's all up to us.
So let there be no doubt as to why our soldiers die, and as to why those innocent people in Tucson were shot. These things happen because people make the choice to carry out evil acts and harm their fellow man. God isn't the one who kills our soldiers. Terrorists do. God is not the one who carried out the shooting in Tucson. Jared Lee Loughner did. Westboro Baptist Church has it all wrong. God is all-good, and thus incapable of evil. He does not punish us. Rather, we punish ourselves and others by making bad choices and carrying out sinful acts. It is particularly tragic when innocent people are harmed or even killed as a direct result of another person's conscious decision to do evil. But such is the consequence of free will. It is the only way true love can exist, and at the same time it is the only way that evil can exist.
As I write this post, the good people of Tucson have united and are preparing for Westboro's funeral protests. Dozens of volunteers are making "angels' wings" approximately eight to ten feet in length. They will wear these wings in order to shield the protesters from those who come to mourn the victims. Several others will form a wall by locking arms, and bikers have even vowed to cordon off the families from the protesters. Earlier today, Arizona state lawmakers approved emergency legislation that would order protesters to stay at least 300 feet away from the funeral. The bill passed unanimously in the House and the Senate, and is now headed to Gov. Jan Brewer for her expected signature.
Lats fall, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a case brought against Westboro Baptist Church by the father of a soldier killed in Iraq whose funeral was protested by the group in 2006. The father, Albert Snyder, had won a multimillion-dollar verdict against the church, claiming invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court is expected to issue a ruling soon on whether free speech can be curbed at specific locations and events. I am hoping that the court does the right thing and rules in favor of Mr. Snyder. It may be too late for him, but it's not too late to save others from enduring such hateful remarks at the most solemn time of their lives: when they're burying a loved one and saying their final good-byes.
What may well trouble me more than anything else is the fact that many people who are not religious, struggle with their faith, or flat out don't believe in God will point to this and say "Ah ha!" They will dismiss all of Christianity because of the twisted philosophy of a small Kansas-based church whose congregation is mostly comprised of the pastor's extended family. That may well be the gravest injustice of all, that Westboro Baptist is misrepresenting our God, our faith, and everything we stand for as Christians. I suppose the rest of us can only do what we can to live our faith and show the world what it means to worship a God who is all-good and all-loving. Through this post, I hope that maybe I can reach someone, even if it's just one soul, who might otherwise have thought less of Christianity because of the abhorrent actions of Westboro Baptist.
But as atrocious as Westboro's planned protests are, this is not a time to channel our energy toward hatred. It is a time to mourn the victims, to stand with the families who have suffered such terrible loss, and to give them our prayers and support. Let us pray for them, and let us pray that the Supreme Court does the right thing by ruling against Westboro Baptist. If they do, then the funeral protests will finally come to an end, and we may well never hear the name "Westboro Baptist" in the press again. Unless, of course, a group of people decide to picket them, holding signs that say, "Thank God for the Supreme Court."
Monday, January 10, 2011
Bowling for Dollars
Tonight, the two top ranked college football teams in the country, the Auburn Tigers and the Oregon Fighting Ducks, are facing off in the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) Title Game. The winner of this game will be crowned as college football's 2010-11 national champion. Both teams have had terrific seasons, both have accomplished amazing things in their respective conferences, and both are to be commended for getting this far. But whether these teams deserve to be playing in the title game is a question that I honestly can't answer. You see, they're here because of a complex computer program that takes into account all kinds of polls and factors in several mathematical models. To this day, I'm not even sure that anyone knows how it really works. Yet, this is the system that the Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) uses to determine which two teams get to play for the national championship. Does it seem a bit shady? Could it be perceived as unfair? Could you see why this process might be viewed by some as questionable? If you answered "yes" to those three questions, then you answered correctly.
Let me start by saying that I am quite disillusioned by what has happened to college football over the years. As a child, I always looked forward to New Year's Day. After Christmas came and went and the gifts had all been unwrapped, the next thing I had to look forward to was sitting in front of the TV on January 1st to catch all of the big bowl games. I'd sit there from noon until bedtime, switching back and forth among the Cotton Bowl, Rose Bowl, Sugar Bowl, Orange Bowl, and the Fiesta Bowl. If one game wasn't as competitive as expected, I'd switch over to another one. By the end of the night, all the teams will have played and you'd have a general idea of who the national champion would be. I loved it. Still, I concede that the system was far from perfect, as the champ was not officially decided until the polls were released that following week.
But then at some point, everything changed. Suddenly, the Fiesta Bowl wasn't the Fiesta Bowl anymore. It became the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl. The Orange Bowl became the FedEx Orange Bowl. The Sugar Bowl became the USF&G Sugar Bowl. Somewhere along the line, someone got the bright idea that corporate sponsors would fork over big bucks to have their names attached to the titles of college football's biggest bowl games. To me, this was where it all started to go wrong. As the system became more and more corrupted by money, the big schools began to shut out the smaller schools. Eventually a clique was formed, where the biggest schools in the biggest conferences stuck together and looked out for each other. This was all in the name of the almighty dollar, as they looked to keep the smaller schools from claiming their piece of the pie.
That mentality exists to this very day, and it is worse than ever. The BCS system is set up so that the major conferences get automatic qualifiers (AQs) to play in the most prominent bowl games for the biggest money and the coveted national championship trophy. Meanwhile, the little guys are left on the outside looking in, with virtually no shot at crashing the party. Dr. Gordon Gee, president of Ohio State University, recently made comments that seem to reflect the mentality of the schools playing in the major conferences. He referred to the smaller conferences as "The Little Sisters of the Poor," and basically dismissed them as inferior to conferences such as the Big Ten, where his Buckeyes reside. Texas Christian University and Boise State University were two perfect examples of smaller schools who many believed could have competed for the national title this year. Yet Dr. Gee mocked them and laughed at the very idea of either team playing in the national championship game.
It is this mentality among the college presidents that makes it necessary for college football to once and for all implement a play-off system. Give all of the top teams, including the "Little Sisters of the Poor," a spot in the play-offs and a chance to compete for the title. If they really are as inferior as the highfalutin members of the power conferences think, then the Auburns and Ohio States of the world should have nothing to worry about. Right? Well, not really. The fact that TCU managed to beat Big 10 favorite Wisconsin in this year's Rose Bowl is more than enough to give the big boys the jitters. They may claim to be superior, but inside they know that there are teams in the smaller conferences that can go toe to toe with them.
The play-off system would be the surest, fairest way of determining a national champion in college football. But as of right now, there is one major obstacle standing in the way: the university presidents. When questioned about the prospects of a play-off system, they have decided to stick together and give the same dishonest, disingenuous, lame answer over and over again. They claim that it will have an adverse effect on the academics of the football players. A play-off system would interfere with final exams for the fall semester. They won't consider going to a play-off because they need to look out for their players and maintain academic integrity for their athletic programs. Huh?
If that is the case, then how come virtually every other intercollegiate sport (basketball, baseball, soccer, hockey, etc.) has a play-off system? Let's especially take a closer look at basketball. The season seems to start earlier and earlier each year, as teams try to fit in more games against high-profile opponents on their schedules. Why? Because they need to build their resume. Why? Because it helps them get more consideration when the selections are made for the NCAA Tournament. Why are they so interested in making the tournament? One reason: M-O-N-E-Y. In the end, it all comes down to that.
Thus the basketball season starts in November, continues through December, January, and February, and then culminates with the NCAA Tournament in March. Gee, maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like they play right through final exams for the fall semester. Hmm...so let me see. It's OK for NCAA basketball players to compete during final exams, but not OK for football players? What is the reasoning behind that? Answer: there is no reasoning. This alone shows how dishonest the university presidents have been in trying to avoid a play-off system for college football. The real reason they don't want the play-offs is because they want to use the BCS to continue shutting out the smaller schools and keeping the money all to themselves.
It's not too often that I see eye to eye with President Barack Obama. But he has made it clear that he wants to see college football's national champion determined through a play-off system. Before he took office, he even said that he was going to "throw his weight around" to get it done. To date, that hasn't happened. Last year, Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah did make the call for the Justice Department to investigate the BCS as being in possible violation of anti-trust laws. He did so after the University of Utah got shut out of the BCS in 2009. But nothing has come of that either. It makes me wonder if the rest of the world is just going to stand back and let the university presidents in the power conferences do whatever they want.
President Obama was so quick to shove the healthcare bill down our throats using the shadiest of tactics. There were backroom deals, Cornhusker Kickbacks, and Louisiana Purchases. I wish he had instead used those tactics to shove a college football play-off system down the throats of the university presidents. At the very least, it may have jammed their windpipes and kept them from spewing their repeated lies. So much for raising the standards in higher education. As far as I'm concerned, this is as low as it gets.
Let me start by saying that I am quite disillusioned by what has happened to college football over the years. As a child, I always looked forward to New Year's Day. After Christmas came and went and the gifts had all been unwrapped, the next thing I had to look forward to was sitting in front of the TV on January 1st to catch all of the big bowl games. I'd sit there from noon until bedtime, switching back and forth among the Cotton Bowl, Rose Bowl, Sugar Bowl, Orange Bowl, and the Fiesta Bowl. If one game wasn't as competitive as expected, I'd switch over to another one. By the end of the night, all the teams will have played and you'd have a general idea of who the national champion would be. I loved it. Still, I concede that the system was far from perfect, as the champ was not officially decided until the polls were released that following week.
