Heisman Hijinks and Jordan Lynch

Jordan Lynch
Northern Illinois Quarterback

At this time of the year Heisman hysteria dominates college football.  Will Johnny Manziel repeat after being the first freshman in history to win the trophy? Or will Florida State's accomplished quarterback, Jameis Winston, join the ranks of Archie Griffin and Bo Jackson? And what about my favorite, Jordan Lynch, Northern Illinois' record-setting quarterback?

Perhaps the more important question is: will the Heisman voters follow the intent of Heisman Foundation's mission statement, or will they vote as though this is just another Most Valuable Player award?

At the very least, voters should remind themselves of what the trophy stands for.
"The Heisman Memorial Trophy annually recognizes the outstanding football player whose performance best exhibits the pursuit of excellence with integrity. Winners epitomize great ability combined with diligence, perseverance and hard work."

With that in mind one would hope the Heisman voters want to find the one college football player who not only excels on the field, but whose "integrity" can be emulated by high school players. Such has not always been the case. In 2010, Auburn quarterback, Cam Newton, received the trophy in spite of the fact there had been evidence that his father was "auctioning off" his son's services.

Back to the present and two top contenders. Even if the prosecutor chooses not to file rape charges against Jameis Winston or if he waits to do so until after the Heisman voting, voters already know enough about his character and what has occurred in Tallahassee to know that he is deficient in the "integrity" aspect of a Heisman candidate.

And then there is Johnny "Football" Manziel. Last year many felt that in spite of his outstanding season, the Heisman should not be awarded to a teenager. As it turned out, the skeptics were vindicated thanks to Johnny's adolescent off-season shenanigans. Among other problematic behaviors, there was evidence that Manziel was selling autographs. As a slap on the wrist, the inscrutable NCAA punished him by making him sit on the bench for the first half of Texas A&M's first game. It would appear that, after all this, no Heisman voter could vote for Johnny with a straight face.

On the other hand there is no shortage of excellent college players who have great numbers and also seem to possess integrity, "diligence, perseverance and hard work." Among those is Jordan Lynch of Northern Illinois. Although is a bit smaller (6ft, 216 lbs.) than today's quarterbacks, his numbers are among the best in the NCAA. His problem, however, is that he plays in the Mid American Conference, and the supposition is that his numbers are so good because of the lack of quality opponents. Skeptics will question how he would fare in the revered SEC, and will refer to his lack-luster performance in last year's Orange Bowl against Florida State. That is a valid point, but one also has to wonder how well he would do if he were surrounded by a team full of five-star athletes as are Jim McCarron at Alabama or Jameis Winston at Florida State.

Although the Heisman mission statement does not mention that the winner has to be from one of the so-called power conferences, the voters seem to have made that an important aspect of their thinking. Such was not always the case. Jay Berwanger of the University of Chicago, Larry Kelley of Yale and Dick Kazmaier of Princeton were all Heisman winners. Today,  Heisman voters would not even consider Superman if he played at one of these schools.

Getting back to Jordan Lynch, here are some facts to consider:

• Northern Illinois, like Alabama, Florida State, and Ohio State, is undefeated this season. 
• NIU defeated two Big Ten teams.
• Lynch was intercepted only 6 times in 394 attempts
• He completed 60.2% of his passes.
• At this point he has over 3000 career rushing yards and 5000 passing yards  - all-time, only 8 other quarterbacks have done as well.
• he has 8 career 150 + rushing/150+ passing yard games.
• he has 4 NCAA records for rushing yards by a quarterback per game.

Realistically, I doubt that the voters would choose Jordan, but it would be unthinkable that he was not invited to New York  for the Heisman ceremony.

The Exorcist: Bishop Paprocki

Bishop Thomas Paprocki
Springfield, Ill.

Today I find myself confronting a dilemma: to write about Toronto Mayor, Rob Ford; Catholic Bishop of Springfield, Ill., Thomas Paprocki; or those who invested large amounts of money collecting Beanie Babies. (Contemplating dilemmas always reminds me of George Farquhar's dilemma: I must commit murder or commit matrimony.)

Since Mayor Ford has already received too much attention, I will pass on him. I don't want to get a penalty for "piling on." As for those sorry souls who "invested" in Beanie Babies, I can't bring myself to heap scorn on them. I have purchased high tech stocks that make Beanie Babies look good.

That leaves me with Bishop Thomas John Paprocki.

But, where to begin? Perhaps most recent events are a good start. Pope Francis has recently advocated practicing tolerance for gays. and attempting to make the Church more inclusive. Apparently Bishop Paprocki missed that memo. He has been lashing out against gays and same sex marriage. When the state of Illinois voted to allow same sex marriage with some of the legislators quoting Pope Francis, Bishop Paprocki went ballistic. In his mind, such equality legislation was the work of the devil and an exorcism was required. Therefore when Governor Pat Quinn, a Catholic, signs the bill today (11/20 2013), Bishop Paprocki is going to do an "exorcism" to drive the devil out of Illinois. ( In Ohio, we have a few devils in political office. Perhaps we could find a Catholic bishop who could drive them out of Ohio and back to Pennsylvania. But perhaps that's why they're here. Someone performed an exorcism in Pennsylvania, and Ohio is stuck with John Kasich.)

