Even if you happened to be living under a so-called rock for the first month of 2010, you have probably heard the name "Scott Brown" tossed around. Scott Brown is the man that the state of Massachusetts elected to replace the late Edward Kennedy in the U.S. Senate. What made this election such an eye-opener was the fact that the Democratic candidate, Martha Coakley, was very heavily favored to win. She watched over a two-week period as her double-digit lead in the polls shrunk to a multi-point deficit. The most Democratic state in the Union had just replaced arguably one of the greatest Democratic Senators of all time with a Republican. What gives?
Health Care is what gives. Scott Brown campaigned on the promise of the 41st vote against Health Care, and the American people answered. Conservatives across America rejoiced at having a chance to stop this "socialist takeover". What they didn't realize is that Scott Brown is far from the cookie-cutter conservative that he was projected to be.
Monday night, Brown announced that he would join the ranks of four other conservatives in blocking a filibuster of Senator Harry Reid's new jobs proposal. The political world exploded in a hailstorm of harshly negative comments that were slung at Brown via Twitter and Facebook - "RINO (Republican-in-name-only), letdown, sellout, and betrayal" were some of the more popular ones. Conservative activists were shell-shocked, especially since most had helped fund the senator's late-game run to the Capitol. Tea Partiers were outraged and hurt. I'm over here asking, is anyone surprised?
Scott Brown was elected in the state of Massachusetts. On a scale of 1-100 (1 being conservative, 100 being liberal), Massachusetts is a 562. Scott Brown is a Massachusetts conservative, and that makes him the most moderate Republican in the Senate. Do you really think the people of Massachusetts would have elected the likes of Orrin Hatch? John Boehner? John Kyl? Not a chance.
This whole "savior of conservatism" and "Ronald Reagan reborn" rallying cry that claimed Brown could make a run at the White House in 2012 was an image of false hope projected by America; an image that Scott Brown never claimed to be. People saw the red in the election map, and the "R" next to his name, and immediately assumed he'd be a model Republican. Vote on party lines, support GOP filibusters, not hop on board with the Democrats, etcetera etcetera. All Brown did was promise to be the 41st vote against Obamacare. Nothing more. Scott Brown is representing the state of Massachusetts, a state just like the other 49: plagued by unemployment. He knows his constituents put him there, and he's simply taking care of them.
You know, I'm not so sure voting for Reid's jobs bill and against a GOP filibuster is a bad thing. At all. Finally, we have people willing to step over party lines and take a chance. Who knows? Something might get done. Everyone knows the nation is not okay as-is, and nothing has been done so far. We need more centrist Democrats and progressive Republicans to meet in the middle and iron out some bills.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Monday, February 22, 2010
BCS should stand for Badly Concieved System.
One of the largest controversies of the 21st century has begun to make its way to the political world. Sports fans, I bring you the sad tale of the worst ranking system in history; a decision implemented on a whim that is destined to live in infamy: the Bowl Championship Series (BCS).
Most NCAA sports decide on a national champion through a logical post-season playoff (think college basketball with March Madness). College football, on the other hand, uses the illegitimate child of a love affair between a circus clown and a popularity contest.
Here's a breakdown of the current system: There are currently 34 post-season "bowls", ranging from the Roady's Humanitarian Bowl to the granddaddy of them all, The Rose Bowl. Math time! 34 bowls = 68 teams. Division 1 FBS has 120 teams total as of 2009. This means that over 50 percent of the teams make a bowl. If that sounds a little ridiculous, it is. To qualify for the bowl selection process, a team needs to finish 6-6, something my beloved Wolverines have failed to do for two years in a row.
Now out of those 68 teams, ten play in so-called "BCS Bowls" (Rose, Orange, Sugar, Fiesta, and the CitiBank National Championship). These teams are, "logically", ranked #1 through #10. Now in this case, "logically" is a relative term, because next I explain the ranking system.