But then at some point, everything changed. Suddenly, the Fiesta Bowl wasn't the Fiesta Bowl anymore. It became the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl. The Orange Bowl became the FedEx Orange Bowl. The Sugar Bowl became the USF&G Sugar Bowl. Somewhere along the line, someone got the bright idea that corporate sponsors would fork over big bucks to have their names attached to the titles of college football's biggest bowl games. To me, this was where it all started to go wrong. As the system became more and more corrupted by money, the big schools began to shut out the smaller schools. Eventually a clique was formed, where the biggest schools in the biggest conferences stuck together and looked out for each other. This was all in the name of the almighty dollar, as they looked to keep the smaller schools from claiming their piece of the pie.
That mentality exists to this very day, and it is worse than ever. The BCS system is set up so that the major conferences get automatic qualifiers (AQs) to play in the most prominent bowl games for the biggest money and the coveted national championship trophy. Meanwhile, the little guys are left on the outside looking in, with virtually no shot at crashing the party. Dr. Gordon Gee, president of Ohio State University, recently made comments that seem to reflect the mentality of the schools playing in the major conferences. He referred to the smaller conferences as "The Little Sisters of the Poor," and basically dismissed them as inferior to conferences such as the Big Ten, where his Buckeyes reside. Texas Christian University and Boise State University were two perfect examples of smaller schools who many believed could have competed for the national title this year. Yet Dr. Gee mocked them and laughed at the very idea of either team playing in the national championship game.
It is this mentality among the college presidents that makes it necessary for college football to once and for all implement a play-off system. Give all of the top teams, including the "Little Sisters of the Poor," a spot in the play-offs and a chance to compete for the title. If they really are as inferior as the highfalutin members of the power conferences think, then the Auburns and Ohio States of the world should have nothing to worry about. Right? Well, not really. The fact that TCU managed to beat Big 10 favorite Wisconsin in this year's Rose Bowl is more than enough to give the big boys the jitters. They may claim to be superior, but inside they know that there are teams in the smaller conferences that can go toe to toe with them.
The play-off system would be the surest, fairest way of determining a national champion in college football. But as of right now, there is one major obstacle standing in the way: the university presidents. When questioned about the prospects of a play-off system, they have decided to stick together and give the same dishonest, disingenuous, lame answer over and over again. They claim that it will have an adverse effect on the academics of the football players. A play-off system would interfere with final exams for the fall semester. They won't consider going to a play-off because they need to look out for their players and maintain academic integrity for their athletic programs. Huh?
If that is the case, then how come virtually every other intercollegiate sport (basketball, baseball, soccer, hockey, etc.) has a play-off system? Let's especially take a closer look at basketball. The season seems to start earlier and earlier each year, as teams try to fit in more games against high-profile opponents on their schedules. Why? Because they need to build their resume. Why? Because it helps them get more consideration when the selections are made for the NCAA Tournament. Why are they so interested in making the tournament? One reason: M-O-N-E-Y. In the end, it all comes down to that.
Thus the basketball season starts in November, continues through December, January, and February, and then culminates with the NCAA Tournament in March. Gee, maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like they play right through final exams for the fall semester. Hmm...so let me see. It's OK for NCAA basketball players to compete during final exams, but not OK for football players? What is the reasoning behind that? Answer: there is no reasoning. This alone shows how dishonest the university presidents have been in trying to avoid a play-off system for college football. The real reason they don't want the play-offs is because they want to use the BCS to continue shutting out the smaller schools and keeping the money all to themselves.
It's not too often that I see eye to eye with President Barack Obama. But he has made it clear that he wants to see college football's national champion determined through a play-off system. Before he took office, he even said that he was going to "throw his weight around" to get it done. To date, that hasn't happened. Last year, Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah did make the call for the Justice Department to investigate the BCS as being in possible violation of anti-trust laws. He did so after the University of Utah got shut out of the BCS in 2009. But nothing has come of that either. It makes me wonder if the rest of the world is just going to stand back and let the university presidents in the power conferences do whatever they want.
President Obama was so quick to shove the healthcare bill down our throats using the shadiest of tactics. There were backroom deals, Cornhusker Kickbacks, and Louisiana Purchases. I wish he had instead used those tactics to shove a college football play-off system down the throats of the university presidents. At the very least, it may have jammed their windpipes and kept them from spewing their repeated lies. So much for raising the standards in higher education. As far as I'm concerned, this is as low as it gets.
Sunday, January 9, 2011
MLB: Hypocrisy in the Hall
Last week, Major League Baseball announced its Hall of Fame class for 2011. After all the votes were tabulated, only two players, Roberto Alomar and Bert Blyleven, emerged as having enough votes for enshrinement in Cooperstown. Both men deserved the honor, and they are to be congratulated on such a wondrous achievement. I really don't understand why it took 14 years for Blyleven to finally get in, but in the end the Baseball Writers' Association of America got it right. Better late than never, I suppose.
But this election stood out for another reason. On the ballot were several sluggers from what has come to be known as baseball's "Steroid Era." This is a period of time in Major League Baseball, from approximately the mid-to-late 80's up through the early part of this past decade, when it is believed that steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) were widely-used by major league ballplayers. The result was inflated offensive statistics that included whopping homerun totals, the likes of which had never been seen before. Granted, steroids were not a banned substance in MLB at the time these players were taking them. But they were illegal, and I would argue that using them was also immoral.
There are several players whose reputations have been sullied by being associated with the Steroid Era. Some are known steroid users, while others are merely suspected. But when you look at the voting results, it is clear that their status as drug users (or even suspected drug users) has had an enormous impact on their potential election to the Hall of Fame. Players who have career numbers worthy of being elected on the first or second ballot are not even coming close to the required seventy-five percent of the vote. Among these players are Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmiero, both of whom are confirmed steroid users. This doesn't bode well for other stars who used PEDs and will soon be appearing on the ballot, e.g. Sammy Sosa, Barry Bonds, and Roger Clemens.
One other thing jumped out at me in this past election. Receiving a write-in vote was none other than MLB pariah, Pete Rose, aka "Charlie Hustle." Mr. Rose was banned for life from MLB and barred from the Hall of Fame for gambling on Cincinnati Reds games when he managed them during the 1987 season. There is no question that this was illegal, and that it undermined the integrity of major league baseball. Moreover, baseball's all-time hits leader also lied about the accusations over a substantial period of time before finally owning up to what he did. Between the gambling and his blatant dishonesty, then commissioner Bart Giamatti felt it was appropriate to give Rose a lifetime ban.
I personally believe that Pete Rose belongs in the Hall of Fame. There is no question that his career statistics back that up, as anyone who surpasses Ty Cobb on the all-time hits list should automatically be elected on the first ballot. Despite his despicable behavior, what he did was not comparable to the actions of Shoeless Joe Jackson and the rest of the players involved in the "Black Sox Scandal" of 1919. In that case, the players purposely threw the World Series for the sake of financial gain. In Rose's case, he was betting on his own team and doing everything he could to win the games on which he bet. To me, this is like comparing apples to oranges. What Rose did may have undermined the integrity of baseball, but nowhere near to the degree that the Black Sox Scandal did.
Still, to this day Rose is banned from appearing on the Hall of Fame ballot. Fine. It is what it is. Commissioner Bud Selig has made it clear that he has no intention of ever re-instating Rose. But then answer me this one question. If what Rose did was so terrible, and it undermined the game so much that he has been banned for life, why then are the players who used PEDs during the steroid era allowed to appear on the ballot? Why are they not banned for life? Did their actions not undermine the integrity of the game every bit as much as Rose's actions did?
I would actually argue that the players who used PEDs did more to hurt the sport of baseball than anyone else ever could have. They made a mockery of the game, causing us to question which statistics should be considered legitimate and which ones should not. They have caused us to take a long look at the players who are a bit more muscular than the others, players like Albert Pujols, and question whether they are on "the juice" and thus cheating as well. They have let down a generation of kids who idolized them, failing miserably in their status as role models for the game's youngest fans. It is both a travesty and a tragedy.
Yet, these same players who used PEDs and lied about ever doing it are allowed to appear on the ballot and are eligible for the Hall of Fame. How can that be? How are their actions any better than those of Pete Rose? I have wracked my brain trying to figure this out, and the only thing I can come up with is that it would make Major League Baseball look hypocritical. You see, they looked the other way the entire time that this was going on. They were aware of the prevalent use of PEDs among the players, yet said nothing, and did nothing. But they sure were quick to jump all over Pete Rose when they found out about what he did. Why? To me, it has to do with the fact that they were profiting from the Steroid Era. Everyone was benefitting from the inflated stats and mammoth homeruns: the fans, the players, the organizations, and MLB itself. Why kill the goose that laid the golden egg?
