Everything to Everyone

As most of you know, I work at a mid-sized university of 15 thousand students.  For some, this is a very rewarding experience, but for me I want to bang my head against the wall due to utterly unnecessary initiatives I am subjected to in Director's meetings.  The newest plan of action is to create an Inter-faith council, and give them a large office space on campus in the university center.  I am not against formalized religion, even though I do not subscribe to one, but why would you create that type of group for a university campus?  Beyond the obvious concerns of what faiths make up their Inter-faith council, and the dangers of discriminating the less popular or accepted, it makes one ask, what is the goal of the modern university?  Why are modern American universities trying to become everything to everyone?

The university must ask within itself, "what is our mission?"  If the mission of the modern university is to enlighten young minds with learner-centered teaching, public engagement, intellectual freedom, multiculturalism, why would you promote a one-sided way of thinking by introducing religion?  Religion is not the enemy of higher education by a long shot.  I just feel that introducing "university approved" religions would send the wrong message to the students that did not practice them.  How can you go about spouting off comments of multiculturalism and intellectual freedom, and then introduce old-hat philosophy like a government/school/official set of religious practice on campus?

 People that go to a restaurant and have appreciate a nice bottle of wine would let you know, that if you fill half the bottle with water, the wine will not be any good.  That is how I feel about the modern university structure we are trying to move toward in our society.  We are filling the bottle with water, and not concentrating on what makes the university such a special experience.  A university is an environment with open doors and open minds that provides a platform for social discourse, which creates a learning unique to any other stage in life.  Anything less than that, should not be tolerated, but I guess we can no longer ask for excellence.  In a society that puts more emphasis on convenience over substance, I may just have to settle for the watering down of American institutions that continue to fall behind the rest of the world.

What Does a New Jail or Prison Fix?

I want you to ponder this question, what does a new jail or prison actually fix? I ask you this because we as Americans are so quick to impose a tax to build a new jail or sentence convicted citizens to lengthy terms, that we actually forget about the rehabilitation process. I want to know what you think about what jails and prisons actually fix.

~Lew

Who gets a Pass?

Maybe it is just me, but I notice on a very regular basis that steroids sparks divisive conversation. And on almost every instance the name Barry Bonds comes up. "What do you think about Barry?" "How do you feel about Barry breaking the record?" I think I depress the question askers with every response. "I am not only happy to see the greatness that is an athlete eclipsing a great milestone like the homerun record, I could not be happier for Barry Bonds!" Amidst all of the controversy and troubles he can still achieve great things. To me this is a display of the best of human spirit, if we believe it we can achieve it. I have read reporters calling Barry a fraud and a cheater, but to me I can only see him as great. A man who has never tested positive of anything gets defined as a cheater and a fraud, but others in his profession and around professional sports get a pass. Why is that?

How can someone, anyone define the greatest player since Willie Mays (if not ever?) as a fraud? A player that has accomplished so many things in his career, in comparison, I would be willing to bet that none of the naysayers (be it fans or journalists) have accomplished anywhere near that much in their own careers! A record as difficult as 755 homeruns certainly does not come over night, and it doesn't come from the tip of a needle. Only hard work, twenty plus years of standout play, and a passion to be the best you can possibly be can result in that many home runs. A player with the most 30+ homerun seasons, tied for the most 40+ homerun seasons, and the single season homerun record seems like a player one could hardly accuse of the lack of a credible resume.

So if Barry is a fraud? What defines a fraud? Last year one of the freshest faces in sports tested positive for performance enhancing drugs and the sporting news community laughed it off like hiccup. How does Shawne Merriman test positive for steroids, then go on to be the cover boy for ESPN the Magazine the next issue? Is he not a fraud? Or is it simply that they like Shawne Merriman, and reporters have an axe to grind with Barry? I don't ever want to hear any praise for a player that tests positive for steroids, but is excused because the press like him, if they can't give the same respect to another player that has never tested positive of anything besides arrogance. We see the power of the press everyday, with the way a good writer can influence the beliefs of so many readers. I want to see the end of irresponsible reporting, not on the behalf of Barry Bonds, but the improvement of public knowledge. There is nothing more powerful than ignorance, and nothing sounds more ignorant than someone trying to tell me that Barry Bonds isn't the greatest player of my time.

Blood on Their Hands

You don't have to be a sports fan to know that superstar quarterback Michael Vick has recently been indicted on several felony counts for sponsoring dogfighting. You also don't have to be a sports fan to recognize the gruesome details that are described inside the indictment. All of us are pet owners or have family/friends with pets, and the thought of dogfighting and dog executions is absolutely despicable, but this piece isn't about Michael Vick or his alleged guilt, it is about the rest of us. The blood of these dogs fighting is on more hands than this high profile football player, what about the legions of those people? I am speaking of the ability for our society to assign value to certain lives over others and the way we delegate our prison system for punishment instead of rehabilitation.

