Athletic Absurdities

Must be a Pro Tournament!

Having spent an inordinate number of hours this past weekend watching the Australian Open Tennis Tournament and the Torrey Pines golf tournament, I was reminded of the high level of silliness we viewers tolerate in televised sports.

• In Monday's final round of the Farmers Insurance Tournament at Torrey Pines, Tiger Woods and his group had to wait as long as ten minutes on many shots because of the slow play of the group ahead of them. And, this was not an isolated incident. Slow play has becomes a characteristic of professional golf. If I were playing at Ottawa Park and I left my ball in the middle of the fairway (not a likely location for my tee shot) and I walked up to the green to study the contour, one of my golfing partners would whack me on the side of the head with a three-iron. However, when Phil Mickelson does it in a pro tournament, no problem. Even chess players have a time limit. Pro golfers need to be penalized if they do not hit their next shot within an established reasonable time.
• Last week in the Australian Tennis Open in Melbourne, Victoria Azerenka was playing Sloane Stephens and had five match points that she lost. Upset and nervous (who wouldn't be? ) she called for a trainer and claimed to have two injuries. The doctor and trainer took her off the court for ten minutes or more to treat these injuries. Meanwhile, young Sloane Stephens had to wait for her opponent to return. Needless to say, Azerenka recovered the momentum and went on to win the match. This abuse of medical time-outs has been occurring for years now in both women's and men's tennis. It's time to eliminate it. If a player becomes injured, he or she should be given the choice of continuing to play injured or forfeiting the match. The integrity of tennis is threatened as much by "medical injury manipulation" as it is by drugs or "tanking."
• In college basketball, everyone seems to accept the the mysterious concept of "home-court advantage." Granted that there is a psychological boost in playing in a familiar setting in front of loyal fans, but those factors don't explain the lopsided statistics favoring the home team. One theory is that the home school fans influence the referees' decisions. It does appear that close calls -- charge or block -- tend to favor the home team.  Perhaps someone should study this.
• And then there is the National Football League. How do these guys become so large, strong and fast?  Are these gorillas just freaks of nature or are they assisting Mother Nature with chemistry? The NFL prohibits HGH (human growth hormone) but does not test for it. Do they expect us to believe these monsters are not using it simply because it is prohibited? If they take chances using drugs for which they will be tested, why would we think that they are not using HGH?  When performance-enhancing drugs are a problem in almost every other sport, does the NFL expect us to believe that their players are not using a substance that they do not bother testing for?

Speaking of sports and atrocities, I have few more items that irritate my back side:

• The names of the Big Ten divisions: the Leaders and Legends. The names are meaningless and most students and alumni don't know which teams are in which division. Perhaps with the addition of Maryland and Rutgers (another absurdity?), the league will develop more meaningful division names.
• While we are talking about names, permit me to say that the new name of the New Orleans NBA team, the New Orleans Pelicans, may be the worst team name of all time. I have nothing against pelicans, and I can appreciate the importance of pelicans to southern Louisiana, but it doesn't send the right image for an NBA team. I can understand the impulse to get rid of the "Hornets" name, but there must be something that says New Orleans better than "Pelicans."  Unfortunately, I do not have a better suggestion. It's too bad that the NBA team in Utah stole the name "Jazz."  That name belongs to New Orleans. Utah could find an historical Mormon name, perhaps "The Polygamists."

There are many other examples of silliness in sports, but I can't deal with them now. My imaginary girl friend is calling me. Gotta go.

How Losers Can Win: Change the Rules

GOP Wants to Change
the Rules

If a team can't win an important game on a level playing field, it probably needs to replace some of its players and coaches and definitely change  its game plan for the next contest. Most would consider such an approach as a logical consequence of a decisive loss.

But not the Republican Party. Although they recognize their welfare-for-the-wealthy philosophy is out of touch with that of mainstream America and also realize they are falling farther and farther behind on the demographic front, they are not considering changing their players, coaches or strategies. No sir.  The GOP wants "to fix" the game by changing the rules in such a way that the team with the low score wins the game, the minority controls the majority. (After all, that is the way it is at their exclusive country clubs. Low score wins.)

Precisely what the GOP has in mind is to change the way electoral votes are counted in some key swing states, but not all states. In states like Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Florida, they want to prevent the states' electoral votes from going to the candidate who wins the most votes. They want the electoral votes to be divided based on congressional districts -- districts which due to two years of gerrymandering on their part assure the GOP of the most "safe" districts. Therefore, in a state like Ohio it would have been possible for Obama to win the popular vote, but lose in Electoral votes.

On the other hand, the GOP only wants to change the rules in a few hand-picked states. They want to keep the solidly "red" states as "winner-take-all" states. So much for fairness.