Fundamentally, the way teams are ranked is sound. Computational algorithms and weighted deviation factors abound, but there is still a human element involved. When it comes down to the barebones system, I'm not going to even attempt to explain it. Honestly, all you need to know is that while it looks good on paper, practically, it leaves a lot to be desired.
Take the 09-10 season for example. The BCS Title game pitted the #1 Alabama Crimson Tide (undefeated) against the #2 Texas Longhorns (also undefeated). Sounds good, right? Not after I tell you that the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl had the #4 TCU Horned Frogs (undefeated and coming out of a non-BCS qualifying conference) against the #6 Boise State Broncos (ALSO undefeated.) Now no matter how these games play out, you’ve got two undefeated teams at the end of the season (in this case, 'Bama and Boise). Now Boise could not have had a better season. They never lost a damn game. But do they win a national championship? Nope, because this convoluted and childish system screwed over yet another team.
I dare someone to look me in the eye and tell me that if a team wins every single game they play, that they don't deserve a national title at the end of the year. All other sports set it up so that you play until you lose. Not so you do the best you POSSIBLY can, and still wind up second best with an undefeated record.
Think of this on a smaller scale. Tiger Woods is going stroke-for-stroke with Steve Stricker. At the end of the 18-hole round, Tiger is 4 under par, and Steve is 4 under par. They both finish out with 68's, but Tiger is declared the winner because he's a perennial dynastic powerhouse. That's one of the farthest things from fair I have ever seen.
A main argument of 'Bama's sole possession of the title is that "they play tougher competition". So? I don't care if they play the 1985 Bears, the 1972 Dolphins, 1962 Packers, and blow them all out of the water. If they lose to Boise or TCU, they lose.
This is becoming such a whined-about and lamented system that people are pushing for government intervention that forces some change. While I think that's a bit much, there is no doubt that this system strongly resembles our current health care system (albeit less urgent). It's broken. It needs a little Italian plumber to bounce on some heads, work with some pipes, and fix it.
The main problem that's keeping a fix in the proverbial committee is money. There is an absolutely unrealistic amount of money that is made from those 34 bowls. Advertisements generate revenue for the networks. Ticket sales generate revenue for the schools and stadiums. The events attract people from all over the nation to certain cities, generating a temporary economic boom from tourism. Schools appearing in the bowls profit from the game as well. NCAA officials are not willing to sacrifice the overwhelming fiscal profit that is takes the form of Capital One Bowl Week.
Don't get me wrong. Bowl Week is a great way to end the year. However, I'll be the first to admit that 34 bowls is pushing the edge of extremity. Who wants to watch Iowa State/Minnesota? How about Houston/Air Force? What about the MAC powerhouse Marshall play Ohio? Not me. I'll stick to the Big Ten, SEC, Big 12, and Pac-10 conferences.
Bottom line: the BCS goes against all value that is held in sports. A common phrase during the season is "Any given Saturday, any team can win". Well, this is simply not true in the postseason. Not any team can win, unless you're from a quasi-power conference and get a title berth. Which is a crying shame for the TCU's and the Boise's of College Football.
Most NCAA sports decide on a national champion through a logical post-season playoff (think college basketball with March Madness). College football, on the other hand, uses the illegitimate child of a love affair between a circus clown and a popularity contest.
Here's a breakdown of the current system: There are currently 34 post-season "bowls", ranging from the Roady's Humanitarian Bowl to the granddaddy of them all, The Rose Bowl. Math time! 34 bowls = 68 teams. Division 1 FBS has 120 teams total as of 2009. This means that over 50 percent of the teams make a bowl. If that sounds a little ridiculous, it is. To qualify for the bowl selection process, a team needs to finish 6-6, something my beloved Wolverines have failed to do for two years in a row.
Now out of those 68 teams, ten play in so-called "BCS Bowls" (Rose, Orange, Sugar, Fiesta, and the CitiBank National Championship). These teams are, "logically", ranked #1 through #10. Now in this case, "logically" is a relative term, because next I explain the ranking system.