I am certain that the federal indictment is going to turn into Michael Vick vs. everyone (including angry fans, pet lovers, general public), which should be okay with Vick because that is how every Atlanta Falcons game I have seen turns out. Vick is the best at ducking, dodging and running his way out of trouble in the pocket, now we are going to see if his legal team can scramble to save the way he does on the football field. If they don't scramble enough he could get sacked, and this time it will be for years not yards!

Lets say he gets convicted. Should he serve time in prison for the punishment of this crime? The prison system carries the name of "correctional facility" as a moniker for the mission of incarcerating convicted criminals. Would sending Michael Vick to prison under this definition help his rehabilitation process as a productive member of society? The fact is that, he is already a productive member of society. He gives to charities and spends his time in children's hospitals in Atlanta. Prison by definition is designed to remove the predators from within the mist, those individuals who cannot function within societal norms. These predators would be murders, rapist, thieves, not just any person convicted of a crime. Why the thirst for the sight of rich young people going to prison, I can see no other reason for our thirst than our jealously! Michael Vick should pay a hefty fine, have some term of probation, and go about his business of playing football.

On the other behalf, people will scream and chant about poor Fido, but in the grand scheme of things this is a victimless crime. How did we as such a 'civilized' society provide a hierarchy for what animals carry more importance than others? What is acceptable animal treatment, and what is excess animal cruelty? How in the world did training a dog to fight become worse than bullfighting? We all know how that story ends... the bull dies. Not only does the bull die, but is humiliated in front of an audience while some guy dressed in frills waves a red sheet and after he tires the bull out he stabs him with sword. I personally cannot contain my excitement when the bull wins! Most will argue that due to cruelty laws bullfighting is not done in the states, that is true, but we do have horse racing. I do not remember ever hearing that the horse had a choice whether he (or she for the phillies) wanted to run in the races. If they don't perform well they can't stud, which is a whole other conversation, they go to the "glue factory". So who is going to argue that it is natural or optional for a horse to run in circles with a 145 pound person on their back while hitting them with a stick?

We need to stop being so stupid as a society! We like watching horses run, and that is why it is legal to bread horses to race. We don't like watching Fido get chomped by the bigger, badder dog across the street and that is why dogfighting is illegal. So lets put away the torches and pitchforks, Michael Vick is not going to kill your Fido!

My Broken Heart Over Our Broken Health Care

The conversation of a national health care plan has been a subject up for debate in this country for a long time. The problem with the debate has been and for the most part still today, viewed by the nation, as socialist reformers. The threat of another "RED SCARE" is enough to keep conservatives and liberals alike voting against a national expansion of government like health care! Socialism is a curse word in this country and the the detractors of a national health care system use it as such to keep us, the voters, afraid of embracing a better way to care for other Americans, with and without preexisting health care coverage. Should profit be at the crux of a health care plan? Is there a better way?


I hate to think that a movie is needed to prompt a discussion on the necessity for a national health care system. Michael Moore's latest film "Sicko" highlights a vital concern over the United States health care system, not just for the uninsured, but for the people who think they are insured as well. While I am sure most certain that Moore's editorial film speaks of his concerns and the way he views the ills of the American health care system. I think a few points he makes, especially about the rise of the HMO (health maintenance organization), are valid for all Americans to take notice. Just because you may be insured, does not mean you are covered.


How could the United States, the world's strongest economic center, be lacking in the field of medical care? The insinuation of anything less than the best or the greatest infuriates the policy makers of this country with the vast amount of resources at our disposal. Unfortunately, that is what we have in the modern age of medicine. American citizens having to sell their house, because they cannot pay their hospital bills. Young couples going broke, before they get a chance to build a financial base, due to the expenses attached to having a baby. Did you know that the number one reason for bankruptcy and foreclosure on homes in this country is due to people's inability to pay their medical bills? I am not saying that I don't believe in getting paid for an honest day of work, but what is honest about putting someone out of their home? If the motto for all those who choose to practice medicine is "do no harm", I guess they are not speaking of harm to your wallet.


The common defenses of our system is the American ability to choose your own doctor, and the luxury to have the top pharmaceutical companies be able to make products in the U.S. That is great! Companies with strong financial outlooks aid the American economy, but since when did it become okay for pharmaceutical companies to hold our nation hostage? Great Britain (which has 2 of the 8 most profitable pharmaceutical companies) has federally subsidized prescription drug prices and a national health care plan that allows doctors to work in subsets of 9, and the British citizens are allowed to choose the group or subset from which they receive medical care. This system still provides the doctors the ability to live with a modest income that keeps themselves in a BMW and their wives in Aston Martins. Why couldn't that system be here?