The American public should not be surprised by such GOP Machiavellian schemes. This is the party which tried to suppress the vote in the 2012 Presidential election by passing ID laws to solve a problem which even they had to admit did not exist, restricted early voting opportunities, and limited voting facilities thus forcing people to stand in line for hours to vote.

If they get away with this current attempt to game the system, what will these unscrupulous Republican scalawags come up next? Perhaps they will come up with even more egregiously undemocratic ideas:

• base the number of electoral votes on acreage rather than population. Alaska would have 16.5 electoral votes for every one vote Illinois would have.
• base the electoral votes on the number of assault weapons in a state.
• permit every multi-billionaire to have one electoral vote  each.
• give each state an extra electoral vote for every 20 Latino families they break up.
• give states, like Texas,  with the highest rate of executions extra electoral votes.

Ridiculous? Of course, but so are the GOP attempts to subvert the will of the people.

NFL Cheerleaders?

San Diego Cheerleader

In the interest of full transparency, I have never been known to object to scantily-clad, curvacious nymphs cavorting in exotic and erotic performances. And also, let it be known that I embrace the sobriquet of "dirty old man" enthusiastically.

That having been said, I am beseeching the Cleveland Browns and the other five NFL teams who lack "cheerleaders" to continue to do so. Please! And I am not even speaking of the obvious exploitation of the female figure. I am saying dancing girls have no place in a football setting. (And, I am talking about American football, all of you soccer fans. If you soccer guys want cheerleaders, I can see your point --anything to make an interminably long,  low-scoring game tolerable.)

Sorry girls. You are all quite attractive in your seductive uniforms (or lack thereof), but you do not belong on a football field. If you can kick a fifty-yard field goal ( and I am confident some women can),  you belong. But on the other hand, please don't do what these NFL linesmen do to become gorillas ( and again, I suspect you could do that too,  if you were that stupid).

The combination of pro-football violence and sexy dancing is not a good mix -- unless  of course you happen to be of a sado-masochistic bent. And if that is the case, most football fans are not interested. 

Professional football began in 1920 with a bunch of guys in the Midwest who wanted to bang heads with another bunch of guys. For them,  it was a way to spend a Sunday afternoon away from their regular jobs -- steel workers or meat packers. They never intended it to be glamorous  or pretty. They just wanted to bang a few heads, get paid a few bucks, and have a beer afterward before going back to work on Monday morning.

Obviously,  the NFL has come a long way from those days; but although the league has initiated   a rule book longer than "War and Peace," the game is basically the same. It is a violent confrontation of two forces determined to overpower and annihilate the other. Intelligent and attractive women should not be a part of such masculine insanity. As my wife and other women in my life have said, "Professional football is  not much different from gladiators killing each other in the Roman Coliseum." And in case you are wondering, there were no cheerleaders in the Coliseum.

Personally, I enjoy professional football and attractive women displaying their assets, but not together. Therefore, I urge the Chicago Bears, Cleveland Browns, Detroit Lions, Green Bay Packers, New York Giants, and Pittsburgh Steelers to refrain from the temptation to hire "cheerleaders."

Perhaps it is worth noting that all six of those teams without cheerleaders were original members of the NFL back in 1933 -- back in the day when football was football.

Buck's List for Congressman Latta

Our Dysfunctional Congress

"You want to know what is wrong with this country? Do you, really? I'll tell you. Today Republican Senator Marco Rubio (FL.)  proposed an immigration policy that is very similar to the one President Obama proposed. Rather than admitting he agrees with the President, Rubio presents a similar plan as his own. Rubio wants to run as a Republican for President in 2016. and God forbid he admit that he agrees with a Democratic President."

"In the present climate, a GOP candidate for any job from dogcatcher to President is doomed unless he/she is divisive. A Republican cannot be seen as someone who wants to keep the United States united.  Although Rubio may agree with the President on immigration policy, he does not have the political freedom to admit that. And that's what is wrong with this country.  Politics being what it has become, reasonable people do not have the opportunity to work together to serve 'the general welfare' of the country as required by the Constitution."

The above diatribe was that of my friend, Buck, even before we were seated for our weekly Wednesday breakfast.

"Sorry, Buck," I offered. "I didn't know I asked what was wrong with our country."

"Exactly," he said. "That's why we're friends.  I answer your questions before you even ask. My ex-wife had a problem with that, but after all these years, I know you're comfortable with my prescience."

"You call it prescience, I call it bullshit."

""Okay, you may be correct about that, but you have to agree that I have defined the sorry state of our nation's problems."

"Fine. Let's get a table and give Sara our breakfast order," I suggested.

