The Mountaineers play Cincy tonight at their place. The way the two teams have been playing, it doesn't look good West Virginia. It could be ugly. The Bearcats appear to be a legit top 5 team while the Mountaineers seem to be posers on the skirts of the top 25. There are a few reasons to look forward to the game. First of all, the Mountaineers have nothing to lose. If it the Bearcats thump the Mounties tonight it will only prove what we already thought. Secondly, many teams play to the level of the competition. That hasn't been the case for Cincy as they have crushed plenty of teams, but maybe it's the case for West Virginia. Sure, Louisville played West Virginia even last week and just couldn't get out of there own way or they may have had a shot to win the game, but that doesn't mean West Virginia will play badly tonight. The only team that really handled West Virginia was USF who seems to have the Mountaineers' number. Perhaps the Mountaineers will rise to the occasion. Thirdly, Pike is healthy enough to play again and there is quarterback controversy which is never good for a team. Pike is supposedly going to get some snaps tonight. Perhaps neither quarterback will get comfortable under the unusual circumstances. Fourth, the pressure on Cincinnati and a possible undefeated season and trip to the national championship game has to be building. That pressure can cause poor play (we wish we could forget the Pitt game that kept WV from a title game). Sixth, UConn ripped up the Bearcats defense that had previously been pretty good. Maybe the Huskies exposed something there.
So, do I expect an upset? No, but it wouldn't be the craziest thing to happen this year. From what I've seen the Mountaineers have played two tough road games and when things started to go against them, Jarrett Brown and the Mountaineers started to crumble under the pressure. West Virginia must start well or it could escalate fast. I don't think the Mountaineers have the coaching, the discipline, or the players to get it done if Cincinnati plays well. However, should they pull off an upset it would put them in the middle of the Big East championship race and make the next couple of weeks interesting. A loss will make me a Bearcat fan the rest of the year for the sake of the Big East.
Looking ahead, I think West Virginia loses its final three games and finishes 7-5. These three combined with USF are the toughest of the year. That would put the Mounties at 3-4 in the Big East. Not an awful season, but not a good one either. WV has a chance at Rutgers in the home finale, but I've said before that the Knights usually improve as the year goes on and it appears that is holding true this year. One win in the final three games would give the Mountaineers a winning record in conference and enough to consider it a decent season.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Politics - VA not feeling blue any longer
The gubernatorial results were as good as Republicans could have hoped. McDonnell won handily, a staggering 27 point change from when Virginia voted for Obama. Blue state New Jersey voted out an incumbent Democrat who outspent his opponent 5 to 1 and had Obama coming to campaign with him in the final week. The New York district race went to the Democrat, which will allow some room for the Democrats to spin, but they do so at the risk of looking foolish as Tim Kaine did this morning on CNN. He basically chalked Virginia and New Jersey up as flukes and focused on the tiny race with many unusual circumstances. One message that he had is certainly true. Hard core conservatives are not satisfied with the party and could cause the party trouble. He made more of this than it is, but it is true. To his point, though, it's not social conservatives that are fed up with Republicans, it's fiscal conservatives, such as myself, that find the party to be disingenuous and disappointing. Still, this race did not have a primary and was filled with bizarre circumstances that led to a Democrat being elected. This may happen here and there where a fiscally conservative Republican runs as a third party and allows a Democrat to be elected, but it's unlikely it will happen in large scale as Kaine implied. If a conservative loses in the primary, he will likely end it there. In this case, there was no primary and people were upset with the choice that was made for them. I wouldn't extrapolate too many problems for the Republican party from this one election result. The governor's races, however, do tell a story.
In Virginia, it appears the state has buyer's remorse. The change was overwhelming. More importantly, it wasn't that McDonnell was a good candidate and Deeds was a poor one. There were three major races in Virginia and the Republican won by about the same margin in each. This was a case of the state preferring Republicans heavily over Democrats. Virginia is a fiscally responsible state and seems to have grown weary quickly of Obama's lose spending. Also, while Warner was very much liked and respected as governor and paved the way for Kaine to succeed him as another Democratic governor, I think Virginia is not quite as happy with Kaine. Warner stayed out of national politics for the most part and was not a talking head for the DNC. Kaine is just the opposite. He is closely tied to Obama and the national party (he's the DNC chair after all) and I don't think Virginia liked that too much. We are okay with a moderate Democrat, but you can't be the DNC chair and be a moderate Democrat. I think many believe that he betrayed some of his more moderate positions for power within the party. That did not help the Democrats in this election either.
I know a lot less about New Jersey. However, a Republican heavily outspent and working against Obama campaigning for his opponent winning by 5 points in a blue state seems to tell a lot about the mood of the country. Coupled with the Virginia results, I think and hope that it is going to make it tough for moderate Democrats to help the liberals shove through universal health care by the process of reconciliation, particularly ones facing re-election in 2010. After all, they'd like to keep their jobs.
In Virginia, it appears the state has buyer's remorse. The change was overwhelming. More importantly, it wasn't that McDonnell was a good candidate and Deeds was a poor one. There were three major races in Virginia and the Republican won by about the same margin in each. This was a case of the state preferring Republicans heavily over Democrats. Virginia is a fiscally responsible state and seems to have grown weary quickly of Obama's lose spending. Also, while Warner was very much liked and respected as governor and paved the way for Kaine to succeed him as another Democratic governor, I think Virginia is not quite as happy with Kaine. Warner stayed out of national politics for the most part and was not a talking head for the DNC. Kaine is just the opposite. He is closely tied to Obama and the national party (he's the DNC chair after all) and I don't think Virginia liked that too much. We are okay with a moderate Democrat, but you can't be the DNC chair and be a moderate Democrat. I think many believe that he betrayed some of his more moderate positions for power within the party. That did not help the Democrats in this election either.
I know a lot less about New Jersey. However, a Republican heavily outspent and working against Obama campaigning for his opponent winning by 5 points in a blue state seems to tell a lot about the mood of the country. Coupled with the Virginia results, I think and hope that it is going to make it tough for moderate Democrats to help the liberals shove through universal health care by the process of reconciliation, particularly ones facing re-election in 2010. After all, they'd like to keep their jobs.
Sports - White vs Harris by Spud DeHaven
OK here is a brief summary of what took me 15min. to type the other night. I voted for White who I think is probably the best player ever at WVU. Here is how I would compare them. First if I needed one yard I am taking the Major. No QB at WVU has been better at getting that one tough yard than him. If I need a big play (over twenty yards) I go with White.
He was just more explosive in my mind . Passing I would take White. Also he was more accurate but I think Major had a stronger arm. I do think Major was a more fierce competitor. He would will the team to win, not sure Pat ever got that. He tried to win it himself. All said I have to take White but if the Major had played his whole career it might have been very interesting. Now for this years Mountie team. One thing I will say is that we have to remember this is WVU and we will not be a top 10 team every year. This team has one of the worst O-Lines I have seen at WVU in a long time they are getting beat bad at the point of attack. I think we do have some talent at the skill positions but you need more than that. In fact I think ND runs harder than Slaton did. He has to do most of it himself. Now for the hot topic the coaching. I as you know am not a fan of Dick Rod and the more I see of Michigan and think about his time at WVU I think the guy got extremely lucky to get two guys at the same time that NO ONE ELSE wanted in White and Slaton. Those guys carried the Mounties along with big Owen. Hear is where my Blue Hair comes in with RR. I am not sure you guys are old enough or not but when WVU and Penn ST and more recently VA Tech played and Pitt and many others before RR came WVU was known as one of the hardest hitting teams in the country. Win or lose the other team was taking to the wood shed and busted in the mouth. I personally like that. I think in the last 5 or so years our defense has really became soft and this year has put a lot of extra pressure on the offense. I personally think this started with ole Dick Rod wanting WVU to become more of a offensive team. Oh well have a lot more to say but tired of typing.
He was just more explosive in my mind . Passing I would take White. Also he was more accurate but I think Major had a stronger arm. I do think Major was a more fierce competitor. He would will the team to win, not sure Pat ever got that. He tried to win it himself. All said I have to take White but if the Major had played his whole career it might have been very interesting. Now for this years Mountie team. One thing I will say is that we have to remember this is WVU and we will not be a top 10 team every year. This team has one of the worst O-Lines I have seen at WVU in a long time they are getting beat bad at the point of attack. I think we do have some talent at the skill positions but you need more than that. In fact I think ND runs harder than Slaton did. He has to do most of it himself. Now for the hot topic the coaching. I as you know am not a fan of Dick Rod and the more I see of Michigan and think about his time at WVU I think the guy got extremely lucky to get two guys at the same time that NO ONE ELSE wanted in White and Slaton. Those guys carried the Mounties along with big Owen. Hear is where my Blue Hair comes in with RR. I am not sure you guys are old enough or not but when WVU and Penn ST and more recently VA Tech played and Pitt and many others before RR came WVU was known as one of the hardest hitting teams in the country. Win or lose the other team was taking to the wood shed and busted in the mouth. I personally like that. I think in the last 5 or so years our defense has really became soft and this year has put a lot of extra pressure on the offense. I personally think this started with ole Dick Rod wanting WVU to become more of a offensive team. Oh well have a lot more to say but tired of typing.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Politics - VA Election Day
Yesterday I sampled three of my co-workers as a group and asked them what was special about today. They had no idea. Granted, they are not all that interested in politics, but they are educated people. I would expect that much of the state is unaware that a few of their neighbors are going to the poll today. I consider that somewhat sad. In any event, I will disclose that I did something today that I have proclaimed to loathe throughout my political voting career. I voted straight ticket without much research or thought. I would have given an independent or Libertarian serious consideration and probably a vote, especially if he were the latter, but there were none to choose from. It would be extremely difficult for me to vote for a Democrat at this point, so why bother with research, right?
This is certainly a change of course from my past. Nationally I have leaned Republican, but locally I've been pretty split. I voted for Warner (D) and thought that the former business was fairly fiscally responsible (in part due to Republican controlled Congress) and did a nice job. I do not regret the vote. I voted for Kaine (D) in the next election. I was not as pleased with his performance, but still not a disaster. So how do we come to the next VA election cycle and I won't consider Democrats? First of all, propelled by recent party success the Democratic party has boldly moved further left. I say have not done much research, but that is not entirely true. I know enough about McDonnell (R) and Deeds (D) to know that Deeds in the most liberal choice for governor the state has seen in some time. I don't particularly like Bolling (R), but again I could not bring myself to consider Wagner (D) for Lt Governor. I truly know nothing about the candidates for Attorney General, but again went with the Republican, assuming that the Democrat is following the liberal charge. Is it unfair to make that assumption? Perhaps, but it brings me to my second reason to go straight ticket, national political issues.
On the surface, it would seem national politics should have little impact on my decisions for local government, and that is usually true. However, local politics can impact national politics and currently the stakes are high at the national level. During the presidential primaries, it was clear to me that I would support pretty much any Republican over any Democrat because of nationalized health care. I oppose most any proposal for nationalized anything. The Federal government is generally incompetent and inefficient in anything it runs. The costs are always rampant. Obama himself talked about the U.S. not being able to sustain the level of spending on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and health care costs on their current trend. Now, we are to add nationalized health care. I would love everyone to have health care, a 2,000+ sq. ft. home, two new cars, and a steak and potato for every dinner. However, there is a disconnect today in what we expect from our government. Just because something is nice and humanitarian doesn't mean it can or should be given. Things must be earned through production, somebody must pay for any service another person receives, and pay through their labor. Right now we are piling up massive debt because we are living beyond our means, the government is paying out more services than the production it takes from its citizens (taxes). The gap is extremely wide. This proposes to further that gap. As I stated before, a service like this once enacted is almost impossible to undo. If we go to nationalized health care, it will be almost impossible to go back to private health care until the U.S. is bankrupt and is faced with the fact that it cannot pay for all these services. That will be a dark day for the country and the world as the much of the rest of the world depends on our spending for their economic success.
The public has turned against nationalized health care, which is interesting since it voted all these Democrats into office, including Obama, who promised to give it to us. So, it appeared we might get a watered down bill that did not go to nationalized health care. However, the liberals would not accept such a failure, and Reid produced the public option which is a door to nationalized health care. There will likely not be 60 votes to overcome a Republican filibuster, but the Democrats may use the process of reconciliation to jam the legislation through with only a majority. What does all this have to do with my vote? The more the public pressures Washington to get rid of the public option, the less likely reconciliation will be used. Currently, the best way to apply pressure would be to send a message by way of resounding Republican victories in Virginia and a Republican victory in the governor's race in New Jersey. I hope that's what we see.
This is certainly a change of course from my past. Nationally I have leaned Republican, but locally I've been pretty split. I voted for Warner (D) and thought that the former business was fairly fiscally responsible (in part due to Republican controlled Congress) and did a nice job. I do not regret the vote. I voted for Kaine (D) in the next election. I was not as pleased with his performance, but still not a disaster. So how do we come to the next VA election cycle and I won't consider Democrats? First of all, propelled by recent party success the Democratic party has boldly moved further left. I say have not done much research, but that is not entirely true. I know enough about McDonnell (R) and Deeds (D) to know that Deeds in the most liberal choice for governor the state has seen in some time. I don't particularly like Bolling (R), but again I could not bring myself to consider Wagner (D) for Lt Governor. I truly know nothing about the candidates for Attorney General, but again went with the Republican, assuming that the Democrat is following the liberal charge. Is it unfair to make that assumption? Perhaps, but it brings me to my second reason to go straight ticket, national political issues.
On the surface, it would seem national politics should have little impact on my decisions for local government, and that is usually true. However, local politics can impact national politics and currently the stakes are high at the national level. During the presidential primaries, it was clear to me that I would support pretty much any Republican over any Democrat because of nationalized health care. I oppose most any proposal for nationalized anything. The Federal government is generally incompetent and inefficient in anything it runs. The costs are always rampant. Obama himself talked about the U.S. not being able to sustain the level of spending on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and health care costs on their current trend. Now, we are to add nationalized health care. I would love everyone to have health care, a 2,000+ sq. ft. home, two new cars, and a steak and potato for every dinner. However, there is a disconnect today in what we expect from our government. Just because something is nice and humanitarian doesn't mean it can or should be given. Things must be earned through production, somebody must pay for any service another person receives, and pay through their labor. Right now we are piling up massive debt because we are living beyond our means, the government is paying out more services than the production it takes from its citizens (taxes). The gap is extremely wide. This proposes to further that gap. As I stated before, a service like this once enacted is almost impossible to undo. If we go to nationalized health care, it will be almost impossible to go back to private health care until the U.S. is bankrupt and is faced with the fact that it cannot pay for all these services. That will be a dark day for the country and the world as the much of the rest of the world depends on our spending for their economic success.
