The Recovering Politico

PBS Frontline: Very Interesting, Slightly Annoying

2011-05-18T21:13:00.005-04:00

One of the best programs on television is PBS' documentary series Frontline. Frontline excels in covering interesting topics with compelling storytelling and in-depth reporting. I always come away with a better grasp of the issue in question after having watched one of the programs. But I am always annoyed that they leave a big piece of the puzzle unaddressed or angle of the story unrepresented.

The May 17 episode of Frontline was no different, unfortunately. The program covered the spread of the use of meth in America over the last couple of decades. Frontline discussed various attempts by the government at all levels to control the problem, including efforts to regulate the sale of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine, ingredients used in the manufacture of meth. As is the case whenever the government attempts to regulate a legal product, it faces opposition from the producers of that product in the form of lobbying. This time, it was the big, greedy pharmaceutical companies that make cold medicine that were fighting the regulations.

Over the course of the last 25 years, regulations increasingly have limited access to cold medicines containing pseudoephedrine. Presently, you don't need a prescription for these medicines, but you do have to register with the pharmacy so sales can be tracked. But the supporters of tighter regulation want to take that next step and require a prescription for purchase. Such proponents admit that there would be a cost to consumers, but that it would be worth it because it would lessen the use of and, thus destruction caused by, meth.

The annoying part of the way Frontline reported this dynamic was that it drew the battle lines as the pharmaceutical companies on one side and the good-hearted activists fighting to save lives on the other. As a result, a key component of that dynamic went unaddressed, and Frontline was in a perfect position to address it. In short, what would be the costs associated with making Sudafed available only by prescription?

Sudafed works best for many people, including those of us at TRP. So when I have a cold, I run by the drug store, pick up a pack for around $5 and make my way on to a productive day of work. If I needed a prescription, it would cost me at least $20 bucks for a doctor visit co-pay and then the cost of the medicine itself. The real cost would be even greater as I'm just covering the co-pay. The insurance company would have to chip in a little more. And we wonder why health care costs have risen so much.

Making Sudafed and its brethren available only by prescription would impose monetary costs to both individuals and insurance companies and lead to productivity costs as people with a mere common cold need to sit in a doctor's office for an hour. Unfortunately, Frontline couldn't find a minute or two in its nearly hour long, no-commercial break program to cover the impact on normal, law-abiding citizens. Instead, it was lazy. That is annoying.

The Not As Good of a "D"eal League

2011-05-14T09:21:00.004-04:00

Last year I discussed the issues surrounding paying college athletes. This week, ESPN.com ran a story about the NBA's Developmental League, exploring whether it was a viable option for graduating high school basketball players.

The D-League's system is tailored to mirror the NBA's (in terms of rules, coaching, and style of play) and is heavily scouted by -- and has strong connections with -- NBA teams. Yet, even with D-League salaries around $20,000, high school players are opting for the college route. The article re-enforces my point from last August:

There are also worries about exposure. Collegians at high-major programs have five months of televised games, not to mention the NCAA tournament, to build their brands among fans and media members. D-League players are lucky to get a game on NBA TV. Collegians play in front of packed houses filled with boisterous fans. D-League gyms are often quiet and empty.

And if a player is willing to adopt all that, there's still no consensus on whether the D-League -- which has a reputation among league personnel as a rightfully harsh, even cutthroat, competitive environment -- is the best place to develop a young talent in the first place.

In addition, similar to college, "the D-League covers most of its players' expenses, including housing, travel, medical care and a daily per diem." So it appears that the exposure, experience, and developmental aspects of college basketball are worth at least $20,000 since almost every single player is choosing supposedly to "play for free."

No proponent of paying college athletes that I know of is calling for salaries nearly as high as $20,000. So if college is so unfair and such a raw deal for college athletes, why do they keep choosing it over options that give them straight, cash homey? Well, as I've argued and this article states, there must be other, more intangible benefits that are worth more to the players. It is tough to put a price tag on those benefits, but they seem to be at least $20,000.

Adios, MoFo

2011-05-02T21:35:00.003-04:00

Some great news over the weekend as we learned Osama is going through his orientation in the Mass Murdering Jew-Hater Wing of Hell right about now.

Great job by the Navy SEALS and the CIA who took him out. Great, ballsy call by President Obama to give the green light on the mission when failure would have had devastating and embarrassing results. Great job by President Bush and his team to put in place practices that helped get the information and start the "intel thread" that led to this mission.

Just two things. Can't the most powerful man in the world get a better seat in the room? And can't the most powerful country in the world get a bigger room in which to watch its covert ops missions? It looks like they piled in to a third floor room in a fraternity house.

What Do South Florida, Georgia St. and Northeastern Have in Common?

2011-03-29T20:48:00.007-04:00

Answer: They all lost at least 19 games this season and all beat VCU.

VCU's story is great and all, but they still shouldn't have gotten a bid to the NCAA tourney. I love the story, and I'm rooting for them. They are also playing some amazing basketball right now, but that doesn't change what they did from November through February. In addition to the above horrible losses, they also barely beat some even worse teams (VMI, W&M) and had no signature wins.

So, people can excoriate Jay Bilas and others for their Selection Sunday comments. But VCU's March performance doesn't erase the rest of the season.

There, I said it.

Hey NPR, It's Not Me, It's You

2011-03-09T22:39:00.004-05:00

Sorry, Car Talk. I like you, but it is time to move on. We've had some good times, but I hate your not-as-smart-as-they-think-they-are friends and family members, and it is time to end this relationship. Maybe if you move out of your parents' basement and start supporting yourself, we might be able to rekindle things.

Publicly-funded radio and television are two ideas that have been unnecessary for awhile. With the vast array of news and children's stations that exist today, NPR and PBS are not filling a programming void that arguably existed at the times of their creations.

With the recent video of NPR execs showing extremely poor judgment (at a minimum), but more likely their true colors, NPR's days on the government dole may finally be coming to an end.

View for yourself and see if you can come up with a compelling reason why, in this time of a looming debt crisis and diverse programming, we should spend another dollar on these relics.

Oh, and if you are wondering what Big Bird is going to do, maybe he (she?) can ask the NPR and PBS execs for some help. I hear they are doing quite well.

As I Was Saying...

2011-03-03T20:27:00.004-05:00

In the week since my "Protesting Reality" post, not only has the right honorable Dr. Charles Krauthammer basically plagiarized said post, but also a Washington Post article says reality is even realer than we had previously believed.

In an article entitled "Economists: State, local pensions understate shortfall by $1.5 trillion or more", we learn that current accounting methods project a $344 billion shortfall. The bad news is that inaccurate accounting methods are being used, according to the article's economists. In reality, the states are facing a combined shortfall more than 3 times as severe.

Meanwhile, heads continue to be buried in the sand in Madison, Columbus, and other state capitols as public employees assert that they are entitled to job security without regard to talent or success, free health care, early retirement, and generous pensions.

I'll conclude by throwing out something not often brought up. Teachers must think principals and superintendents are the worst people in the world. In a press release from the NY Teachers, they claim that if seniority is taken away as layoff criteria, then teachers will be exposed "to harassment, favoritism and intimidation." Is that really what teachers think of their principals and superintendents? If so, it doesn't say much about the people in those positions.

Protesting Reality

2011-02-24T20:54:00.005-05:00

It has been very interesting to watch the budget battles being waged in state after state across the country. Here are the states that have been making headlines recently: Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, New Jersey, and Rhode Island. With the slight exception of Indiana, these are fairly consistent Democratic states. Ohio does have a tendency to be a swing state, but we aren't talking about deep red Republican strongholds. The point being, these aren't the usual suspects that are simply going through the latest iteration of attacking big government.

Whether it is Wisconsin or Rhode Island, the message from the reformers has been clear: complain all you want, but we have no choice. Wisconsin has been getting the major headlines, but I came across the Rhode Island situation on a PBS Newshour broadcast of all places. In this story, the person leading the charge is the Democratic State Treasurer Gina Riamondo. The gist of her argument: there are major unfunded liabilities made by politicians years ago; those politicians are now gone; and fundamental change is required.

The key word there is "fundamental." As Riamondo puts it, just tinkering around the edges won't fix the problem. That is the reality of the debate, and it is why the teachers and the other public employee unions just don't get it. Sure, it is great that the Wisconsin teachers say they will start contributing more to their pensions. But the entire way government operates and functions has to change. So, as Chris Christie explains, politicians have been lying to them for years by promising the undeliverable, yet the teachers are getting upset with the one person who walks through the door and tells them the truth.

So the teachers can protest. They can make some concessions. And they can be 100% right in that they are just asking for what they were promised. That doesn't change reality. That doesn't mean that the money is there to pay them or that the current way of doing business is sustainable. Ultimately, they are just protesting reality.

Lessons from January 2011

2011-02-01T12:33:00.003-05:00

The month of January is now done, and it was certainly an educational month. So let's look back and review what we learned.

Lesson #1: According to the smart people running most of our national media outlets and the Tucson Sheriff's Department, the rhetoric and website graphics of the usual conservative suspects motivated someone who doesn't have a discernible political ideology and doesn't follow politics to go on a shooting rampage.

Lesson #2: According to the creator of the MTV show Skins, its sex-driven, drug-obsessed portrayal of teenage life is simply a "thoughtful and honest portrayal of teen life today."

Lesson #3: According to Rep. Jim Moran (D-Socialist Republic of Arlington), there are no valid, policy-based reasons to oppose President Obama. There are merely racist reasons, similar to the reasons held by those that opposed Lincoln during the Civil War because they feared the freeing of the slaves.

Lesson #4: When conservatives hear that our country needs to have a mature conversation about race relations, they should understand that this simply means, "shut your yapper unless you are getting 100% on board with whatever the self-appointed leaders of the black community and the editorial page of the New York Times have to say about race relations." As evidence, witness how CNN covered recent comments by Rick Santorum, a former senator from Pennsylvania.

First, Santorum's comments:

"The question is -- and this is what Barack Obama didn't want to answer -- is that human life a person under the Constitution? And Barack Obama says ‘no.’ Well if that person -- human life is not a person -- then I find it almost remarkable for a black man to say, ‘we're going to decide who are people and who are not people."

The logic is fairly straightforward: for an inexcusably long period of time, this country considered black people to be not persons in the eyes of the law. Today, many deny the personhood of unborn children. For Santorum, just as that line was wrongly drawn in the case of slavery and Jim Crow, so too is the line wrongly drawn now with regard to abortion. Further, he believes that someone who would have fallen on the wrong side of the previous divide, might be a little more sensitive to such divisions. Agree or disagree with that logic, there is nothing racist or controversial about it. Yet, look at how CNN lumps in Santorum's comments with a Democrat's assertion that opponents of Obamacare are liars in the same vein as the Nazi propagandists. According to CNN, they are both examples of how recent efforts to instill more civility in political discourse were short-lived. If only Santorum had waited a few days to learn Lesson #3 from Prof. Moran, he might have re-educated himself.

To recap, if you are espousing conservative views, be careful what you say as not only crazy people who never actually are aware of your words will be influenced by them, but also otherwise law-abiding and mature adults may be driven to unlawful or uncivil behavior. However, if you are airing a show targeting impressionable, insecure teens whose existence is focused on fitting in, you aren't influencing them to mimic that behavior or see it as normal; you are simply putting a mirror up to American teenage life. Gotcha. If you are a white person (especially a man) with conservative views, you can only participate in the national conversation on race if you change your views. You can't even oppose a president who happens to be black. Otherwise, you are being uncivil or racist or both. Gotcha, again.

I apologize for my slowness on the uptake. Clearly, I miss my nightly haranguing from Keith Olbermann to remind me that what I consider to be well-thought out, constitutionally-based, freedom-focused views are actually ignorant, racist, and sexist.

Official TRP SOTU Reax

2011-01-26T23:06:00.002-05:00

Here are a couple of thoughts on last night's State of the Union address:

- President Obama starts off saying that the American people want the two parties to work together. Speaking for everyone at this blog, that's not what we want. We want policies we think are best for the country to be implemented. So we need enough cooperation to get those policies implemented. I suspect most people in this country believe this as well, whether they admit it or not.