"Of course," Buck said. "With you it's all about feeding your girth. Our country may be going to hell in a hand basket, but you're worried about seeing how many calories you can ingest in the least amount of time."

"We all have our life-defining goals. Right now, a good strong coffee is more important than Marco Rubio's run for the GOP nomination in the next presidential election."

"And you," Buck said as he pointed  a finger in the general direction of my chest. "You. You used to be an educator!  Did you teach your students that breakfast was more important than what was happening in Congress?"

"Don't ever," I said, pointing my finger at his chest, "underestimate the value of a good breakfast.  Who knows how history might have been changed by a good breakfast? What if Julius Caesar had remained at his villa and had a long, leisurely breakfast rather than rushing to the Forum where Brutus et al stabbed him to death?"

"Well, for one thing, William Shakespeare would have had one less tragedy to write about."

Sara had brought us our coffees and was waiting for our orders. Buck ordered the "Boston Breakfast" and suggested that I order the "Julius Caesar Special."

Apparently, Sara was not having a good morning. Walking away she said,  "I have real customers to help. When you decide on an actual menu item, let me know."

"So," Buck said to me, "I guess you're not a real customer. I, on the other hand, ordered an item off the menu, and that makes me real."

"You know, Buck, if I were carrying, I might be tempted to remove your sorry ass from the face of the earth."

"Right, another Clint Eastwood wannabe! It's been so long since you fired a weapon, you would probably hurt yourself more than me."

"Don't forget that eight-point buck I dropped a few years ago. Apparently I'm pretty good at taking out 'Bucks.'"

Sara had returned. "Are you guys ready to order or are you going to waste my time?"

Buck motioned for Sara to come closer as he whispered in her ear for everyone to hear, "You may want to phone Homeland Security. I think this guy is a suicidal terrorist or a crazed psychopath. He just threatened to kill me."

Not missing a beat, Sara leaned into Buck's face and said, "If you guys don't stop jerking me around, I'll kill the both of you and then apply for the Nobel Peace Prize."

Recognizing the  limits, Buck and I both ordered a breakfast off of Nick's menu.

"Back to our illustrious Congress," Buck said. "I suppose you know the citizenry rates the House of Representatives below cockroaches and colonoscopies. Used car salesmen appear to be knights in shining armor compared to these guys and gals in the House."

"I read that some members of Congress had a meeting in  Manhattan to determine why they're held in such low esteem."

"Exactly their problem!  They hold a meeting to figure that out. They could've come here to Nick's Diner, and you and I could have explained it to them in fifteen minutes as we enjoyed our breakfasts."

Buck was spreading his napkin on the table, and I knew he was going to make one of his famous lists.

"This, my friend, is why the country rates Congress as pond scum:

1  The 112th Congress was possibly the least productive in US history.
2. They sabotaged the economy for fear Obama would get credit for the country doing well.
3. Some Republicans in the present Congress want to shut down the government, except for themselves. They have conveniently seen to it that they will continue to get paid during a government shutdown.
4. The Senate still has a "silent filibuster" which allows a single senator to stop a piece of legislation.
5. The House has voted 33 times in the last two years to eliminate health care reform. Although these votes mean nothing, it is estimated that they wasted 88 hours and over $50 million on these useless charades.
6. The House failed to pass a single piece of job creation legislation.
7. The House failed to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act.
8. The House held a hearing on birth control and refused to allow women to testify.
9  The House spent $1.5 million to defend DOMA ("Defense of Marriage Act").
10. Former Republican Congressman, Todd Akin (of "legitimate rape" fame) was on the House Committee of Science.
11. Michele Bachmann is on the House Intelligence Committee.
12. Almost two-thirds of the Republicans in the House voted to deny relief for the victims of Hurricane Sandy."

To bring Buck's lecture to a conclusion, I snatched up the napkin and put it in my pocket. "I'm taking this list with me, and  I'll  send it to my congressman, Bob Latta. Poor Bobby.  He likes corporate welfare, but has problems when it comes to helping hurricane victims."

Tea Party Terrorists Seek US Shutdown

"It's a good gig being
in Congress."

A Tea Party Republican Senator,  newly-elected Ted Cruz (Texas), and several other Tea Party types have suggested that US Government should shut down until Congress agrees to massive budget cuts. Unless they get their way, these guys would be satisfied to see our country default on its obligations 

A typical terrorist tactic:  hold the government and the country hostage until some Tea Party Republicans get what they want. These people just took an oath of office to govern and promote the general welfare of the country. Now they choose not to govern, but to shut down the US Government, and  allow the United States to default on its obligations. If a Muslim said he wanted to shut down the US Government, he would be snatched off the street and  imprisoned. When Senator Ted Cruz says the same thing, those who wrote the Patriot Act have no problem with it, as he is one of their own. And we wonder why so many around the world consider us hypocrites?

