OSU's Coach Tressell Requires Stars to "Man Up"

OSU Couch Jim Tressel

As was the case with many Ohio State football fans, Coach Jim Tressel was extremely upset that five of his junior players either knowingly or unknowingly broke a NCAA rule by selling or trading various awards that they had been given. He was disheartened by the fact they broke a NCAA rule, but also by the fact that they did not treasure these awards enough to resist the temptation to sell them. Coach Tressel did not question the NCAA's apparent inequitable treatment of his players vis a vis Auburn's Cam Newton or a player from the Georgia who had violated the same rule. He was primarily concerned about his players breaking the rules.


Although many OSU fans thought that these five players should not be permitted to play in the Sugar Bowl, the NCAA said they were eligible because of one of their obscure rules. Again Coach Tressel did not question the NCAA; he questioned his players and gave them the opportunity to "man up". These players understand that they will not be able to play the first five games of next season and that their statistics and the team's success is in jeopardy. Cynics like myself have suggested they will choose to skip their senior year and enter the NFL draft.


Given this situation, Coach Tressel talked to each player and asked them to tell him mano a mano whether they were going to skip their senior year or bolt to the NFL. And obviously, if they chose to go to the NFL, they were not going to play in the Sugar Bowl. Coach Tressel, no matter the possible outcome of the Sugar Bowl, was not going to play those who were going to jump overboard.


To their credit, all five juniors indicated that although they would be sitting on the bench for the first  five games,  they wanted to play their senior year at OSU. They in effect were willing to take responsibility for their actions.


In my opinion, Coach Tressell handled this situation with class and demonstrated to his players that integrity and loyalty are still possible in modern, high-stakes college football. Of course, the players may have lied to him, but if they did, the consequences will be more complicated than they can imagine.


Hopefully Jim Tressel's example will influence not only his players but others in NCAA football.


All of this, however, does not exonerate the NCAA for its apparent inequality and obscure rules.  

Does Tucker Carlson Value Dogs over Humans?

Tucker Carlson

On FOX yesterday (12/28/2010) Tucker Carlson filling in on Hannity said that Michael Vick "should have been executed" for "hurting dogs," and at the same time maintained that he as a Christian believes everyone should have a second chance.

Ignoring Tucker's selective Christianity, one has to wonder where he was when HUMAN BEINGS were being abused and tortured in Abu Graib and Guantanamo Bay. I don't recall Tucker and his conservative friends calling for the execution of the perpetrators or anyone in the Bush/Cheney administration. I also wonder whether Tucker thinks the people in the Old Testament who sacrificed animals should have been executed? I am sure he would like to change the Ten Commandments to read: Thou shalt not "hurt" animals -- or at least, dogs.


What has become of our moral compass? When did we decide that abusing a dog deserves execution, but abusing human beings is a legitimate activity? I think the answer is: sometime after Rupert Murdoch launched the  FOX network.

Patriots: Beware of Tea Party's "Repeal Amendment"

Imagine a situation in the United States of America in which 37 State Legislatures could overturn or repeal any federal law or regulation. For example,  if the legislatures of  thirty seven of the least populated states chose to repeal the Civil Rights Act, they (even though they represent a minority of the country's population) would have the ability to repeal it even though such an action would be contrary to the wishes of the majority of the population. In effect, the minority could rule the majority.


Well, this is exactly what the Tea Party is proposing with its proposed "Repeal Amendment."  This amendment would give state legislatures the power to veto any federal law or regulation if two-thirds of of the legislatures approved. And why not?  The Tea Party  and their billionaire financial backers were successful in controlling the Republican Party in the last mid-term elections. There is no doubt that their supporters are dedicated and passionate, but they are a long, long way from speaking for the majority of the American people .On the other hand, if a dedicated minority is successful in taking over the Republican Party, they will not hesitate to try to take over the whole country by having  their "Repeal Amendment" approved.


This amendment, under the guise of "State Rights" is yet another  attempt to replace the United States of America with 50 sovereign states. This country has been great because of its unity and the dedication of its citizens to our common,  unified  welfare. We have come too far to allow a group that seeks to divide succeed in passing such an amendment.


This "Repeal Amendment" is undemocratic and a threat to our country's unity. 

Foreclosure Insanity

Mr. and  Mrs. Miller bought a home twelve years ago for $250 thousand.  In addition to their down-payment, they made payments for 12 years and now as a result of the housing crisis their home has a market value of $120 thousand. Unfortunately for Mr. and Mrs Miller, they cannot continue to make the payments on a home that has lost half of its value. The Millers contact the bank in hopes of refinancing their home based on the current market price of $120 thousand. The bank refuses and forecloses on the property. The Millers are forced to move into an apartment, and the bank sells the property to an investor for $120 thousand. The question is: why does the bank spend money on a foreclosure and the cost of reselling the house when they could have avoided those costs and refinanced the house to the Millers who had already made a down-payment and had an established record of making payments for 12 years. And, of course, the bank would have charged the Millers the cost of refinancing.