The public has turned against nationalized health care, which is interesting since it voted all these Democrats into office, including Obama, who promised to give it to us. So, it appeared we might get a watered down bill that did not go to nationalized health care. However, the liberals would not accept such a failure, and Reid produced the public option which is a door to nationalized health care. There will likely not be 60 votes to overcome a Republican filibuster, but the Democrats may use the process of reconciliation to jam the legislation through with only a majority. What does all this have to do with my vote? The more the public pressures Washington to get rid of the public option, the less likely reconciliation will be used. Currently, the best way to apply pressure would be to send a message by way of resounding Republican victories in Virginia and a Republican victory in the governor's race in New Jersey. I hope that's what we see.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Sports - USF 30 WV 19
The Mountaineers could not get it done in Tampa once again. South Florida seems to have their number. The Mountaineers were able to move the ball through the air decently and could have done better in that area if the receivers wouldn't have dropped a few. Once again, however, South Florida shut down the run game. Offensively, the Bulls looked very good against the Mountaineers' defense. They were able to convert big plays and move the ball. The Mountaineers couldn't blame this one on turnovers since they only committed one. The one was a costly interception on a terrible pass by Brown. Brown was lucky he didn't lose a fumble or two. On the plus side, it was the best the special teams have looked this year. Overall, the game seemed to show what I felt all year despite a 6-1 record, the Mountaineers are just an average BCS team. In fact, I might have to put them 6th in the Big East. Cincy is #1 and Pitt is #2. After that it gets tighter. I really feel for UConn who lost another close game that it seemed they were going to win. An 80+ yard touchdown with less than a minute to go made them 4 point losers. They could legitimately be 8-0. I'm not sure the order I'd put UConn, USF, Rutgers and WV in in terms of who I'd take on a neutral field, but I'd lean towards putting WV at the end of that list. I would also have WV as underdogs in their final 3 games, although they could potentially find a way to win one or two of those. 8-4 would be a good finish at this point, 7-5 may be more likely. Either way it's not a disastrous season and it gives Stewart some time to establish himself. In terms of his start, perhaps it is will be the best two year start of any coach in WV history. I'm pretty sure no coach inherited a team one game away from playing in the national championship game with the start quarterback returning either, so that doesn't mean much. In recent history, excluding Rod's first year conversion, the worst two year regular season stretch WV has experienced is 16-7. I would guess Stewart's start will be worse than that. The three years previous to Stewart were double digit win seasons for the Mountaineers. So, the bar has definitely dropped. I hope it can be raised again in the next couple of years and I'm certainly willing to give Stewart that chance, but I doubt we will be seeing the top 10 again for a while. At the quarterback position, my support for Brown remains low. He's just not steady. He was fortunate to get out of the game with one turnover. He also had a play that I have never seen before. On the final play of the first half, the Mountaineers ran a Hail Mary. Brown got to the outside and had nobody around him. Instead of heaving down to the end zone, he ran out of bounds for a two yard gain. Was he concerned about his stats? Was he gun shy after the bad pick (he finished the half very poorly)? It's a Hail Mary. Your receivers will be covered!!! You throw it up and see what happens. You could get a touchdown, an incompletion, or an interception that ends the half. You take your chances. Brown continues to show me that he has a low football IQ. He's very talented, perhaps as much as any WV quarterback to come to the school, but a huge part of the position is mental. I'm excited to see what Smith can do, but at this point it's probably best not to turn the team over to him since they are likely to have little success in those final three games. Perhaps they could give him a couple of series. All this seems very negative because it's relative to what we have experienced in recent years. It's really not that bad. WV is currently an average BCS team and that's what they are projected to be going forward. Expectations will no longer be high and every once in a while you'll have a really good year. Unfortunately, when you are an average team, you'll also have a losing season every once in a while. Hopefully WV takes care of Louisville and gets to 7 wins. From there the pressure would be off in my mind. Any win would be a bonus.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Sports - A Thank You to VT
I would just like to take this time to do something that I rarely do - thank the Virginia Tech Hokies. They started off the college football weekend in such a magnificent way that it has me hopeful that the Mountaineers can continue the momentum tonight into a blissful three days of football. Who knows, maybe Indiana can beat Iowa and ease my concern about the Hawkeyes ruining a national championship game. For now I am satisfied with the Tarheels exposing the soon to be not ranked #13 Hokies. I also want take the time to thank the Hokies for bolting the Big East. Sure, I was upset about the three traitors leaving the Mountaineers and the other remaining Big East programs in a tight spot, but it hasn't turned out too bad. The Mountaineers have two BCS bowl wins in the short time since those three teams left the conference and Louisville has another. The teams the Big East brought on (USF, Cincy, Louisville) have all taken turns in the top 10 and shown potential. They still cannot be considered as strong of programs as Miami, VT, and BC, but they have been relatively close in performance in the years since the succession. The Big East has its haters that love to come out whenever it struggles, but the conference has performed well in the BCS bowl games and is still relatively strong. Despite much talk about the conference being down this year, it has one team contending for a national championship and two others that are inside the top 20. Meanwhile the ACC, despite having 50% more teams, has the same number of teams ranked in the top 25, none of which are in the top 10. VT could easily fall out of the top 25 after the loss to NC. On the flip side, in basketball the Big East shed perennial dogs and picked up Louisville, Marquette, and Cincinnati (also DePaul and USF who took the place of VT in fighting for last). The Big East now regularly competes for the honors of best conference in the land, something the ACC would always attempt to claim. The Mountaineers are preseason #9 and expected to be one of the best in the Big East this year. So, I suppose the state of the Mountaineers and the Big East since the departure of those infamous teams has never been better in many ways. So, thank you and good riddance. Does the Mountaineers success get the Hokies out of the DeHavenator dog house? Hardly. There they shall always remain.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Sports - WV d. UConn
WV earned its first solid victory over the year edging Uconn 28-24. Here are some thoughts from the game:
I think UConn is a very underrated team. The Huskies played well at WV and I don't think it was due to the emotions of the game. They are a solid fundamentally sound team. On a neutral field I would put the Huskies 3rd in the Big East behind Cincy and Pitt. They have lost three games (at Pitt, vs. NC, and at WV) and have led late each time. UConn outgained WV 501 to 387 in total yards. The surprising part was that UConn turned it over 4 times to WV's 2. That and a couple of big plays by WV was the difference in the game. Given the teams' histories, you would expect the turnover margin to go the other way. So, I do feel like this is a quality win and one where the offense turned it over only once. It could be a nice building block as WV has 4 tough games remaining of its final 5. On the other hand, the fact that I would take UConn on a neutral field against West Virginia is slightly disturbing. It shows how far UConn has come and that WV is not the powerhouse is was for a few years. Nevertheless, it's a good win and I'll take it.
Austin had a sweet return to start the game, but the Mounties special team coverage was once again pathetic. There seems to be no answer there. Giving up 501 yards to UConn cannot count as a good performance by the defense, although causing 4 turnovers is very nice. I was impressed with Brown's elusiveness in the pocket and he used his legs more effectively in this game than he has previously this game. That was encouraging. I still wish they would do some designed quarterback runs (not just draws) out of the wildcat. I think it would help Devine if the defense had to respect Brown's running. On the turnover side, Brown only turned it over once. It was a pretty bad pass though. He also fumbled with nobody around him as he holds the ball as if it has the swine flu. He is going to continue to be fumble prone unless he changes the way he holds the ball. There were a couple of runs where he ran out of bounds just short of a first down. I don't know if he's faster than Smith or not, but he is certainly stronger. I wish he would have picked up the first down in those situations instead of avoiding contact. On the passing side, he had the nice completion down the sidelines for a big gain, but other than that it wasn't very good. He completed some short passes and he had some guys open deep a couple of times and was nowhere close to them. His accuracy on anything beyond the line of scrimmage was not very good in the game. Still, I suppose the plays were made when they needed to be made. That combined with just one turnover earns him a middling grade.
Overall, it was a decent performance against a good team. WV did enough to win and that's what matters most. It's on to South Florida, a hard team to figure out and a hard game to predict. USF has given the Mounties fits, particularly in Tampa. However they seem to be in full collapse mode as they do most every season. It's a big game for the Mountaineers. They have Louisville the following week. WV has the possibility to be 8-1 (4-0) heading into a stretch of three games where they will be an underdog in two and maybe a pick 'em in the other. As Ryan said, a Big East championship is unlikely, but it would be fun to stay in the race a little longer. Let's go Mountaineers!!!!
A Side not on Cincinnati - I have said since early in the season this team was very good. The press, who watches the games, agrees. The AP poll has them 4th only 6 votes behind USC. I would have them in front of USC, but I'll accept that. The coaches however place them 7th. It shows that the coaches have opinions about programs and it's hard to change that. They don't watch the games that don't affect them. What does Bob Stoops care about Cincinnati? Other less prominent coaches who don't play the Bearcats are just fighting for their jobs and don't have time to read about or watch Cincinnati football. So this is what we get (the AP smartly declined to be a piece in the BCS formula mess). My biggest fear for the title game is Iowa. That could be awful, a complete blowout. The Big 10 is not good. Iowa has Indiana, Northwestern, Minnesota, and Ohio St. left. I will be a big Buckeye fan that day just for the sake of a good title game. The only team worth noting they have beaten is Penn St. who they beat every year no matter how good they are. I'd take the Mountaineers over the Hawkeyes in a heads up matchup, something I couldn't say of any other top 10 team. Yet, Iowa will be 3rd in the pecking order should they run the table (SEC undefeated, Texas, Iowa). I hope Cincy is at least 4th in that order (I'd put them 3rd). We will see. Anybody else been unimpressed with Florida and Alabama lately? I know the SEC is tough and deep, but still, come on.
I think UConn is a very underrated team. The Huskies played well at WV and I don't think it was due to the emotions of the game. They are a solid fundamentally sound team. On a neutral field I would put the Huskies 3rd in the Big East behind Cincy and Pitt. They have lost three games (at Pitt, vs. NC, and at WV) and have led late each time. UConn outgained WV 501 to 387 in total yards. The surprising part was that UConn turned it over 4 times to WV's 2. That and a couple of big plays by WV was the difference in the game. Given the teams' histories, you would expect the turnover margin to go the other way. So, I do feel like this is a quality win and one where the offense turned it over only once. It could be a nice building block as WV has 4 tough games remaining of its final 5. On the other hand, the fact that I would take UConn on a neutral field against West Virginia is slightly disturbing. It shows how far UConn has come and that WV is not the powerhouse is was for a few years. Nevertheless, it's a good win and I'll take it.
Austin had a sweet return to start the game, but the Mounties special team coverage was once again pathetic. There seems to be no answer there. Giving up 501 yards to UConn cannot count as a good performance by the defense, although causing 4 turnovers is very nice. I was impressed with Brown's elusiveness in the pocket and he used his legs more effectively in this game than he has previously this game. That was encouraging. I still wish they would do some designed quarterback runs (not just draws) out of the wildcat. I think it would help Devine if the defense had to respect Brown's running. On the turnover side, Brown only turned it over once. It was a pretty bad pass though. He also fumbled with nobody around him as he holds the ball as if it has the swine flu. He is going to continue to be fumble prone unless he changes the way he holds the ball. There were a couple of runs where he ran out of bounds just short of a first down. I don't know if he's faster than Smith or not, but he is certainly stronger. I wish he would have picked up the first down in those situations instead of avoiding contact. On the passing side, he had the nice completion down the sidelines for a big gain, but other than that it wasn't very good. He completed some short passes and he had some guys open deep a couple of times and was nowhere close to them. His accuracy on anything beyond the line of scrimmage was not very good in the game. Still, I suppose the plays were made when they needed to be made. That combined with just one turnover earns him a middling grade.
Overall, it was a decent performance against a good team. WV did enough to win and that's what matters most. It's on to South Florida, a hard team to figure out and a hard game to predict. USF has given the Mounties fits, particularly in Tampa. However they seem to be in full collapse mode as they do most every season. It's a big game for the Mountaineers. They have Louisville the following week. WV has the possibility to be 8-1 (4-0) heading into a stretch of three games where they will be an underdog in two and maybe a pick 'em in the other. As Ryan said, a Big East championship is unlikely, but it would be fun to stay in the race a little longer. Let's go Mountaineers!!!!
A Side not on Cincinnati - I have said since early in the season this team was very good. The press, who watches the games, agrees. The AP poll has them 4th only 6 votes behind USC. I would have them in front of USC, but I'll accept that. The coaches however place them 7th. It shows that the coaches have opinions about programs and it's hard to change that. They don't watch the games that don't affect them. What does Bob Stoops care about Cincinnati? Other less prominent coaches who don't play the Bearcats are just fighting for their jobs and don't have time to read about or watch Cincinnati football. So this is what we get (the AP smartly declined to be a piece in the BCS formula mess). My biggest fear for the title game is Iowa. That could be awful, a complete blowout. The Big 10 is not good. Iowa has Indiana, Northwestern, Minnesota, and Ohio St. left. I will be a big Buckeye fan that day just for the sake of a good title game. The only team worth noting they have beaten is Penn St. who they beat every year no matter how good they are. I'd take the Mountaineers over the Hawkeyes in a heads up matchup, something I couldn't say of any other top 10 team. Yet, Iowa will be 3rd in the pecking order should they run the table (SEC undefeated, Texas, Iowa). I hope Cincy is at least 4th in that order (I'd put them 3rd). We will see. Anybody else been unimpressed with Florida and Alabama lately? I know the SEC is tough and deep, but still, come on.
Sports - Major Harris vs Pat White by Wayne
Major Harris vs Pat White??? That is a tough call (especially since I never really saw Major play.) That said, and forgive my arrogance on Major, but based on his accomplishments my vote goes with White. While Major got us to the National Title, and if he doesn't get hurt, we probably win, he still never won a bowl game, the Heisman, and doesn't hold any NCAA records. He was a winner through and through, but...
Meanwhile White has a record that can never be broken, only (improbably)matched. 4-0 in bowl games as a starting QB. Never done before, and probably be a long time if it is ever to be equaled. White also set the mark for all time Big East yardage and the NCAA record for rushing by a QB.
Also to me, I think there is something to be said for their accomplishments after WVU (small part at least since college success and NFL success are obviously completely different stories.) Pat White Drafted in the Second round by the Dolphins, contributing slightly. Harris, drafted in the 12th round by the Rams, never played a down in the NFL.
Harris paved the way for QBs like Charlie Ward, Donavan Mcnabb, Michael Vick and Pat White. But at the end of the day all things being equal, you put White head to head against Harris, I think White wins 7 out of 10.
Meanwhile White has a record that can never be broken, only (improbably)matched. 4-0 in bowl games as a starting QB. Never done before, and probably be a long time if it is ever to be equaled. White also set the mark for all time Big East yardage and the NCAA record for rushing by a QB.
Also to me, I think there is something to be said for their accomplishments after WVU (small part at least since college success and NFL success are obviously completely different stories.) Pat White Drafted in the Second round by the Dolphins, contributing slightly. Harris, drafted in the 12th round by the Rams, never played a down in the NFL.