In November of 2010, Bishop Paprocki organized a conference of exorcism. Perhaps the good bishop has watched "Rosemary's Baby" too often.

No doubt, the poor man is obsessed with the devil. When asked about who was responsible for the sexual abuse crisis in the Catholic Church, he said the devil was responsible for the lawsuits against the Church. That's right: that's what he said. Thus, the pedophile priests who abused children were not responsible; the problem was the devil bringing lawsuits on behalf of the abused victims. That's a warped scenario.

Then there is the issue of women religious. Perhaps the  term, "women religious" bothers males like Bishop Poprocki. After all, is not religion and Catholicism reserved for males? Why do we superior beings have to be concerned about the heretical views of American Catholic nuns?  Why don't they get back to their job of  housekeeping and scrubbing the floors?

Bishop Paprocki, Bishop Blair of Toledo, and Bishop Sartain of Seattle were charged by Pope Benedict XVI with conducting a multi-year investigation of the U.S. Leadership Conference of Women Religious. Although these women have adhered to their mission as defined in the Gospels, they have had the temerity to question why the priesthood is reserved for males.

And then it was our friend Bishop Paprocki who decided that the Catholic Church could deny individuals  the freedom to follow their own conscience in matters of contraception and turn the tables to say that health care plans offering contraception were a violation Catholics' freedom of religion rights. Although the truth of the matter is that Bishop Paprocki and his kin want to dictate to the rest of us what is right and wrong, therefore imposing their religious views on others. And that is exactly what our Founding Fathers  fought so hard to avoid.

And, speaking of separation of church and state, Bishop Paprocki crossed that line again in the 2012 election. Although he did not directly endorse Mitt Romney, he issued a letter, using the tax-exempt status of the church, which suggested that  voting for an evil candidate could endanger your personal salvation. And of course, he pointed out that the Democratic Party embraced objectionable doctrines. 

No one wants to prevent Citizen Thomas Paprocki from speaking his mind. He is entitled to freedom of speech as we all are. What is objectionable is a Bishop Paprocki using his religion in an attempt to influence an election. If Citizen Paprocki wants to distribute that letter on his own dime without invoking his religious "authority," so be it.

(Sources for above are: Wikipedia, MINNPOST(12'19'12), LifeSiteNews (6/5/13), TTCblog (11/18/13), Americablog (11/14/13). 

Sycamore Row by John Grisham

John Grisham

Storytelling is an art , and although we all tell stories, few of us have mastered the art. John Grisham has.

With his latest bestselling novel, Sycamore Row, Grisham returns to the fictional town of Clanton, Mississippi, the site of his first novel, A Time to Kill. A few year have passed, and Jake Brigance, the young lawyer who won the historic Hailey trial, has not fared well since. Disgruntled racists burned his beloved Victorian home to the ground and the insurance company is refusing to agree to an equitable settlement. Jake, his wife, Carla, and daughter, Hanna, are living in a cramped apartment, and to make matters worse, his clients are often not able to pay their fees.

On a Monday morning, Jake receives a letter from a mysterious millionaire who committed suicide over the weekend after he had written this letter and the accompanying hand-written will. Because the will and its terms were bound to be contested, Jake finally has a case that could pay some considerable fees. On the other hand, the case presents significant obstacles.

Although a civil case centered around a contested will does not sound too interesting, in the hands of a gifted storyteller like Grisham, the reader will become immersed.

In truth, Sycamore Row, is a sequel to A Time to Kill and is a return to the legal mystery that has fascinated Grisham fans and has made his name synonymous with "best seller." Although he tried other formats and genres over the years, he is back doing what he does best -- the legal mystery.

Personally, I tend to shun bestselling authors and seek out good authors who fly below the radar, but there are a few exceptions -- Johm Grisham , John Irving and Gillian Flynn are among them.

The Edmund Fitzgerald Remembered

The Edmund Fitzgerald

Today, November 10, is the 38th anniversary of the disappearance of the SS. Edmund Fitzgerald -- affectionately known as " The Mighty Fitz."

The 729 foot carrier with a cargo of 26,116 tons of taconite iron ore left Superior, Wisconsin, and was headed to Detroit when it encountered a severe storm on northern Lake Superior. In the late afternoon  the winds were gusting to 70 knots (81 mph)  creating 25 foot waves. About 7 P.M. the Edmund Fitzgerald disappeared from radar.

All 29 men aboard apparently went down with their ship. Captain Ernest McSorley and a number of the crew lived in the Toledo area.