The above example is similar to situation in Florida, but one could find similar examples in most counties in the country.


And this insanity follows on the heals of the revelations about "robo-foreclosures" by financial institutions.


And these institutions are spending millions of dollars to lobby Congress in order to the prevent regulation. The Millers, on the other hand, cannot lobby Congress and end up losing their home.

NCAA Hypocrisy: Ohio State vs. Auburn

     

Today the NCAA ruled that five Ohio State football players will be ineligible for the first five games of next season, but they will be able to play in the Sugar Bowl. Granted these players either knowingly or unknowingly have broken a NCAA rule, this ruling raises a basket-full of issues


1. Why are these five players allowed to play in the Sugar Bowl if they broke the rules?  Answer: The Sugar Bowl would be devalued without these five players. The bowl would lose money. They can't have that. The NCAA makes it very clear: it's all about money.


2. If a player receives an award, a ring, a jersey, or whatever, it is their property, and they should be able to decide what to do with it. If they wish to sell their own property, can the NCAA declare them ineligible for five games? Does the NCAA and the university attach an engraving saying "Cannot be sold by penalty of NCAA suspension"?


3. This decision may in effect encourage two or three of the star players to leave college and jump into the NFL draft. Does the NCAA want to push their star players out of college and into the NFL?  Apparently so Thus, none of this has anything to do with a college education..


4. What about Cam Newton? He left the University of Florida rather than defend himself against  charges of academic cheating. Instead he went to a junior college, and then apparently chose to go to Auburn rather than Mississippi State because Mississippi State would not pay the fee his father was demanding. Although there are text messages indicating such, the NCAA very quickly ruled that Cam would be eligible  to continue to play because he was not aware of what his father, Cecil, was doing. Reggie Bush would have liked to have claimed such a defense.


5. Based on the NCAA rulings, Tyrelle Pryor should have given his rings, jerseys, and pants to his mother and she could have sold them for more money (more than $2,500)  and as long as Tyrelle did not know the details, he would have been able to have the full senior year.


6. Maybe the Ohio State players would have been better off giving Cecil Newton their awards and having him selling them and giving the proceeds to their families -- minus his surcharge. And, of course, the player would be innocent because he, just like Cam, did not know what good old Cecil was doing.


The NCAA has to get its act together!

John Boehner Wants Our Sympathy?

New Speaker of the House,
John Boehner

Excuse me if I have trouble appreciating John Boehner's version of his life as being an unique version of the American Dream. He intimates that he had a very difficult childhood being one of eleven children and having to work in his family's  bar/grill. He tells us the he  had to scrub the floor and tote around cases of beer. And then, lo and behold, he had to work his way through college.


I have news for John. His childhood was quite normal. He had a family that provided him with food, shelter, an education, and the basic necessities. And I definitely cannot sympathize with his complaints about having to work in the family business. Almost all children who grew up on a family farm or whose family operated a small business had to help the family by doing whatever they were able. Farm children had to work both before and after school. My family owned and operated a Hardware store. My sister and I had to shovel coal for the furnace in the morning before school and then sweep, dust, organize, and stock shelves after school. We did not consider it a burden; it was life and a good life at that. For many, a family working together to succeed is a source of great happiness.


If Mr. Boehner thinks that working his way through college is unusual, he must be comparing his experience to his wealthy country club friends. I have news for him. Many Americans have worked their way through college, and many still do.


If Mr. Boehner wants to observe a difficult childhood, he should leave the suburbs and spend some time in the inner city. He was never homeless and hungry. He did not have to find cardboard boxes to keep himself warm at night. He did not go to high school during the day, work at Krogers after school, and then sleep in an abandoned car at night. He did not have to fear for his life walking home from school. His family was not evicted and put on the street. These are the circumstances of a difficult childhood.


Many Americans will not be shedding a tear for Mr. Boehner and his difficult childhood.

Boehner Opposes Child Marriage Prevention Act

Eric Cantor and John Boehner

Within a few days, our Republican friends in Congress have been delighted to extend a tax cut to billionaires (adding $ 858 billion to the federal deficit),  but refused to pass  the Child Marriage Prevention Act. The reasons: it would add $67 million to the deficit, and it might somehow result in more abortions. They never explained the abortion claim because all they have to do is mention the word, abortion, and the moral conservatives go into spasms.