Fundamentally, the way teams are ranked is sound. Computational algorithms and weighted deviation factors abound, but there is still a human element involved. When it comes down to the barebones system, I'm not going to even attempt to explain it. Honestly, all you need to know is that while it looks good on paper, practically, it leaves a lot to be desired.
Take the 09-10 season for example. The BCS Title game pitted the #1 Alabama Crimson Tide (undefeated) against the #2 Texas Longhorns (also undefeated). Sounds good, right? Not after I tell you that the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl had the #4 TCU Horned Frogs (undefeated and coming out of a non-BCS qualifying conference) against the #6 Boise State Broncos (ALSO undefeated.) Now no matter how these games play out, you’ve got two undefeated teams at the end of the season (in this case, 'Bama and Boise). Now Boise could not have had a better season. They never lost a damn game. But do they win a national championship? Nope, because this convoluted and childish system screwed over yet another team.
I dare someone to look me in the eye and tell me that if a team wins every single game they play, that they don't deserve a national title at the end of the year. All other sports set it up so that you play until you lose. Not so you do the best you POSSIBLY can, and still wind up second best with an undefeated record.
Think of this on a smaller scale. Tiger Woods is going stroke-for-stroke with Steve Stricker. At the end of the 18-hole round, Tiger is 4 under par, and Steve is 4 under par. They both finish out with 68's, but Tiger is declared the winner because he's a perennial dynastic powerhouse. That's one of the farthest things from fair I have ever seen.
A main argument of 'Bama's sole possession of the title is that "they play tougher competition". So? I don't care if they play the 1985 Bears, the 1972 Dolphins, 1962 Packers, and blow them all out of the water. If they lose to Boise or TCU, they lose.
This is becoming such a whined-about and lamented system that people are pushing for government intervention that forces some change. While I think that's a bit much, there is no doubt that this system strongly resembles our current health care system (albeit less urgent). It's broken. It needs a little Italian plumber to bounce on some heads, work with some pipes, and fix it.
The main problem that's keeping a fix in the proverbial committee is money. There is an absolutely unrealistic amount of money that is made from those 34 bowls. Advertisements generate revenue for the networks. Ticket sales generate revenue for the schools and stadiums. The events attract people from all over the nation to certain cities, generating a temporary economic boom from tourism. Schools appearing in the bowls profit from the game as well. NCAA officials are not willing to sacrifice the overwhelming fiscal profit that is takes the form of Capital One Bowl Week.
Don't get me wrong. Bowl Week is a great way to end the year. However, I'll be the first to admit that 34 bowls is pushing the edge of extremity. Who wants to watch Iowa State/Minnesota? How about Houston/Air Force? What about the MAC powerhouse Marshall play Ohio? Not me. I'll stick to the Big Ten, SEC, Big 12, and Pac-10 conferences.
Bottom line: the BCS goes against all value that is held in sports. A common phrase during the season is "Any given Saturday, any team can win". Well, this is simply not true in the postseason. Not any team can win, unless you're from a quasi-power conference and get a title berth. Which is a crying shame for the TCU's and the Boise's of College Football.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
The Rise of Tea Party Activism
December 16, 1773. Bostonian Governor Thomas Hutchinson allowed cargo-loads of overtaxed tea to come in to Boston Harbor, and refused to send them back. Later that night, a rag-tag group of colonists boarded the ships and destroyed the shipment by throwing it into the ocean. Hutchinson did not believe that the colonists would choose to go without tea, a popular beverage of the day, instead of concede to the rule of a government where they had no representation in the legislature. Since then, the Boston Tea Party has become an icon of American Independence, as well as a symbol of protest in countries ranging from Britain to India.
Fast forward a few years. March 2009. The American economy is suffering greatly. Our great nation is on the verge of dropping like a stone from the ranks of economic world leaders, and there are doomsday predictions of a second Depression. Dramatic revelations have just come to light about AIG (American International Group) is paying $165 million in executive bonuses, $450 million in bonuses for the financial department, and company wide bonuses of $1.2 billion. This is AIG. The same company that had received a Federal Reserve bailout of $122 billion the year before, and promptly blew almost $1 million of that on a company-wide, all-inclusive retreat.