Harris paved the way for QBs like Charlie Ward, Donavan Mcnabb, Michael Vick and Pat White. But at the end of the day all things being equal, you put White head to head against Harris, I think White wins 7 out of 10.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Sports - WV d. UConn - Ryan's take
Stew should have sat JB, he was a liability against UConn. I don't know if he was rushed back or if it would have made any difference, but I would liked to have seen Smith get the start after a full week of prep. A win is a win, but the 'eers were very fortunate to come away with that one. 4 turnovers from UConn and 3 big plays (2 Devine runs and Austin kickoff return) made the difference. The offense couldn't put together a sustained drive all day. It was better in the second half, but the Mountaineers looked unprepared to handle all of the blitzing UConn did in the first half. That fact makes me question the game plan, I know little about the technical aspects of football but if you are replacing your starting corner with a new guy chances are you are going to blitz more to take some of the pressure off of him. Maybe I am over-simplifying but it seems obvious in hind-sight.
I think this Friday at USF is now a must-win. Cinncy and Pitt seem to be hitting their stride and WVU needs to jump on a slumping USF team if they want to stay in the race. I don't think WVU wins that race, but it would be nice to stay in it for a while longer.
Sports - Response to Wayne (read his coment first)
There we go Wayne! Way to liven it up a little in my return to the blogosphere. It was highly emotional and completely supportive of the current regime as is typical of your comments over the years with some good points and some not so fantastic. I certainly appreciate the different viewpoint, just perhaps tone down the language next time for the kids, alright unkie Wayne?
You went a little further with the comment that Stew doesn't have the guts for a quarterback controversy than I intended. If you read the rest of the comment, I talked about how public sentiment would be on Brown's side and even if I were coach and wanted to start Smith I'd blame it on Brown's injury. I did not intend to imply that Stew has less courage to make tough decisions than the average second year coach trying to establish himself at a school that is accustomed to success. It would take a unique coach to go with Smith over Brown at this point unless it is one that is well established and has no worries about the fan base turning against him. So, while I don't think Stew has the guts for a quarterback controversy, that is what I would expect from a coach in his situation and, for me, it really doesn't diminish him in any way. I have issues with Stew in a few areas, but I think he's a great guy and I'm not particularly bothered by his guts at this point.
My point about White's injury was not to suggest that Smith will be as good as White. It was merely to point out that it took an injury to another player to get what you called "WV's greatest QB" on the field full time. It appears Smith can do nothing to earn the starting job. The only way he can get it is if Brown gets hurt. That's the similarity. Side note: Major Harris vs. Pat White would be an interesting discussion for Greatest WV QB. I'd have to think about it before answering as opposed to the emotional response of Wayne who still lingers in love with the recently departed Pat White. At the very least I don't think it's fair to dismiss Harris and award it to White without thought.
I agree that Brown will be drafted in the NFL. NFL scouts covet size and strength and physical tools and Brown has all of that. To repeat your question Wayne, what does that have to do with who would be the better leader of this college football team? Nothing. The NFL is much different than college. They go on potential not performance, just look at Jamarcus Russell. He was the #1 player picked with all the physical tools you could want. However, if you can't read defenses and make accurate throws, you cannot succeed in the NFL. The teams will still take a chance that a player with the tools will develop those other skills. Russell has yet to do that and I doubt Brown will either. The comment reminds me of earlier in the decade at the University of Texas. The Longhorns had a quarterback who was a proven leader and winner, Major Applewhite. They also had a quarterback with all the physical tools that could light up defenses with inferior talent, Chris Simms. Simms went on to the NFL while Applewhite had no shot. Texas desperately wanted to hand the job to Simms despite the fact that he did not play well in big games against good teams. They did so in 2001. He threw 4 picks against the Sooners in a 14-3 loss early in the season. Then, late in the season when it looked like Texas could jump back into the national championship picture, he threw 3 against Colorado as the Texas got down big early. Enter Applewhite who led a valiant comeback that came up two points short. The Longhorns let Applewhite start the bowl game and he threw for 473 yards and 4 TD's in their win over Washington. All this is a nice story. The point is that a player can be a great college quarterback and never get a shot in the NFL or a player can be a disappointment in college (Simms had a nice career at Texas, but just couldn't get it done in the big games) and still be an NFL quarterback. The interest by NFL scouts in Brown doesn't mean anything when it comes time to line up on Saturdays.
As for Brown vs. Smith, I said I wasn't sure who gives WV the best chance to win. I wouldn't start Smith unless I thought he gave WV a better chance at success. I agree a 5th year senior would normally get the nod over a true freshman. However, there are few fifth year seniors that are as careless with the ball as Brown and few freshmen as capable as Smith. Still, I would acknowledge it's a tough decision and I'm fine with Brown starting. However, in all your ranting you failed to address Brown's turnover problems, like a politician sticking to his stump speech when asked a question that hits a little too close to home. There is no arguing that Brown is not a turnover machine. He holds the ball like Wayne holds a bottle of Bailey's after his 5th White Russian, sloppy (he's fumbled a couple of times with nobody around him). He sometimes feels like there should be equal opportunity between the offense and defense between who should have a chance to catch a ball. Those things make it Smith a little more intriguing.
As for Stew, I'll give him a chance. I'm certainly hoping he has great success and succeeds long term. I think the manner in which the WV athletic department hired him has hurt his public relations effort from the start. To say that he is not a candidate for the job the day of the bowl game and to hire him the next day is poor. It showed that it was an emotional hire, something big Wayne would do. That has made the choice questionable in the minds of many fans. If WV had said this was Stew's trial run and had hired him after the impressive bowl win, it may have been better for Stew. However, the athletic department put him in a bad spot. I still question if he can take the team back to the top 10 and consistently hang in the top 25, but I do think he should be given time until his recruits, including Smith, take over the team. His recruiting has been good, but then again, so has Zook's at Illinois, but that guy can't coach. My biggest disappointment with him is the area he coaches, special teams. The coverage team has been terrible all year. It's a little bit embarrassing since it's Stew's unit.
Overall, Brown and Stew are 6-1, which is not too shabby. Of course, they have one win against a team with a pulse as Ryan put it (the narrow escape against UConn) and the loss was against a poor Auburn team where Brown literally handed the game to them. 2-3 down the stretch is the most likely result as they start to play some good teams. However, if they can put it together and not turn the ball over, who knows, maybe it will be a magical season and a BCS bid in the end. For anyone who is predicting that, that is some "I told you so" that I would love to hear.
You went a little further with the comment that Stew doesn't have the guts for a quarterback controversy than I intended. If you read the rest of the comment, I talked about how public sentiment would be on Brown's side and even if I were coach and wanted to start Smith I'd blame it on Brown's injury. I did not intend to imply that Stew has less courage to make tough decisions than the average second year coach trying to establish himself at a school that is accustomed to success. It would take a unique coach to go with Smith over Brown at this point unless it is one that is well established and has no worries about the fan base turning against him. So, while I don't think Stew has the guts for a quarterback controversy, that is what I would expect from a coach in his situation and, for me, it really doesn't diminish him in any way. I have issues with Stew in a few areas, but I think he's a great guy and I'm not particularly bothered by his guts at this point.
My point about White's injury was not to suggest that Smith will be as good as White. It was merely to point out that it took an injury to another player to get what you called "WV's greatest QB" on the field full time. It appears Smith can do nothing to earn the starting job. The only way he can get it is if Brown gets hurt. That's the similarity. Side note: Major Harris vs. Pat White would be an interesting discussion for Greatest WV QB. I'd have to think about it before answering as opposed to the emotional response of Wayne who still lingers in love with the recently departed Pat White. At the very least I don't think it's fair to dismiss Harris and award it to White without thought.
I agree that Brown will be drafted in the NFL. NFL scouts covet size and strength and physical tools and Brown has all of that. To repeat your question Wayne, what does that have to do with who would be the better leader of this college football team? Nothing. The NFL is much different than college. They go on potential not performance, just look at Jamarcus Russell. He was the #1 player picked with all the physical tools you could want. However, if you can't read defenses and make accurate throws, you cannot succeed in the NFL. The teams will still take a chance that a player with the tools will develop those other skills. Russell has yet to do that and I doubt Brown will either. The comment reminds me of earlier in the decade at the University of Texas. The Longhorns had a quarterback who was a proven leader and winner, Major Applewhite. They also had a quarterback with all the physical tools that could light up defenses with inferior talent, Chris Simms. Simms went on to the NFL while Applewhite had no shot. Texas desperately wanted to hand the job to Simms despite the fact that he did not play well in big games against good teams. They did so in 2001. He threw 4 picks against the Sooners in a 14-3 loss early in the season. Then, late in the season when it looked like Texas could jump back into the national championship picture, he threw 3 against Colorado as the Texas got down big early. Enter Applewhite who led a valiant comeback that came up two points short. The Longhorns let Applewhite start the bowl game and he threw for 473 yards and 4 TD's in their win over Washington. All this is a nice story. The point is that a player can be a great college quarterback and never get a shot in the NFL or a player can be a disappointment in college (Simms had a nice career at Texas, but just couldn't get it done in the big games) and still be an NFL quarterback. The interest by NFL scouts in Brown doesn't mean anything when it comes time to line up on Saturdays.
As for Brown vs. Smith, I said I wasn't sure who gives WV the best chance to win. I wouldn't start Smith unless I thought he gave WV a better chance at success. I agree a 5th year senior would normally get the nod over a true freshman. However, there are few fifth year seniors that are as careless with the ball as Brown and few freshmen as capable as Smith. Still, I would acknowledge it's a tough decision and I'm fine with Brown starting. However, in all your ranting you failed to address Brown's turnover problems, like a politician sticking to his stump speech when asked a question that hits a little too close to home. There is no arguing that Brown is not a turnover machine. He holds the ball like Wayne holds a bottle of Bailey's after his 5th White Russian, sloppy (he's fumbled a couple of times with nobody around him). He sometimes feels like there should be equal opportunity between the offense and defense between who should have a chance to catch a ball. Those things make it Smith a little more intriguing.
As for Stew, I'll give him a chance. I'm certainly hoping he has great success and succeeds long term. I think the manner in which the WV athletic department hired him has hurt his public relations effort from the start. To say that he is not a candidate for the job the day of the bowl game and to hire him the next day is poor. It showed that it was an emotional hire, something big Wayne would do. That has made the choice questionable in the minds of many fans. If WV had said this was Stew's trial run and had hired him after the impressive bowl win, it may have been better for Stew. However, the athletic department put him in a bad spot. I still question if he can take the team back to the top 10 and consistently hang in the top 25, but I do think he should be given time until his recruits, including Smith, take over the team. His recruiting has been good, but then again, so has Zook's at Illinois, but that guy can't coach. My biggest disappointment with him is the area he coaches, special teams. The coverage team has been terrible all year. It's a little bit embarrassing since it's Stew's unit.
Overall, Brown and Stew are 6-1, which is not too shabby. Of course, they have one win against a team with a pulse as Ryan put it (the narrow escape against UConn) and the loss was against a poor Auburn team where Brown literally handed the game to them. 2-3 down the stretch is the most likely result as they start to play some good teams. However, if they can put it together and not turn the ball over, who knows, maybe it will be a magical season and a BCS bid in the end. For anyone who is predicting that, that is some "I told you so" that I would love to hear.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Sports - Brown vs Smith debate
Here's a little uncut e-mail debate for WV fans to read between me and a much more knowledgeable WV fan (Ryan, I hope you don't mind my using your material, I saw no copyright):
I'm sticking with JB, and I have to assume that most WVU fans (>80%) would agree with me. I am not ready to give up on JB yet, he is still rough around the edges but deserves this shot. He is reckless at times but still gives us the best chance to win in my opinion. I agree that Smith is capable and his development would pay dividends next season but I don't think he wins more games than JB this season. I guess I feel loyal to JB given that he stuck around for 4 years and I still believe that he can get the job done.
I'm sticking with JB, and I have to assume that most WVU fans (>80%) would agree with me. I am not ready to give up on JB yet, he is still rough around the edges but deserves this shot. He is reckless at times but still gives us the best chance to win in my opinion. I agree that Smith is capable and his development would pay dividends next season but I don't think he wins more games than JB this season. I guess I feel loyal to JB given that he stuck around for 4 years and I still believe that he can get the job done.
I have a feeling Smith will be starting this weekend, so it will be interesting to see what he can do with a week to prepare and a gameplan designed for him. Once JB comes back though he is still the starter, I don't forsee a QB controversy.
Agreed no QB controversy because Stew doesn't have the guts for it. If I remember correctly, didn't it take an injury to get Pat White on the field full time? At this point I agree that you have to go with whoever gives you the best shot at winning. The Mountaineers are still in contention for the Big East title. I'm just not sure who that is. Both have risks. I wish both of them would run a little more. The QB has to be a running threat for the offense to be explosive. If I were the coach I'd start Smith this week and blame it on Brown's injury. If Brown is healthy enough to play, I'd suit him up just in case, but say we'd rather give him another week to heal. Then I'd be hoping that Smith played really well and wins over the public opinion so that I can hand him the job without a riot. Because right now I agree with you that >80% would vote the same way you did. Brown's turnovers have just been too much for me. He's proven to me that turnovers are the norm for him, not the exception.
Jason
Monday, October 19, 2009
Sports - Mountaineers 2009
The Mountaineers are back in the top 25 and Michigan and Notre Dame are unranked. That is enough to wake the slumbering blogger. Still, I'm not quite ready to go dancing in the streets yet. I'd say those latter two teams have better chances of finishing in the top 25 than the Mountaineers. So, let's enjoy it while it lasts.
A recap of the WV's 5-1 start will show that they have yet to play a decent team. Those of you who were fooled by Auburn's quick start should be approaching Earth now after Kentucky beat them at Auburn this past week. That preceded Auburn being spanked by Arkansas 44-23. This should come as little surprise to college football followers. Auburn did not look poised for a turnaround coming into the season and their win over WV was mostly due to Jarrett Brown's turnovers. I watched some of the Kentucky game and the Wildcats are much better than the Tigers. Auburn returned a blocked field goal for a touchdown and still lost by 7. Perhaps Colorado is turning it around as shown by a win at Kansas, but I doubt it. 5 of the 6 remaining teams are better than any team they have faced so far this year, Louisville being the exception. So, let's proceed with caution.
At the beginning of the season, I must confess I was drinking the Jarrett Brown juice. I was buying the hype about him being an NFL quarterback, being a great throwing quarterback and all the rest of the projections of praise. Now I am down on the senior. He is talented, but he is a turnover machine. He also lacked poise in the Auburn game when things started to turn against him. On the first drive of the game against Marshall he lost a fumble and got hurt. Enter Eugene Smith. The coaching staff played it close to the vest in the first half, but they opened up the playbook with him in the second and he responded well going 15 of 21 and most importantly not committing a single turnover. As a Mountaineer fan looking to the future, I admit I'd prefer to see Smith the rest of the way. I hope he gets the start against UConn and we see more of what he can do. I'm not saying WV would win more games with him this year than with Brown, but it could go either way. The scariest part about a Freshman QB is turnovers, and WV's senior quarterback has serious issues in that area anyway. Give the ball to Smith and see what happens.
