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.
Monday, January 10, 2011
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.
Monday, January 3, 2011
Share the Debt?
As we begin a new year, our country, and in fact the entire world, faces what could be considered the most severe debt crisis in history. Many Americans have been ruined by personal debt over the last year or two, and now we even have entire countries going bankrupt. I have written in previous posts about the crisis in Europe, where riots have taken place in Greece, France, Great Britain, and Italy. I have discussed the EU bailouts of both Greece and Ireland, and the possible upcoming bailouts of Portugal and Spain. I have also made the point that these are hardly third-world countries we're talking about here. That is what makes this reality all the more frightening for the rest of the world.
I have also discussed the situation here in the United States, where several states are on the verge of bankruptcy. The ones in the worst fiscal shape are California, Illinois, New York, and my home state of New Jersey. When you look at what has happened in Europe, you can only wonder if they are but one step ahead of us. Is it possible that these states could go bankrupt in 2011? And if they do, will the federal government bail them out as the EU has bailed out Greece and Ireland? The question is as troubling to ponder as it is difficult to answer.
Let's start by going back to Europe for a second and taking Germany as an example. Germany has the largest economy of all the European countries, and they are not nearly in as much financial trouble as most of their EU counterparts. Why? Because the Germans live up to their reputation as being extremely disciplined and having a solid work ethic. They have not handed out as many entitlements to their citizens as so many other European countries have over the past several years. In countries like Greece, where people retired young on fat pensions and received free healthcare from the government, the powers that be eventually ran out of things to give and started to take back. That's where the trouble began. That's when the riots started, and that's when the EU had to step in to save them.
In Germany, people have actually worked for a living rather than sitting on their derrieres and living off the government. Now, Germany is in a position where it will most likely never need a bailout from the EU. They are one of the most sovereign credits in the entire world, and that is why they would rather cut spending than agree to financial consolidation among the European countries. I back them one-hundred percent in this decision, because to me it is a question of fairness. Why should a country that has done the right thing for so long be forced to help bail out the countries that sold the house, gave it all away, and are now on the verge of collapse?
Let's translate that situation over to our country. If California, Illinois, New York, or New Jersey should go bankrupt, will the federal government bail them out? I would answer that question with a question: "Why should they?" Why should other states that have not mismanaged their funds nearly as much, have not been so overrun by corruption, and have not catered to the unions in exchange for votes now watch their federal tax dollars go toward bailing these states out? Do you think the citizens of North Dakota, Montana, or Kansas will tell their local congressmen to hurry up and rush those funds along to poor California and Illinois? Will the people of Wyoming, Wisconsin, or Oregon start letter-writing campaigns to send money to New York and New Jersey? Uhh...I don't think so.
In a recent interview, Senator John McCain was asked if he would vote in favor of a bailout for these troubled states. He actually laughed when he was asked the question, then responded by saying that he would express his deepest sympathy and wish them all the best. In other words, "Not a chance, my friends." Even as a resident of New Jersey, I would back the federal government if they took a stance against bailing us out. I look at it this way. If I had a neighbor who mired himself in debt to the point where he lost his car and his home, and he rang my doorbell and asked for a donation to bail him out of his predicament, what would I do? Honestly, I think my response would be very similar to the one given by Senator McCain.
Thus it is my position that those states which are suffering financial crises CANNOT count on being bailed out by the federal government. It would be naive and presumptuous to do so. There is no way out of this debt crisis other than to cut spending. Chris Christie has certainly done everything he could possibly do in his first year as governor of New Jersey to rein in spending, making an inordinate amount of enemies in the process. There is no doubt that the process is painful, and it's sad to see education, police departments, and fire departments suffer deep budget cuts. But there is simply no other way. We have reached the point where we need to choose between the lesser of two evils: bankruptcy or massive, unpopular cuts in spending.
So which one would you prefer? Should we just ignore the situation in Europe and keep spending the way we've always spent, expecting a bailout from the feds just as Greece and Ireland received a bailout from the EU? Or should we follow Germany's example and move to cut spending, thus remaining sovereign and not having to worry about whether we would receive a bailout? Personally, I prefer the latter. The Germans are on the right track, and I only hope and pray that U.S. state governments will follow their lead. Time is running out, as many experts predict that states could start going bankrupt as early as the end of this year. But the window is still open ever so slightly to start doing the right thing and return our states, and our country, to fiscal health. Let's hope that we can squeeze through that opening before the mountain of debt squeezes us.