- So Obama doesn't want to subject "Americans' guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market." He does sneak in the word "guaranteed", but this is still such an unserious statement to make when dealing with investing and financial markets. There is such a vast array of investment vehicles that we aren't stuck with only very low interest of Social Security on the one hand and having the financially unwashed masses picking individual stocks on the other. From traditional mutual funds to equity and bond index funds to money market accounts, there is surely a system that could be put in place whereby individuals are given a few, broad ranging, diversified, and relatively-low risk options to get a much better return on investment than what Social Security provides. I'm sure a quick look at the investment portfolios of most Democratic politicians and pundits would reveal that they agree with me.

- This obtuse view of retirement investing is especially ironic giving how much of the speech was devoted to proposals to "invest" taxpayers' money in one governmental program after another. While I'm sure you can cherry pick a few success stories, much more likely than not, there isn't a great return on investment for the vast majority of these programs. Speeches like this really do shed light on a politician's or ideology's default philosophical settings. His "government investment is the engine of the economy" analogy reveals just how much he believes for every problem all that is needed is another government program.

- It's nights like last night that make you see where the TEA Party and libertarians are coming from. All too often the debate is framed thusly: increase spending or keep the already massive amounts of spending frozen at current levels. Finally, there appears to be some talk of real, actual cuts.

- Freeze domestic discretionary spending? Smooth move, Obama. This proposal is akin to me demanding a huge raise from my boss, then 2 years later I offer to take a pay freeze. Conservative pundits pointed out this "reset the baseline" trick when it was happening. Now it is coming true.

- It still amazes me that people think this guy represents change. He is approximately the 73rd U.S. president to call for increases in alternative energy development. He routinely misrepresents his opponents arguments. It is fine if you like the man's policy or philosophy, just don't tell me that he is different than most of the politicians who grace us with their presence.

BCS Title Game Final Grade: A-

2011-01-12T21:17:00.003-05:00

This year's BCS National Championship was an excellent game, delivering all that we could ask for in a game of that stature and importance. Big plays, tough defense, trick plays, a comeback, and a last minute winning scoring drive. So why wasn't this an A+?

There are three things in this world that are consistent mysteries to me.

1. How do record players work? I know the official explanation. But it just doesn't make sense that a needle can go over grooves in piece of vinyl and that action can recreate the exact sounds of the artist.

2. Why don't we spell Chinese and other Mid- and Far-Eastern languages phonetically? They have different alphabets, so when we translate there should be no need to create words like "Nguyen" or "Hsu" when they easily could be "Wen" or "Shu".

3. How in the world is Brent Musberger given the most prominent play-by-play job in college football?

For years, Ol' Brent has been ruining games with his shenanigans in the broadcast booth. But it was only since Keith Jackson delivered his final "Whoa Nelly" that Musberger has risen to such annoying heights. Here is just a sampling of his mishaps during the national title game:

After scoring 2 touchdowns and a safety, Auburn brings its field goal unit onto the field. To which Ol' Brent responds: "Again, Auburn settles for a field goal." Again??? Which game were you watching?

Second, as an Oregon ball carrier crossed the 10 yard line, heading for the endzone, Ol' Brent yells out, "Touchdown!". Then, the guy gets tackled on the 5. Four plays later, Oregon fails to convert on 4th and Goal. Not only did a touchdown not get scored on the play of Ol' Brents premature jubilation, Oregon didn't score at all.

Finally, with the game still in question in the 4th quarter, Ol' Brent starts rambling on about where Cam Newton might get drafted. Going unnoticed is that Auburn is letting the play clock run down almost to zero on each play. Now, this is not unusual event during games. But an insightful analyst might bring up that this strategy is especially smart during this particular game. Why? Well, because Oregon runs a hurry up offense and the Auburn defense has little time to rest between plays and can rarely substitute. Thus, while the Auburn offense was draining the play clock, not only were they taking away time from Oregon's offense, they were also giving the Auburn defense valuable time to rest.

This was a great game. As are many of the games that ABC airs on Saturday nights each fall. Why they must be tainted with Ol' Brent's inanities, errors, and superficial home-spunisms remains a mystery to me. But as long as he sits in the broadcast booth, no game can get higher than an A-.

A Distinction Without a Difference

2010-12-19T19:26:00.004-05:00

The Richmond Times-Dispatch ran an article by Politifact on Sunday claiming that Virginia Congressman-elect Robert Hurt is making a false claim when he says that the new health care law is a "government takeover of health care."

After taking a quick lap around the interwebs, I discovered that Politifact is an outfit that is run by the St. Petersburg Times, gets good air time on networks such as ABC, and has regional or state specific editions. And their analysis of Hurt is actually a Virginia edition for what they've dubbed the the "Lie of the Year."

Politifact states that "as previous national PolitiFact checks have shown, no matter how you look at it, the legislation cannot reasonably be considered a government takeover." Oh really? Well then, I guess that settles it. No reasonable person can think otherwise.

They try to support their argument by stating how hospitals won't by owned by the government nor will doctors be government employees. Then, in a manner that would cause envy within the Obama Press Office, comes my favorite line: "The law is, in fact, designed to set up new systems to encourage private health insurance companies to provide more coverage and better services." Encourage. Force. Potayto, Potahto.

Rather than rehash the entire wisdom of the health care law, I'd like to propose that Politifact consider the following thought experiment. (For this experiment, let's assume that the Constitution has lived and breathed itself into watering down freedom of the press protections.)

Let's say Congress passes a law that says newspapers must include specific content in their papers earregardless of the news value or cost to the paper of said content. Second, newspapers must send discounted or free papers to the children of subscribers until they are 26. Third, newspapers cannot deny daily subscription service to anyone regardless of location. Fourth, newspapers must spend a government-prescribed percentage of their revenues on news coverage, thus limiting what can be spent on advertising, salaries, or profits. To support its case, the government says it is just trying to encourage the newspapers to expand its services and provide better content. Although, none of the reporters would be paid by the government and none of the newspapers would be owned by the government, show me a member of the media that would take this lying down. Constitutional issues aside, no one would argue that this doesn't equal a government takeover of the newspaper industry.

Basically, Politifact's employment and ownership standard is a distinction without a difference. Yeah, they aren't under the same umbrella, but when HHS is acting is the insurance companies' board of directors, they might as well be. I will withhold further judgment of Politifact until I read more examples, but what I've seen so far seems to be more political and less fact.

Jim Moran = No Noah Webster

2010-12-10T21:14:00.005-05:00

There are many reasons to dislike my former congressman, Jim Moran. You might even say that I have a plethora of reasons to dislike Jim Moran. Aside from being a knee-jerk liberal, he has blamed the Iraq War on the Jews and been involved in a string of other misstatements and controversies. We can now add one more to the list.

There was a recent dust up surrounding the inclusion of an offensive video as part of a Smithsonian art exhibit. In response to complaints, the video was removed. Jim Moran chimed in, saying that "we need discussion, not censorship."

Hey, genius, this isn't censorship. Earregardless of whether the video should have been removed or not, its removal doesn't equate to censorship. It equates to taxpayers saying they don't want to pay for its production or promotion. The guy is still free to peddle this garbage on his own dime. To the contrary, censorship was what took place in Iraq under Saddam Hussein when people said the wrong thing. They were killed, tortured, or otherwise punished for expressing their opinions. Fortunately, no thanks to Jim Moran, that is one instance of real censorship that no longer exists.

Truly a Pay Freeze?

2010-11-29T22:01:00.004-05:00

President Obama announced today that he is proposing a pay freeze for most federal workers for the next two years. Even though it is akin to removing a teaspoon of water from a sinking ship, as far as deficit reduction is concerned, it is still a good move. A good move, that is, if it is for real. The key paragraph in the Washington Post article is this one:

The pay change will not impact bonuses for federal workers or when a federal worker is promoted to a new level of pay, meaning federal workers promoted in the next two years will receive a new level of pay, but not receive any additional annual raises.

The federal pay system consists of "levels" which are further broken down by "steps." In thinking back to my time as an executive branch employee, I think each year the pay for each level/step increased slightly (via legislation). When I saw an increase in pay, it was because I moved up a step or two. So will this just temporarily halt those increases? If so, what is going to stop a supervisor from just bumping up an employee's pay level? Such a move wouldn't save any money at all.

In the end, this could be a good symbolic first step in deficit reduction. Or, it could be another typical Washington maneuver where the words sound nice but nothing really changes. I will wait and see.

Sally Jenkins: A Real Marx Sister (Part II)

2010-11-17T22:19:00.003-05:00

Here is the conclusion to our gaze into the mind of Sally Jenkins. Part I can be read here.

4. "At the moment, the undefeated but non-BCS member TCU has no hope of playing for the national championship if BCS conference members Oregon and Auburn win out. Zimbalist points out that smaller schools in college football can never have the experience of the Rice University baseball team, which despite the small size of its athletic department rose up to win the 2003 College World Series."

You mean an experience like small school Wake Forest University going to a BCS game in 2006? If the Demon Deacons hadn't lost two games during the season, maybe they could have been champions. Furthermore, TCU won't play in the national championship game if Oregon and Auburn win out because the Horned Frogs haven't shown they are as good and haven't played as tough of a schedule as the Tigers or Ducks. As Levar Burton might say, don't just take my word for it, the integrity-focused Associated Press agrees.

5. "When huge amounts of revenue go to some athletic departments and not others, the unfairness iterates throughout college athletics: A gymnast that gets hurt at Alabama likely will have better medical/rehab care available to her than one that gets hurt at Utah. And it goes beyond athletics: The applicant pool at South Carolina likely will be deeper and wider than the one at Nevada, as a result of the money and exposure of the BCS."

Ignoring for the moment the fact that there would likely not even be a gymnast at Alabama if it weren't for the huge amounts of money taken in by the Alabama football program, is Miz Jenkins saying it would be better if the athletes at Alabama had arbitrarily-driven worse medical care or that the students at South Carolina have a less valuable diploma because Nevada's football team plays a crappy schedule? Alabama makes its money because people want to see their games. So television stations pick up their games. Advertisers pay greater amounts of money for ad space. And so on. Under a Jenkins system, either Alabama has to cut a check to the TCUs of the world or Chairman Jenkins would have to rule out the possibility of them making the money in the first place. Which brings us to item #6.

6. "The most damning indictment of the BCS comes from Bernie Machen, who was president of the University of Utah before he moved to the Florida, a BCS school, in 2004. Zimbalist quotes Machen: "When I was at Utah, our athletics budget was around $20-22 million per year. Our budget here is $84.5 million . . . and the major difference is the bowl revenue and TV revenue. . . . I don't think most people begrudge what we got because of being in the championship game, but all SEC schools got the same amount of money that we got. And Utah could beat a lot of SEC schools. That's the unfairness. I think that's got to be fixed one way or the other.'"

Gotcha. All we need to do is take money from each football program according to its ability and give that money to each football program according to its need. We would need to divide all the schools into two separate "classes" so that we would know which schools must give money and which schools should receive money. Then, the schools in the class that has to labor harder will control better means in which to produce more successful teams. Whoever is left standing at the end could receive the Collegiate Competition Championship Prize for Football. I don't know. It sounds great, even utopian, but I just wish we had some real world examples to show how such a system might actually work. If it did work, then maybe my beloved Cavaliers would have a great shot at winning a CCCP.

7. "That means it's up to Congress. Lawmakers have a simple available means to get rid of the BCS and force the NCAA to replace it with an equitable playoff system: tax exemptions. As I've written so often, the only thing that keeps BCS bowl money from being taxable income is the fact that, for the moment, Congress considers college athletics to be an educational endeavor. The day that legislators on Capitol Hill decide the BCS is a business, schools will lose their tax exemptions. They should write a law stripping the tax breaks from any college that participates in the BCS. That will kill it. Whatever takes its place won't be perfect - college football has always been a messy affair - but it will be better than stealing.