As for the rest of the team, the defense is much better with Reed Williams on the field. If he can stay healthy, it's not a bad unit. It's not a defense that will fair well against Cincy, but it has a chance to play well or at least good enough in the rest of the games. The special teams continues to be a joke with penalties, turnovers, and poor coverage. Bill Stewart has clearly not mastered Beamer ball. Outside of the quarterback the offense is good, but not great. Devine is too small to run effectively between the tackles, though his quickness is unquestioned. The receivers are improving, but still not a strength of the team. Sanders, Starks, Lyons, and Arnett make a capable group and I like Freshman Tavon Austin, who can also run the ball. The coaching is disappointing, which is saying something since expectations are not high. The team seems flat and undisciplined way too often.
The summary of this team is that we don't know much yet. Their challenging part of the schedule is upcoming. I would expect a win over an underrated UConn team at home, but the Huskies will be playing with extra emotion this week. WV finally beat USF last year. Of course it was in December in Morgantown. At USF in late October looks less promising. Home versus Louisville should be a win followed by a loss at Cincy. WV could be 7-3 heading into the final two games which may define their season. The Mountaineers need to beat Pitt and get the monkey off their back. They host them over Thanksgiving weekend. Then WV finishes at Rutgers who typically improves throughout the season. WV is headed for another 8-4 season and a minor bowl.
A recap of the WV's 5-1 start will show that they have yet to play a decent team. Those of you who were fooled by Auburn's quick start should be approaching Earth now after Kentucky beat them at Auburn this past week. That preceded Auburn being spanked by Arkansas 44-23. This should come as little surprise to college football followers. Auburn did not look poised for a turnaround coming into the season and their win over WV was mostly due to Jarrett Brown's turnovers. I watched some of the Kentucky game and the Wildcats are much better than the Tigers. Auburn returned a blocked field goal for a touchdown and still lost by 7. Perhaps Colorado is turning it around as shown by a win at Kansas, but I doubt it. 5 of the 6 remaining teams are better than any team they have faced so far this year, Louisville being the exception. So, let's proceed with caution.
At the beginning of the season, I must confess I was drinking the Jarrett Brown juice. I was buying the hype about him being an NFL quarterback, being a great throwing quarterback and all the rest of the projections of praise. Now I am down on the senior. He is talented, but he is a turnover machine. He also lacked poise in the Auburn game when things started to turn against him. On the first drive of the game against Marshall he lost a fumble and got hurt. Enter Eugene Smith. The coaching staff played it close to the vest in the first half, but they opened up the playbook with him in the second and he responded well going 15 of 21 and most importantly not committing a single turnover. As a Mountaineer fan looking to the future, I admit I'd prefer to see Smith the rest of the way. I hope he gets the start against UConn and we see more of what he can do. I'm not saying WV would win more games with him this year than with Brown, but it could go either way. The scariest part about a Freshman QB is turnovers, and WV's senior quarterback has serious issues in that area anyway. Give the ball to Smith and see what happens.
As for the rest of the team, the defense is much better with Reed Williams on the field. If he can stay healthy, it's not a bad unit. It's not a defense that will fair well against Cincy, but it has a chance to play well or at least good enough in the rest of the games. The special teams continues to be a joke with penalties, turnovers, and poor coverage. Bill Stewart has clearly not mastered Beamer ball. Outside of the quarterback the offense is good, but not great. Devine is too small to run effectively between the tackles, though his quickness is unquestioned. The receivers are improving, but still not a strength of the team. Sanders, Starks, Lyons, and Arnett make a capable group and I like Freshman Tavon Austin, who can also run the ball. The coaching is disappointing, which is saying something since expectations are not high. The team seems flat and undisciplined way too often.
The summary of this team is that we don't know much yet. Their challenging part of the schedule is upcoming. I would expect a win over an underrated UConn team at home, but the Huskies will be playing with extra emotion this week. WV finally beat USF last year. Of course it was in December in Morgantown. At USF in late October looks less promising. Home versus Louisville should be a win followed by a loss at Cincy. WV could be 7-3 heading into the final two games which may define their season. The Mountaineers need to beat Pitt and get the monkey off their back. They host them over Thanksgiving weekend. Then WV finishes at Rutgers who typically improves throughout the season. WV is headed for another 8-4 season and a minor bowl.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Politics - Grading Bush
Now that the press has stopped its continual hammering of George W. Bush and focused its energy on praising Obama, it gives me an opportunity to collect my thoughts on his presidency. I felt myself defending Bush during the latter part of his presidency because some of the attacks were so extreme and unfounded. Now that I can view him objectively, I would say that of any Administration that began and ended during my life, his is clearly the worst. As I gain focus, I see just how bad he was. His presidency will go a long way to preventing me from ever wanting to officially associate with the Republican Party.
If you have read my political posts, you would know that my primary focus concerning our government is our fiscal stability and responsibility. Bush did an immense amount of damage to both during his tenure. In social issues such as abortion, gun control, same sex marriage, and the death penalty there are points and counterpoints. The issues are not black and white. To me, the deficit spiraling out of control and the numbers that indicate the troubles we are in are not subjective, they are fact. That is why I expend most of my energy in this arena. The single most destructive thing that the Bush administration did was to let paygo lapse. Paygo was established under his father's service as president and basically stated that any increase in spending must be matched by a corresponding increase in revenue (taxes) and any decrease in revenue (taxes) must be matched by a corresponding decrease in spending. This was instrumental in controlling the budget during George H Bush's presidency and Bill Clinton's presidency. George W Bush began manipulating paygo in 2001 in the face of the 9/11 disaster. He skirted the rules while formally complying with them to give his tax cuts. In 2002 paygo needed to be extended. It was not. Since then the budget has gotten out of control. While I believe that Obama is spending excessively, the table was set by Bush for him to do so. Bush had already spent well beyond our country's means, so Obama is just layering on top of that. Plus, Bush's presidency was so poor that it created a situation where a liberal Democrat could beat a moderate Republican for the White House and bring with him dominating control of both the Senate and House of Representatives.
Why did Bush allow the budget to reach such a state? The focus of his presidency was the war on terror. It was a war, by the way, which I opposed from the start. I asked the question at the time, "what do we do when we beat their military?" The answer was not a good one. The war following the defeat of the Iraq military was poorly managed and it was one that had very long odds to win. A democracy cannot be handed to a group of people. They have to want and be willing to fight for it. Over the next few decades Iraq, if left on its own, will have a controlling person or party similar to Sadam. He may be "elected", but it will not be a true democracy or republic. Bush did keep us safe from another terrorist strike, though, and that seemed to be his only objective. As more people became impatient with the war he turned to political tricks. He gave more and more tax cuts, reducing the burden of the rich and the middle class and poor to make everyone happy. He refused to veto spending bills put forth by his Republican congress no matter how obscene. He then signed the prescription drug bill that added a large burden to federal budget. Every action he took, whether militarily, tax, or spending grew the nation's deficit. We saw runaway deficits in times when the economy was stable and then when we were faced with a crisis he turned over leadership to a liberal free spender. If you just look at their attitude towards our deficit, Bush and Obama have much more in common than they have differences. Both pay it lip service but leave it for somebody else to deal with.
So, Bush receives poor marks on the war, on the budget, on his Medicare prescription bill, and (I'll throw this one in without comment) on No Child Left Behind. It's pretty easy to grade his presidency from my perspective, very poor. Did he do anything right? He kept us safe and he appointed Judge Roberts to the supreme court which seems like a decent choice. However, that was not his first choice. His first choice was somebody in his own personal circle that was not qualified. Would we have been better off with Gore? With Kerry? I don't think so. Politics is about now not the future. To satisfy the people you have to reduce taxes (revenue) and at the same time give them more benefits (increase expenses). This creates a huge deficit for which we will eventually pay. This does not excuse Bush. He did a great deal of damage to his party. He also did no favors for the long term health of this country, which should be put above everything else.
As a note, fiscally there were great times during the Clinton administration. I give little credit to him for those good times. He was restricted by paygo and a Republican controlled congress. He would have loved to spend lavishly on such things as universal health care, but his hands were tied. He also benefited from the technology boom that created large revenues for the government. A boom that busted at the end of his presidency.
If you have read my political posts, you would know that my primary focus concerning our government is our fiscal stability and responsibility. Bush did an immense amount of damage to both during his tenure. In social issues such as abortion, gun control, same sex marriage, and the death penalty there are points and counterpoints. The issues are not black and white. To me, the deficit spiraling out of control and the numbers that indicate the troubles we are in are not subjective, they are fact. That is why I expend most of my energy in this arena. The single most destructive thing that the Bush administration did was to let paygo lapse. Paygo was established under his father's service as president and basically stated that any increase in spending must be matched by a corresponding increase in revenue (taxes) and any decrease in revenue (taxes) must be matched by a corresponding decrease in spending. This was instrumental in controlling the budget during George H Bush's presidency and Bill Clinton's presidency. George W Bush began manipulating paygo in 2001 in the face of the 9/11 disaster. He skirted the rules while formally complying with them to give his tax cuts. In 2002 paygo needed to be extended. It was not. Since then the budget has gotten out of control. While I believe that Obama is spending excessively, the table was set by Bush for him to do so. Bush had already spent well beyond our country's means, so Obama is just layering on top of that. Plus, Bush's presidency was so poor that it created a situation where a liberal Democrat could beat a moderate Republican for the White House and bring with him dominating control of both the Senate and House of Representatives.
Why did Bush allow the budget to reach such a state? The focus of his presidency was the war on terror. It was a war, by the way, which I opposed from the start. I asked the question at the time, "what do we do when we beat their military?" The answer was not a good one. The war following the defeat of the Iraq military was poorly managed and it was one that had very long odds to win. A democracy cannot be handed to a group of people. They have to want and be willing to fight for it. Over the next few decades Iraq, if left on its own, will have a controlling person or party similar to Sadam. He may be "elected", but it will not be a true democracy or republic. Bush did keep us safe from another terrorist strike, though, and that seemed to be his only objective. As more people became impatient with the war he turned to political tricks. He gave more and more tax cuts, reducing the burden of the rich and the middle class and poor to make everyone happy. He refused to veto spending bills put forth by his Republican congress no matter how obscene. He then signed the prescription drug bill that added a large burden to federal budget. Every action he took, whether militarily, tax, or spending grew the nation's deficit. We saw runaway deficits in times when the economy was stable and then when we were faced with a crisis he turned over leadership to a liberal free spender. If you just look at their attitude towards our deficit, Bush and Obama have much more in common than they have differences. Both pay it lip service but leave it for somebody else to deal with.
So, Bush receives poor marks on the war, on the budget, on his Medicare prescription bill, and (I'll throw this one in without comment) on No Child Left Behind. It's pretty easy to grade his presidency from my perspective, very poor. Did he do anything right? He kept us safe and he appointed Judge Roberts to the supreme court which seems like a decent choice. However, that was not his first choice. His first choice was somebody in his own personal circle that was not qualified. Would we have been better off with Gore? With Kerry? I don't think so. Politics is about now not the future. To satisfy the people you have to reduce taxes (revenue) and at the same time give them more benefits (increase expenses). This creates a huge deficit for which we will eventually pay. This does not excuse Bush. He did a great deal of damage to his party. He also did no favors for the long term health of this country, which should be put above everything else.
As a note, fiscally there were great times during the Clinton administration. I give little credit to him for those good times. He was restricted by paygo and a Republican controlled congress. He would have loved to spend lavishly on such things as universal health care, but his hands were tied. He also benefited from the technology boom that created large revenues for the government. A boom that busted at the end of his presidency.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Politics - The American Dream
The "American Dream" has changed over our history. The American Dream at one time gave the promise to immigrants of a government who would not impede their financial success. A person could accomplish as much as his talent and drive would allow him to do and he would be able to reap the benefits of that talent and work ethic. The American Dream was not handed to a person at birth or upon stepping foot inside America, it was to be earned. The American Dream has shifted to a more European sort of dream over the last half century or so. We are likely to see another step toward the European Dream with some form of universal health care. We are moving further towards a society that believes everyone is entitled to the same rewards regardless of talent or work ethic. The successful are taxed excessively to pay for services for the middle class and poor to level the American Dream.
In some ways it is surprising that we would follow the lead of the European nations. Europe has the guilt of the feudal system it lived under for centuries, one where those in power oppressed the average citizen and made sure there was a ceiling to their financial possibilities. It then is not surprising that national historic guilt would lead them to a system where wealth is taken from the rich and given to the common people as if to make up for past mistakes. It is similar to the United States' laws of affirmative action. Our guilt over slavery has caused us to tip the scales in the other direction to make amends for our sins. Yet the United States has no guilt of oppressing the poor and preventing them for raising themselves up. We have a history of immigrants flocking to this country with nothing and acquiring the American Dream through hard work. Many immigrants may not have obtained much wealth in their lifetime as they learn a new language and culture, but they likely saw their children have the success that validated their decision to move to our free capitalist society.
Our capitalist economy led us to be the world power. Wealth creates power. True wealth is measure in terms of production. Nobody could out produce a growing capitalist economy. We are turning more toward socialism. Socialist societies will produce less due to economic laws. Less production will mean less wealth. Less wealth will mean less power. Combine the less wealth with the fact that socialist governments have much higher expenses and it creates a government that will eventually spend itself into bankruptcy, such as the Soviet Union did. The United States is about to embark on a universal health care program. It surely is a comforting thought to know that every man, woman, and child in the United States could receive the health care he or she needs. Many would argue that the quality of health care will drop in a universal program, which certainly stands to reason. Leaving that issue aside, everyone would be forced to acknowledge that it will cost the government a great deal of money, money which it does not have. Obama has talked repeatedly about his efforts to find cost reductions within the health care industry as if this were part of his health care plan. Even if we could reduce costs in the health care industry those actions are independent from universal health care. It is a completely separate discussion. Yet he is trying to combine the two to hide the tremendous burden universal health care will be to the government budget.
I understand that the numbers are so large now that they mean nothing to the average citizen. How are we to understand trillions? It is too much to fathom, so we cannot be concerned about that which we do not understand. So, try this out. We are entering a time when for every dollar that the government spends, fifty cents is borrowed. That is astonishing. It makes me very nervous and, to be honest, a little nauseated. I worry for my children and my grandchildren. What country will they inherit? Our quality of life is dependent upon the Chinese government and others subsidizing all our government spending. Eventually that will end. The United States is not in a position to take on more welfare projects such as Universal Healthcare. We are going to have to scale back our quality of life, because we have borrowed our quality of life, we have not earned it. All things must be paid for. We will pay for spending beyond our means eventually. We can scale back slowly or we can wait for one huge fall that could make the Great Depression look rosy. When the Soviet Union went bankrupt things turned ugly quickly.