The rush of animosity from the idea of the socialization of any private service, will bring a nice stir to a debate between liberals and conservatives, liberals and liberals and conservatives and conservatives. If anyone has watched the posturing between the Democrats in their campaigns and speeches, they can see that there is no congruent plan between any two people. Maybe all of the issues begin with our ego? Our big American, everything we do is the best, ego. We cannot admit defeat in combat, and now we cannot concede in policy administration either. Big Brother is going to run our lives, if we let them run healthcare, first by making us live longer and healthier, then by putting more money back in our pocket. How Horrible!

Changing Gears

There have been a few things that have gone on in my life and the world around me since I have last written in my blog. Due to some of these circumstances and instances, I am going to begin to take my writings in a different direction for a while. I have not fell out of love with sports and the sporting news, but I feel that I need to change gears for a while and talk about some things that may matter on a larger scale than sporting arguments. So I hope you appreciate some of the newer topics that will be discussed by this posting, and I hope that this will encourage further discussion on message boards and homes across America.

Lew

To The Principal's Office Young Man

Lately, every time I turn to the sports page in the newspaper, or tune into my favorite satellite station (which is ESPN) I have to see a picture of the NFL's version of the perp walk. A young black man being called to go meet with the NFL Commissioner due to behavioral issues unbecoming a professional football player. Could this be true? Professional athletes that exhibit disruptive behavior towards society due to lifestyle choices, money, women and fame. Or is this just another way of the NFL's mob-like control over its employees? These issues are all important, but when did the highest official in the NFL become the hall monitor?

I have grown up in a time of several strong and great commissioners in professional sports. Lasting impressions will be imprinted on society for generations to come with the rapid expansion of the NBA under David Stern and the NFL with Paul Tagliabue which pushed the NFL and the NBA into America's mainstream. I mean that in a sense that goes beyond viewership and participation, but these sports have corporate global dominance that spans different ethnic markets and demographics now like never before. And like all businesses, when the focus is on money and not the people the business serves, there is a divide between interest. The common fan is ignorant to the business of football, and the common player is out of touch with the common fan.

The average ticket holding fan for a professional sporting event in the US would most likely be an upper-middle class Caucasian male, who pay a generous amount of money for their entertainment at these sporting events. While one can't help but notice the demographic of the playing surface be it grass, turf, or the hardcourt is noticeably tilted towards African-Americans and players from over seas. So with the understanding of those readily identifiable differences why would you patronize your product by drawn out public beatings and persecutions?

In the NBA you draft high school kids at the age of 18 and 19 with little marketable education and job skills from neighborhoods that would make Uma Thurman from Kill Bill nervous, and have the nerve to attack the way they dress. David Stern how do you expect them to dress? Many of these kids were poor with no father figure in sight and you expect them to show up in to the gym in a suit and tie. I for one, am not okay with your image problem that was created by greedy NBA executives not the kids. We have probably all heard the phrase that "you will never learn to be a man unless you get to see a man." That statement couldn't ring more true than for some of our young brothers in the NBA.

In American sports now football is king. King does not rest in the offseason either. Most of the press of the king of American sports in the spring and into the summer is simply offseason speculation, trades, and now the new dynamic of which player is getting in trouble. This offseason Michael Vick has been courted by the newly crowned commissioner of the NFL, as well as Pacman Jones (who has the worst nickname in sports), Tank Johnson (whose name is the best--a defensive tackle with the name Tank, come on) and the Bengals WR Chris Henry. All of the aforementioned players have gone to meet with the commish, and all besides Michael Vick have been disciplined by the league, and by league I mean Roger Giddell the commissioner.

Which brings me back to the main question of this article. When did the commissioner's office become the principle's office for professional athletes? The NFL's press release of the job criteria states that "a commissioner’s role is to exercise broad administrative or judicial authority. More specifically, the NFL Commissioner manages the business affairs of the league and is its most visible representative." It even goes as far to state that a conflict between a player and ownership is a conflict of interest. So how did we get here? Now we are in a state of 1984 like dictatorship by the NFL and its management officials. I can tell you how, CONTROL! This is the same league that offers the most violence this side of boxing and the UFC, and doesn't offer its participants guaranteed contracts. If you do what we like, we will pay you, if you don't we can cut you. As we can see that mentality stretches all the way to the top.

I think this mentality sounds like something that comes from the Sopranoes. And we have all seen that Tony is in a bit of trouble on that end of the spectrum. Even Rome fell, with all their advantages and superiority over their competition, overstretching their means caused their collapse as well. For the record, I love football and i don't want it to collapse, but I do believe they should treat their players better! And lastly, I did intentionally leave MLB's Bud Selig out of that conversation above. He got the chance to preside over baseball which has been a part of the American fabric in this society for over a hundred years. I just think he should take up for his players more too. If in the business world, you are your product, shouldn't you support that product?