Oh, the irony of someone accusing somebody of stealing while at the same time calling on the government to take more money in the form of taxes so that it can destroy a perfectly legal entity. When proponents of limited government throw around claims of socialism or an overly-powerful and overly-intrusive government, they get chided for hyperbole. But, here, in the span of four paragraphs Miz Jenkins (unwittingly?) lays out a vision for college football that would make Karl Marx proud and then becomes an advocate for using the tax code to "kill" something she isn't a fan of. I think the BCS leaves a lot of room for improvement, but is certainly a lot better than stealing.

Sally Jenkins: A Real Marx Sister (Part I)

2010-11-14T20:28:00.005-05:00

The primary driver behind the creation of TRP was to have a forum to discuss two things that matter a lot to me: the role of government and college athletics. So when a spectacularly stupid article is written in one of the nation's highest profile publications that involves both of those matters, I feel it is my duty to give the article the blogospheric beatdown it deserves. Recognizing the error of Sally Jenkins' November 11, 2010 article is the easy part; knowing what his inane and what is just hilarious is the hard part. So here it is, in no particular order:

1. "The BCS has totally debased the sport in return for massive coin. Between 2007 and 2009, total payouts from the BCS bowls amounted to $410.1 million. Of that, $355.1 million (86.6 percent) went to the 65 schools in the BCS, by prearranged design. They've conducted this heist in broad daylight with total impunity."

First, I must give credit to TRP Brother B for pointing out this gem of a grammatical travesty: "by prearranged design". Not "by design" (which would have been sufficient), not even "by arranged design," but "by prearranged design." Wow, imagine the time the BCS haunchos must have spent preplanning! This does bring up a not quite interesting question: does the word "redundant" apply only to a single unnecessary second occurrence or does it cover all unnecessary occurrences? If it is the former, then "prearranged design" is doubly redundant. Alas, I digress from the digression.

Second, as I've talked about before, there are several reasons why universities need large sums of money to run an athletic department. A big reason is a little thing that Miz Jenkins is a huge fan of: Title IX.

Third, so the BCS schools get together on their own, come up with a post season format that includes naming a "BCS champion", and the money generated comes from advertising and other private, voluntary sources...and she thinks a "heist" has occurred? Whose money, exactly, was stolen?

Fourth, I actually find it remarkable that an eighth of the money goes to non-BCS schools. I wonder how much money from the Fiesta, Orange, Rose, and Sugar Bowls went to current non-BCS schools prior to the onset of the BCS in 1999? Miami and Florida State -- 2 perennial powers that were independent at the time, but now are part of BCS conferences -- were the only two schools to participate in now-BCS bowls from 1987-1998. From 1999-2010, non-traditional powers such as Hawaii, Utah, Boise St (2x), and TCU have participated in these games. In addition, previously non-major schools such as Louisville and Cincinnati have participated in the BCS thanks to BCS conferences expanding.

2. "They weren't bothered when the Associated Press withdrew from the BCS rankings system, citing a lack of integrity, or when Vice President Biden called the BCS 'a rigged deal'."

Ooooh! College football expert, bastion of integrity, never-talks-about-stuff-he-knows-jack-about Joe Biden thinks its a rigged deal. Maybe if he thought it was a big f****ng deal, then the BCS would be moved to resort to arm-twisting and undemocratic maneuvers to cram a major overhaul down the throats of the American public.

3. "BCS Executive Director Bill Hancock responded that it was 'hard to imagine a bigger waste of taxpayer money than to involve the government in college football.' That's the standard position taken by the BCS, and it's the most galling and supercilious attitude of all. Anytime you have a group of institutions conspiring against another group of institutions over hundreds of millions of dollars in cash and millions more in free marketing and exposure, that's a situation the government should take an interest in. Especially when a lot of those institutions are public universities."

So, Miss "Prearranged Design" now wants to drop "supercilious" on us. Touche. I needed to consult a dictionary to determine whether Miz Jenkins' argument is obtuse or merely lacking in adequate perspicaciousness of the veracious role of government.

First, "free marketing and exposure"? According to my 2010 Guide to Understanding White Male Domination, when colleges invest millions of dollars on stadiums, coaches and the like, it is an example of warped priorities. But when those schools earn a spot in a high-profile athletic contest, it is no longer an instance of reaping the rewards from an purportedly unwise investment but rather just an opportunity for free exposure?

Second, I take it Miz Jenkins isn't a big Tea Party supporter. I'm not typically sympathetic to the "doesn't Congress have better things to do" arguments. There are 535 of these people in Congress. Believe me, they always can find time to exert greater power or spend more taxpayer money. Nevertheless, it requires a very loose interpretation of the Constitution to think that the federal government should meddle in the affairs of how college football determines a champion of a post season exhibition series. I don't think this is what James Madison meant by promoting the general welfare. Admittedly, I'm no anti-trust expert, but when 6 separate conferences representing 65 schools create a system that leaves the door open for 40% of the slots to be filled by "non-member" conferences and independents, I don't think we have a situation that calls for Teddy Roosevelt to come back from his permanent safari in the sky to bust up some trusts.

The inanity doesn't end there. More to come in Part II tomorrow.

A Bigger Gold Mine than Roundtine

2010-11-10T13:05:00.005-05:00

I recently stumbled upon a treasure trove of Matt Labash articles. Labash, a writer for the Weekly Standard and the alternate for my golf foursome (he needs to step up his putting), apparently does a weekly column for the Daily Caller. He combines pessimism, snarkiness, and sound conservative philosophy in a way to which I can only aspire. (Warning: some instances of PG-13 subject matter.)

There are many to choose from, but here is a good sampling from his 10/5/10 column:

Second, if you were driving [your Prius] in Eco mode, you probably know that you were maximizing fuel savings in all driving conditions, that you were modifying your air conditioner’s operation, and that you reduced your fossil-fuel consumption by anywhere from 10-20 percent. So I don’t have to congratulate you. You’re a Prius driver, meaning you already congratulate yourself.

Your literary Roundtine

and...

Gold!

Facing the Music

2010-11-05T20:56:00.002-04:00

And what sweet, sweet music it is. While there are still some elections chips to fall, let's see how my electoral predictions turned out.

Prediction #1.
"To say that the Republicans will take back the House is no prediction. Instead of doing a detailed of research and figuring out, race-by-race, who will win, I will just post an estimate: 59 House seats gained by the Republicans."

As it stands today, Republicans picked up 61 seats. Eight seats remain undecided, but Democrats lead in a majority of them. In true UVA fan fashion, this was a pessimistic prediction.

Prediction #2
In Virginia, Griffith, Fimian, Rigell, and Periello will win the four contested races. Robert Hurt will miss the wave in VA-05. The culprit will be a combination of his tax hike vote in 2004 and charisma deficit disorder.

Again, pessimism colored my view of now Congressman-elect Hurt. My apologies to him and my friends who worked to get him into office. The Fimian race is still undecided, so I'll finish with a minimum of 2 for 4, with 3/4 still a possibility.

Prediction #3
Republicans will have a net pickup of eight Senate seats. This includes wins in Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Indiana, and North Dakota.

I was wrong on Colorado and Nevada and thus finished 6/8. You know it is a good night when Republicans are disappointed when they won in 3 solid blue state and feel they gave away elections involving the Vice President's old seat and the Democratic Majority Leader.

Prediction #4
The impact of this Election Day will be felt less in the next two years than it will the following eight. Flying under the radar will be the flipping over of numerous state legislatures and governorships just in time for the decennial redistricting battles. Combined with reapportionment that favors Republicans states, Republicans will face more favorable electoral conditions for House elections from 2012-2020.

I haven't been proven right or wrong yet, but early indications are that this will be the most accurate prediction. Republicans picked up 6 governors, which brings the total to 8 pickups since 2008 if you include Virginia and New Jersey from 2009. In addition, Republicans picked up control in 19 state legislative chambers and now control both houses in 25 states.

Finally, yes I know that a prediction recap post is a weak excuse for a new post.

Fearless Predictions

2010-11-02T12:41:00.007-04:00

Expanded work responsibilities, family obligations, football season, and general laziness have contributed to the inactivity at TRP in recent months. But with the first polls of Election 2010 closing in just about 6 hours, I thought now would be a good time to clear out the cobwebs.

So, I've girded up my loins, metaphorically pulled myself up by my nonexistent bootstraps, and turned the lights back on here at The Recovering Politico. It is not quite Lincolnesque, but my second inaugural post is a prediction on what I expect to go down during the 57th Annual Most Important Election in our Nation's History.

1. To say that the Republicans will take back the House is no prediction. Instead of doing a detailed of research and figuring out, race-by-race, who will win, I will just post an estimate: 59 House seats gained by the Republicans. (TRP sidenote: the word guesstimate rivals "preplanned" for the dumbest word ever invented. An uncertain statement is either a guess or an estimate. Nothing else is needed to cover those two concepts, especially not a "word" that is longer.)

2. In Virginia, Griffith, Fimian, Rigell, and Periello will win the four contested races. Robert Hurt will miss the wave in VA-05. The culprit will be a combination of his tax hike vote in 2004 and charisma deficit disorder.

3. Republicans will have a net pickup of eight Senate seats. This includes wins in Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Indiana, and North Dakota.

4. The impact of this Election Day will be felt less in the next two years than it will the following eight. Flying under the radar will be the flipping over of numerous state legislatures and governorships just in time for the decennial redistricting battles. Combined with reapportionment that favors Republicans states, Republicans will face more favorable electoral conditions for House elections from 2012-2020.

Pay for Play = No Go

2010-08-10T17:30:00.004-04:00

Every year or so the sports talkosphere returns to the topic of whether or not to pay college athletes. The most recent occurrence took place late last month with the recent allegations involving agents and football players at UNC, USC-East and Alabama.

The argument typically breaks down along these lines. Opponents of such a system deploy the "the free ride is the athletes' pay" argument. Proponents always harp on the fact that the NCAA, athletic gear stores, and universities are raking in all this money on the back of these star athletes; yet, the players don't get a cut of the profits.

During the recent iteration of the argument, an ESPN analyst (and former college athlete) stated that all that is being asked for is something along the lines of a $500 stipend. This jives with what we usually hear from that side of the argument: these guys can't get jobs (because of NCAA rules) and often don't come from good financial backgrounds; so we need to give them some cash so they can take out their girlfriends on a date. When they aren't getting their cut, and they can't go out on dates, what do we expect them to do when an agent offers them cash? If we just gave the players a little money, then we could get rid of this agent problem.

It is not that I don't understand that college players could use some cash, it's just that it is a completely impractical and awful idea. As is often stated, this isn't as simple as giving some football players a debit card. It is complicated and, thus, impractical. Even though this is rarely, if ever, cited as reason, we are in this situation in part because of Title IX. And Title IX is one of the obstacles to a "pay-for-play" system. On the first point, schools have to get the money from somewhere to field all the non-revenue sports teams (which include most men's teams and 100% of women's teams - minus women's basketball teams at UConn and Tennessee). And the NCAA and athletic conferences have to pay for all the tournaments and other costs associated with non-revenue sports.

On the second point, a major obstacle for most schools and athletic departments is that Title IX would demand that all college athletes be paid, not just the men's basketball and football players. On a side note, maybe some real journalist, like that NCAA- and BCS-hating Mike Lupica, could use some of his time investigating where the NCAA money goes instead of simply griping about how much money is coming in. If I weren't just a fake journalist, I'd ask how much it costs to run that playoff system Lupica loves so much in Divisions I-AA, II, and III? How much does it cost a university to field a women's lacrosse team? Yes, television networks make money (presumably) on the March Madness, but how much does ESPN lose when broadcasting the men's and women's soccer tournaments?

The point I make above is not new. But another glaring hole in the argument of the "pay-for-play" proponents' argument appeared in last Sunday's Outside the Lines program on ESPN. The piece focused on the NBA's Developmental League and the story of one guy who went from high school to the NBDL without going to college. (Apparently he couldn't meet the tough academic standards of that Harvard of the Mississippi, the University of Memphis.) According to the story, such a move is a rare. One guest on the show, a reporter covering the NBDL, says that he doesn't see the high school-to-NBDL route ever becoming popular. Why? Because the pay is too low. The average salary is just $19,000. Of course, this is much less than what players make in the NBA, or even in European leagues. But it is much more than what players make in college, according to those who support paying players. It is even much more than the $500 stipend suggested by our ESPN analyst above.