It is nice and idealistic to want everyone to have high quality of life, but things must be earned, they are not simply plucked from a government tree. We could move towards higher taxes, but people do not want that because it will reduce their quality of life. Nobody wants to pay for the unearned benefits. Tax the rich is familiar chant. However, the rich will first pass much of that cost on to employees by either firing people or reducing their pay and then secondly will quit expanding and possibly even go out of business. We are a connected society. I can tell you that I want my employers to make a lot of money because I understand that my earnings, to a certain extent, are tied to their earnings. If you soak the rich it will affect the middle class and poor. It's time to get our government spending under control. Instead we are about to take on another huge expense that, once we have, we will never be able to reduce or eliminate. That light at the end of the tunnel is coming quicker now. It's not hope that we will find though, it's a bankruptcy train that will run over us before we know what hit us. We need to turn around and head the other direction. We will realize it before it's too late? California did not. In about forty years they went from the Golden State to the bankrupt state. A testing ground for the liberal socialist movement, it has been run into the ground. It has the highest individual tax rate, pays its teachers 25% more than the national average (unions have huge power), and provides services to anyone with a hand out. It is now blowing up. High tax individuals are moving to Nevada. California is among the lowest scoring states in the nation in education and California has no money to provide any services. It's the model our nation is following. We had better understand it.
In some ways it is surprising that we would follow the lead of the European nations. Europe has the guilt of the feudal system it lived under for centuries, one where those in power oppressed the average citizen and made sure there was a ceiling to their financial possibilities. It then is not surprising that national historic guilt would lead them to a system where wealth is taken from the rich and given to the common people as if to make up for past mistakes. It is similar to the United States' laws of affirmative action. Our guilt over slavery has caused us to tip the scales in the other direction to make amends for our sins. Yet the United States has no guilt of oppressing the poor and preventing them for raising themselves up. We have a history of immigrants flocking to this country with nothing and acquiring the American Dream through hard work. Many immigrants may not have obtained much wealth in their lifetime as they learn a new language and culture, but they likely saw their children have the success that validated their decision to move to our free capitalist society.
Our capitalist economy led us to be the world power. Wealth creates power. True wealth is measure in terms of production. Nobody could out produce a growing capitalist economy. We are turning more toward socialism. Socialist societies will produce less due to economic laws. Less production will mean less wealth. Less wealth will mean less power. Combine the less wealth with the fact that socialist governments have much higher expenses and it creates a government that will eventually spend itself into bankruptcy, such as the Soviet Union did. The United States is about to embark on a universal health care program. It surely is a comforting thought to know that every man, woman, and child in the United States could receive the health care he or she needs. Many would argue that the quality of health care will drop in a universal program, which certainly stands to reason. Leaving that issue aside, everyone would be forced to acknowledge that it will cost the government a great deal of money, money which it does not have. Obama has talked repeatedly about his efforts to find cost reductions within the health care industry as if this were part of his health care plan. Even if we could reduce costs in the health care industry those actions are independent from universal health care. It is a completely separate discussion. Yet he is trying to combine the two to hide the tremendous burden universal health care will be to the government budget.
I understand that the numbers are so large now that they mean nothing to the average citizen. How are we to understand trillions? It is too much to fathom, so we cannot be concerned about that which we do not understand. So, try this out. We are entering a time when for every dollar that the government spends, fifty cents is borrowed. That is astonishing. It makes me very nervous and, to be honest, a little nauseated. I worry for my children and my grandchildren. What country will they inherit? Our quality of life is dependent upon the Chinese government and others subsidizing all our government spending. Eventually that will end. The United States is not in a position to take on more welfare projects such as Universal Healthcare. We are going to have to scale back our quality of life, because we have borrowed our quality of life, we have not earned it. All things must be paid for. We will pay for spending beyond our means eventually. We can scale back slowly or we can wait for one huge fall that could make the Great Depression look rosy. When the Soviet Union went bankrupt things turned ugly quickly.
It is nice and idealistic to want everyone to have high quality of life, but things must be earned, they are not simply plucked from a government tree. We could move towards higher taxes, but people do not want that because it will reduce their quality of life. Nobody wants to pay for the unearned benefits. Tax the rich is familiar chant. However, the rich will first pass much of that cost on to employees by either firing people or reducing their pay and then secondly will quit expanding and possibly even go out of business. We are a connected society. I can tell you that I want my employers to make a lot of money because I understand that my earnings, to a certain extent, are tied to their earnings. If you soak the rich it will affect the middle class and poor. It's time to get our government spending under control. Instead we are about to take on another huge expense that, once we have, we will never be able to reduce or eliminate. That light at the end of the tunnel is coming quicker now. It's not hope that we will find though, it's a bankruptcy train that will run over us before we know what hit us. We need to turn around and head the other direction. We will realize it before it's too late? California did not. In about forty years they went from the Golden State to the bankrupt state. A testing ground for the liberal socialist movement, it has been run into the ground. It has the highest individual tax rate, pays its teachers 25% more than the national average (unions have huge power), and provides services to anyone with a hand out. It is now blowing up. High tax individuals are moving to Nevada. California is among the lowest scoring states in the nation in education and California has no money to provide any services. It's the model our nation is following. We had better understand it.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Religion - Everything in Moderation
Last night we continued in Matthew, but first we took a brief break and discussed 1 Corinthians Chapter 6 verse 12 where Paul says that all things are permissible, but not profitable and he will not be mastered by anything. To be mastered by something means you cannot say no to it. You have lost control. We should have only one master, God. Most things that people are mastered by are addictive behaviors such as drugs, cigarettes, alcohol, cutting, and eating disorders. Small steps one day lead to total surrender. We should be on the look out for addictive behaviors. Driving home after the lesson, I began to think about fasting. We are to fast so that we can leave things of this world behind and focus on God. Every time you have a hunger pang you are forced to think of the reason for your hunger, your commitment to God. Fasting does not need to be only for food though. During Lent many people "give up" something. It could be food, drink, hobby, or a behavior. If there is something in our lives to which we feel we may be addicted it would be a good idea to test it. Fast from that food, drink, hobby, or behavior for a week. Go without and see how you feel. Do you become very anxious and tense? Do you become angry at things that would normally not bother you? Do you feel that thing which you are fasting from calling you, luring you back in? If so, you may need to address the situation before it turns into your master. Addictions can hold a power of our lives. They can hold us in bondage. It could be television, sports, internet, gossip, fashion, or any number of normal things that are not bad for us in moderation. If we bow to them, however, we are not helping ourselves in this life or the next.
Friday, May 8, 2009
Politics - Health Care
The debate over Health care is getting close. The Democrats have control over congress and Obama and his comrades are giddy over the likelihood of nationalizing health care. The Democrats have been here before with Clinton and failed, so this time they will attempt to be coy. They will talk of protecting private insurance all the while knowing they are taking a huge leap towards federalized care. It will be interesting to see how much resistance the Republicans can produce. Perhaps the Democrats will go too far with their requests due to limits of Republicans or maybe they will get everything they could dream of. I imagine I will go on many rants during the summer about nationalized health care as the debate gains clarity. For now, the question I would ask is of all the government's responsibilities, what does the government manage efficiently and well? I can think of nothing that the government does better than the private sector. From education to courier services to construction, the private sector outperforms the government because of all the bureaucratic rules and regulations the government operates under. The old phrase goes "good enough for government work". Why would we want to turn our medical care over to the government? The government is also experiencing staggering debt because of all the entitlements it already has and now we are proposing another one. Medicare and Medicaid are an enormous burden on our country and yet those programs cover only a certain demographic. We are now to open these programs up to everyone. Who is to pay for it? I know, the rich. As if the rich were some renewable source of wealth. The tax increase Obama proposes combined with increasingly high state taxes are already weighing heavily on our entrepreneurs. Add much more and there will be few who take a big risk to start or expand a company for an decreasingly small reward due to the higher taxes. National health care seems to be a disaster waiting to happen. Everyone will have health care for a while until our economy finally collapses under our mountain of debt and then the masses will be without jobs or health care as the government will no longer be able to pay for it. If a person was on the fence on the issue, I would ask them to consider this - once an entitlement has been enacted, it will not be revoked. If we nationalize health care, there will be no going back until our country is bankrupt. Social security has been criticized for its increasing costs without funding, but it cannot be taken away. To do so would be political suicide for the party who suggested it. If we do not nationalize now, we could do so later. If we nationalize now, we cannot go back to the private sector system no matter how bad the results are and I think they'll be pretty bad.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Religion - Holding our Heads above water
On Wednesday we looked at Matthew Chapter 14. The part that struck me was near the end of the chapter when the disciples saw Jesus walking on the water. The disciples likely found this amazing and definitely very cool. Peter asked Jesus if he could try it. Jesus told him to come.
While this verse is often discussed in church, when I read it again this time I had a little bit different understanding of what took place. Peter stepped out into the water and he really did it, he walked on water. However, the winds came, Peter became afraid and he began to sink. Jesus had to rescue him. As He did, Jesus said "You of little faith. Why do you doubt?" Yet Peter did not sink immediately. Peter initially stepped out of the boat and walked on the water. Just by stepping out of the boat Peter demonstrated tremendous faith. Then, as Jesus says over and over throughout scripture, it was done to Peter according to his faith. His faith held him there on top of the water. His faith combined with the power of Jesus was defying the laws of physics. So, why did he sink? Why did Peter lose faith? The wind came.
I think what happened to Peter was not as much as loss of faith as a lack of focus on his faith. It wasn't as if Peter made a conscious decision that Jesus could not hold him on that water anymore. In fact, it would seem that Peter should have had even more belief that he could walk on the water because he had already done it. He just lost his focus. As Peter stepped out onto the boat, he was probably thinking "it's just you and me Lord; through you I can do all things!" He was totally focused on Jesus and excited to be a part of the life of Jesus and His miracles. He walked on the water. Then he heard the wind. I can picture his head turning. It had previously been looking straight ahead at Jesus, now it was searching for something that cannot be seen. He looked toward the sounds of the wind and began to wonder "what's this wind going to do to me, will I sink?" At that moment he did sink because he doubted. Something in the world grabbed his attention and took his focus and trust off Jesus and immediately he was in trouble.
Lives of Christians are similar. It's not that at times we do not believe in Jesus and in His power, it's that we lose focus. There are so many things going on in our world that it is hard to keep our focus and trust on Jesus. We worry about the potential dangers and problems in our lives and that worry holds our faith and trust captive. When things go wrong for us we may ask where Jesus where He was. His response may be to ask us where our faith was, where was our focus? We learn many lessons through our struggles. The one lesson that Peter learned here and that we may need to learn is that in times of stress and worry if a person focuses on the danger and not on God, Jesus may not hold you above the water. Over and over Jesus says, "Be it done according to your faith." What's the first thing you think of in a moment of crisis? Is it on you figuring out a way to resolve the crisis yourself? That's usually mine. Is it "please God, can you help me get through this?" I would say it should be "Thank you God, because I KNOW you will see me through any situation. See me through this one. Take the lead." After thinking that, then you may go about trying to resolve the problem with the guide of the Holy Spirit.
God Bless,
While this verse is often discussed in church, when I read it again this time I had a little bit different understanding of what took place. Peter stepped out into the water and he really did it, he walked on water. However, the winds came, Peter became afraid and he began to sink. Jesus had to rescue him. As He did, Jesus said "You of little faith. Why do you doubt?" Yet Peter did not sink immediately. Peter initially stepped out of the boat and walked on the water. Just by stepping out of the boat Peter demonstrated tremendous faith. Then, as Jesus says over and over throughout scripture, it was done to Peter according to his faith. His faith held him there on top of the water. His faith combined with the power of Jesus was defying the laws of physics. So, why did he sink? Why did Peter lose faith? The wind came.
I think what happened to Peter was not as much as loss of faith as a lack of focus on his faith. It wasn't as if Peter made a conscious decision that Jesus could not hold him on that water anymore. In fact, it would seem that Peter should have had even more belief that he could walk on the water because he had already done it. He just lost his focus. As Peter stepped out onto the boat, he was probably thinking "it's just you and me Lord; through you I can do all things!" He was totally focused on Jesus and excited to be a part of the life of Jesus and His miracles. He walked on the water. Then he heard the wind. I can picture his head turning. It had previously been looking straight ahead at Jesus, now it was searching for something that cannot be seen. He looked toward the sounds of the wind and began to wonder "what's this wind going to do to me, will I sink?" At that moment he did sink because he doubted. Something in the world grabbed his attention and took his focus and trust off Jesus and immediately he was in trouble.
Lives of Christians are similar. It's not that at times we do not believe in Jesus and in His power, it's that we lose focus. There are so many things going on in our world that it is hard to keep our focus and trust on Jesus. We worry about the potential dangers and problems in our lives and that worry holds our faith and trust captive. When things go wrong for us we may ask where Jesus where He was. His response may be to ask us where our faith was, where was our focus? We learn many lessons through our struggles. The one lesson that Peter learned here and that we may need to learn is that in times of stress and worry if a person focuses on the danger and not on God, Jesus may not hold you above the water. Over and over Jesus says, "Be it done according to your faith." What's the first thing you think of in a moment of crisis? Is it on you figuring out a way to resolve the crisis yourself? That's usually mine. Is it "please God, can you help me get through this?" I would say it should be "Thank you God, because I KNOW you will see me through any situation. See me through this one. Take the lead." After thinking that, then you may go about trying to resolve the problem with the guide of the Holy Spirit.
God Bless,
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Politics - Torture
It is surprising to me that the topic of torture is receiving so much attention. It is generally something that the public would prefer not to know about, hear about, or talk about. Perhaps the fuel behind it is not to investigate and have an open discussion concerning our torture techniques, but a burning desire by many to seek revenge on the Bush administration. Either way, though I also do not enjoy the subject, I will take a few minutes to lay out the critical points.
The issue of torture comes down to a pretty basic dividing line with only one criteria to make our decision whether to torture or not. We need to do what is in the best long term interest of our country. All other positions of higher morals and nobility are foolish. In war, a country must act in its own best interest. Either it will do so or it will sustain heavy losses. In modern day civilized warfare, if there is such a thing, the two opposing sides generally come to an agreement not to torture prisoners. This is quite reasonable and in the best interests of both countries. It would be frightening for soldiers to know they will face torture if captured and demoralizing for a nation to know that they themselves openly torture enemy prisoners. If both sides agree to restrain from torture there is no advantage to either side and many potential negative repercussions are avoided. Thus, in this scenario it is in the nation's best interest to avoid torture.