This is where Major League Baseball is as hypocritical as can be. Ban a guy for life because he gambled on a few games during one season, but don't ban the guys who used drugs over several seasons and ruined the reputation of the sport for years to come.When NFL stars Paul Hornung and Alex Karras were found to have gambled on NFL games almost 50 years ago, they were suspended for the entire 1963 season. Yet each one was re-instated in 1964, and did not receive a lifetime ban. Hornung actually went on to be elected to the NFL Hall of Fame, an honor he richly deserved. If the NFL can enshrine Hornung in Canton, why can't Rose be elected to Cooperstown?
I hope the players who destroyed the integrity of baseball during the Steroid Era are proud of what they did. I hope they're proud of their illegitimate stats, the huge salaries they received from attaining those stats, and the notoriety of passing up so many of the game's greats while accumulating their career numbers. I hope that MLB is proud for having turned a blind eye to what was going on. I hope they're happy about the popularity the sport enjoyed when Big Mac and Sammy Sosa were racing to see who was going to set the season record for homeruns. I hope they're ecstatic that they were able to put fannies in the seats when steroid pumped sluggers stepped into the batter's box, with fans anticipating another mammoth moonshot off the facade of the upper deck. And I hope they enjoyed the higher television ratings and advertising revenues it brought them when these shenanigans were taking place. Because in the end, they lost more than they could have ever hoped to gain.
You can't go back and erase the mistakes of the past, but you can certainly do the right thing today and make a new ending. Those who did steroids or used other PEDs should receive the same lifetime ban that Pete Rose did, and immediately be removed from the Hall of Fame ballot. It's never too late to acknowledge your mistakes and do what you can to set things right. If they don't, then baseball will never regain its status as the national pasttime. Instead, it will just become a thing of the past.
But this election stood out for another reason. On the ballot were several sluggers from what has come to be known as baseball's "Steroid Era." This is a period of time in Major League Baseball, from approximately the mid-to-late 80's up through the early part of this past decade, when it is believed that steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) were widely-used by major league ballplayers. The result was inflated offensive statistics that included whopping homerun totals, the likes of which had never been seen before. Granted, steroids were not a banned substance in MLB at the time these players were taking them. But they were illegal, and I would argue that using them was also immoral.
There are several players whose reputations have been sullied by being associated with the Steroid Era. Some are known steroid users, while others are merely suspected. But when you look at the voting results, it is clear that their status as drug users (or even suspected drug users) has had an enormous impact on their potential election to the Hall of Fame. Players who have career numbers worthy of being elected on the first or second ballot are not even coming close to the required seventy-five percent of the vote. Among these players are Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmiero, both of whom are confirmed steroid users. This doesn't bode well for other stars who used PEDs and will soon be appearing on the ballot, e.g. Sammy Sosa, Barry Bonds, and Roger Clemens.
One other thing jumped out at me in this past election. Receiving a write-in vote was none other than MLB pariah, Pete Rose, aka "Charlie Hustle." Mr. Rose was banned for life from MLB and barred from the Hall of Fame for gambling on Cincinnati Reds games when he managed them during the 1987 season. There is no question that this was illegal, and that it undermined the integrity of major league baseball. Moreover, baseball's all-time hits leader also lied about the accusations over a substantial period of time before finally owning up to what he did. Between the gambling and his blatant dishonesty, then commissioner Bart Giamatti felt it was appropriate to give Rose a lifetime ban.
I personally believe that Pete Rose belongs in the Hall of Fame. There is no question that his career statistics back that up, as anyone who surpasses Ty Cobb on the all-time hits list should automatically be elected on the first ballot. Despite his despicable behavior, what he did was not comparable to the actions of Shoeless Joe Jackson and the rest of the players involved in the "Black Sox Scandal" of 1919. In that case, the players purposely threw the World Series for the sake of financial gain. In Rose's case, he was betting on his own team and doing everything he could to win the games on which he bet. To me, this is like comparing apples to oranges. What Rose did may have undermined the integrity of baseball, but nowhere near to the degree that the Black Sox Scandal did.
Still, to this day Rose is banned from appearing on the Hall of Fame ballot. Fine. It is what it is. Commissioner Bud Selig has made it clear that he has no intention of ever re-instating Rose. But then answer me this one question. If what Rose did was so terrible, and it undermined the game so much that he has been banned for life, why then are the players who used PEDs during the steroid era allowed to appear on the ballot? Why are they not banned for life? Did their actions not undermine the integrity of the game every bit as much as Rose's actions did?
I would actually argue that the players who used PEDs did more to hurt the sport of baseball than anyone else ever could have. They made a mockery of the game, causing us to question which statistics should be considered legitimate and which ones should not. They have caused us to take a long look at the players who are a bit more muscular than the others, players like Albert Pujols, and question whether they are on "the juice" and thus cheating as well. They have let down a generation of kids who idolized them, failing miserably in their status as role models for the game's youngest fans. It is both a travesty and a tragedy.
Yet, these same players who used PEDs and lied about ever doing it are allowed to appear on the ballot and are eligible for the Hall of Fame. How can that be? How are their actions any better than those of Pete Rose? I have wracked my brain trying to figure this out, and the only thing I can come up with is that it would make Major League Baseball look hypocritical. You see, they looked the other way the entire time that this was going on. They were aware of the prevalent use of PEDs among the players, yet said nothing, and did nothing. But they sure were quick to jump all over Pete Rose when they found out about what he did. Why? To me, it has to do with the fact that they were profiting from the Steroid Era. Everyone was benefitting from the inflated stats and mammoth homeruns: the fans, the players, the organizations, and MLB itself. Why kill the goose that laid the golden egg?
This is where Major League Baseball is as hypocritical as can be. Ban a guy for life because he gambled on a few games during one season, but don't ban the guys who used drugs over several seasons and ruined the reputation of the sport for years to come.When NFL stars Paul Hornung and Alex Karras were found to have gambled on NFL games almost 50 years ago, they were suspended for the entire 1963 season. Yet each one was re-instated in 1964, and did not receive a lifetime ban. Hornung actually went on to be elected to the NFL Hall of Fame, an honor he richly deserved. If the NFL can enshrine Hornung in Canton, why can't Rose be elected to Cooperstown?
I hope the players who destroyed the integrity of baseball during the Steroid Era are proud of what they did. I hope they're proud of their illegitimate stats, the huge salaries they received from attaining those stats, and the notoriety of passing up so many of the game's greats while accumulating their career numbers. I hope that MLB is proud for having turned a blind eye to what was going on. I hope they're happy about the popularity the sport enjoyed when Big Mac and Sammy Sosa were racing to see who was going to set the season record for homeruns. I hope they're ecstatic that they were able to put fannies in the seats when steroid pumped sluggers stepped into the batter's box, with fans anticipating another mammoth moonshot off the facade of the upper deck. And I hope they enjoyed the higher television ratings and advertising revenues it brought them when these shenanigans were taking place. Because in the end, they lost more than they could have ever hoped to gain.
You can't go back and erase the mistakes of the past, but you can certainly do the right thing today and make a new ending. Those who did steroids or used other PEDs should receive the same lifetime ban that Pete Rose did, and immediately be removed from the Hall of Fame ballot. It's never too late to acknowledge your mistakes and do what you can to set things right. If they don't, then baseball will never regain its status as the national pasttime. Instead, it will just become a thing of the past.
Tragedy in Tucson
Yesterday, our country suffered a tragedy of epic proportions in Tucson, Arizona. U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head at close range while hosting a public event in front of a grocery store. The event, called "Congress on Your Corner," was apparently designed to make the congresswoman more accessible to her constituents, allowing them to raise issues with her and ask questions. But unfortunately, one of those constituents managed to get within three or four feet of her and began firing a 9mm Glock 19 semi-automatic weapon. It is now being reported that he shouted something before shooting wildly, killing six, including a federal judge and a 9 year-old girl. In all, 19 people were shot before the gunman could be restrained. The shooter, identified as Jared Loughner, was only 22 years old and is now in FBI custody.
Before I say what I'm about to say, allow me to repeat that this is a tragedy of epic proportions. What happened yesterday in Tucson was inexcusable, unjustifiable, and should never happen in American society. But it did, and now some are stepping forward to capitalize politically on this horrific event. To me, it is unfathomable that anyone would do such a thing, but the evidence speaks for itself.
First, we have Sheriff Clarence Dupnik from the Pima County Sheriff's Department. Sheriff Dupnik has been handling the press conferences, providing updates and answering questions from the media. But he also used one of those press conferences to offer his own spin on the incident. Here is what he said:
"When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government, the anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this county is getting to be outrageous. Unfortunately, Arizona, I think, has become sort of the capital. We have become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry."
What exactly is he implying? To me, it sounds as if he's decrying the fact that our country is politically divided and that the rhetoric needs to be toned down. Funny, but this sounds familiar to me. It is something that President Obama himself said just last year. It was directed toward conservative commentators like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, and meant to stifle their voices because they were speaking out against Obama's policies. Well, in our country we have something called freedom of speech. Although Obama, and perhaps now Sheriff Dupnik, would like for this conversation to go away, it is not. Nor should it. If anyone is inferring that Jared Loughner was driven to commit this heinous act because of conservative voices on the airwaves, then they should be ashamed of themselves. If you're going to espouse such outrageous views, then perhaps you should look at the president himself. After all, it was he and his cronies who used backdoor deals and shady tactics to ram the bill right down the throats of the American people, despite the fact that the majority of Americans never supported it.