I have also discussed the situation here in the United States, where several states are on the verge of bankruptcy. The ones in the worst fiscal shape are California, Illinois, New York, and my home state of New Jersey. When you look at what has happened in Europe, you can only wonder if they are but one step ahead of us. Is it possible that these states could go bankrupt in 2011? And if they do, will the federal government bail them out as the EU has bailed out Greece and Ireland? The question is as troubling to ponder as it is difficult to answer.
Let's start by going back to Europe for a second and taking Germany as an example. Germany has the largest economy of all the European countries, and they are not nearly in as much financial trouble as most of their EU counterparts. Why? Because the Germans live up to their reputation as being extremely disciplined and having a solid work ethic. They have not handed out as many entitlements to their citizens as so many other European countries have over the past several years. In countries like Greece, where people retired young on fat pensions and received free healthcare from the government, the powers that be eventually ran out of things to give and started to take back. That's where the trouble began. That's when the riots started, and that's when the EU had to step in to save them.
In Germany, people have actually worked for a living rather than sitting on their derrieres and living off the government. Now, Germany is in a position where it will most likely never need a bailout from the EU. They are one of the most sovereign credits in the entire world, and that is why they would rather cut spending than agree to financial consolidation among the European countries. I back them one-hundred percent in this decision, because to me it is a question of fairness. Why should a country that has done the right thing for so long be forced to help bail out the countries that sold the house, gave it all away, and are now on the verge of collapse?
Let's translate that situation over to our country. If California, Illinois, New York, or New Jersey should go bankrupt, will the federal government bail them out? I would answer that question with a question: "Why should they?" Why should other states that have not mismanaged their funds nearly as much, have not been so overrun by corruption, and have not catered to the unions in exchange for votes now watch their federal tax dollars go toward bailing these states out? Do you think the citizens of North Dakota, Montana, or Kansas will tell their local congressmen to hurry up and rush those funds along to poor California and Illinois? Will the people of Wyoming, Wisconsin, or Oregon start letter-writing campaigns to send money to New York and New Jersey? Uhh...I don't think so.
In a recent interview, Senator John McCain was asked if he would vote in favor of a bailout for these troubled states. He actually laughed when he was asked the question, then responded by saying that he would express his deepest sympathy and wish them all the best. In other words, "Not a chance, my friends." Even as a resident of New Jersey, I would back the federal government if they took a stance against bailing us out. I look at it this way. If I had a neighbor who mired himself in debt to the point where he lost his car and his home, and he rang my doorbell and asked for a donation to bail him out of his predicament, what would I do? Honestly, I think my response would be very similar to the one given by Senator McCain.
Thus it is my position that those states which are suffering financial crises CANNOT count on being bailed out by the federal government. It would be naive and presumptuous to do so. There is no way out of this debt crisis other than to cut spending. Chris Christie has certainly done everything he could possibly do in his first year as governor of New Jersey to rein in spending, making an inordinate amount of enemies in the process. There is no doubt that the process is painful, and it's sad to see education, police departments, and fire departments suffer deep budget cuts. But there is simply no other way. We have reached the point where we need to choose between the lesser of two evils: bankruptcy or massive, unpopular cuts in spending.
So which one would you prefer? Should we just ignore the situation in Europe and keep spending the way we've always spent, expecting a bailout from the feds just as Greece and Ireland received a bailout from the EU? Or should we follow Germany's example and move to cut spending, thus remaining sovereign and not having to worry about whether we would receive a bailout? Personally, I prefer the latter. The Germans are on the right track, and I only hope and pray that U.S. state governments will follow their lead. Time is running out, as many experts predict that states could start going bankrupt as early as the end of this year. But the window is still open ever so slightly to start doing the right thing and return our states, and our country, to fiscal health. Let's hope that we can squeeze through that opening before the mountain of debt squeezes us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)