Terrorism and guerrilla warfare are a completely different kind of game. The enemy refuses to play by any rules. The first and most troubling rule of warfare they refuse to abide by is to identify themselves. It is hard to combat an opponent when he camouflages himself in the midst of innocents. It is a war that can never be completely won as long as the opponent is willing to fight. The crop of terrorists is always being harvested and the enemy cannot be completely destroyed. After the first rule is broken, these terrorists and guerrillas find no reason to follow any other rules of civilized warfare. They torture and/or kill prisoners. They often video their acts although their faces are concealed so that they can rejoin the innocent civilians without detection. Our treatment of their fellow fighters when we capture them has little to no influence on their treatment of their American prisoners.
So, the question is in this type of scenario is it morally acceptable to torture. The answer depends on which way is in the best interest of our country. There are certainly negative effects to a country when its people, who consider themselves to be a humane and kind generation, discover its leaders have tortured prisoners. There are also very negative impacts on a country when a terrorist plan like 9/11 is allowed to be operated. Neither option, to torture or not to torture is a good option. We are picking the least of two evils. I don't believe that there can be a blanket rule. I think the decision must be left to those who are in control of the situation. If there is believed to be a threat to our national security and a terrorist or guerrilla prisoner is believed to have information that would allow us to prevent the attack, then I would not rule out any tactics.
As to the argument that information obtained from torture is not always reliable, I concede the point. It is easy to see how a person would say anything to stop torture and that the information may not be true, particularly if the prisoner does not have the information being requested. However I am quite sure that receiving no information will not be helpful. If there is decent chance that information can be gathered from a terrorist to prevent a large scale attack on the United States, it is hard not to take that chance. It may be hard to live with ourselves after we have tortured a terrorist, someone who has committed his life to killing American civilians. However, how would it feel to see that terrorist, well fed and clothed without one sign of trauma, smile when he hears that the plan he was a part of, the plan to kill thousands of Americans, was successful? Fair or not, those thousands would be on our conscience because we did not do everything we could to protect them. We protected the rights of a terrorist instead.
The issue of torture is not pleasant. It should be avoided if at all possible. Still to rule it out no matter what the scenario seems drastic. When the enemy does not play by rules, does not uphold higher moral standards, there are tough decisions to be made. While we would not want to stoop to level of terrorist, what good will our higher morals do if we lose the war? What will it have proven if Americans are dying and those who remain are living in fear?
The issue of torture comes down to a pretty basic dividing line with only one criteria to make our decision whether to torture or not. We need to do what is in the best long term interest of our country. All other positions of higher morals and nobility are foolish. In war, a country must act in its own best interest. Either it will do so or it will sustain heavy losses. In modern day civilized warfare, if there is such a thing, the two opposing sides generally come to an agreement not to torture prisoners. This is quite reasonable and in the best interests of both countries. It would be frightening for soldiers to know they will face torture if captured and demoralizing for a nation to know that they themselves openly torture enemy prisoners. If both sides agree to restrain from torture there is no advantage to either side and many potential negative repercussions are avoided. Thus, in this scenario it is in the nation's best interest to avoid torture.
Terrorism and guerrilla warfare are a completely different kind of game. The enemy refuses to play by any rules. The first and most troubling rule of warfare they refuse to abide by is to identify themselves. It is hard to combat an opponent when he camouflages himself in the midst of innocents. It is a war that can never be completely won as long as the opponent is willing to fight. The crop of terrorists is always being harvested and the enemy cannot be completely destroyed. After the first rule is broken, these terrorists and guerrillas find no reason to follow any other rules of civilized warfare. They torture and/or kill prisoners. They often video their acts although their faces are concealed so that they can rejoin the innocent civilians without detection. Our treatment of their fellow fighters when we capture them has little to no influence on their treatment of their American prisoners.
So, the question is in this type of scenario is it morally acceptable to torture. The answer depends on which way is in the best interest of our country. There are certainly negative effects to a country when its people, who consider themselves to be a humane and kind generation, discover its leaders have tortured prisoners. There are also very negative impacts on a country when a terrorist plan like 9/11 is allowed to be operated. Neither option, to torture or not to torture is a good option. We are picking the least of two evils. I don't believe that there can be a blanket rule. I think the decision must be left to those who are in control of the situation. If there is believed to be a threat to our national security and a terrorist or guerrilla prisoner is believed to have information that would allow us to prevent the attack, then I would not rule out any tactics.
As to the argument that information obtained from torture is not always reliable, I concede the point. It is easy to see how a person would say anything to stop torture and that the information may not be true, particularly if the prisoner does not have the information being requested. However I am quite sure that receiving no information will not be helpful. If there is decent chance that information can be gathered from a terrorist to prevent a large scale attack on the United States, it is hard not to take that chance. It may be hard to live with ourselves after we have tortured a terrorist, someone who has committed his life to killing American civilians. However, how would it feel to see that terrorist, well fed and clothed without one sign of trauma, smile when he hears that the plan he was a part of, the plan to kill thousands of Americans, was successful? Fair or not, those thousands would be on our conscience because we did not do everything we could to protect them. We protected the rights of a terrorist instead.
The issue of torture is not pleasant. It should be avoided if at all possible. Still to rule it out no matter what the scenario seems drastic. When the enemy does not play by rules, does not uphold higher moral standards, there are tough decisions to be made. While we would not want to stoop to level of terrorist, what good will our higher morals do if we lose the war? What will it have proven if Americans are dying and those who remain are living in fear?
Friday, April 24, 2009
Politics - Miss California
I admit that I don't watch the Miss America pageant. I perhaps have caught moments of it over the last 10 years, but I do not sit down to watch it. It's not my thing. Maybe there are still lingering effects from my childhood when I did watch it and miss West Virginia never made it past the first round. Apparently I missed something this year. One of the judges had the audacity to ask Miss California about her views on gay marriage. Perhaps it was an innocent question, but this is Hollywood type stuff we are talking about. This type of production demands that the participant answer in a certain way, but Miss California chose to do something truly astonishing. She told the truth.
I tend to stay away from the issue of gay rights in general. I am not sure where to draw the line on civil unions and marriage. Many people on both sides of the issue want to make it simple, but it is actually fairly complicated. However, this media buzz is not about gay rights. It is about politics versus honesty. When the judge asked a question on which the nation is pretty split in opinion, there should be no correct answer. I hope that the judge asked the question to simply judge how well the contest controlled herself and how well she articulated her answer. I doubt that was the case, but perhaps it was. The contestant, in this instance, had one great choice, another that would have sufficed, and one that was unacceptable. She chose the unacceptable option. The best option would have been something like:
"I completely respect all gay individuals and appreciate the fact that they have chosen to live the lifestyle that makes them happy. I think we should embrace them into our society and not shun them for a different lifestyle simply because we do not understand it. I support initiatives that enable gay partners to have privileges that any two people who love each other should have, such as hospital visitation rights. Marriage is a very special union. Americans are divided over the issue and many have very strong emotions and opinions on the topic. If I were so fortunate to win the title of Miss America, I would not deem it appropriate to use my position as a tool to promote my own personal opinion as some sort of agenda".
That answer is basically a touchy feely dodge. That's what differentiates a good politician from a bad one. She gave a clear, concise answer. That's not what was wanted. She probably could have skated by with an answer in total support of gay marriage given the liberal environment, but religious conservatives may have attacked her for it just as the liberals have. The point is that, in politics, the trick is not to align with anyone, not to offend anyone. Vague is good, honesty is bad.
That is not what I want in a politician or friend, a shifting individual who can not be trusted on his word because he refuses to definitively lie down his word. But, that's what we get because that's what we demand. The only thing that could change this in America is a change in the way we view politicians. Generally, if somebody gives a vague answer our human nature tells us that they agree with us, probably because we think our position is the most sensible. Next time you hear a vague answer assume the person disagrees with you and, more than that, he is too cowardly to admit that he does. If everyone did that there would be no such thing as the slick, slimy politician that we have come to accept as normal and natural.
Miss America is a political position in many ways. Miss California deserved to lose, because under the rules we have set forth, she was a poor politician. Instead of dodging the question, she looked it square in the eye and answered it. That type of personal is a political loser in our world. Sorry Miss California.
I tend to stay away from the issue of gay rights in general. I am not sure where to draw the line on civil unions and marriage. Many people on both sides of the issue want to make it simple, but it is actually fairly complicated. However, this media buzz is not about gay rights. It is about politics versus honesty. When the judge asked a question on which the nation is pretty split in opinion, there should be no correct answer. I hope that the judge asked the question to simply judge how well the contest controlled herself and how well she articulated her answer. I doubt that was the case, but perhaps it was. The contestant, in this instance, had one great choice, another that would have sufficed, and one that was unacceptable. She chose the unacceptable option. The best option would have been something like:
"I completely respect all gay individuals and appreciate the fact that they have chosen to live the lifestyle that makes them happy. I think we should embrace them into our society and not shun them for a different lifestyle simply because we do not understand it. I support initiatives that enable gay partners to have privileges that any two people who love each other should have, such as hospital visitation rights. Marriage is a very special union. Americans are divided over the issue and many have very strong emotions and opinions on the topic. If I were so fortunate to win the title of Miss America, I would not deem it appropriate to use my position as a tool to promote my own personal opinion as some sort of agenda".
That answer is basically a touchy feely dodge. That's what differentiates a good politician from a bad one. She gave a clear, concise answer. That's not what was wanted. She probably could have skated by with an answer in total support of gay marriage given the liberal environment, but religious conservatives may have attacked her for it just as the liberals have. The point is that, in politics, the trick is not to align with anyone, not to offend anyone. Vague is good, honesty is bad.
That is not what I want in a politician or friend, a shifting individual who can not be trusted on his word because he refuses to definitively lie down his word. But, that's what we get because that's what we demand. The only thing that could change this in America is a change in the way we view politicians. Generally, if somebody gives a vague answer our human nature tells us that they agree with us, probably because we think our position is the most sensible. Next time you hear a vague answer assume the person disagrees with you and, more than that, he is too cowardly to admit that he does. If everyone did that there would be no such thing as the slick, slimy politician that we have come to accept as normal and natural.
Miss America is a political position in many ways. Miss California deserved to lose, because under the rules we have set forth, she was a poor politician. Instead of dodging the question, she looked it square in the eye and answered it. That type of personal is a political loser in our world. Sorry Miss California.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Politics - Tax Day is gone
The deadline for filing individual taxes with the Federal Government has passed. Yesterday across the country people joined together in their cities to protest excessive government spending. It was the Taxation Tea Party or something like that. The protest is admirable; it's just too bad that in order to motivate people there has to be some corny theme. The Boston Tea Party protest and this protest were not too similar. That aside, perhaps it is time to seriously reconsider our tax structure.
I'll leave the issue of how heavy of a burden the rich should be made to carry alone for a day. Let's look at the complicated IRS code and its results. I have plenty of experience in this area during my years as a public accountant. I performed mostly audits, but I did do some tax work as well. The IRS code almost demands the use of a CPA for a normal person with anything much more than a W-2 to feel confident about filing his taxes. The biggest argument for ditching the whole system is the incredible amount of lost productivity due to the IRS code. Imagine if there were no itemized deductions, no obscure credits, no alternative minimum tax. Imagine a code where interest and dividends and capital gains were not taxed. Imagine a tax code where income was simply taxed at a rate without adjustments. That rate could increase as a person made more income, but still the average person would be able to handle his own taxes in quick order. The immediate result would be to put a lot of accountants, such as myself, out of a job. However, over the long term this would likely be a great thing for the productivity of our country. For all the millions of hours spent by CPA's preparing tax returns and IRS auditors reviewing them, nothing of merit has been produced. The only thing that has happened is that a federal law has been satisfied. It is work that does not create anything, no product, no entertainment, nothing. A financial audit of a company, by contrast, does have merit. Banks and investors find an audit very useful in determining how to conduct business with an institution. A tax return? It's not necessary, not productive. The displaced accountants would presumably find work in another field and add to the productivity of our society instead of simply fulfilling a government mandate.
Many areas of government have waste, not just in spending, but in man hours. This is one instance where the government creates wasted man hours not only by government employees but also in the private sector as citizens seek help to comply with the law. It would be a drastic change, but if you were starting from scratch, would you want the simple system, or the incredibly complex one that we have now whereby a citizen must rely on another person to follow the law?
I'll leave the issue of how heavy of a burden the rich should be made to carry alone for a day. Let's look at the complicated IRS code and its results. I have plenty of experience in this area during my years as a public accountant. I performed mostly audits, but I did do some tax work as well. The IRS code almost demands the use of a CPA for a normal person with anything much more than a W-2 to feel confident about filing his taxes. The biggest argument for ditching the whole system is the incredible amount of lost productivity due to the IRS code. Imagine if there were no itemized deductions, no obscure credits, no alternative minimum tax. Imagine a code where interest and dividends and capital gains were not taxed. Imagine a tax code where income was simply taxed at a rate without adjustments. That rate could increase as a person made more income, but still the average person would be able to handle his own taxes in quick order. The immediate result would be to put a lot of accountants, such as myself, out of a job. However, over the long term this would likely be a great thing for the productivity of our country. For all the millions of hours spent by CPA's preparing tax returns and IRS auditors reviewing them, nothing of merit has been produced. The only thing that has happened is that a federal law has been satisfied. It is work that does not create anything, no product, no entertainment, nothing. A financial audit of a company, by contrast, does have merit. Banks and investors find an audit very useful in determining how to conduct business with an institution. A tax return? It's not necessary, not productive. The displaced accountants would presumably find work in another field and add to the productivity of our society instead of simply fulfilling a government mandate.
Many areas of government have waste, not just in spending, but in man hours. This is one instance where the government creates wasted man hours not only by government employees but also in the private sector as citizens seek help to comply with the law. It would be a drastic change, but if you were starting from scratch, would you want the simple system, or the incredibly complex one that we have now whereby a citizen must rely on another person to follow the law?
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Sports - Clearly the best NCAA basketball team ever
We saw a basketball team that has never been equaled in its sport. I find it hard to believe that any would argue that it was not the best of all time. They cruised through the tournament without a challenge. The talent difference was immense. Yes, the Lady Huskies 39-0 season is unparalleled. Congratulations to them. What did you think I was referring to the Tarheels? Hardly.
North Carolina was probably the best/most talented team in the country this year. However, they had it fairly easy. They avoided a #1 seed and really the worst match up for them in the tournament was Oklahoma. If Oklahoma had shot just decent from 3 (2 of 19) then maybe that could have been a game. Blake Griffin dominated Hansbrough (23 points and 16 rebounds versus 8 and 6). Villanova and Michigan St. both were not that big and liked to run. North Carolina could run with anybody and was also big. The other #1 seeds may have been able to provide a challenge to North Carolina. Pitt, UConn, and Louisville were all big enough and athletic enough to compete. Alas, we were left with Michigan St. This year's tournament was filled with many blow out or double digit games and an early Mountaineer exit. It was a disappointment. The best game of the tournament was clearly Villanova and Pittsburgh. That outcome gave North Carolina the easy walk to the championship. College basketball is over. Until next year...