Because Congresswoman Giffords voted in favor of Obamacare, it's easy for the president's allies to capitalize on the shooting by using it to paint all conservatives with the same brush, labeling them as right-wing nutjobs and placing them in the same category as Loughner. But so far, the investigation has not shown that Loughner was upset that Gifford voted in favor of Obamacare. Rather, it has painted the picture of a disturbed young man, a loner who took drugs and suffered from being mentally unstable. I am certain that when all is said and done, we'll see that there was no rhyme or reason to his actions. Though there is some suspicion that he may not have acted alone, he is surely not part of some vast network of terrorists looking to take out those members of congress who supported Obama's healthcare initiative.
Going back to Sheriff Dupnik for a moment, what did he mean by calling Arizona the "mecca for prejudice and bigotry?" To me, it sure sounds as if the sheriff is using this incident to express his disdain for Arizona's tough law on illegal immigration, which was just passed last year. So let me get this straight. The immigration law is a sign of prejudice and bigotry, and that has somehow had a direct impact on the attempted assassination of Congresswoman Giffords? This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The people of Arizona who supported the immigration bill are not racists. There is another phrase that more accurately describes them: fed up. When your tax dollars go toward covering the costs of education, healthcare, incarceration, and entitlement programs for illegal immigrants, costing the state close to $3 billion per year, I think you have a right to be fed up. Once again, there is nothing to suggest that Loughner was upset about Giffords' lack of support for the immigration bill.
Then, there is of course the incident's connection to Sarah Palin. The liberal media NEVER passes up on an opportunity to villify Gov. Palin, so why should this situation be any different? Prior to the mid-term elections, Gov. Palin took out a map of the country and placed a cross-hairs over the districts where she felt Democrats were most vulnerable. One of those districts just happened to be the one where Congresswoman Giffords was running for re-election. Somehow, the media is trying to infer that the use of cross-hairs may have encouraged this assassination attempt. But again, this theory is ludicrous. Gov. Palin's map had about as much to do with this tragedy as the man in the moon. There is absolutely no evidence that Loughner was connected to Gov. Palin in any way. Out of sensitivity, Gov. Palin has since removed the cross-hairs, a classy move on her part.
When I look at what happened in Tucson, I can't help but think about the shooting at Virginia Tech. Both were carried out by young men who had severe mental issues. Both killers used a Glock, both fired at people indiscriminately, and both shot multiple victims. As with the Virginia Tech massacre, gun control advocates will come out and use this as yet another example to support their agenda. But it's been said many times and I'll say it here yet again. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. The real issue here is not whether Americans should have the right to bear arms, but rather how Loughner came to possess his weapon. Was the background check conducted properly? Was there anything that showed up which should have raised a red flag? Those are the real questions that need to be answered.
The bottom line is this. This tragic shooting was carried out by a mentally unstable person, and was not the result of racism, opposition to Obamacare, Sarah Palin's use of cross-hairs, or some vast, right-wing conspiracy. It will show itself to be an isolated incident, even if Loughner had some help in carrying it out. Could it have been prevented? I have yet to hear anyone raise the issue of security at the event. If indeed Congresswoman Giffords had suffered threats in the past, then why wasn't there any security present? Why were participants not screened or patted down before being allowed that close to the congresswoman? Hindsight is always 20/20, but it seems to me that some type of system should have been in place before holding this event.
At this point, playing the blame game won't do anyone any good. The fact is that a young woman is clinging to life in an intensive care unit. Several others are hospitalized as well, and six people, including a child at the tender age of nine, have lost their lives. It is at this time that we need to pray for the victims and their families, and hope that things turn out as well as they can for those who managed to survive. Let's save the political battles for another time and join those who are fighting a battle that is far more important: the battle to live.
Before I say what I'm about to say, allow me to repeat that this is a tragedy of epic proportions. What happened yesterday in Tucson was inexcusable, unjustifiable, and should never happen in American society. But it did, and now some are stepping forward to capitalize politically on this horrific event. To me, it is unfathomable that anyone would do such a thing, but the evidence speaks for itself.
First, we have Sheriff Clarence Dupnik from the Pima County Sheriff's Department. Sheriff Dupnik has been handling the press conferences, providing updates and answering questions from the media. But he also used one of those press conferences to offer his own spin on the incident. Here is what he said:
"When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government, the anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this county is getting to be outrageous. Unfortunately, Arizona, I think, has become sort of the capital. We have become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry."
What exactly is he implying? To me, it sounds as if he's decrying the fact that our country is politically divided and that the rhetoric needs to be toned down. Funny, but this sounds familiar to me. It is something that President Obama himself said just last year. It was directed toward conservative commentators like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, and meant to stifle their voices because they were speaking out against Obama's policies. Well, in our country we have something called freedom of speech. Although Obama, and perhaps now Sheriff Dupnik, would like for this conversation to go away, it is not. Nor should it. If anyone is inferring that Jared Loughner was driven to commit this heinous act because of conservative voices on the airwaves, then they should be ashamed of themselves. If you're going to espouse such outrageous views, then perhaps you should look at the president himself. After all, it was he and his cronies who used backdoor deals and shady tactics to ram the bill right down the throats of the American people, despite the fact that the majority of Americans never supported it.
Because Congresswoman Giffords voted in favor of Obamacare, it's easy for the president's allies to capitalize on the shooting by using it to paint all conservatives with the same brush, labeling them as right-wing nutjobs and placing them in the same category as Loughner. But so far, the investigation has not shown that Loughner was upset that Gifford voted in favor of Obamacare. Rather, it has painted the picture of a disturbed young man, a loner who took drugs and suffered from being mentally unstable. I am certain that when all is said and done, we'll see that there was no rhyme or reason to his actions. Though there is some suspicion that he may not have acted alone, he is surely not part of some vast network of terrorists looking to take out those members of congress who supported Obama's healthcare initiative.
Going back to Sheriff Dupnik for a moment, what did he mean by calling Arizona the "mecca for prejudice and bigotry?" To me, it sure sounds as if the sheriff is using this incident to express his disdain for Arizona's tough law on illegal immigration, which was just passed last year. So let me get this straight. The immigration law is a sign of prejudice and bigotry, and that has somehow had a direct impact on the attempted assassination of Congresswoman Giffords? This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The people of Arizona who supported the immigration bill are not racists. There is another phrase that more accurately describes them: fed up. When your tax dollars go toward covering the costs of education, healthcare, incarceration, and entitlement programs for illegal immigrants, costing the state close to $3 billion per year, I think you have a right to be fed up. Once again, there is nothing to suggest that Loughner was upset about Giffords' lack of support for the immigration bill.
Then, there is of course the incident's connection to Sarah Palin. The liberal media NEVER passes up on an opportunity to villify Gov. Palin, so why should this situation be any different? Prior to the mid-term elections, Gov. Palin took out a map of the country and placed a cross-hairs over the districts where she felt Democrats were most vulnerable. One of those districts just happened to be the one where Congresswoman Giffords was running for re-election. Somehow, the media is trying to infer that the use of cross-hairs may have encouraged this assassination attempt. But again, this theory is ludicrous. Gov. Palin's map had about as much to do with this tragedy as the man in the moon. There is absolutely no evidence that Loughner was connected to Gov. Palin in any way. Out of sensitivity, Gov. Palin has since removed the cross-hairs, a classy move on her part.
When I look at what happened in Tucson, I can't help but think about the shooting at Virginia Tech. Both were carried out by young men who had severe mental issues. Both killers used a Glock, both fired at people indiscriminately, and both shot multiple victims. As with the Virginia Tech massacre, gun control advocates will come out and use this as yet another example to support their agenda. But it's been said many times and I'll say it here yet again. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. The real issue here is not whether Americans should have the right to bear arms, but rather how Loughner came to possess his weapon. Was the background check conducted properly? Was there anything that showed up which should have raised a red flag? Those are the real questions that need to be answered.
The bottom line is this. This tragic shooting was carried out by a mentally unstable person, and was not the result of racism, opposition to Obamacare, Sarah Palin's use of cross-hairs, or some vast, right-wing conspiracy. It will show itself to be an isolated incident, even if Loughner had some help in carrying it out. Could it have been prevented? I have yet to hear anyone raise the issue of security at the event. If indeed Congresswoman Giffords had suffered threats in the past, then why wasn't there any security present? Why were participants not screened or patted down before being allowed that close to the congresswoman? Hindsight is always 20/20, but it seems to me that some type of system should have been in place before holding this event.
At this point, playing the blame game won't do anyone any good. The fact is that a young woman is clinging to life in an intensive care unit. Several others are hospitalized as well, and six people, including a child at the tender age of nine, have lost their lives. It is at this time that we need to pray for the victims and their families, and hope that things turn out as well as they can for those who managed to survive. Let's save the political battles for another time and join those who are fighting a battle that is far more important: the battle to live.