So what is going on here? First, it is clear that the agent problem won't go away as a result of paying players. When the agent can offer expensive cars, plush living conditions and other goodies, the universities won't ever be able to pay them enough as an agent can in the form of gifts. Second, and perhaps more importantly, the fact that players would prefer college ball to a $19,000 salary reveals how much college players actually value the opportunity for obtaining a college degree, meal plan, and free housing offered by the universities. In real dollars, this deal is worth more, and it is clear the players agree (whether they know or admit it, or not).

In the end, we have created a strange dynamic in this country. On the one hand, we can decry the exorbitant costs of a college education (and how those costs are prohibiting certain segments of the population from attending college, thus denying them societal advancement). At the same time, we also have another debate in which one side of that debate seems to be claiming that a free college education (often for people from that very same segment of the population) doesn't constitute just compensation.

Libertarian v. Conservative

2010-08-03T21:43:00.005-04:00

This is a great discussion on the role of libertarians and the conservative movement: Right Wing Rumble.

It includes my golfing partner, Jonah Goldberg. Do libertarians work with conservatives, and by extension the Republican Party? Or, do they act more like a political free agent, partnering with whichever party is closer on a particular issue? It is worth the 45 or so minutes.

It's A Sham!

2010-07-22T22:26:00.004-04:00

What a crazy week. A USDA employee we've never heard of was first a racist, then a saint, and now falls somewhere in between as she mixes a sense of racial reconciliation with a healthy dose of Rev. Wright-style, historically-flawed conspiracy theories. Since America has proven once again that it is able to discuss racial matters in such a mature way, I thought I'd go once more into the racial breach to discuss affirmative action.

The impetus for this post actually comes from Ross Douthat of the NY Times, who is quickly becoming one of my favorite columnists. His article from earlier this week is one reason why. He writes about a study recently released that breaks down elite college admission policies. The study finds that:

The admissions process seemed to favor black and Hispanic applicants, while whites and Asians needed higher grades and SAT scores to get in. But what was striking, as Russell K. Nieli pointed out last week on the conservative Web site Minding the Campus, was which whites were most disadvantaged by the process: the downscale, the rural and the working-class.

Two thoughts come to mind.

First, I don't want to exaggerate so I'll just say that the current affirmative action framework and debate is a complete sham. It gains popular support based on one argument and it passes constitutional muster based on a completely different argument.

Ask your average supporter of affirmative action why they agree with the policy. Most will say to correct past discrimination. The problem with this is that the Supreme Court says that this rationale is unconstitutional. Undeterred, the affirmative action legal team came up with diversity as a reason. Amazingly, the Supreme Court bought this reasoning. In a country that has been torn asunder by racism and discrimination, the Supreme Court believes the diversity rationale allows most affirmative action policies to pass the "compelling state interest" prong of the strict scrutiny test. In other words, diversity is so crucial that these policies of discrimination are necessary. Makes you wonder how Einstein ever came up with his theory of relativity given that he wasn't able to participate in the model UN in high school.

Even if I were to grant that some people are better off as a result of exposure to people of diverse backgrounds, that exposure certainly isn't necessary to a university's core mission: educating its students. Furthermore, this diversity is only skin deep and falsely assumes that people of the same skin color have similar backgrounds and that people of different skin colors necessarily have different backgrounds. So what we have is affirmative action supporters pushing the diversity line, while rank and file supporters push a different rationale.

Second, if true diversity is desired and if people want to provide an extra hand to poor blacks that are products of inferior inner city schools, then affirmative action based on income would do a far better job of getting a well-rounded student body while not making a mockery of the 14th Amendment. Too many blacks in America, ear-regardless of whether they are victims of current or past racism, nevertheless must ingest a nasty elixir of broken public schools and broken homes. Certainly, this can't help their prospects of getting into college. An affirmative action system that sought out students based on economics and not race would be more faithful to the constitutional demands of equal protection and help many of the same people that would be helped under racially-driven framework. In addition, perhaps if academic institutions spent more money on actively taking affirmative steps to recruit black students from an earlier age and less on Deans of Diversity Reeducation, the type of questions surrounding qualifications that appear in the study would be less prevalent.

Oh, These Tea Parties (Part II)

2010-07-14T20:43:00.004-04:00

Perhaps the most insightful and fruitful discussion of the Tea Party movement has come on the conservative side of the American political spectrum. One such debate was sparked by Matt Continetti's article on the topic. Continetti argues that the "Tea Party, like the Roman god Janus, has two faces. One looks to the future. The other looks to the past. One wants to repair deformities in the American political structure and move on. The other is ready to scrap the whole thing and restore a lost Eden." He associates CNBC's Rick Santelli, who railed against Obama's economic policy in February 2009 with the former; he associates Glenn Beck with the latter. Jonah Goldberg chimes in, as does the NY Times' Ross Douthat, and Continetti provides a response to the response. But don't just take my word for it. Read them for yourself.

It is an interesting, healthy, and necessary discussion. For one, as much as I can't put up with more than 5 minutes of Beck's TV show, his radio program is even more unlisten-to-able. As Jonah, points out, he provides a good service of peeling back conventional wisdom on political history and philosophy. However, he too often wades into the mirky waters of conspiracy theories. Such waters are likely replenished by the melodramatic tears he produces as if someone just stole his set of Founding Father action figures.

Anyhow, my sense is that the opposition to the Tea Parties from non-conservative quarters is almost entirely political (i.e. not substantive and meant to cause good people to shun the group). The charges of racism are largely unsubstantiated (again, I'm open to actual proof, not vague assertions from the usual suspects). Other attacks--such as the charge that it is being coordinated by a pentavirate that includes the RNC, Dick Armey's FreedomWorks, Americans For Prosperity, The Vatican and Col. Saunders (with his wee, beady eyes and his use of a chemical in his chicken that makes you crave it fortnightly)--are transparent attempts to discredit the movement as merely "astroturf" and not a truly grassroots, bottom-up attempt to make an impact on government. I get the sense that if Tea Partiers sported Che Guevera paraphanalia more and shaved less, they'd be prime candidates for MTV's Vote or Die campaign. But since they tend to vote Republican, liberals aren't fans of this particular instance of rocking the vote.

The question I have is one of political maturity within the Tea Party movement. The signals are mixed thus far. On the one hand, they've done a good job mobilizing and have been influential on election days, especially Republican primaries. On the other hand, there have been too many instances where actions have been counterproductive. The Iowa billboard issue is one glaring example of this political immaturity.

Furthermore, as election day comes and goes, how the Tea Party reacts to electoral successes and defeats will be another indicator of its political maturity. Does the movement fizzle if it suffers too many losses? More interestingly, what will it do once the movement-backed winners smack into political realities? We are seeing how the Obama coalition is unhappy with the litany of Obama's hopeful promises of change have gone unfulfilled. Closing Gitmo. Getting American troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq. An end to politics as usual. Healing the Earth (which I would assume includes doing whatever it takes, unions be damned, to stop millions of gallons of oil from continuing to spill into the Gulf). These are just a few items from a list of things that remain unchanged, despite the sweet nothings Obama whispered into our ears in 2008.

So, let's say the Republicans take over one or more houses of Congress with Tea Party-backed candidates leading the charge. What will happen when spending is not cut? I'm talking real cuts, not the "cut in the rate of growth" type cuts. Many are happy when the topic is "cutting spending". The happiness starts to wane when rural legislators, who are otherwise fiscal conservatives, start to hear about cutting farm subsidies. That is just one of many examples where a majority sentiment can wither away when the topic turns to specific cuts to near-and-dear programs. Get ready for "don't balance the budget on the backs of farmers/children/elderly/poor/veterans/etc". Basically anyone--which is a majority of everyone--who currently gets federal money will scream. Can Tea Partiers, many of whom say they are new to politics, keep perspective? Can they temporarily accept political realities that may cause losing battles in the short term in order to win the longer term war on debt and deficits? Or, will they search for primary challengers to Republicans who don't vote their way every day? We shall see.

Oh, These Tea Parties (Part I)

2010-07-02T08:27:00.002-04:00

The Tea Party movement that has taken root in American politics over the past year has been an interesting development. But perhaps more interesting has been the reaction to it. Political pundits of all stripes and media have attempted to dissect, analyze, or take a good snap shot of the nascent group. The only certitude to come from all this attention is that the Tea Party isn't easy to pin down. In fact, given the disparate nature of the Tea Party, calling it a "group" may not be accurate.

There is no central leadership. Different regional groups within the movement have different policies on how to embrace or work in concert with other political entities, such as the Republican Party, its candidates, and its elected officials. As a result, there is no Tea Party Platform that pundits can refer to learn what the Tea Party believes about issue X.

Recently, a friend of mine (both on Facebook and in real life) has a had series of Facebook updates regarding the Tea Party. It doesn't look like he's a fan. One such post endorsed an article written by the Washington Post's liberal op-ed contributor, E.J. Dionne. The gist of the piece is that President Obama has inspired a shift in focus by the GOP from religious-based conservatism to a more secular kind that is also infused with its share of conspiracy theories and distrust of government. Not only did my friend endorse the piece, but also an indicated that Dionne could have also focused a little more on the the "undercurrent of racism that comes along with the Tea Party Movement's reversion to 1950's style conservatism".

My friend is a smart guy. This is important because, despite his intellectual pedigree, I disagree with him often. Here, I find the article and the endorsement to be off the mark. In no particular order, here are a couple of problems with them:

1. Dionne closes the article thusly: "What's remarkable is the extent to which the Tea Party movement has displaced the religious right as the dominant voice of conservative militancy. The religious conservatives have not disappeared, and Sarah Palin, a Tea Party hero, does share their views on abortion and gay marriage. But these issues have been overshadowed by the broader anti-government themes pushed by the New Old Right, and the "compassionate conservatism" that inspires parts of the Christian political movement has no place in the right's current order of battle." Maybe my memory is getting rusty in my fourth decade on this earth, but I could have sworn that for years liberals have bashed the GOP for focusing on "God, guns, and gays" and that they should stay out of the bedrooms of the American people. So now when they have done just that and their focus has shifted to more secular themes, is this good for American politics and policy? No, Dionne thinks it is "disturbing." This goal post relocation is particularly ironic given that the push back against the Democrats' agenda has as its goal keeping the government out of the checkbooks, kitchens, exercise rooms, and doctors' offices of the American people to the greatest extent possible.

2. Dionne also notes how "the language of the new anti-statists, like the language of the 1950s' right, regularly harks back to the U.S. Constitution and the Founders in calling attention to perceived threats to liberty." Does he disagree with this stance? He doesn't really say, but the tone of the context suggest that, at a minimum, he doesn't give it much credence. Given the quote above, it is possible that he might even find it "disturbing." I don't see how you can take an honest look at the signature domestic policies of the current administration and Congress and not see how they infringe on individual liberties. Whether it is higher taxes, individual mandates for health insurance, the imposition of salary ceilings for corporate executives, or getting a private company to set up a government-controlled escrow account to pay out damages, these policies result in less liberty for private individuals or companies. Now, maybe one can think that such infringements are a good thing or that, while not good, are a necessary action given the circumstances. Whatever the reasoning, however, it results in less liberty for the person or company.

3. Now to the racism charge. Perhaps this is a semantics problem, but I haven't seen it. I have seen charges by a group of congressmen that have not been proven and lack in credibility (the charges, not the congressmen). I know that a not insignificant number of liberals believe that antipathy to bigger government in general or welfare programs in particular is just a cover for racism. Such beliefs are erroneous and insulting to my intelligence and morality. I know that liberals are in danger of proving Rush Limbaugh correct in his prediction during the 2008 campaign that opposition to a President Obama would be equated to racism. (I disagreed with Limbaugh at the time, thinking that the one of the few good things about an Obama presidency would be that charges of racism in politics would wane, or at least be given less seriousness. I fear I may have been wrong.) Of course, as is the case within any sampling or group in America, you can find some racism if you turn over enough rocks. But when I read "undercurrent", I think of something that is pervasive or a motivating force. Something that, were it to disappear, would either cause the entity to collapse or change its essence. I'm open to seeing stronger evidence that could shift my thinking, but from what I've seen so far, much more work needs to be done to prove the Tea Partiers-are-racist charge.