The sunken freighter has since been located on the bottom of the lake under 530 feet of water. The site has been explored and photographed and it appears the huge vessel broke in half  as a result of the high waves generated by the storm. A smaller ship nearby, the Arthur M. Anderson, survived the storm and had hoped to rescue survivors. There were none.

The disaster is remembered every year in the Mariners Church in downtown Detroit  and has been memorialized by Gordon Lightfoot's haunting ballad, "The Wreck of the Edmond Fitzgerald."

Rand Paul and the End of Responsibility

Rand Paul

Whether it is in politics, business, sports, media or academia, it is becoming more and more difficult for individuals to admit they made a mistake and are responsible for wrongdoing or dishonesty. Corporate types, e.g.  CEOs of huge financial institutions, have this down to an art form. In fact, think about it: the reason we have corporations is to avoid individual responsibility.

In the case of politicians, one would think that based on their oath of office and their responsibility to their constituents, they would have to assume President Harry Truman's dictum: "The buck stops here."

Well, apparently politicians of today have another dictum: "Deny as long as possible, and when that is no longer viable, blame someone else."

Rand Paul, the junior senator from Kentucky, is the latest to adopt this strategy. After he could no longer deny that he was guilty, on several occasions, of plagiarism -- "the act of using another person's words or ideas without giving credit to that person," (Miriam-Webster Dictionary), Senator Paul blamed his wrong-doing on his staff and those "haters" out there trying to bring him down. Apparently Rand Paul can't "man up." He's not accepting responsibility for what he did; he's blaming it on others. Obviously, he will never qualify as "A Profile in Courage."

In addition, Mr. Paul said, "To tell the truth, people can think what they want. I can go back to being a doctor anytime, if they're tired of me. I'll go back to being a doctor, and I'll be perfectly content." (Translation: I don't need you people. I'm a doctor and I can make big bucks without your constant questions.)

And that presents another problem for Doctor Rand Paul. a Libertarian, who has a problem with certification. Although he was an officially certified ophthalmologist, when his 10-year certification expired, he chose not to re-certify  Instead he founded his own certification program, the National Board of Ophthalmologists, in his hometown of Bowling Green, Kentucky. He appointed himself president, and his wife (not a doctor) vice president.  He in effect re-certified himself. Although no one knows what criteria this organization uses to re-certify, Rand Paul claims to be a certified eye-doctor.

I am thinking that if I lived in Kentucky and needed an ophthalmologist, I would be checking his/her "certification" very closely.

The bottom line, however, is that Doctor Rand Paul created his own certification organization which in turn re-certified him. I'm not confident with a doctor who re-certifies himself; but, if you are a Tea Party type, that may work for you. If so, I'll be seeing you although you may not be seeing  me.

The most frightening aspect of Rand Paul is that he aspires to become the next president of the United States. If the people do not elect him, will he organize his own electoral college which then chooses him?

Vatican Disrespects American Catholics

Swiss Guard Protecting the Vatican

With the arrival of Pope Francis a spirit of renewal appeared to be taking place in Catholicism and particularly within the Vatican. Granted, most of the changes were a matter of style rather than substance, but Catholics were hopeful their church would focus on the message of the Gospels rather than it's own man-made teachings.

Even more encouraging was the news from the Vatican that it was going to ask Catholics their opinions on a variety of issues including same-sex marriage, contraception, communion for divorced and remarried couples. This is a real step forward for a monarchical organization. The Vatican is actually asking for the opinion of its members. Has this ever happened before? I think not.

But hold on a minute. If you are an American Catholic, the Vatican does not want your opinion. Although Archbishop Lorenzo Baldisseri, secretary general of the Vatican's Synod of Bishops asked them to distribute the poll "immediately as widely as possible," when the poll was sent to American bishops it was accompanied by a second letter which does not ask them to seek the opinions of American Catholics. Instead the letter asks the bishops to provide their own observations. We know that the American Catholic faithful and the U.S. Bishops Conference disagree on many issues. Apparently the Vatican does not care what the parish priests, the women religious, or the Catholics on the street think; they care only for what the the U.S bishops think. Why even send the poll to the US; the whole world knows what the US bishops think.

What value will this Vatican survey have? If a large portion of Catholics are excluded, the survey
 will tell us very little about what Catholics think. And, perhaps this maneuver is typical of a Vatican that is suspicious of democratic principles. For example, the United States allows women to vote and participate in government. That scares the you-know-what out of a Vatican Patriarchy. Therefore they are content to accept our financial support, but they do not want to know our opinions.

Questioning minds have to ask whether this Vatican move to disrespect American Catholics is part of a pattern. It was only a few years ago that the Vatican was close to calling American Nuns heretics. In addition the Vatican insists on appointing (some call it, "shoving down our throats") bishops who are clearly conservative fundamentalists who are out of touch with American Catholics.

(For details of the Vatican survey, consult article by Joshua J. McElwee in the National Catholic Reporter, October 31, 2013.)