Friday, January 7, 2011
Higher Ed and New Jersey: Not Perfect Together
This past week, a task force assembled by Governor Chris Christie disclosed its findings and made over 70 recommendations to improve higher education in the Garden State. The task force was chaired by former New Jersey governor and president of Drew University, Thomas Kean, and included members from the private sector as well as higher education officials. As someone with a doctoral degree in higher education who has worked as a university administrator for the past decade, I want to give my perspective on two of the primary recommendations of the task force.
One of the major issues that surfaced during the task force's investigation was that of outmigration, which those of us who study higher education often refer to as "brain drain." Essentially, this means that New Jersey has a difficult time keeping its most capable students from attending college out of state. Some of our best talent, perhaps even most of it, prefers to leave New Jersey for more prestigious institutions in other states. This is nothing new, and really should not come as a surprise to anyone. The task force is recommending to solve the problem by increasing the capacity of our public universities. But do they honestly believe that will work? I, for one, do not.
We have to begin by acknowledging that New Jersey has some very wealthy people residing here. Of all 50 states, New Jersey ranks fifth in highest income towns per capita income. A lot of that has to do with its proximity to the metropolitan corporate powerhouses of New York and Philadelphia. It's fair to say that children in these wealthiest of families do not attend public school. Usually, their high levels of disposable income allow the upper class to send their kids to elite private secondary schools in New Jersey, New York, or Pennsylvania, of which there are many. Christie's task force may not want to hear it, but students who graduate from The Lawrenceville School or The Hun School of Princeton do not exactly have Rutgers or Montclair State at the top of their lists when applying to colleges.
The only institution of higher education in New Jersey that can truly be considered among the nation's most elite is Princeton University. All the others pale by comparison. The task force wondered aloud why more gifted students in New Jersey don't consider attending private universities like Drew and Seton Hall. Are they serious? I know that there is some bias on the task force with Drew's former president serving as its chair, but come on now. When you look at other liberal arts colleges in the Northeast, such as Swarthmore, Williams, Wellesley, Haverford, and Amherst, it should come as no surprise that New Jersey's best and brightest want to move on to greener pastures. Gov. Kean and the rest of the task force are dreaming if they think that Drew or Seton Hall could ever be considered in the same league. They can dream all they want; it's never going to happen. New Jersey's brain drain will never end as long as we have wealthy people who will not settle for anything less than the best for their children.
A second recommendation that jumped out at me had to do with remediation. The task force said the following:
"New Jersey should conduct a study to understand the extent of the cost of remediation at its colleges and universities, and should adopt a plan to address the issue."
For those who may not be aware, remediation is basically the process by which colleges and universities correct deficiencies of incoming freshman before they begin their formal studies. These deficiencies generally occur in the basic skills of reading, writing, and arithmetic. Those who know nothing about how higher education operates may be horrified to discover that students at this level are even accepted at colleges and universities. Yet, they are.
In my eyes, the problem with remediation is two-fold. First, it demonstrates a failure on the part of our public elementary and secondary schools to get these students up to speed. Basic skills are not something that should be taught at the college level. These skills should be in place long before a student even begins to apply for admission to college. Yet they are not. Sometimes teachers are at fault, but often it has to do with the system itself, which is beyond the teachers' control. Part of that system is the process referred to as "social promotion." Social promotion is the act by which students are promoted even though they may lack the necessary academic skills to advance to the next grade. It is not uncommon for a student to be left back in elementary school. But middle school is a different animal, and it is at this level that social promotion is prevalent. Why are middle school administrators so hesitant to allow students to be left back? The answer lies in the research showing that students who get left back twice are far less likely to graduate high school and far more likely to wind up in prison. Given these statistics, it is easy to see why middle school is such a critical point in the life of a child.
But K-12 education does not shoulder all of the blame. The second part of the problem has to do with the colleges and universities themselves. They are the ones who admit these students. They could easily say "no" when such students apply for admission, can't they? Yet often they don't. Why? Why does this happen?
Higher education, like almost every other institution today, needs to be run like a business. During my ten years as an administrator, I faced enormous pressure to recruit enough students for my programs to meet my revenue projections. In this way, higher education is no different from a sales division in the corporate world. Each year, I'd have to submit my revenue projections for the following year, which were used to help create next year's budget. Then it was up to me to recruit enough students to bring in the tuition money needed to meet the revenue projections. That's how higher education works, folks. Make no mistake about it. If you work in admissions, or if you're the director of a program expected to bring in revenue for the university, then your feet are constantly held to the fire.
Given this culture, what do you expect will happen? Think about it. You may recruit students based on certain academic standards, but when you can't recruit enough students who meet those standards, and your job is on the line...what would you do? In my exprience, most admissions officers and program directors will lower the standards just to meet their enrollment and revenue projections. This is the reality which no one in higher education wants to acknowledge. Employees need to meet the bottom line or they can and will be terminated. Unlike professors, there is no tenure for admissions officers and administrators. You can be a shining star one year, and a sacrificial lamb the next. Meet your projections, or you're out. It's that simple, and that cruel.
Now that you know the dirty little secrets that higher education does its best to conceal, does it come as any surprise to you that the task force was very concerned about New Jersey's abysmal rates of graduation? Gee, let's see. If you can't recruit enough students to meet your standards, and you decide to lower your standards to meet revenue projections, what will that do to your graduation rate? It's hardly rocket science, is it? The only way to raise the graduation rate is to stop admitting students who clearly lack what it takes to finish a baccalaureate degree. All the remediation in the world will not help these students, and the data clearly supports that.
So, will this problem ever be solved? It's hard for me to imagine that it will. Due to New Jersey's severe budget crisis, Governor Christie cut $174 million in funding to higher education last year. Thus the pressure is on more than ever for colleges and universities to raise their own revenue in order to carry out their mission. Plus, are there any college officials who want to risk losing their jobs in this economy? No way. They'll pull out all the stops to meet their projections in order to avoid joining millions of other Americans on the unemployment line. Unless there comes a time when institutions of higher education lay down the gauntlet and stop admitting students who don't measure up, these problems will persist. And to think that the governor's task force wants our best and brightest to stay behind and be part of this mess. Sure, Gov. Kean, and perhaps you want them to help clean it up as well? I'll tell you one thing: they'd probably do a better job than the ones who are overseeing it now.
One of the major issues that surfaced during the task force's investigation was that of outmigration, which those of us who study higher education often refer to as "brain drain." Essentially, this means that New Jersey has a difficult time keeping its most capable students from attending college out of state. Some of our best talent, perhaps even most of it, prefers to leave New Jersey for more prestigious institutions in other states. This is nothing new, and really should not come as a surprise to anyone. The task force is recommending to solve the problem by increasing the capacity of our public universities. But do they honestly believe that will work? I, for one, do not.
We have to begin by acknowledging that New Jersey has some very wealthy people residing here. Of all 50 states, New Jersey ranks fifth in highest income towns per capita income. A lot of that has to do with its proximity to the metropolitan corporate powerhouses of New York and Philadelphia. It's fair to say that children in these wealthiest of families do not attend public school. Usually, their high levels of disposable income allow the upper class to send their kids to elite private secondary schools in New Jersey, New York, or Pennsylvania, of which there are many. Christie's task force may not want to hear it, but students who graduate from The Lawrenceville School or The Hun School of Princeton do not exactly have Rutgers or Montclair State at the top of their lists when applying to colleges.
The only institution of higher education in New Jersey that can truly be considered among the nation's most elite is Princeton University. All the others pale by comparison. The task force wondered aloud why more gifted students in New Jersey don't consider attending private universities like Drew and Seton Hall. Are they serious? I know that there is some bias on the task force with Drew's former president serving as its chair, but come on now. When you look at other liberal arts colleges in the Northeast, such as Swarthmore, Williams, Wellesley, Haverford, and Amherst, it should come as no surprise that New Jersey's best and brightest want to move on to greener pastures. Gov. Kean and the rest of the task force are dreaming if they think that Drew or Seton Hall could ever be considered in the same league. They can dream all they want; it's never going to happen. New Jersey's brain drain will never end as long as we have wealthy people who will not settle for anything less than the best for their children.
A second recommendation that jumped out at me had to do with remediation. The task force said the following:
"New Jersey should conduct a study to understand the extent of the cost of remediation at its colleges and universities, and should adopt a plan to address the issue."
For those who may not be aware, remediation is basically the process by which colleges and universities correct deficiencies of incoming freshman before they begin their formal studies. These deficiencies generally occur in the basic skills of reading, writing, and arithmetic. Those who know nothing about how higher education operates may be horrified to discover that students at this level are even accepted at colleges and universities. Yet, they are.
In my eyes, the problem with remediation is two-fold. First, it demonstrates a failure on the part of our public elementary and secondary schools to get these students up to speed. Basic skills are not something that should be taught at the college level. These skills should be in place long before a student even begins to apply for admission to college. Yet they are not. Sometimes teachers are at fault, but often it has to do with the system itself, which is beyond the teachers' control. Part of that system is the process referred to as "social promotion." Social promotion is the act by which students are promoted even though they may lack the necessary academic skills to advance to the next grade. It is not uncommon for a student to be left back in elementary school. But middle school is a different animal, and it is at this level that social promotion is prevalent. Why are middle school administrators so hesitant to allow students to be left back? The answer lies in the research showing that students who get left back twice are far less likely to graduate high school and far more likely to wind up in prison. Given these statistics, it is easy to see why middle school is such a critical point in the life of a child.