This post has grown much longer than I expected. So I'm going to take a break and cover some of the conservative analysis and my personal views in part deux. Hopefully the sequel will be more Godfather II and less Caddyshack II.

Guns and Gymnastics

2010-06-29T20:52:00.002-04:00

Family events and technical difficulties have caused TRP to be darker lately than a black steer's tookus on a moonless prairie night. My apologies. I will try to get back on track and avoid letting down my tens of fans.

Now that I'm back in the game, let's turn our attention to the Supreme Court decision handed down Monday on gun rights. The 5-4 ruling says the 2nd Amendment applies to the states and localities too. Several other amendments had been "incorporated" via the 14th Amendment years ago, often against the wishes of those who believe in federalism. So the dyspepsia among anti-gun liberals over the decision is weirdly surprising and predictable at the same time. Surprising because they had no problem with incorporation before when it allowed angst-ridden teens to wear profanities on their shirts to public school and prevented those same schools from saying prayers before football games. I sometimes wonder if they prayed to "F***ing God" if that would be ok. Yet the reaction is also predictable because such is the political world in which we live.

While acknowledging that there are likely some divergent viewpoints within liberalism, it is fair to assume that a significant majority of liberals are anti-gun rights and pro-abortion rights. What I find interesting is the latter stance stems from a relatively complex set of logical steps. First, one has to take the protections of the 1st Amendment (protecting speech, expression, religion, etc.), the 4th Amendment (prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures), the 9th Amendment (which says that just because it isn't in the Constitution doesn't mean the right doesn't exist) and perhaps throw in a few others for good measure to create a constitutional right to privacy. Second, one has to then show that the right to privacy demands a right to an abortion. Third, that right must be proven to supercede the unborn child's right to life. Even someone who believes that a sound argument can be found there must also admit that it is a complex route that strays rather far from the text of the Constitution (TRP sidenote: I must say that I don't find too much problem with the first step; the latter steps are much shakier, however).

Isn't it odd that many of the same people who go through such mental gymnastics to argue for a right to abortion have such problems with a reading that is so much closer to the plain text of the Constitution? The grammar and punctuation of the Second Amendment is a bit clunky by our standards, which opens up some wiggle room for interpreting exactly what was being done. But clearly the Constitution indicates that there is a "right to bear arms" and the phrase "shall not be infringed" must apply to that right. There is no other object in the text that can be infringed upon other than "right" (for you can't infringe "a well regulated militia"). Speaking as someone who doesn't own a gun, who doesn't know which statistics to believe about the safety and efficacy of guns in the home, and who thinks hunting for sport falls somewhere between silly and needlessly cruel, I think it is rather clear that individuals have a right to own guns. In fact, should the Constitution be amended in such a way that weakens or overturns the 2nd Amendment, I'm not sure I would have a problem with stricter gun laws. Of course, that is not a strategy of the anti-gun people.

Before wrapping up, I would be remiss if I let the gun rights people of the logical hook. For years, I was familiar the phrase/bumper sticker/t-shirt that conveyed the message: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people". I am sympathetic to that line of reasoning. A gun is a mere tool, it requires a person either acting carelessly or maliciously to actively use a gun and cause the death of another person. So you can imagine my surprise when I noticed a year or so ago bumper stickers and buttons displayed with the message: "Guns save lives". First of all, everyone knows that it is Jack Bauer that saves lives, even when he isn't present. His mere existence is our defense. Secondly, if guns "don't kill people" then they don't "save lives" either. Even with all the rancor in the world, can't we all agree that if we are going to employ pithy, overly simplistic messages for short-term political gain, then they should at least be logically consistent?

Biggest Game of Dominoes Ever

2010-06-09T22:00:00.002-04:00

The biggest game of dominoes, ever, is about to get started. If rumored reports are correct, then the first domino will fall some time this Friday. What is that domino? Nebraska moving to the Big 10 Conference. This could cause a number of scenarios to unfold, but the next domino would likely be Texas. The Horns have stated they want to stay in the Big 12, but would leave if others leave first (which would be satisfied if Nebraska leaves). Texas would take A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and either Colorado or Baylor to the Pac 10. Missouri is also being mentioned as going to the Big 10, leaving the Kansas schools, Iowa State, and Baylor/Colorado strewn on the Plains like rotten corn stalks.

Now, the most common reaction to this situation involves varying degrees of three components: geography, culture, and greed. The complaints are that the Lone Star State is too far from the Pacific, the culture of the Big 12 teams doesn't jive with the culture of sunny California, and that this is all just one big money grab. To the first part, I say that it is not as if the Texas teams will be taking the Oregon Trail to sporting events. To the second, so the Aggies won't go roller blading on the Venice Beach boardwalk...big deal. To the third, I say of course money is a reason, but so what? It costs a lot to run a sports program, which involves fielding competitive teams in dozens of sports that are complete drains on the checkbook, including many that are mandated by federal law (according to the current, yet erroneous, interpretation of Title IX).

Before people get too upset about College Dominoes, consider the following: Upheaval leading to 16 team megaconferences, could actually be better than the current situation of 10-12 team semi-megaconferences--at least for traditionalists. Why? Because 16 team conferences would be conferences in name only. Of course, much is unknown about how the system would be set up, but let's assume that it would be fairly similar to how it is now. The new Pac 16 would be split into two 8 team divisions. For a 12 game season, each team would likely play the 7 teams in its division, 2 or 3 in the other division, and 1 or 2 out of conference teams. The Pac 16 West would be the 2 Washington teams, the 2 Oregon teams, Cal, Stanford, USC, and UCLA. The Pac 16 East would be the 2 Arizona schools, Colorado, the 2 Oklahoma schools, Texas, Texas A&M, and Texas Tech.

Anything look familiar about these two divisions and the scheduling set up? The West looks like the 70s-era Pac 8 and the East looks very similar to the now-defunct Southwest Conference. As a result, a lot of traditional rivalries are preserved. Only Texas Tech and Colorado are oddballs and they are relatively close to each other (Boulder is only an hour further from Lubbock than College Station).

Basically, what at first appears to be a major upheaval could actually be a throwback to the older, smaller conferences with de facto seedlings of a playoff system (winners of two 8 team divisions play at end of season) rolled in. That is a good thing because the 12 team conferences give you the worst of both worlds: sprawling conferences and very unbalanced scheduling.

Good Riddance, ABC Stores

2010-06-04T12:07:00.002-04:00

Gov. McDonnell's effort to privatize Virginia's liquor stores was in the news yesterday.

As the article indicates, budget concerns will play a significant role in how this plays out. From what I've read, I don't know what the final impact will be on the budget. The article says that Virginia makes $111 million in profits annually from liquor sales at ABC stores. According to this Washington Post article during the 2009 campaign, the sale of the stores would "generate at least $500 million in one-time payments to the state, plus income and property taxes over time." It could also possibly forego millions of dollars annually. From that same Washington Post article: "However, resistance to privatization is largely rooted in concerns among legislators, particularly those on the budget-writing committees, that Virginia risks losing a reliable trove of cash. The ABC system generates about $250 million a year, including $111 million in profits." But all of this budget talk should be secondary.

First of all, the government does a poor job of selling its product. In a supposedly capitalist system, I shouldn't be waiting in a Charlottesville parking lot for a liquor store to open at 10 a.m. on a Saturday morning in the fall. My lack of ability to plan is beside the point. Kroger grocery store is open right next door. It knows that thousands of tailgating parties will be taking place on the day of home football games and that people will want to stock up the morning of the game. To meet this demand, they are not only open, but tailgating needs are also prominently displayed. A privately-owned liquor store would have the flexibility to open its doors a little earlier on such occasions. Instead, it is closed, essentially turning away willing customers. These customers aren't alcoholics who can't wait for their next fix. They are primarily responsible adults who are trying to exercise their legal right to buy a good.

Practical arguments aside, it just isn't the government's job to sell liquor. It tells you how far from the proper role of government we've come that this is even a debate. One must have a relatively expansive view of the role of government to say, "yep, it makes perfect sense for the government to run a type of store that runs perfectly fine under private ownership." If you can accept that idea, then there isn't going to much that you won't accept the government taking over.

Shocker: Commencement Speech Stresses Public Service

2010-05-26T21:33:00.007-04:00

It is May and, therefore, it is commencement season. This is a time when people -- typically politicians -- are given an opportunity to dispense wisdom that is disproportionate to their capacity to possess it. Although the commencement address at my college graduation was memorable and entertaining, these speeches are known mostly for their tendency to be forgotten by the time the graduates have left town. As a result, we should avoid fretting too much about the content of these speeches. Nevertheless, the call for "public service" that is a staple of many commencement addresses echoes a similar refrain that we hear often these days.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, President Obama promised to make public service a "central cause" of his presidency with incentives like a $4000 tax credit for college students who provide 100 hours of service a year. President Bush often urged Americans to serve a purpose higher than your own. Fresh off his scolding of the United States, or rather Arizona, for having an immigration policy that is in fact weaker than his own, Mexican President Calderon stressed the importance of public service and working for the "common good" to Harvard's 2010 graduates.

Before I go any further, let me state that I agree that "public service" as it pertains to helping the less fortunate, being charitable with time and money, and "giving back" is important. My parents chose professions centered upon serving others. Nursing, social work, and the like are admirable and necessary callings. Also, as someone who worked in government for 5 years, it is also important that we have smart, dedicated, and capable people filling the ranks of the public sector.

What grinds my gears about the call for these types of public service is that it either ignores, or even is pitted against, what takes place in the private sector and the free market system. The paths of law school, business school, or other for-profit endeavors are viewed as not contributing to the common good or as helpful to others. However, that my boss started his own business in an effort to make money for himself was in fact a great public service. He has hired employees, including me. This opportunity has given me, and others, work experience and income. I have used that income to both stimulate the economy, pay my mortgage, give to charity, and prepare for my retirement and my child's education.

The added irony of this call for public service is that it is typically a moral one and comes as we witness moral relativism inch its way to more and more areas of American life, especially academia. The message is "hey college boy, sure you are smart and may get a high paying job, but don't forget to help others as you stuff your pockets in your efforts to get to the top." The system of traditional ethics and social mores, while possibly imperfect in some ways, exists to instruct people how to act. This system is the bumper in the gutter of the bowling alley of life. Those bumpers have been systematically removed and are being replaced by a system that includes commencement speeches and federal government initiatives. I believe that this new approach will prove to be insufficient in preventing gutter balls.

So what would make a good commencement speech? I believe it should go something like this:

"Dear Class of 2010, way back in Aught One, I sat where you are sitting now. In the years since then, I have learned that the bums lost. Do what your parents (or grandparents at this point) did and get a job. And as you get a job, don't be ashamed to think of yourself. But do be ashamed to think only of yourself. Don't be ashamed to develop a corporate work ethic. But do be ashamed to have no regard for ethical behavior. Don't be ashamed to choose a profession where you serve other people. But do be ashamed to have taxpayers subsidize your charity. Ultimately, though, public service isn't simply about your profession, it has more to do with how you act and the priorities you set. Your actions and priorities stem from your principles. So understand that principles matter and that some are better or more right than others. Finally, realize that once you have your diploma in hand, your life will change and will never be as fun and carefree again. Get ready for your reintroduction to 7:00 a.m. It's been a while since you've seen each other sober, so get reacquainted as you'll be seeing a lot of each other in the years to come."

Ugly People of the World, Unite!

2010-05-22T15:42:00.002-04:00

With columns like this one, it isn't hard to see why people have stopped buying newspapers.