North Carolina was probably the best/most talented team in the country this year. However, they had it fairly easy. They avoided a #1 seed and really the worst match up for them in the tournament was Oklahoma. If Oklahoma had shot just decent from 3 (2 of 19) then maybe that could have been a game. Blake Griffin dominated Hansbrough (23 points and 16 rebounds versus 8 and 6). Villanova and Michigan St. both were not that big and liked to run. North Carolina could run with anybody and was also big. The other #1 seeds may have been able to provide a challenge to North Carolina. Pitt, UConn, and Louisville were all big enough and athletic enough to compete. Alas, we were left with Michigan St. This year's tournament was filled with many blow out or double digit games and an early Mountaineer exit. It was a disappointment. The best game of the tournament was clearly Villanova and Pittsburgh. That outcome gave North Carolina the easy walk to the championship. College basketball is over. Until next year...
Friday, April 3, 2009
Religion - Forgiveness
On Wednesday our youth group watched a video about forgiveness. Some of the video was centered on typical sermon topics such as "God forgives us so we need to forgive others". Most of the video, however, was very intense. It discussed the wounds that we carry, the pain that won't go away. We all have them to different degrees. If a person lives very long, he or she will almost certainly be wronged in a way that is almost impossible to forget, in a way in which the pain seems to never really go away. The pain may be gone for a while, but something will remind us of the situation or person and the pain returns. The video reminded us that forgiveness and forgetting are not the same. Some things we cannot forget nor should we. Forgiveness can free us from the pain and free the other party from the guilt. Yet, the video was right when it said that it's a nice idea but hard to practice. I do think that time helps to heal wounds, it just take much longer for some than others. True forgiveness is being able to wish that person well. I think that often the hardest circumstances for me to forgive are when somebody hurts a loved one of mine or I hurt somebody I love. Forgiving myself can very difficult. Yet, God does forgive us. That is comforting. We may need to work on forgiveness just like many other things in our quest to model our lives after God, but it is something worth trying. Forgiveness feels much better than anger, resentment, or guilt.
The other aspect of the video that was interesting was the discussion about toxic people. We are called to forgive, but if a person keeps hurting us over and over, we need to remove ourselves from that situation and away from that person. Jesus says that if a person hits you on the cheek, present the other one to him. What if he hits that one too? Second and third chances are deserved, but if a person cannot break the habit of hurting you, ideally you forgive the person and wish him or her well, but you also need to take yourself away from that person. We are called to sacrifice ourselves for the good of others, for the good of a lost world. However, I do not believe we are called to be punching bags, physically, emotionally, or spiritually, for others. There comes a point that we should do as Jesus instructed his disciples and shake the dirt from our shoes and leave that person.
The other aspect of the video that was interesting was the discussion about toxic people. We are called to forgive, but if a person keeps hurting us over and over, we need to remove ourselves from that situation and away from that person. Jesus says that if a person hits you on the cheek, present the other one to him. What if he hits that one too? Second and third chances are deserved, but if a person cannot break the habit of hurting you, ideally you forgive the person and wish him or her well, but you also need to take yourself away from that person. We are called to sacrifice ourselves for the good of others, for the good of a lost world. However, I do not believe we are called to be punching bags, physically, emotionally, or spiritually, for others. There comes a point that we should do as Jesus instructed his disciples and shake the dirt from our shoes and leave that person.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Sports - NCAA second round recap and Final 4 preview
The Louisville loss hit me hard and took the excitement of the NCAA tournament out of me. Not only was I going to win my pool if they won the championship, I was hoping for three Big East teams in the Final Four. Many were worried about Louisville's propensity to lay an egg here or there. They had won their last ten games coming into the tournament. I thought they were past that. Apparently they were not. Michigan St. did an excellent job breaking the press. Still, Louisville did not play solid half court defense and particularly did not rebound on the defensive end which could have given them some transition opportunities. Louisville themselves turned the ball over more than usual and struggled more than they should have even against a good Michigan St. team. I blame some of this on the committee for the inclusion of Arizona. Anyone who thought the committee was justified for putting them in because they beat Utah and Cleveland St. saw the real Arizona team. That was disgraceful against Louisville and perhaps the Cardinals became a little too relaxed after the forty point blow out win. So, we have the Spartans.
The Villanova vs. Pittsburgh game was the best game of the tournament. I wasn't shocked by the result since Pitt seems to always choke in the tournament. If Xavier would have been a normal four seed, Pitt would have lost that game. However, Pitt actually played a very good game against Villanova. The Wildcats were just better. 22-23 from the foul line is ridiculous.
Looking ahead to the Final Four, the odds have to be in favor of a UConn vs. NC final. Sure with Michigan St.'s slow tempo they may be able to stay in the game and pull it out, but I'd go with UConn. On the other side, NC may have struggled with Pitt, but Villanova seems to be a bad match up. Villanova has no answer for Hansboro and they like to run. I would bet that NC can outrun them. The Wildcats will have to be on fire from three. If it is a Huskie-Tarheel final, it should be a good game. It's a tough call. The Big East in me will not let me pick the Tarheels, though. I say the Huskies nip the Tarheels because of poor NC defense.
The Villanova vs. Pittsburgh game was the best game of the tournament. I wasn't shocked by the result since Pitt seems to always choke in the tournament. If Xavier would have been a normal four seed, Pitt would have lost that game. However, Pitt actually played a very good game against Villanova. The Wildcats were just better. 22-23 from the foul line is ridiculous.
Looking ahead to the Final Four, the odds have to be in favor of a UConn vs. NC final. Sure with Michigan St.'s slow tempo they may be able to stay in the game and pull it out, but I'd go with UConn. On the other side, NC may have struggled with Pitt, but Villanova seems to be a bad match up. Villanova has no answer for Hansboro and they like to run. I would bet that NC can outrun them. The Wildcats will have to be on fire from three. If it is a Huskie-Tarheel final, it should be a good game. It's a tough call. The Big East in me will not let me pick the Tarheels, though. I say the Huskies nip the Tarheels because of poor NC defense.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Religion - Roots in yourself
Last night we began going through some of the parables told by Jesus in Matthew Chapter 13. The main discussion occurred when reading the parable of the sower and the seeds. Jesus said that the seeds that were thrown in the rocky places were scorched by the sun and withered away because they had no root. Jesus later explained that this person is excited about the gospel message when he first hears it, but he falls away from God when troubles or difficult circumstances arise because he has no root in himself. Christianity in most groups is not the fun topic and the positions of a Christian may not be too welcomed in mixed company. At times, Christians will be called to stand for their faith. Modern day Americans have it relatively easy, we must only endure odd stares and perhaps being excluded from certain groups and given stereotypes that are not meant to be pleasant. Generally, we do not have to make a stand in the face of physical pain or abuse. Still, we often fail to make stands for what we believe in and what we say we value. Why? Because we have shallow roots in ourselves. It's a confidence issue. If a person is confident in himself and in his values and priorities, the biggest weapon of the world is rendered useless, the opinions of others. If our confidence is small and we need reassurance and acceptance from others, we have said that we value the opinion of others above that thing that we have not stood for, in this case God. Which do you value more, the opinion of God who will determine your eternal fate, or the opinions of the popular and fun people in your circles? It seems like a ridiculous and very easy question. However, very often in our lives, and certainly in mine, we choose to value the opinion of the people whose favor we wish to win. For me it happens in situations where I lack confidence, where I don't believe the people around me will accept me for who I really am and I subconsciously choose to face God's judgment instead of the judgment of my friends and acquaintances. We should put God's judgment above anyone else's. That seems incredibly silly to even write because it seems so obvious. Still, it seems almost impossible to live out at times. It comes back to confidence. If you are sure about what you are doing and what you believe in, armor will be built up around you that makes criticisms of others unable to penetrate into your soul and cause you pain or concern. The question of the evening was: "How do you gain that confidence in yourself". Wow, that is the question. It seems that it is similar to our relationship with Jesus, it comes down to faith. In this case, it is a faith in yourself, not that you are all powerful or knowing, but that, in general terms, you are trying to do right and you believe in the right things. I define right by however Jesus would define right. There are of course people who are supremely confident in themselves who are not Christians. They have set their own values of right and wrong and are living by those principles and have faith in them. Eternal salvation requires faith in Jesus, but self confidence only requires faith in you. In both cases the key element is faith. How can you acquire faith? I'm not sure. Devoting time, thought, and effort to the principles of your life by which you live and which will define you as an individual is the only recommendation I can give. Acknowledge where your priorities currently rank and decide if that is acceptable to you. If not, you are the only person that can rearrange the order of those priorities.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Politics - AIG
The AIG fiasco has been, if nothing else, entertaining. I've read a little, but not much, so I will not pretend to know all the details of the situation. What is clear is that the company and its issues have become a political hot topic. This means that everyone exaggerates the facts and the truth is hard to find. If you wonder about the individuals at AIG who were paid bonuses, I would suggest reading this article by the VP of AIG's financial products unit. I am not so naive to ignore the possibility that this letter was written with the intent of being publicly distributed, which could make it political propaganda and questionable as well. However, if most of what this individual says is true, it does give a completely different perspective than you will hear on Capitol Hill. Speaking in generic terms, I do know that lenders will put covenants into their loan documents and if the borrower does not adhere to them, the loan can be called. However, I don't remember ever seeing one that capped what a company could pay its employees. The government surely knows less about AIG's business than AIG executives. In my opinion, the government has a few choices for corporations such as this. They can let it go into bankruptcy, they can loan it money and get out of the way, or they can nationalize it. Loaning a company money and then putting many restrictions on it without truly knowing the business is somewhere between the second and third options and seems destine to fail. AIG is now losing valuable employees, such as the author in the article above, because they are being vilified by the press and politicians for accepting what was promised to them. Perhaps the bonuses were exorbitant. I could not make an educated comment on that. However, if they were working for a salary of $1 per year with the promise of a bonus at the end, then I cannot possibly see how expecting and accepting at least some sort of bonus is evil. What is evil is that government now realizes that is taking a beating in the media for these bonuses which were allowed by the document they signed, so they are shifting the blame to AIG and now are proposing to change the rules after the fact. The proposed 90% tax on these bonuses is tragic, because it's not playing the game fairly. They signed an agreement and now the public is outraged by what it allowed. So, since they are the United States government, they are going to go and change the rules so they can get the money back. Is that the type of entity you would like to do business with? It's shameful. Admit your mistake and take the responsibility that comes with it. Do not cheat, lie, and steal to cover up for your bad judgment.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Sports - Week 1 NCAA Tourney Recap & Week 2 Preview
The biggest surprise of the opening week of play in the NCAA tournament was the lack of surprises. All teams seeded 3 or better still remain. Two 4's are left, leaving only Purdue (#5, not really a surprise) and Arizona (#12) playing past where their seed would project here in the second week. The results suggest that the field was top heavy this year, which I do not think comes as a surprise. Arizona, to me, is also not a shocker. Yes, I believe their inclusion in the tournament was not deserved. However, in the only pool I played in for money, I picked Arizona to make it to the sweet 16. They were given the bracket with by far the weakest 4 and 5 seeds (Wake and Utah). They had nothing to lose since they were playing with house money (they shouldn't even have been in the tournament). It was a perfect set up for a team that should have been playing in the NIT. In my mind, their success does not justify their inclusion. It is not the committee's objective to include the most dangerous teams. The objective is to include the teams that had the most impressive seasons during the year. If the committee wanted dangerous teams, they could have included Notre Dame or Georgetown. Also, consider that the Pac 10 has turned out to be what everyone thought, poor. Arizona is the only Pac 10 team left and they will soon be gone.
As for the Mountaineer's brief tournament, it was of course disappointing. WV played a team they should have beaten and they apparently thought that way going into the game. The effort on defense and on the boards was not there. Ruoff committed some silly fouls to put WV in a bad spot. Again it was the freshmen, Ebanks and Bryant, who carried the team. Butler was less effective as the year progressed and Ruoff could not be counted on to come up big in critical moments. As my friend Ryan commented in an early post, Butler needs to be a role player. He thrives in that setting. Butler does not shine when he is the focal point of the offense. I think Ebanks will be the first option next year. As my pops told me, though, the Mountaineers need some outside shooting. Bryant shot well from 3 towards the end of the season. We will see how much playing time he receives with Mazulla returning. I could foresee some teams simply packing it in on the Mountaineers and making them shoot from the outside next year.
Looking ahead to this weekend, here's how I see each region:
Midwest - Louisville's little scare with Sienna will likely help them as they enter this weekend. I don't see Arizona beating them. I like their chances against Michigan St. or Kansas, which should be a good 50/50 game. Louisville should see the Final 4.
West - UConn has been dominant so far. They should roll over Purdue. Memphis is the wild card of the tournament. I'm still a little skeptical. The Big 12 has looked strong, so the Missouri vs Memphis game will be interesting. If UConn has not faced a serious challenge heading into their Elite 8 match up, they could be in trouble. I'll go with UConn, but Memphis and Missouri both have decent shots.
East - Pitt has not looked good so far. They have historically struggled in the NCAA tournament. If it were not for this, I would say Pitt walks to the Final 4. Xavier cannot match up with them, nor can Duke. Villanova is a streaky team, but Pitt should have a big edge there as well. I like Villanova in a close one against Duke, but either way, I still say Pitt finally breaks through and sees the Final 4.
South - Lawson had a huge second half for North Carolina and has put them back in the mix as a favorite for the National Championship game. The game against Gonzaga should be a very entertaining one. I think this bracket has the most depth. Syracuse and Oklahoma along with UNC and Gonzaga are teams capable of making a final 4 run and possibly winning it all. In no other region could I make that statement about all remaining teams. It makes this region extremely hard to predict, especially with Lawson still potentially not 100%. Due to the depth, I would give no team better than a 35% chance of advancing to the Final 4. I am very reluctant to even pick. So, in a tournament of chalk, I'll take all #1 seeds to make it to the Final 4 for the second straight year and go with UNC out of the South.
As for the Mountaineer's brief tournament, it was of course disappointing. WV played a team they should have beaten and they apparently thought that way going into the game. The effort on defense and on the boards was not there. Ruoff committed some silly fouls to put WV in a bad spot. Again it was the freshmen, Ebanks and Bryant, who carried the team. Butler was less effective as the year progressed and Ruoff could not be counted on to come up big in critical moments. As my friend Ryan commented in an early post, Butler needs to be a role player. He thrives in that setting. Butler does not shine when he is the focal point of the offense. I think Ebanks will be the first option next year. As my pops told me, though, the Mountaineers need some outside shooting. Bryant shot well from 3 towards the end of the season. We will see how much playing time he receives with Mazulla returning. I could foresee some teams simply packing it in on the Mountaineers and making them shoot from the outside next year.
Looking ahead to this weekend, here's how I see each region:
Midwest - Louisville's little scare with Sienna will likely help them as they enter this weekend. I don't see Arizona beating them. I like their chances against Michigan St. or Kansas, which should be a good 50/50 game. Louisville should see the Final 4.