Instead of shutting down the US Government, I would suggest we start saving money by shutting down our "do-nothing" Congress or at least cutting Congressional salaries and perks. As the 112th Congress demonstrated, in recent years they do nothing for the General Welfare of the country other than  maneuver to get re-elected and take care of their special-interest donors. And, face it, these cats have a nice gig. I suspect one of Senator Ted Cruz's first actions as a Senator was to sign up for his first-class government-provided health care and retirement benefits.

If the Tea Party Republicans are serious about cutting the budget and reducing the national debt, they should lead by example and cut some of the nearly $6 billion per year spent on Congressional pay and benefits. (This is a rough estimate calculated by "examiner.com" 9/14/2012. It may well be higher.)

If Congress froze their salaries and eliminated their perks, we might actually think they are really interested in serving the best interests of our country.

As it is now, the 112th Congress, which all agree did nothing, cashed in on the following:

1. A base salary of $174,000 which will increase another $900 in April.
2. Days on the job: 137 out of a possible 260 working days.
3. An "allowance" for maintaining a staff  ($900,000 on salaries) and office expenses ($250,000)
4. Fully furnished office space.
5. Health benefits for life.
6. Pension ($50,000) for life and 401 (k) and Social Security.
7. Free life insurance.
8. Free travel between Washington and home district as often as they choose.
9. Free "fact-finding"  trips anywhere in the world.
10. A $3,000 tax deduction for any expenses incurred outside of their home districts.
11. Free parking at the Capital and at Washington airports.
12. Free meals in the legislative dining hall.
13. Free child daycare.
14. Free US Mail service, the so-called "franking" privilege.
15. In addition, they have an array of "exemptions" -- insider trading and TSA rules, etc.

However, the most significant exemption is: Congresspersons are "exempt from a government shutdown."  So Ted Cruz, newly-elected Tea Party Senator from Texas, can call for a "Government Shutdown" knowing full well that he will continue to receive his salary and perks, while the janitor who works eight hours a day in a federal office building will not receive her check.

This is a far cry from what our founding fathers had in mind. They envisioned dedicated citizens stepping forward to serve and sacrifice for the General Welfare, not hypocritical ideologues padding their bank accounts.

Catholics and Their "Liberty" Problem

Christa Dias with Daughter

On the first day of the new year I would have hoped to be  writing about something much more hopeful, progressive, and encouraging than clerical suppression of individual liberty, but at the beginning of 2013 our country, founded on the principles of liberty and justice, is observing the Catholic Archdiocese of Cincinnati arguing in court that it has the "right" to regulate and control employees' lives and prevent them from making decisions based on conscience.

Meanwhile in the last political campaign, the Catholic bishops tried to make their view of contraception a matter of "religious liberty." Apparently the bishops' concept of religious liberty is: we should be free to impose our religious views on our employees, and others if possible.

There are two court cases in which the Archdiocese is defending its "right" to interfere in women's lives.

Case One:  A Catholic school teacher, Christa Dias, was fired after she became pregnant by using artificial insemination. The archdiocese of Cincinnati has said the woman was fired because artificial insemination is immoral and violates church doctrine. Dias' contract requires all employees to "comply with and act consistently in accordance with the stated philosophy and teachings of the Roman Catholic Church." In other words, the Church is saying, "if you work for us, we can control the most intimate parts of your life.

Case two: in Kettering, Ohio, an unmarried first grade teacher, Kathleen Quilan, was told to resign or she would be fired on the day she told the school's principal that she was pregnant. Her offer to work behind-the-scenes until she gave birth was rejected. According to the Church, Kathleen, by engaging in premarital sex, failed to "comply with and act consistently in accordance with the stated philosophy and teachings of the Roman Catholic Church." (The use of the word "philosophy" in this context proves quite interesting. Since when did the Church have an official "philosophy'? Where might one find that philosophy?)

Needless to say, no matter the other ramifications of her firing, it is discriminatory because male employees engaging in premarital sex are not fired. In effect, because of the obviousness of her pregnancy, she was be fired because she was female.

Many of us are left to wonder why these "morality clauses" were not invoked to fire pedophile priests who broke not only Catholic, but also civil law.

In the over-all view, it seems the Roman Catholic Church in the United States is confused about its role in a democracy which is by definition non-religious. Obviously some bishops would like a theocracy in which they could impose their religious law on everyone; other bishops would just be happy to slowly break down the wall that separates church and state.