Literally Stupid

2010-05-18T13:39:00.004-04:00

The misuse of the word "literally" has metaphorically spread like wildfire in recent years. The best misuse was during the 2004 presidential campaign when a pundit informed us that Bush and Cheney had literally let loose the attack dogs on John Kerry. Oh, were that the case. That would be a sight to behold. John Kerry steps out of his Senate Office Building only to hear Cheney, in his best Montgomery Burns voice, declare, "Release the hounds!". Seconds later, a pack of dogs chase down the Massachusetts senator as he scrambles for the Capitol doors.

Eradicating this scourge upon the usage of English language is too unrealistic a goal. One might say it is similar to literally shooting the moon. Nevertheless, ridicule is always a viable option. From this point onward, one of the purposes of this blog will be to shine a light on the egregious usages of "literally".

Our ol' buddy Jeremiah Wright has stepped up to the plate as our first Literally Stupid Award Winner. An AP article details a letter written by Wright in which he says, "I am 'radioactive,' Sir. When Obama threw me under the bus, he threw me under the bus literally!"

One can only hope that Wright is not also literally radioactive.

Michael Jackson: What Was The Deal With That Guy?

2010-05-17T21:36:00.004-04:00

I was doing a little channel surfing this evening and VH1 was running a Michael Jackson video marathon. Again. Jackson's "Black or White" video was on. That video has got to be one of the strangest things ever on television. I would have loved to be in the meeting when they story-boarded the concept for it. I imagine it going something like this:

Director: I've listened to the song and understand its message. I'm thinking something along the lines of "Kum-Bah-Yah" meets "Ebony and Ivory".

MJ: Sounds good. Can we have an out-of-place opening sequence involving a small boy that has nothing to do with the song?

Director: Yes, we've got Macaulay Culkin lined up.

MJ: Great, now at the end, we're going to do a cool, technologically-advanced scene where people of different races and genders morph into one another. Instead of leaving people with a sense of wonderment with that cool stuff, can we instead segue into a black panther walking across the set of the video?

Director: Ummm, sure. Can somebody get Stokely Carmichael on the phone?

MJ: I mean an actual black panther...you know, the type we see around the set all the time? It would walk across the set, down some steps, and enter a very windy alley. We'll use that morphing technology to have the panther morph into me. Although I was in a good mood during the early part of the video, I will now be really angry. I'll express that anger by dancing.

Director: Dancing? Is that all?

MJ: Of course not. That would be silly. I will also get on top of a car and start smashing it with a baseball bat.

Director: Right.

MJ: Now, onto the next video. Let's get Magic Johnson and Eddie Murphy together for a video that we'll set in Egypt...

Resist Hindsightism

2010-05-12T20:57:00.001-04:00

Recent weeks have been rife with awful and disastrous events that presented pundits, journalists, and others with a field day for finger pointing. It started with another West Virginia mine explosion, continued with the Gulf Coast oil rig explosion, then kicked into high gear with events surrounding the attempted bombing in Times Square. Closer to home, the murder of a UVA women's lacrosse player has made national news (TRP sidenote: some have classifed this as a "senseless" murder...I'm still searching for murders that are full of sense).

Few things are more irksome to me and more dangerous to policy making than the need to find a scape goat for every bad thing that happens and then passing some backside-covering legislation.

Its not that mistakes weren't made or that perhaps a wise change here or there isn't called for. Rather, the strategic approaches we have put in place bring with them a certain level of risk. For example, by refusing to profile during airport screening, we are essentially saying that we will risk letting some bad guys slip through the cracks instead of risk erroneously singling out some good guys who fit the profile. So when a bad guy does slip through the cracks, we shouldn't be surprised. We can keep trying to plug holes in the dam, but as long as we maintain the same strategic approach then there will always be another hole that pops up elsewhere in the dam.

This week, Gov. McDonnell and UVA president Jocular John Casteen have met to discuss the Yeardley Love murder. At issue is the fact that UVA wasn't notified of George "Don't Call me D.L." Huguely's prior arrest record. Casteen argues that UVA should be notified of such incidents by police so action can be taken by the university. Casteen says that D.L. could've been kicked out of UVA if the school knew about his arrest. I don't know how I feel about this. Adult arrests are public record, so I suppose any privacy concerns are moot. Nevertheless, I'm not totally convinced of the wisdom behind this idea.

My uneasiness rests more in the combination of giving school administrators more parent-like control over people we should expect to be adults plus the idea that such a legislative fix is acting more as a "look we are doing something" action. Maybe the forthcoming legislation will be a good thing. But maybe not. I suppose I would be more supportive if I knew that "doing nothing" is a path with real chance of being taken. I wish the powers that be would be more open to the ideas that maybe no one other than D.L. could've prevented this specific tragedy, that the current "system" works as well as possible, and that there could be negative, unintended consequences that come with any new policies (e.g. D.L. gets kicked out of UVA, goes off the deep end, and enrolls in the Ted Kaczyinski School of Revenge Studies).

We are seeing this marriage of hindsightism and unintended consequences with regard to the Gulf oil rig disaster. This one event has all but halted efforts to increase off shore drilling. Some experts have pointed out that less drilling of U.S. coasts means more oil imported via oil tanker. Apparently oil tanker spills are more common than oil rig disasters. So rolling back offshore drilling could theoretically be more harmful to the environment.

Central to my philosophical evolution to conservatism is the belief in the limited ability of government to make things perfect. No matter how many regulations or agencies are established by the government, bad stuff will still happen. The corollary to this rule is that people in power are fallible and will make wrong--albeit well-meaning--decisions. This is why I believe it is a conservative position to be against the death penalty. Our judicial system may be the fairest one practicable, but there is still the possibility of a mistake. Therefore we shouldn't put life-or-death decisions into the hands of inherently imperfect institutions or infallible individuals (alliteration, yea!).

So as the dust settles in the weeks and months ahead, I hope a little legislative humility will be practiced. I'm not holding my breath.

Thing I Wish I Had Thought Of

2010-05-07T10:41:00.006-04:00

As I have spoken with people about my departure from the politics, the following question always comes up: Why did you leave?

There are a number of parts to my response, but one of them is that in politics your opportunities to create things are few and far between. I suppose you can create coalitions, strategies, or legislation; however, I found that I rarely had the "Behold, look at what I have created!" moments. Perhaps that speaks more about my abilities or lack of patience than the industry. Ear-regardless, it is undeniable that politics involves a lot of trench warfare. Two sides battling each other on the same topic year after year and seeing victory in advancing the battle line mere inches. As a conservative participant in the battles, I grew tired of the ceaseless and erroneous accusations that arguments for individual liberty or in defense of innocent life were really covers for racism, fascism or trying to keep women barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen. I mean, that is really unfair. I could not care less whether or not women wear shoes while they cook and clean.

In contrast, I have found my new line of work provides greater opportunities to create stuff. It is the drive to create something unique and effective that pushes me to succeed. From time to time, I come across something that makes me say,"I wish I had thought of that." This video on the future of publishing is one of those things. Aspects of it are a little cheesy, but the general idea is very cool.

Oh No, Not Another Immigration Debate

2010-04-28T22:32:00.004-04:00

It looks like the immigration debate is back and better than ever. How lovely. This is an important issue (although not a Top 5 issue in my opinion), but I just have no hope that it will be debated in any reasonable manner. As usual, it took no time at all for the fascism charges to start flying fast and furious. So let me get this straight. Federal laws granting the financial proctologists at the IRS the authority to find out if private citizens have health insurance is progressive and a great leap forward. Yet an Arizona law that gives local law enforcement officials the authority to demand proof of legal residence from people that they have a "reasonable suspicion" are in the country illegally is akin to the laws of Nazi Germany. I guess my knuckles keep dragging on the floor too much for me to understand that line of reasoning. I will get to work on re-educating myself.

As a layman, I don't know if the phrasing or the statute in general is insufficiently vague. As a non-Arizonan, I don't know if this law is like solving a math problem with a hammer. But voices I respect -- from pundits to politicians -- have problems with either the wording, or the approach, or both. So perhaps we need to step back for a second. While angry congressmen are taking the courageous stand of boycotting layovers in Arizona, instead opting for their weekly, taxpayer-funded flights to be nonstop between California and D.C, let's take a look at what we know and, hopefully, principles that a substantial majority can agree on. In no particular order:

1. The U.S. should have a border.
2. There should be laws that establish a fair process to determine who can come across that border and facilitate entry for newcomers.
3. Immigration is a net positive for this country and we should continue to encourage foreigners to become new Americans.
4. The vast majority of people entering the country outside of the immigration system are trying to improve their lots in life.
5. A not insignificant number of people entering the country outside of the immigration system don't have good intentions.
6. Inanimate objects like borders can't tell the difference between #4 and #5.
7. Respect for the rule of law is integral to our society and political system. Ear-regardless of whether someone is #4 or #5, they are in violation of U.S. law.

While we are at it. Can we dispense once and for all with the strawman argument of "logistically and philosophically, we can't deport all 10 million (or whatever is your preferred number) of the immigrants that are already here illegally". People who use that argument are likely right, but might as well be saying that unicorns make for great house pets. First of all, I don't think there is a great clamoring for that type of response. Second, it is not required if your goals are to secure the border, restore some fairness to the immigration process, and have the government feign the least bit of interest in enforcing immigration law. For tips on how to best handle the situation, I direct you to the Bobs from Office Space (the relevant clip is the first 45 seconds, the rest is yours for no extra charge):

Office Space More Bobs Interviews - Watch more Funny Videos

From a policy standpoint as well as a Rodney King "can't we all get along" standpoint, I don't see this current iteration of the debate ending well. That's unfortunate because illegal immigration doesn't seem to be as complicated as many are trying to make it. No mass deportations necessary, just fix the glitch.

A Word About Earth Day

2010-04-24T14:29:00.003-04:00

Soooo, another Earth Day has come and gone. As I was throwing my styrofoam cup out of the window of my SUV into the nearby wetland (previously known as a swamp), I drifted off into thought about the environment and all the debate on this issue.

Sometimes when I hear any particular pro-environment argument, I feel like I do after having just driven through Delaware. I know it exists, I know it has some positive attributes (no sales tax!), but in the end I've just paid $6 in tolls without getting much in return except having ended up in New Jersey (Mrs. TRP: I assure you that wasn't a slight to the Garden State).

Anyways, I don't know what to make of a lot of environmental issues. There are a lot of public policy issues that I've given a lot of thought to and regarding which I've developed some solid first principles. That doesn't mean I've come to conclusions on what should be done legislatively or regulatory-wise; however, I'm able to enter the debate armed with a solid framework from which to work. This isn't the case with the environment.

When it comes to the environment, I'm a man without an ideological home. I suppose I'm what you might call a "Planet Earth Environmentalist". I loved the Discovery Channel documentary, Planet Earth. I watched it and had the reaction: we should be careful not to mess this up because there are a lot of cool and beautiful things about the Earth. If we are going to do something that might be irrevocable, like putting up condos and a strip mall on the rim of the Grand Canyon, we need to be sure of the benefits because there is no looking back.

This applies to the other side of the environmental coin as well. Because as much as I don't want to mess things up, I also know that these policies and regulations come at a steep price. How sure can we be that Al Gore is right? I mean, when it comes to these projections of ocean levels and temperatures 50 or 100 years from now, how many of them got the last 10 years correct? Temperatures have receded in the past 10 years. Show me the scientist who got that right, and I'll listen to him about what it will be like when I fill my hovercraft with tang.

So, TRP, what's your point? I guess I don't have one and that's my point. I don't know what to make of all this talk. I'll keep recycling. I'll avoid plastic when possible. In short, I'll do what can if all the hippies will just stop yelling about my SUV. I know that my Jeep Cherokee gets crappy gas mileage, but when I go on trip and have to load up a pack-and-play, a stroller, a bajillion diapers, 18 onesies for 4 days, Mrs. TRP's 3 bags and my single duffle bag, it's well worth it.

The NFL Network's Beat-Down of ESPN

2010-04-24T12:54:00.002-04:00

The NFL Network flat out wiped the floor with Chris Berman's combover during this year's NFL Draft coverage. Hey, ESPN, how bout supplying your broadcast team with some laptops so they can keep up with what's going on? During ESPN's early round coverage, there were more awkward pauses than a first date between two 15 year olds.