Let's go over the things wrong with this. In the first 6 months of 2008, AIG reported $13.2 billion dollars in losses. Shares in the company dropped like a stone from a 52-week high od $70.13 a share to a measly $1.25 a share; barely enough to buy a Coke in today's world. Wall Street and the Federal Reserve agreed that while executives of the company should not be rewarded, the economy could not afford to lose AIG. A bailout was proposed.
Then-Senator Barack Obama voted for the package, as did Senator Chuck Grassely (R-Iowa). As with most government bailouts, a large portion came from the pockets of the American taxpayers. For the time, it appeared AIG was safe.
Jump back ahead to March 2, 2009. AIG reported record losses. In the fourth fiscal quarter, the corporate conglomerate lost $61.7 billion, and announced a -$23.7 billion dollar revenue for the final 3 months of 2008. Some bailout. That's when it came to light that a lump sum of the stimulus injection was used for rewarding frivolous investing on the part of executives. Give a heartwarming round of applause to the single largest growth in the Tea Party Movement in history.
The Tea Party movement is a taxpayer protest movement built around resisting government spending as a way out of the recession, using the symbolic name as a method of invoking strong feelings. The movement is less than pleased with the proposed budget (3.8 trillion) by President Obama, which is the largest single-year proposal in history. Protest leaders also admit to being unhappy with former-President George W. Bush's "socialistic spending". See, the movement has existed since early 2007. However, it lacked support, simply because spending had not gotten us into trouble at that point in time.
I'll say it again: it's a TAXPAYER PROTEST movement. I can assure all of you that the Tea Party Movement is NOT a cover for racism and hatred for blacks. As ridiculous as that sounds, it's what PMSNBC's Keith Olbermann and guest Janeane Garofalo spent almost 9 minutes talking about on The Countdown. Some of the quotes from Garofalo range from calling Tea Partiers a "bunch of teabagging rednecks", even going so far as to say "this is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up". Quite simply, no, it's not. It may be about hatred, but it's nothing more than a hatred of Republicans wasting money, and a hatred of Democrats wasting money.
I think the Tea Party Movement is healthy. It keeps Washington honest, a city driven by greed, corruption, scandal; a city so divided by partisanship that it has party lines so thick it makes Johnny Cash jealous. The movement is a strong organization with a mindset that goes against the agenda of President Obama, and is thus labeled as racist. Interesting. And I thought Republicans were accused of playing the race card in 2008...
Pro populus, per populus.
Fast forward a few years. March 2009. The American economy is suffering greatly. Our great nation is on the verge of dropping like a stone from the ranks of economic world leaders, and there are doomsday predictions of a second Depression. Dramatic revelations have just come to light about AIG (American International Group) is paying $165 million in executive bonuses, $450 million in bonuses for the financial department, and company wide bonuses of $1.2 billion. This is AIG. The same company that had received a Federal Reserve bailout of $122 billion the year before, and promptly blew almost $1 million of that on a company-wide, all-inclusive retreat.
Let's go over the things wrong with this. In the first 6 months of 2008, AIG reported $13.2 billion dollars in losses. Shares in the company dropped like a stone from a 52-week high od $70.13 a share to a measly $1.25 a share; barely enough to buy a Coke in today's world. Wall Street and the Federal Reserve agreed that while executives of the company should not be rewarded, the economy could not afford to lose AIG. A bailout was proposed.
Then-Senator Barack Obama voted for the package, as did Senator Chuck Grassely (R-Iowa). As with most government bailouts, a large portion came from the pockets of the American taxpayers. For the time, it appeared AIG was safe.
Jump back ahead to March 2, 2009. AIG reported record losses. In the fourth fiscal quarter, the corporate conglomerate lost $61.7 billion, and announced a -$23.7 billion dollar revenue for the final 3 months of 2008. Some bailout. That's when it came to light that a lump sum of the stimulus injection was used for rewarding frivolous investing on the part of executives. Give a heartwarming round of applause to the single largest growth in the Tea Party Movement in history.