CARE a worldwide humanitarian rights organization says: 'More than 60 million girls ages 17 and younger -- many as young as 10 -- are forced into marriage in developing countries. Many of these girls are married to men more than twice their age. Not only does this unacceptable practice thwart a girl's education, it endangers her health and often locks her into a life of poverty."


Perhaps it's time "Boehner and his Bunch" should explain their value system.

The NCAA'S Dilemma: Cecil and Cam Newton

Cecil and Cam Newton

 The 2010 Heisman Trophy winner, Cam Newton, poses a problem for the NCAA, a problem they have not dealt with effectively. Obviously, something is amiss in Newton's choice to play at Auburn instead of Mississippi State. Cam says he did nothing wrong, and the NCAA says that he was unaware of  any  failed pay-for-play scheme. Cam's father, Cecil, is another situation. Apparently, whatever shenanigans Cecil was pulling off, Cam was kept out of the loop, probably intentionally Also, it is interesting that Cam never bothered to ask his father about the charges of a payment scheme.

If the NCAA is going to allow Cam to continue to play even though the father was trying to turn a profit, they will have opened a huge can of worms. If immediate family members can break the rules with no repercussions for the athlete, the NCAA will not be able to enforce its rules.The family will leave the athlete in the dark in case they get caught. If the athlete can compete as though nothing is wrong, abuses will flourish.

Obviously, the father has not explained away his problems. Auburn does not want him hanging around, and his absence at the Heisman ceremony was noteworthy. Whatever the sins of the father, they necessarily taint the son and the NCAA will have to confront that.

General Welfare vs. Partisan Greed

   

U.S. Constitution

 We should not be surprised that these days Republicans never speak of the "common good" or the "general welfare." Those concepts appear to be anathema to them, their followers, and their lobbyist supporters. Although the Christian tradition is imbued with the concept of an individual's obligation to foster the common good, Republican politicians in this country posses a more narcissistic point of view. They have made it clear they are more interested in the welfare of their party and the interests of their lobbyist friends than they are in the welfare of the nation. When a program appears to benefit the general welfare of the country, they bemoan its effect on the deficit; but when a continued tax cut for billionaires is discussed, they maintain that such a cut is necessary for the economy -- the old "trickle-down theory of economics" disowned by its creator, David Stockman.

The examples are plentiful -- going back to the Reagan years of  "greed-is-good." Today, however, it is rampant. Just a few examples. After the Supreme Court justices who favored "states-rights" changed their minds and elected George W. Bush, Cheney and his cohorts had not unpacked their bags before they were holding a secret "energy" meeting to determine the best way to capitalize on Bush's "victory." That was followed by "temporary" tax breaks for the very wealthy, and a pre-emptive assault on Iraq, albeit, the so-called reasons did not exist. However, Haliburton and Blackwater made billions of dollars as private contractors. Skipping ahead, the country watched Sarah Palin resign as governor of Alaska because she saw the opportunity to cash in on McCain's desperate and misguided choice of her as his running mate; and  cash in, she has! Her commitment to the welfare of Alaska was not a factor. Mitch McConnell, the leader of  Republican senators has told us his goal is to see that the President of the United States fails. Apparently he does not care that if the President fails, the country fails.

Not to be too dramatic about it, but most historians agree that the fall of great empires and civilizations of the past began when political leaders became more concerned about their own welfare and power than they did the common good and the general welfare.


But the most telling statements of the oligarchs on the right are the accusations that President Obama is pursuing a program of "socialism." Their condemnation of what they label socialism, is not about socialism, but it is a condemnation of people looking out for the general welfare rather than self-interests.


Our grandfathers and great grandfathers fought two World Wars for the common good, not selfish interests. They knew that the U.S. Constitution was established to "promote the general Welfare."

The Top Ten Reasons John Boehner is Always Crying

John Boehner Crying on TV 

We have all seen John Boehner shedding copious tears on TV recently and wondered why he is bawling like a baby. Well here are the 10 most likely reasons.


10. When asked about John Boehner, Miss Lisabeth Lyons, his alleged mistress, asked "John who?"


9. He was worried billionaires were not going to receive another tax cut.


8. He was informed that Latino babies born in this country were indeed citizens and would be eligible to vote when they turned 18.


7. The oil lobby  gave him only a dozen free tickets to the Sugar Bowl.


6. A pharmaceutical lobbyist refused to write anymore legislative bills for him.


5. His country club buddies insisted that a 21 foot putt was not a "give-me."


4. The TSA would not give him a copy of his full-body scan.


3. His wife sold his tanning bed on eBay.


2. Sarah Palin did not invite him on her hunting trip to kill and slaughter a caribou.


1. Dick Cheney did invite him to go bird hunting.