Steve Young couldn't stop talking. Jon Gruden, who apparently uses the same barber as my 15 month old, thought everybody was a "helluva player" and a future all-pro. And Mel Kiper, oh, Mel Kiper. Although some teams had passed on Jimmy Clausen 2 or 3 times, he was still making the case that Clausen was a top-five talent. I'm not sure, but I even think I heard Mel bet Steve Young that Clausen could throw a football over them mountains, Uncle Rico-style, and then proclaim, "If they'd just pick Jimmy, the Chiefs would be NFL champions!".

The NFL Network's combination of cleaner graphics and a more knowledgeable team was head and shoulders above ESPN. Rich Eisen's dry humor and lack of need to come up with a nickname for every 5th round pick helped him keep things running smoothly. Corey Chavous referenced Armanti Edwards and his throwing ability displayed during the Wofford game from 2008. I suppose that 12 inch three ring binder he was toting around wasn't just for show.

Ultimately, though, it was the simple fact that the ESPN team often didn't seem to know what was happening. Whereas Berman could all too often only offer a blank stare as he waited for a producer to whisper an update in his ear, Eisen had his laptop with the latest information handy. When one team seemed to go over its allotted time, the NFL Network offered educated options on what might have happened, the ramifications for said team, and then had someone on the floor providing insight. On the other hand, ESPN kept coming in and out of commercial breaks, unable or unwilling to provide the viewer with any idea of what was going on.

Perhaps, the NFL Network has the upperhand on access due to it being an arm of the NFL itself. Ear-regardless, an increasingly complacent ESPN seems to be getting some much needed competition in the sports broadcasting marketplace, if only in one sport. At least it is a start.

The Budget Crisis We Deserve

2010-04-24T10:51:00.001-04:00

Posting has been sparse of late as Mrs. TRP commandeered the computer to help in her planning of a charity race. With the race spectacularly organized and successfully completed, it is now back to regularly scheduled programming.

Over the break, two stories struck me because of how they speak to the fiscal dillemas that many governmental entities find themselves as well as the fiscal armageddon that looms over the horizon. These stories focus on two states - Virginia and New Jersey - that were at the epicenter of politics in 2009. For Virginia's Bob McDonnell, his 17 point gubernatorial victory ended a string of Democratic victories in high-profile statewide elections. For New Jersey's Chris Christie, his victory was significant in that it occurred in the reliably blue, union stronghold of New Jersey. Both came to office with political winds at their backs. And, as is the case across the country, they are both in the midst of huge budget battles.

The fiercest battle in New Jersey centers upon education funding. This Bergen Record article gives a good rundown of the dispute. Gov. Christie made the apparently outrageous proposal that teacher salaries be frozen as part of an effort to balance the budget. At a time when millions and millions of non-unionized, private sector employees are seeing salaries reduced by 50 to 100%, New Jersey teachers are fighting tooth and nail for their automatic, non-performance based raises. As usual, they are using "the children" as political props.

In Virginia, the story is similar. Virginia Education billboards charge that a perfectly ethnically-diverse group of kids are being robbed of their futures because of efforts to return education spending to the draconian levels foisted upon Virginia's citizens during the anti-education reign of that kid-hater Mark Warner.

Of course, education is just one example of the budget battles that play out year after year, especially during hard times. In Virginia, Gov. McDonnell attempted to save $2.6 million by reducing funding for public television and radio. The argument for eliminating government funding for public TV and radio is the subject for another post, but needless to say, McDonnell's effort failed, even in the Republican-controlled House of Delegates.

As the House of Delegates rejection of the McDonnell amendment shows, the unwillingness to make sensible decisions on funding is a bipartisan malady. Just last year, McDonnell's predecessor Democrat Tim Kaine, made the decision to save money by shutting down rest stops along Virginia's interstates. Republican politicians - even ones that I'm a fan of otherwise - decried the decision.

What struck me as I read these articles and reflected on the rest stop issue is how each of the cuts or freezing of spending all seem to be the type of green-eye shade budgeting that are needed right now. Funding for rest stops is exactly the type of funding that should be cut during tough budget times. The need to stop and rest while driving should not be mistaken for the the need to maintain rest stops with public money. Aside from stretches on I-81 south of Blacksburg (which likely marks the end of the Earth anyways), I've covered every inch of interstate in Virginia. Private enterprises ranging from gas stations to the seemingly ubiquitous Cracker Barrel provide travelers with plenty of options to stop and rest. Rest stops are nice, but not necessary.

Whether it is teacher salaries, public broadcasting, or rest stop funding, our state and federal budget woes won't be solved by any of these issues alone. But each are symptomatic of the same problem: a failure of the American people to demand better. I've long believed that we get the government we deserve. It is easy to blame the politicians for being short-sighted, feckless, or tied to a particular special interest. But it is we who hire them to work for us. As long as we are swayed by political ads and ominous billboards instead of taking one hour from our reality tv show watching to research the candidates (or better yet, letting a candidate know our views), then we will continue to find ourselves mired in the same debates. In the end, we get the budget crisis we deserve.

Early Outlook: UVA Football 2010

2010-04-11T20:18:00.000-04:00

UVA had its annual Spring Game on Saturday to wrap up Spring practice. While it is tough to glean anything from a event like this, it is fair to say that it will likely be another long season in Hooville this fall. The offensive line is porous, the running game stagnant (likely related to the o-line play), and the quarterbacks are mediocre. I hope this pessimistic outlook is erroneous on all counts, but I think it will be a stretch to win more than 4 games. UR, VMI and Directional Michigan should be Ws. Maybe we'll surprise a team or two and pick up another win in ACC play (Duke, UNC @home).

Tournament Expansion: End of the World or Not So Bad?

2010-04-03T11:57:00.000-04:00

As a UVA fan, hearing "expansion" in a conversation involving college athletics gives me Bruce Banner-like feelings. Alas, with too many garments rent over the topic and my aversion to green skin tone, I've tried to have an open mind on the issue of expanding the NCAA Basketball Tournament beyond the current 65 team format. What begin as speculation a few months ago has evolved into near-certainty after a NCAA press conference held this week to discuss the very topic. So it now looks as if it is only a question of when, not if, the tourney will expand to include 96 teams.

As the basketball writers get ready for tonight's Final Four, they will need to have unwadded their panties first because they sure were upset following the press conference. They, as well as most fans, have been against expansion since the rumors began swirling. But this week their anger went to 11. See here for a typical response.

The arguments against expansion are numerous and largely valid. Obviously, more teams would water down the competition as weaker teams would be allowed entry to the field. Also, many view the current tournament, especially the first two days, as the best thing going in all of sports. The drama, the last second shots, the upsets, the watching the games on the computer at work, all combine to make a wonderful dish of awesomosity. Expansion opponents feel this perfection shouldn't be tinkered with. In addition to the tournament drama, early season inter-conference matchups, the end of the regular season, and the conference tournaments all carry a high level of importance as teams jockey for spots in the tournament. The writers typically end their tirades with the conclusion that the only reason this his happening is because of money. (TRP Sidenote: Maybe so. But what is it with reporters and their strong dislike of entities that make money? I guess that's why they work in industry in which most of its members are hemorrhaging cash.)

Anyhow, for most of this discussion, I've been firmly in the "this is the worst thing ever" camp. But, I must admit, I've been warming to the idea in the past few days. Here are the two primary reasons (TRP Sidenote: I know, you can't really have 2 primary reasons):

1. While a vast majority of 1st round games are great, there are some that have never and will never be competitive. No 16 seed has ever won (0-100 through 2009) and 99% of the time don't come close (average loss is 25 points). 15 seeds rarely ever win (4-96 record). They sometimes come close, but still they usually aren't good games. 14 seeds are a pretty sure bet to lose handily (15-85 with a -11.4 ppg spread). So of those 12 games each year, maybe 1 or 2 is worth watching. Under the expanded system, these low-major conference winners that fill the current 14-16 seeds would be bumped down to the 22-24 seeds. Making the safe assumption that they would lose to the new 16-14 seeds in the first set of games, the 1-3 seeds would face a stiffer test in their first games.

2. There would still be something to fight for as the season winds down. Since the first 8 seeds in each region will get first round byes, the difference between and 8 and 9 seeds becomes much larger than the mostly non-existent difference today. Thus, the same fights that go on today for the last at large spots would be replaced by the drama to answer this question: Who will secure a first round bye?

Nevertheless, I'm still against expansion, but not for the reason most are and not as adamantly as I was before. Strip away all the drama, the bracketology, and the feel good stories. The point of any postseason tournament should be to determine the best team in that sport for that year. This is something that is seemingly lost on all the BCS bashers each fall. Yes, March Madness may be more fun to watch, but the BCS has a better chance of identifying the best two teams to battle it out for that year. This year, either Butler or Michigan State will play for the national championship. No one could seriously argue that they've proven to be one of the best two teams in the country.

Adding more teams who aren't even close to be the best team in the country doesn't help answer the question of who is the best team. Should expansion come to pass--as it appears it will--it won't be as bad as many think.

Energy Politics and Language

2010-04-03T10:57:00.001-04:00

Stemming from my days developing talking points and speeches, I'm interested in the particular words politicians and pundits use when trying to sell or oppose a policy. Frank Luntz has made himself a nice, little living out of conducting focus groups to figure out which words and phrases they respond to positively or negatively. Regarding the energy debate, for example, he produced reports for Republican members of Congress on how "American" is preferable to "domestic", "energy resources" to "oil" or "gas", "exploration" to "drilling", etc. In addition, his imperative also included talking about a comprehensive solution that calls for opening up new areas of energy while continuing to develop renewable sources.

When President Obama made his announcement on energy policy this week, much attention was paid to whether it will lead to anything substantive or if it is just window dressing. Much was made by supporters and opponents alike that this was evidence of yet another statement by Candidate Obama that has reached its expiration date. Here are a sampling of his previous quotes, starting with one from the 2008 campaign trail:

Offshore drilling would not lower gas prices today. It would not lower gas prices this year. It would not lower gas prices five years from now. In fact, Pres. Bush’s own energy department says that we won’t see a drop of oil from his own proposal until 2017. And in fact you wouldn’t see any full production out of any oil drilling off the coasts until 2030. It will take a generation to reach full production and even then the effect on gas prices will be minimal at best.

We could open up every square inch of America to drilling and we still wouldn’t even make a dent in our oil dependency. 9/15/05

Instead of making tough political decisions about how to reduce our insatiable demand for oil, this bill continues to lull the American people into thinking that we can drill our way out of our energy problems. 8/1/06

Compare those passages with his speech this past week:

But the bottom line is this: Given our energy needs, in order to sustain economic growth and produce jobs, and keep our businesses competitive, we are going to need to harness traditional sources of fuel even as we ramp up production of new sources of renewable, homegrown energy. So today we're announcing the expansion of offshore oil and gas exploration, but in ways that balance the need to harness domestic energy resources and the need to protect America's natural resources. March 31, 2010

Obama doesn't strictly adhere to the Luntzian script, as "domestic" "oil and gas" did slip into his recent speech. However, he is now talking about "traditional sources of fuel" and "oil and gas exploration" while still "ramp[ing] up new sources of renewable, homegrown energy." Gone are the days of Obama making it seem as if oil proponents were simply for "drilling our way out of our energy problems". This type of adherence to the different scripts was also seen in the pundits reactions to the announcement.

One more thing while we are talking about drilling for oil. In the quote from 2008, President Obama utilizes the oft-used rhetorical tool of pointing out that it would be nearly a decade (he said then it would be 2017) before we see a drop of oil from new areas opened up to offshore drilling. Look, I'm not expert on this. I don't know how accurate that assessment is, but let's assume he's 100%, to-the-day accurate. The first moratorium on offshore drilling was put into place by Bush 41 in 1990. President Clinton extended the moratorium in 1998. Bush 43 proposed his energy bill, which included offshore drilling as well as opening up ANWR, early in his first term. Again, assuming Obama was correct in his 2008 timeline, if expanded drilling had been approved even as late as Bush 43's energy bill, we would be less than 2 years away from seeing production. If it had been put into effect at the time of the 1990 moratorium, we'd be 2 years from full production. And this ignores any potential ancillary impact on gas prices that could emerge from the knowledge of future additional supply.