But K-12 education does not shoulder all of the blame. The second part of the problem has to do with the colleges and universities themselves. They are the ones who admit these students. They could easily say "no" when such students apply for admission, can't they? Yet often they don't. Why? Why does this happen?
Higher education, like almost every other institution today, needs to be run like a business. During my ten years as an administrator, I faced enormous pressure to recruit enough students for my programs to meet my revenue projections. In this way, higher education is no different from a sales division in the corporate world. Each year, I'd have to submit my revenue projections for the following year, which were used to help create next year's budget. Then it was up to me to recruit enough students to bring in the tuition money needed to meet the revenue projections. That's how higher education works, folks. Make no mistake about it. If you work in admissions, or if you're the director of a program expected to bring in revenue for the university, then your feet are constantly held to the fire.
Given this culture, what do you expect will happen? Think about it. You may recruit students based on certain academic standards, but when you can't recruit enough students who meet those standards, and your job is on the line...what would you do? In my exprience, most admissions officers and program directors will lower the standards just to meet their enrollment and revenue projections. This is the reality which no one in higher education wants to acknowledge. Employees need to meet the bottom line or they can and will be terminated. Unlike professors, there is no tenure for admissions officers and administrators. You can be a shining star one year, and a sacrificial lamb the next. Meet your projections, or you're out. It's that simple, and that cruel.
Now that you know the dirty little secrets that higher education does its best to conceal, does it come as any surprise to you that the task force was very concerned about New Jersey's abysmal rates of graduation? Gee, let's see. If you can't recruit enough students to meet your standards, and you decide to lower your standards to meet revenue projections, what will that do to your graduation rate? It's hardly rocket science, is it? The only way to raise the graduation rate is to stop admitting students who clearly lack what it takes to finish a baccalaureate degree. All the remediation in the world will not help these students, and the data clearly supports that.
So, will this problem ever be solved? It's hard for me to imagine that it will. Due to New Jersey's severe budget crisis, Governor Christie cut $174 million in funding to higher education last year. Thus the pressure is on more than ever for colleges and universities to raise their own revenue in order to carry out their mission. Plus, are there any college officials who want to risk losing their jobs in this economy? No way. They'll pull out all the stops to meet their projections in order to avoid joining millions of other Americans on the unemployment line. Unless there comes a time when institutions of higher education lay down the gauntlet and stop admitting students who don't measure up, these problems will persist. And to think that the governor's task force wants our best and brightest to stay behind and be part of this mess. Sure, Gov. Kean, and perhaps you want them to help clean it up as well? I'll tell you one thing: they'd probably do a better job than the ones who are overseeing it now.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
The Omni-Absence of an Omnipresent God
I've been looking for an opening to write a blog post about society's suppression of religion, and thanks to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, I now have one. Just yesterday, the court ruled that the Mount Soledad cross war memorial in San Diego violates the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution. The court sided with opponents who claimed that the cross conveyed a message of government endorsement of religion. They didn't order for the cross to be removed, but they returned the case to federal court in San Diego to determine whether the cross will be moved or if the memorial can be altered to conform to the Constitution. Can you imagine? Alter the cross to conform to the Constitution? When will the madness end? When will our society realize that the more we push God to the side, the worse off we'll be?
I started to develop strong convictions on this issue over seventeen years ago, when I met a very good and holy priest by the name of Monsignor James Turro. Msgr. Turro is a scholar of Sacred Scripture who has now been a Catholic priest for over 60 years. He has taught Sacred Scripture courses at several different seminaries, including Immaculate Conception (South Orange, NJ), St. Joseph's (Dunwoodie, NY), and Holy Apostles (Cromwell, CT). In 1993, Msgr. Turro gave me a signed copy of his book, Conversion: Reflections on Life and Faith. It is a collection of short reflections that came to him through many years of prayer in his vocation as a priest. The reflections are so simple, yet so profound, that they simply blow you away.
One of them in particular always stood out to me. It is titled "A Harrowing Slump," and it discusses the problems in our nation's public schools. In the reflection, Msgr. Turro outlines the top problems of public schools as identified by teachers in 1940: chewing gum, talking out of turn, making noise, running in the halls, and littering. Then he fast forwards to 1990, when the top problems identified by teachers were drug abuse, pregnancy, suicide, rape, robbery, and assault. On a sidenote, we can argue that the situation has deteriorated even further in these last 20 years, with several shootings and stabbings taking place in public schools throughout the country. Msgr. Turro then notes that religion was more a of a factor in American life back then. But since that time, prayer has been pushed out of public schools, and the rift between Church and state has continued to grow, causing religion to become less and less relevant. Is there a connection between the two? Is suppression of religion the main cause of the deterioration of society? It certainly seems so!
Those who dismiss this argument would say that it is merely a correlation, not an example of causality. They'd say it's purely a coincidence that society has continued to decline as religion continues to be suppressed. But is it not logical to state that the youth of the past were better instructed in faith and morals than they are today? And thus is it not logical to conclude that the lack of this instruction leads to erosion of values, which in turn leads to an increase in malicious, even violent, behavior? It sure makes sense to me.
We often hear the so-called experts blaming the rise in society's ills on the breakdown of the American family. There is truth to that statement, but those who stop there can't see the forest for the trees. You see, the breakdown of the American family is just one sub-component under the umbrella of suppression of religion. Among the values we learn through religion are respect, love, trust, faith, and perseverance. Without these qualities present, a marriage cannot last and a family will be doomed to fall apart. Many who have children don't even get married, and without that bond, the family ties become even more fragile. Sexual morality, or lack thereof, is also a major factor at play in these situations. How then can anyone argue that the decline of the American family is not related to the suppression of religion?
Over the years, we've seen many, many examples of our society continuing to push religion to the backburner. They get more ridiculous with each passing year, and there are simply too many of them to name here. But just for kicks, I'll point out a few of them. We've witnessed opposition to Nativity scenes in public places all throughout the country, often resulting in lawsuits advocating for their removal. Students in public schools have been told that they cannot wear rosary beads or religious clothing, and even had their bibles confiscated (yes, this actually happened in Houston, TX). In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court, by a vote of 5-4, disallowed the display of The Ten Commandments in two Kentucky courthouses. And now, as stated at the beginning of this post, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the Mount Soledad cross war memorial is unconstitutional. Unreal.
To me, there is no question that we as a nation are on the wrong track when it comes to issues of faith and morals. Just look at our current president. Unlike his predecessor, he does not attend Sunday services on a regular basis, and has only made a handful of public appearances in churches with his family. He claims to be a Christian. He claims to pray with pastors over the phone. He merely states that he wants to keep his faith a private matter. But he is our leader, and as our leader he sets an example for all Americans to follow. The example he is setting right now is to keep your faith out of your public life. OK. But how? I never understood this philosophy. If your faith is truly a part of who you are, then how can you not live it every day, wherever you are and whatever you may be doing?
President Obama claims that his policies are not rooted in socialism. But every time he says this, the man insults my intelligence. I have studied philosophy extensively, and I know Marxist thought when I see it. Subversion of individual freedoms, establishment of collectivism, the contradiction between materialism and the social superstructure...all of these are tenets of Marxism. Well, it just so happens that these ideas permeate the policies that have been proposed by the Obama administration. When you look at his healthcare bill, his economic policies, and the rest of his ambitious agenda, it reeks of socialism. For me, the scariest part about it has to do with the desired result. The ultimate goal of socialism is for man to live without God. That was the foundation of Marx's philosophy. Man does not need God, and can survive without Him when the fullness of socialism has been realized. To himself, Marx was God.
So is this really the direction we're headed? Americans sent a strong message in the last election that I hope will carry over to the next one. If it does, then we can count on a more conservative government to wipe out any socialist policies enacted under the Obama administration. We can also count on them to not implement any new ones, but rather to return our country to its roots. In his inaugural address, Thomas Jefferson outlined the five principles of good government: to protect the property and earnings of citizens, to encourage entrepreneurship and free enterprise, to restrain the infliction of injury, to exercise frugality, and finally...the first and most important principle in his eyes...to acknowledge and adore God.
Is there hope at this point that our government will return to these principles? Is there hope that our government can one day again acknowledge and adore God, putting a stop to the madness that results from judicial activism on an almost daily basis? As a devout Catholic, I have to believe that there is. For St. Paul once wrote, "And now these three remain: faith, hope and love." If we are to be true believers, then we must have faith that as long as there is a God, there is hope, for anyone and anything. We may not see it happen in our lifetimes, but it will happen. And when it does, American citizens will look back and say, "That's where we went wrong." When that day comes, my prayer is that our leaders never ignore the history of the suppression of religion in our great country, lest they be doomed to repeat it.