The Tea Party movement is a taxpayer protest movement built around resisting government spending as a way out of the recession, using the symbolic name as a method of invoking strong feelings. The movement is less than pleased with the proposed budget (3.8 trillion) by President Obama, which is the largest single-year proposal in history. Protest leaders also admit to being unhappy with former-President George W. Bush's "socialistic spending". See, the movement has existed since early 2007. However, it lacked support, simply because spending had not gotten us into trouble at that point in time.
I'll say it again: it's a TAXPAYER PROTEST movement. I can assure all of you that the Tea Party Movement is NOT a cover for racism and hatred for blacks. As ridiculous as that sounds, it's what PMSNBC's Keith Olbermann and guest Janeane Garofalo spent almost 9 minutes talking about on The Countdown. Some of the quotes from Garofalo range from calling Tea Partiers a "bunch of teabagging rednecks", even going so far as to say "this is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up". Quite simply, no, it's not. It may be about hatred, but it's nothing more than a hatred of Republicans wasting money, and a hatred of Democrats wasting money.
I think the Tea Party Movement is healthy. It keeps Washington honest, a city driven by greed, corruption, scandal; a city so divided by partisanship that it has party lines so thick it makes Johnny Cash jealous. The movement is a strong organization with a mindset that goes against the agenda of President Obama, and is thus labeled as racist. Interesting. And I thought Republicans were accused of playing the race card in 2008...
Pro populus, per populus.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Reality Check
This is, to put it delicately, a message to Washington Republicans. Ever since the Obama Administration steamrolled ahead with Health Care, and put its astoundingly large, filibuster-proof majority (essentially 60-40) to "good" use, I've been right with the Republicans on Capitol Hill: screaming for a bipartisan bill. The idea of 12 members of either party locked behind 5 sets of doors locked down by armed guards, toasting each other and writing a bill that determines my future medical coverage does not remotely appeal to me. This needs to be a bill that has ideas from both parties, both ends of the political spectrum, both sides of the aisle. People viewed the Republicans as the "Party of No", citing their close-mindedness. I said the same for the Democrats. Their unwillingness to cooperate with their proverbial "little brother" was unnerving to me, seeing how Republicans were constantly pushing their ideas.
Finally, a break. The filibuster-proof majority was history. Scott Brown of Massachusetts had just been elected in the upset of the century over Democrat Martha Choke-ly (thank you, Joe). Finally, a chance for Republicans to get their provisions in there; to make Democrats listen. There was now a chink in the armor. President Obama, in a move that surprised me and struck me as open-minded, invited the GOP to a Health Care Summit on the 25th of February, where he would listen to their ideas.
How does the GOP respond to the offer? Well, John Kyl, House Minority Leader John Boehner, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and other top Republicans are already crying foul. The general consensus among them is this: "We're walking into a trap up there."
A trap? A TRAP?! Listen, the only way this bipartisan summit is a trap is if you ain't got shit for plans. Since day one, you've been pleading for your ideas to be heard. All the way up here in Alpena, Michigan, so was I. I'm against complete partisan control of anything by either Democrats or Republicans, and Health Care is not an issue to put my fears to the test on. So, I went around apparently making a liar of myself and spewing the same message as you: "Hey, come on now, at least LISTEN to their ideas!".
So, Senator McConnell and Representative Boehner, come February 25th, you better come out guns blazing. If I find out you've got nothing to back up that mouth, I'll be one unhappy conservative.
That said, I am still against Obamacare, for my own reasons. I think the American public sent a message in various gubernatorial elections, and on a national stage in the Massachusetts Special Election. They wanted the 41st vote against Health Care in the Senate, and they got it with Senator Brown. Nancy Pelosi is proposing reconciliation (passing the bill with only 50 Senate votes instead of the usual 60), and other Democratic senators are pushing legislation to change the rules of the filibuster. I think both of the above actions are extremely unethical and a complete abomination of the democratic process, and both are simply a ploy to get a legislative victory on the left side of the aisle, one which polls show most Americans are against.