I'm sympathetic to the environmental concerns. I understand that more drilling won't solve everything. But, please, this "it will take years before we see production" argument is just plain idiotic. Of course things take a long time, especially difficult ones. It takes years to teach a child to understand the concept of patience. As the energy debate shows, some never pick up the concept. Nevertheless, to increase the chance of success, its better to start early than never at all.

The Ideal Golf Foursome - Part III

2010-03-31T22:07:00.000-04:00

I've been on the clock now for several days as I decide upon the final person to join my Ideal Golf Foursome. It has been a tough decision. While the first two choices were clear, several people have been lucky enough to make it into consideration. After much oscillation, the winner is...

3. Dennis Miller - Comedian, talk show host

I've been a fan for a long time, dating back to his SNL and HBO days. I think he would round out the group in fine fashion. But I really started to enjoy his work when he was on Monday Night Football. I know, I know, most critics panned his performance and he was gone quicker than the bottle of crazy pills at the Cruise-Holmes residence. Complaints about the chemistry were true enough, but I think, given time, it could have worked out.

A good test of sports commentator (TRP Sidenote: why isn't it "commenter"? Commentate isn't--or at least shouldn't be--a word. Comment is already a verb, it doesn't need the "-ate" at the end) is whether or not you'd enjoy watching the game with him in person. Dennis Miller makes me laugh and if he has some interesting insights on the game then I'd love to have him bring over some beer, pull up a recliner, and let the references fly.

About those references. That was and continues to be a big knock on him. He makes too many obscure cultural references. I see the point; I don't get some of the references either. Sometimes I start laughing until I realize I don't know who or what he's talking about. I don't mean to go off on rant here, but maybe instead of knocking him, we should knock ourselves. Maybe when Miller or some other person makes a reference that we don't know, we should ask ourselves if we should know what he's talking about. It's not like he's talking quantum physics here. Maybe it isn't the worst thing in the world to learn a little bit while we are watching football. It is certainly better than listening to John Madden go nuts on the telestrator or Dick Vitale praise Coach K all night long. Sometimes we should turn the channel from the latest reality tv show on VH1 involving contestants with an STD list longer than the food line at a Phish concert and switch over to something where, in the midst of our staring into the HD, we might learn something. I don't know, I could be wrong.

Obama: Super Liberal or Typical Politician?

2010-03-29T22:14:00.000-04:00

I've asked myself this question ever since Obama broke out on the national stage in the spring of 2008. Since his inauguration, the two major lines of attack against Obama by conservatives have been his liberal policies and his broken promises. I find this question interesting because these two accusations could be at odds with one another.

On the one hand, policies he has promoted since taking office put him to the left of most U.S. presidents, if not to the left of the majority of the current American electorate. Comments such as "when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody"; friendships with people who it cannot be denied exist on the far left fringe of American politics; and his continued efforts to have the federal government gain more and more control over the private sector at the expense of individual freedoms and initiative are indicative of a liberal, not a centrist.

On the other hand, the rhetoric of hope and change was--at least to me--very transparent and typical political campaign talk. Declarations of CSPAN cameras in the legislative negotiating room, no lobbyists in his administration, and countless other promises were at best naive to how Washington works or at worst crass populist demagoguery. NRO's Jim Geraghty has a running theme of citing the "expiration dates" of Obama's promises and statements. He's catalogued them all in one spot here. For example, a lot of things positive and negative can be said about the passage of the health care bill, but it cannot be said that it represents the type of change in the legislative process that Obama promised. A natural defense of Obama's shifting stances could be that this is what happens in politics: politicians talk a big game on the campaign trail, but the shift to reality once in office forces concessions and back tracking. Remember Candidate Bush talking about a humble foreign policy and his aversion to nation building? Well, that's good and all and may be true, but Obama's ENTIRE campaign was about how he was different. He had very thin experience and no relevant accomplishments so he was selling his goals and determination to change Washington and America. The majority of the American electorate--especially the too-cool-for-school members of my generation--made our 44th president into a rock star.

So I ask myself: If Obama resides far to the political left, then wouldn't that necessarily make him different than most politicians (especially presidents) who tend to tack closer to the center? And if he is different and pushing the limits of federal power to new heights, then wouldn't that constitute change?

Despite the apparent dichotomy in the two conservative criticisms, I believe that Obama can simultaneously be a typical politician who says what it takes to get elected and also a liberal president who is a pushing an agenda that will greatly redefine the relationship between an individual and his government. For Obama, he garnered the support of many precisely because they thought he was a centrist and that he would change the way Washington conducts the people's business. A year into office it appears that those promises were "just words" (see above) just as campaign promises are for too many candidates who seek our support. But, just as those promises have been jettisoned faster than a long-time radical minister, he has tacked leftward. Therefore his change has not been the change we've been waiting for. Even so, I do think that conservatives and Republicans need to be aware of this potential dichotomy as they ramp up their campaigns in the mid-term elections of 2012.

Should I Care?

2010-03-27T15:39:00.000-04:00

I just finished watching the UVA men's lacrosse team provide a beat down to fellow college lacrosse power house, Johns Hopkins. Actually, I assume a 15-6 victory over another squad constitutes a beat down in college lacrosse. And I know JHU clubs have won national titles in the past, but I have no idea how good their lineup is in 2010. (TRP side note: my ability to use so many synonyms for team in sequential sentences is positively Jim Rome-like.) The reason for my uncertainty? Because the sports world at-large doesn't care about this sport. There were no over-hyped preseason tv specials. Some games, like today's, get televised somewhere in the outer limits of the sports broadcasting universe. But the game and the sport will get zilch in terms of coverage on sports talk radio and other major sports news outlets in the days ahead.

As a result of today's victory, UVA will stay atop the national rankings in lacrosse. Likewise, UVA's baseball and men's tennis teams are ranked #1 in the country. However, no one outside of Wahoo Nation cares that UVA fields three #1 teams simultaneously. Several years ago, Florida held the title of national champion in football and basketball and everybody knew of this feat. (TRP side note #2 - this is, of course, in men's hoops. If women's college basketball is discussed on the blog, it will be readily apparent as the blog will self-destruct shortly after posting.)

So, should I care about this accomplishment? To a certain extent, I do care. I want them to win and feel disappointment when they lose. I watched the College World Series for the first time last year because UVA was in it. I watched UVA win the National Championship in men's soccer last fall. So perhaps the better question is this: Do I care enough to offset the fact UVA's two revenue sports are in the pooper? The fact that I'm even discussing this topic, rather than talking about a run the hoops team made in the NCAA tourney, or the battle for the starting QB spot now taking place in Spring football practice says something. How much, I'm not quite sure, but it's not good. In the end, ear-regardless of how much I care about UVA baseball, tennis, or any other non-revenue sport, I'd still rather see a Sweet Sixteen run in March over a national championship in May or June.

Ideal Golf Foursome - Part II

2010-03-27T14:30:00.000-04:00

After watching my dismal NCAA brackets submit to further bludgeoning on Thursday and Friday, it is now back to regularly scheduled programming.

2. Jonah Goldberg - Author and Political Writer

The second round draft pick for this extremely-likely-to-ever-happen golf foursome is Jonah Goldberg, editor of National Review Online and author of the insightful Liberal Fascism.

Liberal Fascism delves into a topic that has been a source of confusion to me since I began to seriously think about politics and, more specifically, political philosophy. According to a high school history teacher of mine--and apparently numerous others--communism appears on the far left of the political spectrum, with fascism acting as its counterpart on the far right of that spectrum. If major components of communism are centralized government power at the expense of individual rights, such as property ownership, then its opposite, therefore, wouldn't be another totalitarian regime, but rather something closer to American-style libertarianism?

Goldberg takes us back to the roots of European fascist movements, to the theories held by Woodrow Wilson and FDR, and on through the modern progressive movement. Critics decried the title, but a reading of the book will show the origin of the phrase and the relevance to his argument. In short, fascism is a phenomenon of the political left and if fascism ever came to the United States, it would appear with a happy face, with government power increasing in the name of do-goodery. For example, the government might try to solve a problem involving one of the largest sectors of the American economy by restricting the freedoms and choices of individuals and companies, while expanding the power of planners and officials in Washington. All of this would be done in the name of making the country a better place. If only the right people are put in charge, then everything will be sunshine and kittens. But, you know, that's just one random example.

Goldberg's tone is also a nice respite from the cacophony of dunces in today's punditry class. In a time where the loudest and the most sensational pundits are rewarded with talking head shows, Goldberg is at his best in one-on-one discussions in forums like Blogginheads.tv. There he shows he doesn't belong in the Olbermann-O'Reilly category.

In addition to being a fan of his work, I also think it would be interesting to witness Goldberg and Czabe interact. Politics aside, both infuse humor, wit, and a Homer Simpson-sized dose of cultural references into their work. I get the sense from both of them that they love their day jobs--which they are very good at--but that they are more well-rounded (i.e. not complete dorks) and, thus, more fun to hang out with.

Ideal Golf Foursome

2010-03-24T16:50:00.000-04:00

During the sports talk radio off-season (basically from the end of the Masters until preseason NFL starts), hosts often resort to the topic of "Who would be your ideal golf foursome." The answers the host or guest give can provide interesting insight into a particular person because these are 3 people that one will spend a good 6 hours with during the day. Clearly these would be people who need to be interesting and enjoyable to hang out with on the course and have a beer or three with at the 19th hole. Some like to let both the living and the 6-feet under crowd serve as candidates for the foursome. I think it best to keep it to the living, lest it become unwieldy. Plus, dead people can't play golf. Without further ado, here is my first round draft pick:

1. Steve Czaban - Sports Talk Radio Host, Washington DC.

First, he's the perfect sports radio talk show personality. He's knowledgeable about the things that matter most in the sports world. He takes stances, not just for the sake of creating controversy (I'm looking at you, ESPN Radio line up). He's sarcastic. He loves the Redskins and hates Dan Snyder (and let's you know it, even though the little man signs his paycheck). Finally, his political views lead him to produce works of art like this. On the issue of health care he just nails it.

In short, Czabe correctly points out that the health care bill isn't reforming health care but rather redefining the meaning of health insurance. It will bring forth a slew of logistical problems, punch a huge hole in our nation's fiscal ship, and impinge on personal freedoms. Czabe's healthy mix of libertarian/conservative leanings topped with a dallop of curmudgeonliness gives him cross over appeal into the two areas of life that consume the majority of my time. As a result, The Czabe is the obvious #1 choice.

Why?

2010-03-23T15:52:00.000-04:00

Another politically-oriented blog? Right now, you are probably rolling on the ground doing your best impression of Nancy Kerrigan, circa 1994.

The world is in need of many things right now. A cure for cancer, a miracle in Haiti, an end to suicide bombings. On that long laundry list, the need for my insights on politics, sports, and random cultural items ranks somewhere below a solution to college football's national championship problem but above a second season of Jersey Shore.

But everyone needs an outlet. I don't know (and don't care) what other people think about while they are in the shower, but I often reason through political arguments to help pass the time. Unfortunately, like Kramer on Seinfeld, my showers were too long and too inefficient. I knew had lathered and rinsed, but had I repeated? Had I repeated!!! So I need another solution. And since I don't want to find myself twenty years from now as the guy you pass on the street muttering to himself about youngsters and their hippity-hop music, I figured a blog was the way to go.

Secondly, some things need to be said that too often go unsaid or aren't said the right way. Such as why the health care bill is a net-negative for the country or why a certain ESPN radio broadcaster on air from 10-2 Eastern isn't as smart as he thinks he is. Ok, so both of those two topics are probably covered.

Thirdly, it don't cost nuthin.

Will this blog add anything to society? Will it provide solutions to our country's greatest problems? To quote Hansel (who my sources tell me is so hot right now): No, but I'm here and I'll give it my best shot. So, here we go, setting off on a journey in which we will answer the question: If you start a blog and no one reads it, does it exist?