I started to develop strong convictions on this issue over seventeen years ago, when I met a very good and holy priest by the name of Monsignor James Turro. Msgr. Turro is a scholar of Sacred Scripture who has now been a Catholic priest for over 60 years. He has taught Sacred Scripture courses at several different seminaries, including Immaculate Conception (South Orange, NJ), St. Joseph's (Dunwoodie, NY), and Holy Apostles (Cromwell, CT). In 1993, Msgr. Turro gave me a signed copy of his book, Conversion: Reflections on Life and Faith. It is a collection of short reflections that came to him through many years of prayer in his vocation as a priest. The reflections are so simple, yet so profound, that they simply blow you away.
One of them in particular always stood out to me. It is titled "A Harrowing Slump," and it discusses the problems in our nation's public schools. In the reflection, Msgr. Turro outlines the top problems of public schools as identified by teachers in 1940: chewing gum, talking out of turn, making noise, running in the halls, and littering. Then he fast forwards to 1990, when the top problems identified by teachers were drug abuse, pregnancy, suicide, rape, robbery, and assault. On a sidenote, we can argue that the situation has deteriorated even further in these last 20 years, with several shootings and stabbings taking place in public schools throughout the country. Msgr. Turro then notes that religion was more a of a factor in American life back then. But since that time, prayer has been pushed out of public schools, and the rift between Church and state has continued to grow, causing religion to become less and less relevant. Is there a connection between the two? Is suppression of religion the main cause of the deterioration of society? It certainly seems so!
Those who dismiss this argument would say that it is merely a correlation, not an example of causality. They'd say it's purely a coincidence that society has continued to decline as religion continues to be suppressed. But is it not logical to state that the youth of the past were better instructed in faith and morals than they are today? And thus is it not logical to conclude that the lack of this instruction leads to erosion of values, which in turn leads to an increase in malicious, even violent, behavior? It sure makes sense to me.
We often hear the so-called experts blaming the rise in society's ills on the breakdown of the American family. There is truth to that statement, but those who stop there can't see the forest for the trees. You see, the breakdown of the American family is just one sub-component under the umbrella of suppression of religion. Among the values we learn through religion are respect, love, trust, faith, and perseverance. Without these qualities present, a marriage cannot last and a family will be doomed to fall apart. Many who have children don't even get married, and without that bond, the family ties become even more fragile. Sexual morality, or lack thereof, is also a major factor at play in these situations. How then can anyone argue that the decline of the American family is not related to the suppression of religion?
Over the years, we've seen many, many examples of our society continuing to push religion to the backburner. They get more ridiculous with each passing year, and there are simply too many of them to name here. But just for kicks, I'll point out a few of them. We've witnessed opposition to Nativity scenes in public places all throughout the country, often resulting in lawsuits advocating for their removal. Students in public schools have been told that they cannot wear rosary beads or religious clothing, and even had their bibles confiscated (yes, this actually happened in Houston, TX). In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court, by a vote of 5-4, disallowed the display of The Ten Commandments in two Kentucky courthouses. And now, as stated at the beginning of this post, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the Mount Soledad cross war memorial is unconstitutional. Unreal.
To me, there is no question that we as a nation are on the wrong track when it comes to issues of faith and morals. Just look at our current president. Unlike his predecessor, he does not attend Sunday services on a regular basis, and has only made a handful of public appearances in churches with his family. He claims to be a Christian. He claims to pray with pastors over the phone. He merely states that he wants to keep his faith a private matter. But he is our leader, and as our leader he sets an example for all Americans to follow. The example he is setting right now is to keep your faith out of your public life. OK. But how? I never understood this philosophy. If your faith is truly a part of who you are, then how can you not live it every day, wherever you are and whatever you may be doing?
President Obama claims that his policies are not rooted in socialism. But every time he says this, the man insults my intelligence. I have studied philosophy extensively, and I know Marxist thought when I see it. Subversion of individual freedoms, establishment of collectivism, the contradiction between materialism and the social superstructure...all of these are tenets of Marxism. Well, it just so happens that these ideas permeate the policies that have been proposed by the Obama administration. When you look at his healthcare bill, his economic policies, and the rest of his ambitious agenda, it reeks of socialism. For me, the scariest part about it has to do with the desired result. The ultimate goal of socialism is for man to live without God. That was the foundation of Marx's philosophy. Man does not need God, and can survive without Him when the fullness of socialism has been realized. To himself, Marx was God.
So is this really the direction we're headed? Americans sent a strong message in the last election that I hope will carry over to the next one. If it does, then we can count on a more conservative government to wipe out any socialist policies enacted under the Obama administration. We can also count on them to not implement any new ones, but rather to return our country to its roots. In his inaugural address, Thomas Jefferson outlined the five principles of good government: to protect the property and earnings of citizens, to encourage entrepreneurship and free enterprise, to restrain the infliction of injury, to exercise frugality, and finally...the first and most important principle in his eyes...to acknowledge and adore God.
Is there hope at this point that our government will return to these principles? Is there hope that our government can one day again acknowledge and adore God, putting a stop to the madness that results from judicial activism on an almost daily basis? As a devout Catholic, I have to believe that there is. For St. Paul once wrote, "And now these three remain: faith, hope and love." If we are to be true believers, then we must have faith that as long as there is a God, there is hope, for anyone and anything. We may not see it happen in our lifetimes, but it will happen. And when it does, American citizens will look back and say, "That's where we went wrong." When that day comes, my prayer is that our leaders never ignore the history of the suppression of religion in our great country, lest they be doomed to repeat it.
Vick-timized
Before I begin writing this post, it's only fair for me to point out that I am a lifelong fan of the New York Giants who bleeds Giant blue. Thus it goes without saying that I am not a fan of the Philadelphia Eagles, one of the Giants' fiercest rivals in the NFC East. But you're just going to have to take my word for it that what I'm about to write is in no way related to the fact that Michael Vick is currently the Eagles' starting quarterback. I would be writing this same post and outlining the same argument regardless of which uniform he was wearing. What is my argument? Very simply, I think it is an utter disgrace that Michael Vick is a starting QB in the NFL, that he is getting ready to lead his team into the play-offs this weekend, that he will be playing in the Pro Bowl, and that he is being considered in the discussions regarding this year's NFL MVP Award.
At one time, Vick was arguably the greatest athlete to ever play in the NFL. His speed, quickness, arm strength, and explosiveness made him an absolute nightmare for opposing defensive coordinators. No one doubted that by the end of his career, he'd own the record for most career rushing yards by a QB, and maybe even for most combined yards (rushing and passing) as well. But there was one major problem with Vick, evident to everyone in the Atlanta Falcons' organization. His work ethic was deplorable. He was habitually the last one to enter the building and the first one to leave, both during the week when the team practiced and on game day. He believed that his extraordinary physical capabilities somehow would compensate for his lack of preparation. Vick was hardly the best student when it came to reviewing game tapes, mulling over game plans for the upcoming week, and familiarizing himself with the Falcons' offensive system. It takes character to have a work ethic, and it was in this area that Vick was sorely lacking.
Little did the Falcons know that Vick's lack of character extended way beyond football. By now, just about everyone, even those who know nothing about the game of football, is aware of the heinous crimes he committed against animals. He was one of the key players in a dog fighting operation that also involved illegal gambling. Vick took part in preparing dogs for fighting, torturing and killing those dogs that weren't getting the job done, and even provided most of the money for the gambling side of the operation. When the dust settled after the investigation, Vick admitted to conduct that was "illegal, cruel, and reprehensible" and pleaded guilty to federal charges. For this, he payed dearly, both literally and figuratively. He was forced by an arbitrator to return $19.97 million of a $20 million signing bonus he had received from the Falcons. He was sentenced to 23 months in federal prison. He was indefinitely suspended from the NFL. In the end, it is estimated that he lost $142 million in salary, signing bonuses, and endorsements.
Vick served his sentence, did his time, and was ready to return to the NFL in 2009. He quickly gravitated to Tony Dungy's side, adopting the revered former head coach as a mentor. Ultimately, the Eagles signed him to a contract, and though he didn't contribute much in his first year, he has paid enormous dividends this past season. Vick will be starting in the Pro Bowl, led the Eagles to the NFC East title, will be on the field when they host the Green Bay Packers this weekend in the first round of the NFL play-offs, has a definite chance of playing in the Super Bowl, and is a candidate for the NFL MVP award. What more can you ask for in a QB?
I know that I'm in the minority when I say what I'm about to say, but I think it's shameful that this type of story is unfolding before our very eyes. Many want to believe that this is a prime example of how the penal system in our country really is working. They want to think that this is an extraordinary tale of a changed man, of someone who went from the depths of hell to the heights of heaven after a major conversion. They see Vick as a hero, as someone who they can point to as being the epitome of the ultimate comeback, a shining beacon of hope for all those who fall but then get a second chance. Sorry, but I just don't see it that way.
The NFL thrives on pushing its players as role models and strongly encourages them to perform community service. Community service is in fact something that many NFL organizations require of their players. Though there are plenty of pro athletes who shun the idea of being a role model, the NFL will have none of it. Players are constantly reminded that being a pro athlete and a role model go hand in hand. This is something that I strongly believe and thus I commend the NFL for their persistence on this issue. Yet, somehow it doesn't seem right that arguably their biggest star, their poster boy, the player who has a chance to have one of the greatest seasons in NFL history, is a liar, dog torturer, dog killer, illegal gambler, and ex-convict. Is this really who the NFL wants as a role model for the millions and millions of young people who watch NFL football regularly?