West - UConn has been dominant so far. They should roll over Purdue. Memphis is the wild card of the tournament. I'm still a little skeptical. The Big 12 has looked strong, so the Missouri vs Memphis game will be interesting. If UConn has not faced a serious challenge heading into their Elite 8 match up, they could be in trouble. I'll go with UConn, but Memphis and Missouri both have decent shots.
East - Pitt has not looked good so far. They have historically struggled in the NCAA tournament. If it were not for this, I would say Pitt walks to the Final 4. Xavier cannot match up with them, nor can Duke. Villanova is a streaky team, but Pitt should have a big edge there as well. I like Villanova in a close one against Duke, but either way, I still say Pitt finally breaks through and sees the Final 4.
South - Lawson had a huge second half for North Carolina and has put them back in the mix as a favorite for the National Championship game. The game against Gonzaga should be a very entertaining one. I think this bracket has the most depth. Syracuse and Oklahoma along with UNC and Gonzaga are teams capable of making a final 4 run and possibly winning it all. In no other region could I make that statement about all remaining teams. It makes this region extremely hard to predict, especially with Lawson still potentially not 100%. Due to the depth, I would give no team better than a 35% chance of advancing to the Final 4. I am very reluctant to even pick. So, in a tournament of chalk, I'll take all #1 seeds to make it to the Final 4 for the second straight year and go with UNC out of the South.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Economics - Robin Hood Explained
In a previous post, I compared Obama to Robin Hood for stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. There, however, is a difference with which Robin Hood may take offense to the comparison. There are two ways to view our hero. The common way is to see him as a friend of the poor and enemy of the rich. The other as is to view him as a champion of property rights. The current Administration can be seen similarly to the former, but not the latter. In the story of Robin Hood, the working class poor people were taxed heavily as the rich became richer. The workers were not allowed to keep the fruit of their labor. Robin Hood was merely giving back to them what was taken unfairly. He was not really stealing from the rich; he was returning to the poor what was stolen from them. In fact Robin Hood was part of the noble class until a new ruler came to power and began behaving so mercilessly to the poor. Robin Hood had not made it his life long mission to redistribute wealth. He chose to act only when the rights, particularly property rights, of the poor were taken away from them. In today's society, we have a much different scenario. The poor are hardly taxed at all. Even the middle class is taxed lightly. For that family that politicians love to discuss, the one with a couple of kids a mortgage and are making less than $100,000, their taxes are not burdensome. I can say that because I fall into that category and my Federal effective tax rate remains in the single digits. In fact, my state tax bill nearly matches my Federal tax bill and the highest Virginia income tax rate is a mere 5.75%. Also, there is such a thing now as an Earned Income Tax Credit. What this means is that if a person works but makes little money, that person can actually have negative tax where the government owes them money. This is different than a refund, please do not be confused. A typical refund is the result of a person's calculated tax (ex $5,000) being less than the taxes withheld from the person's paychecks for the year (ex. $6,000, resulting in a $1,000 refund). In the Earned Income Tax Credit, the person can have paid nothing to the Federal government and will still receive money. When in the history of the world has a government not only decided to not collect taxes from its workers, but to give them tax money? Combine the low taxes for the middle class and negative tax for the poor with the services they receive from government programs and it is an extremely difficult argument to make that our government is abusing or taking advantage of the poor or middle class. Robin Hood would not have had to quit his day job if he had lived in the US today.
If all of the President's initiatives go through, the wealthy will have about half of every additional dollar they make taken from them when all taxes are considered, much of which will go to social programs for the poor and lower middle class if not given directly to them. I find it hard to see how this is not stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, the key word there being "stealing". I have read articles and experienced in my own work where employees have stolen from their companies for great causes - for a family member in need of medical assistance, for nice clothing for their children, and even for a favorite charity. These stories are compelling, but how do the courts of our government respond? The defendants are convicted, fined, and/or sentenced to jail time. Why? Because the laws of our country do not recognize need as an excuse to infringe on property rights or, in simple terms, steal. Yet our government does it openly and unapologetically as if it were a virtue.
A person choosing to donate out of their excess to those in need is certainly worthy of praise and should be considered virtuous. I feel good about my donations I make throughout the year. I can see some of the impact these donations have. I feel no sense of honor or virtue by having my money forcibly taken from me by the government and given to somebody else, nor should anyone. There is no voluntary sacrifice in that. The approval rating of Congress stands in the teens and it has been well earned. The government has proven over many decades to be highly bureaucratic and highly inefficient. I have much more confidence that the money I donate to local charities will be spent wisely than the money the biggest charity, the Federal Government, takes from me. While I do favor a progressive tax rate, one where the wealthy are taxed at a higher RATE than the middle class and poor, there has to be some limits. We are moving in a direction where the tax rate is so high and burdensome that we must consider if there truly is any virtue in our actions, in forcibly stealing from one group and giving to another with the money being run through a very inefficient organization with a high overhead that eats away at the money stolen. We would be better off to have a little more respect for property rights and allow the American people, even the wealthy American people, to decide how to distribute/spend their income and wealth. I have more trust in the virtue of Americans (yes even rich ones) than I do in Congress and our government.
If all of the President's initiatives go through, the wealthy will have about half of every additional dollar they make taken from them when all taxes are considered, much of which will go to social programs for the poor and lower middle class if not given directly to them. I find it hard to see how this is not stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, the key word there being "stealing". I have read articles and experienced in my own work where employees have stolen from their companies for great causes - for a family member in need of medical assistance, for nice clothing for their children, and even for a favorite charity. These stories are compelling, but how do the courts of our government respond? The defendants are convicted, fined, and/or sentenced to jail time. Why? Because the laws of our country do not recognize need as an excuse to infringe on property rights or, in simple terms, steal. Yet our government does it openly and unapologetically as if it were a virtue.
A person choosing to donate out of their excess to those in need is certainly worthy of praise and should be considered virtuous. I feel good about my donations I make throughout the year. I can see some of the impact these donations have. I feel no sense of honor or virtue by having my money forcibly taken from me by the government and given to somebody else, nor should anyone. There is no voluntary sacrifice in that. The approval rating of Congress stands in the teens and it has been well earned. The government has proven over many decades to be highly bureaucratic and highly inefficient. I have much more confidence that the money I donate to local charities will be spent wisely than the money the biggest charity, the Federal Government, takes from me. While I do favor a progressive tax rate, one where the wealthy are taxed at a higher RATE than the middle class and poor, there has to be some limits. We are moving in a direction where the tax rate is so high and burdensome that we must consider if there truly is any virtue in our actions, in forcibly stealing from one group and giving to another with the money being run through a very inefficient organization with a high overhead that eats away at the money stolen. We would be better off to have a little more respect for property rights and allow the American people, even the wealthy American people, to decide how to distribute/spend their income and wealth. I have more trust in the virtue of Americans (yes even rich ones) than I do in Congress and our government.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Sports - WV tournament preview
West Virginia drew 11 seeded Dayton in Minnesota on Friday at 3pm. The thing that scares me the most about Dayton is that they don't scare me at all. It is the team that I was hoping they would draw, but there is the phrase "be careful what you wish for". It wasn't long ago that WV only had to beat Pittsburgh in a football game to advance to the national title game. The game was at home. They had crushed Pitt the previous two years. Pitt was a woeful 4-7 (2-4 in conference). How could you not love their chances? What worried me about that game was that there was little reason to worry yet so much on the line. This is the same thing to a lesser degree. WV should win the game. Dayton's best player, Chris Wright, is very good. However, he is a 6-8 power forward that WV should be able to handle, at least much better than Blair or some of the other Big East beasts. As an A-10 fan and proponent (due to the Spiders), I can say that I believe that the A-10 is overrated. Xavier is very weak at 4 and Dayton looks soft. Wright averages 13 ppg and Marcus Johnson averages 12, so there are no huge stars that should be able to take over the game. They have gone 3-3 in their last 6. West Virginia has handled inferior teams and this team is not as good as WV. Still, when they throw it up, especially on a neutral court at 3pm, anything can happen. I look for the Mountaineers to win handily. That confidence concerns me.
The second round, if the Mountaineers should beat Dayton, would likely be against Kansas. An opportunity to defeat the defending champions should provide plenty of inspiration. Will the Jayhawks play tight with their title on the line or will they play with confidence? I admit I don't know too much about the Jayhawks. They had a very nice season despite being in a "rebuilding" phase after winning the championship. The posted a 14-2 record in the Big 12, which is solid. Still, my gut instinct is that this would be a toss up game. I give the Mounties a decent shot at the sweet 16. If they should make it so far, I think that Michigan St., like any Big 10 team, is suspect. WV has the potential, if they play well, to roll into and Elite 8. That's where the journey would end, likely against Louisville. I think it's a favorable draw for WV. We'll see what they can do with it.
We will see how the freshmen and Ruoff handle the big stage. They did fine in the Big East tournament. Let's play into the second week Mounties!!!
The second round, if the Mountaineers should beat Dayton, would likely be against Kansas. An opportunity to defeat the defending champions should provide plenty of inspiration. Will the Jayhawks play tight with their title on the line or will they play with confidence? I admit I don't know too much about the Jayhawks. They had a very nice season despite being in a "rebuilding" phase after winning the championship. The posted a 14-2 record in the Big 12, which is solid. Still, my gut instinct is that this would be a toss up game. I give the Mounties a decent shot at the sweet 16. If they should make it so far, I think that Michigan St., like any Big 10 team, is suspect. WV has the potential, if they play well, to roll into and Elite 8. That's where the journey would end, likely against Louisville. I think it's a favorable draw for WV. We'll see what they can do with it.
We will see how the freshmen and Ruoff handle the big stage. They did fine in the Big East tournament. Let's play into the second week Mounties!!!
Sports - Tournament Grumblings
Lunardi beat the DeHavenator 52-49. If I had put Maryland in (they were my first team out), I would have pulled off the upset 49-48. I probably let my bias against Maryland blind me to reality. It's a lesson to learn. I have no problem with Maryland being in. My issue is Arizona. It was the one team Lunardi missed. He had Creighton and I had St. Mary's or Creighton. I would have taken St. Mary's, but either way, I see no rational argument for Arizona. Arizona was 19-13. They played just two non conference road games and were 0-2 (UNLV, Texas A&M). They were 2-9 on the road with weak wins against Oregon St. and Oregon. They finished on a 1-5 slide including their third loss of the year to Arizona St. when they met in the tournament. The have some good wins against UCLA, Washington, USC, and Kansas, but they were all at home. The neutral court Gonzaga win is probably their most impressive. Still, with a 19-13 record, a poor RPI, a terrible road record and an awful finish to the season, their inclusion is very peculiar. Arizona has a streak of 24 consecutive tournament appearances and I wonder if that factored into the decision. They also drew Utah which has to be one of the weakest 5 seeds to dress up for a tournament. It's almost like they manufactured that matchup to justify Arizona's inclusion hoping they would take care of an easy opponent.
Saint Mary's, by contrast, was 26-6 and boasted a much higher RPI. They were 13-5 away from home (9-3 road, 4-2 neutral). They lacked big wins (Providence, San Diego St. both on neutral courts), but they were dominant with Patty Mills on the court and he has now returned from his injury. During his injury St. Mary's was 3-3. Take away that time and they were 23-3. The committee has said that they take injuries into account. They must not have considered it in this case. I have no problem saying that St. Mary's could have gone 19-13 with Arizona's schedule (they had plenty of cupcakes too). I highly doubt that Arizona would have gone 26-6 (or especially 23-3) with St. Mary's schedule give Arizona's road woes. Even if you don't take St. Mary's, Creighton's case was better than Arizona's.
I heard an announcer say that the committee said that when judging a team, their RPI is not a factor, but that the RPI of the teams that they beat is a factor. Perhaps this was incorrectly reported. However, if not, this is completely absurd. They are in essence saying that the RPI system is valuable and is used, but when looking at a team the only RPI that they don't use is their own. Huh? I believe they outthought themselves on this one. So, when they looked at Arizona, they considered all the RPI's of all the teams they beat, but not the RPI of Arizona themselves. This could explain the seemingly inexplicable decision. So, Arizona's RPI is important, it's just that it's important to UAB, Stanford, Washington St., UNLV, and all those teams that beat them, but it's not important to Arizona. It's clear that the committee prefers a team with a mediocre record that has a few big wins (even if they have some bad losses) to a team that has a great record, but did not play too many good teams. I disagree. There are teams that know how to win and teams that aren't sure how to win. 19-13, unless it's against an unbelievable schedule, which Arizona's was not (36 SOS), leads me to believe that the team is not sure how to win. By the way, San Diego St., another team I would have taken over Arizona, had a SOS one spot ahead (35) of Arizona and a much better record (23-9).
Other than Utah, BC, and Texas receiving a little better seeds than I think they deserved, no other problems with the selection. Arizona is the one that nobody predicted simply because they didn't deserve it.
Saint Mary's, by contrast, was 26-6 and boasted a much higher RPI. They were 13-5 away from home (9-3 road, 4-2 neutral). They lacked big wins (Providence, San Diego St. both on neutral courts), but they were dominant with Patty Mills on the court and he has now returned from his injury. During his injury St. Mary's was 3-3. Take away that time and they were 23-3. The committee has said that they take injuries into account. They must not have considered it in this case. I have no problem saying that St. Mary's could have gone 19-13 with Arizona's schedule (they had plenty of cupcakes too). I highly doubt that Arizona would have gone 26-6 (or especially 23-3) with St. Mary's schedule give Arizona's road woes. Even if you don't take St. Mary's, Creighton's case was better than Arizona's.
I heard an announcer say that the committee said that when judging a team, their RPI is not a factor, but that the RPI of the teams that they beat is a factor. Perhaps this was incorrectly reported. However, if not, this is completely absurd. They are in essence saying that the RPI system is valuable and is used, but when looking at a team the only RPI that they don't use is their own. Huh? I believe they outthought themselves on this one. So, when they looked at Arizona, they considered all the RPI's of all the teams they beat, but not the RPI of Arizona themselves. This could explain the seemingly inexplicable decision. So, Arizona's RPI is important, it's just that it's important to UAB, Stanford, Washington St., UNLV, and all those teams that beat them, but it's not important to Arizona. It's clear that the committee prefers a team with a mediocre record that has a few big wins (even if they have some bad losses) to a team that has a great record, but did not play too many good teams. I disagree. There are teams that know how to win and teams that aren't sure how to win. 19-13, unless it's against an unbelievable schedule, which Arizona's was not (36 SOS), leads me to believe that the team is not sure how to win. By the way, San Diego St., another team I would have taken over Arizona, had a SOS one spot ahead (35) of Arizona and a much better record (23-9).
Other than Utah, BC, and Texas receiving a little better seeds than I think they deserved, no other problems with the selection. Arizona is the one that nobody predicted simply because they didn't deserve it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