However, I digress. The point of this post is general unhappiness with the Republicans in Washington. They are on track to put a large dent in the Democratic congressional majority (My current prediction for after the 2010 Midterms is 53 D - 47 R, pending consideration of Independents).
Let's not ruin it by talking needless smack.
Pro populus, per populus.
Finally, a break. The filibuster-proof majority was history. Scott Brown of Massachusetts had just been elected in the upset of the century over Democrat Martha Choke-ly (thank you, Joe). Finally, a chance for Republicans to get their provisions in there; to make Democrats listen. There was now a chink in the armor. President Obama, in a move that surprised me and struck me as open-minded, invited the GOP to a Health Care Summit on the 25th of February, where he would listen to their ideas.
How does the GOP respond to the offer? Well, John Kyl, House Minority Leader John Boehner, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and other top Republicans are already crying foul. The general consensus among them is this: "We're walking into a trap up there."
A trap? A TRAP?! Listen, the only way this bipartisan summit is a trap is if you ain't got shit for plans. Since day one, you've been pleading for your ideas to be heard. All the way up here in Alpena, Michigan, so was I. I'm against complete partisan control of anything by either Democrats or Republicans, and Health Care is not an issue to put my fears to the test on. So, I went around apparently making a liar of myself and spewing the same message as you: "Hey, come on now, at least LISTEN to their ideas!".
So, Senator McConnell and Representative Boehner, come February 25th, you better come out guns blazing. If I find out you've got nothing to back up that mouth, I'll be one unhappy conservative.
That said, I am still against Obamacare, for my own reasons. I think the American public sent a message in various gubernatorial elections, and on a national stage in the Massachusetts Special Election. They wanted the 41st vote against Health Care in the Senate, and they got it with Senator Brown. Nancy Pelosi is proposing reconciliation (passing the bill with only 50 Senate votes instead of the usual 60), and other Democratic senators are pushing legislation to change the rules of the filibuster. I think both of the above actions are extremely unethical and a complete abomination of the democratic process, and both are simply a ploy to get a legislative victory on the left side of the aisle, one which polls show most Americans are against.
However, I digress. The point of this post is general unhappiness with the Republicans in Washington. They are on track to put a large dent in the Democratic congressional majority (My current prediction for after the 2010 Midterms is 53 D - 47 R, pending consideration of Independents).
Let's not ruin it by talking needless smack.
Pro populus, per populus.
Good Intentions
In the past few months, I've had several posts on Facebook that have turned into heated political discussions. These topics ranged from Haitian relief after one of the worst natural disasters on record in the Western Hemisphere, to controversial conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh attempting to buy the St. Louis Rams.
This is my attempt to insulate those who really don't care about anything I have to say from having to read those. If people are genuinely interested in my opinions, they'll come here. Since you've gotten this far, now seems like a good time to throw in a disclaimer: I'm going to be about as fair and balanced as Fox News on here. Hopefully even those of you who stick to newspapers caught the sarcasm and understood that means "not at all". I do have opinions on issues, and will most definitely be basing most of my posts around things that I believe, and presenting that opinion to you. That said, I can guarantee you that they will be presented in a tasteful and respectful manner.
I also am open to topic suggestions. Send me a Facebook message, SMS message, tell me in the hall, or ring my doorbell. Whichever you prefer. As for what I'll typically be covering, my topics of interest range from politics to sports. Most of my writings will be over the colossal circle-jerk that is our nation's capital, but others will be from the world of professional sports. (Golf, Tennis, Football, and Baseball to name a few.
If you managed to get this far, I commend you. There is perhaps a cookie in your future. Here's hoping you'll come back for more. I would definitely love any and all feedback. It helps assuage my fears that I'm typing to myself.
Pro populus, per populus.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)