The NFL has banned players for life before, in most cases for drug offenses. I totally understand that approach, since drug addicts are not exactly the type of people you want representing your league. Yet drug addiction is an illness. It is possible that the person who partakes in it is more the victim of a terrible disease than the perpetrator of a heinous crime. Yet these players have been banned while Mr. Vick gets to take the field each Sunday and put on a performance for NFL spectators. I don't understand it. Playing in the NFL is a privilege, not a right. Michael Vick doesn't have a right to be there, even though he did serve his sentence and pay his debt to society. This isn't about that. It's about whether an ex-con deserves this type of opportunity given his sordid past, whether he should be in the national spotlight every week, and whether our children should be adopting this guy as a role model, perhaps even as their idol.
The federal judge who sentenced Vick said that he did not believe for one minute that Vick was ever truly sorry for his crimes. First, Vick consistently lied to federal investigators before finally owning up to what he did. Then, his body language and speech during his trial were tinged with insincerity. Even now that he is free from prison, he has still associated himself with the same men who he partnered with in the dog fighting operation. Does this sound like a changed man? Granted, no one can see inside a man's heart except God Himself. For the rest of us, we have to make our own judgment, which may or may not be wrong. My judgment, based on what evidence I have, is that Vick is not at all a changed man. I think he'd go back to dog fighting in a heartbeat if he could get away with it. At the very least, why has he not relinquished his ties with the criminals who conspired with him?
If we as a society truly want to send a positive message to young people, if we really want to demonstrate to them what type of behavior is acceptable, and if we really want them to follow in the footsteps of those who are good and righteous, then people like Michael Vick have no business playing in the NFL. Vick served his sentence, and so he deserves his freedom and a chance to integrate back into society. But he doesn't deserve the opportunity, a precious opportunity that so few receive, to play in the most popular professional sports league in the United States. He does not deserve to play in the Pro Bowl, though he will be there. He does not deserve to play in the Super Bowl, and he sure as hell does not deserve to be NFL MVP. I'll be pulling for any other NFC team to oust Vick from the play-offs, and for Tom Brady to win the MVP award.
As much as I've always respected the NFL for keeping their players in line, unlike some other pro sports leagues where the inmates run the asylum, I believe they dropped the ball big-time on Michael Vick. I wonder how Roger Goodell would truly feel if Vick goes on to have the greatest season in NFL history. Sure, he'll say all the right things about what a wonderful turnaround Vick has accomplished, and what a heartwarming story it is. But will this really be endearing to him? Will he honestly be happy about having an ex-convict as the NFL's ambassador? As I said before, only God can see inside a man's heart. But I have to believe that Goodell is dreading the thought of things panning out this way. In the end, he'll have no one to blame but himself for letting Vick back into the league, all the while watching the league's reputation take a major hit. Hold up that NFL shield, Roger. The blow may be coming.
At one time, Vick was arguably the greatest athlete to ever play in the NFL. His speed, quickness, arm strength, and explosiveness made him an absolute nightmare for opposing defensive coordinators. No one doubted that by the end of his career, he'd own the record for most career rushing yards by a QB, and maybe even for most combined yards (rushing and passing) as well. But there was one major problem with Vick, evident to everyone in the Atlanta Falcons' organization. His work ethic was deplorable. He was habitually the last one to enter the building and the first one to leave, both during the week when the team practiced and on game day. He believed that his extraordinary physical capabilities somehow would compensate for his lack of preparation. Vick was hardly the best student when it came to reviewing game tapes, mulling over game plans for the upcoming week, and familiarizing himself with the Falcons' offensive system. It takes character to have a work ethic, and it was in this area that Vick was sorely lacking.
Little did the Falcons know that Vick's lack of character extended way beyond football. By now, just about everyone, even those who know nothing about the game of football, is aware of the heinous crimes he committed against animals. He was one of the key players in a dog fighting operation that also involved illegal gambling. Vick took part in preparing dogs for fighting, torturing and killing those dogs that weren't getting the job done, and even provided most of the money for the gambling side of the operation. When the dust settled after the investigation, Vick admitted to conduct that was "illegal, cruel, and reprehensible" and pleaded guilty to federal charges. For this, he payed dearly, both literally and figuratively. He was forced by an arbitrator to return $19.97 million of a $20 million signing bonus he had received from the Falcons. He was sentenced to 23 months in federal prison. He was indefinitely suspended from the NFL. In the end, it is estimated that he lost $142 million in salary, signing bonuses, and endorsements.
Vick served his sentence, did his time, and was ready to return to the NFL in 2009. He quickly gravitated to Tony Dungy's side, adopting the revered former head coach as a mentor. Ultimately, the Eagles signed him to a contract, and though he didn't contribute much in his first year, he has paid enormous dividends this past season. Vick will be starting in the Pro Bowl, led the Eagles to the NFC East title, will be on the field when they host the Green Bay Packers this weekend in the first round of the NFL play-offs, has a definite chance of playing in the Super Bowl, and is a candidate for the NFL MVP award. What more can you ask for in a QB?
I know that I'm in the minority when I say what I'm about to say, but I think it's shameful that this type of story is unfolding before our very eyes. Many want to believe that this is a prime example of how the penal system in our country really is working. They want to think that this is an extraordinary tale of a changed man, of someone who went from the depths of hell to the heights of heaven after a major conversion. They see Vick as a hero, as someone who they can point to as being the epitome of the ultimate comeback, a shining beacon of hope for all those who fall but then get a second chance. Sorry, but I just don't see it that way.
The NFL thrives on pushing its players as role models and strongly encourages them to perform community service. Community service is in fact something that many NFL organizations require of their players. Though there are plenty of pro athletes who shun the idea of being a role model, the NFL will have none of it. Players are constantly reminded that being a pro athlete and a role model go hand in hand. This is something that I strongly believe and thus I commend the NFL for their persistence on this issue. Yet, somehow it doesn't seem right that arguably their biggest star, their poster boy, the player who has a chance to have one of the greatest seasons in NFL history, is a liar, dog torturer, dog killer, illegal gambler, and ex-convict. Is this really who the NFL wants as a role model for the millions and millions of young people who watch NFL football regularly?
The NFL has banned players for life before, in most cases for drug offenses. I totally understand that approach, since drug addicts are not exactly the type of people you want representing your league. Yet drug addiction is an illness. It is possible that the person who partakes in it is more the victim of a terrible disease than the perpetrator of a heinous crime. Yet these players have been banned while Mr. Vick gets to take the field each Sunday and put on a performance for NFL spectators. I don't understand it. Playing in the NFL is a privilege, not a right. Michael Vick doesn't have a right to be there, even though he did serve his sentence and pay his debt to society. This isn't about that. It's about whether an ex-con deserves this type of opportunity given his sordid past, whether he should be in the national spotlight every week, and whether our children should be adopting this guy as a role model, perhaps even as their idol.
The federal judge who sentenced Vick said that he did not believe for one minute that Vick was ever truly sorry for his crimes. First, Vick consistently lied to federal investigators before finally owning up to what he did. Then, his body language and speech during his trial were tinged with insincerity. Even now that he is free from prison, he has still associated himself with the same men who he partnered with in the dog fighting operation. Does this sound like a changed man? Granted, no one can see inside a man's heart except God Himself. For the rest of us, we have to make our own judgment, which may or may not be wrong. My judgment, based on what evidence I have, is that Vick is not at all a changed man. I think he'd go back to dog fighting in a heartbeat if he could get away with it. At the very least, why has he not relinquished his ties with the criminals who conspired with him?
If we as a society truly want to send a positive message to young people, if we really want to demonstrate to them what type of behavior is acceptable, and if we really want them to follow in the footsteps of those who are good and righteous, then people like Michael Vick have no business playing in the NFL. Vick served his sentence, and so he deserves his freedom and a chance to integrate back into society. But he doesn't deserve the opportunity, a precious opportunity that so few receive, to play in the most popular professional sports league in the United States. He does not deserve to play in the Pro Bowl, though he will be there. He does not deserve to play in the Super Bowl, and he sure as hell does not deserve to be NFL MVP. I'll be pulling for any other NFC team to oust Vick from the play-offs, and for Tom Brady to win the MVP award.
As much as I've always respected the NFL for keeping their players in line, unlike some other pro sports leagues where the inmates run the asylum, I believe they dropped the ball big-time on Michael Vick. I wonder how Roger Goodell would truly feel if Vick goes on to have the greatest season in NFL history. Sure, he'll say all the right things about what a wonderful turnaround Vick has accomplished, and what a heartwarming story it is. But will this really be endearing to him? Will he honestly be happy about having an ex-convict as the NFL's ambassador? As I said before, only God can see inside a man's heart. But I have to believe that Goodell is dreading the thought of things panning out this way. In the end, he'll have no one to blame but himself for letting Vick back into the league, all the while watching the league's reputation take a major hit. Hold up that NFL shield, Roger. The blow may be coming.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)