This post is primarily directed at those who are, or have been, parents of teenagers. I have wrestled with this idea since I first heard it about 6 or 7 years ago. In all that time, I still do not even know my answer to this dilemma.
The dilemma is this: as my sons enter their peak sexual years, should I provide them with condoms that they can have access to with no questions asked as they go out on dates? On the one hand, it will prevent unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases. On the other hand, am I enabling an activity that I cannot condone?
I do not want my sons having sex at this time in their lives. I know that I cannot stop them, regardless of past teachings. Abstinence is the only 100% guarantee that there will be no unplanned pregnancies and no diseases. The kids do not understand the power of sex. At this age, boys think they are bullet proof. They do not understand what AIDS truly means (that it is largely a death sentence). They do not understand the power it holds over a young woman's feelings. What would happen if one of my sons got a young lady pregnant? Neither of them has the tools, skill set or maturity to provide for it. I cannot tell the young lady which way to go on abortion/adaption/keep the child, even though she would be carrying my grandchild. Part of my problem here is that my parents never discussed any of this with me. Maybe for some people, this is a no brainer. Maybe there are considerations here that I am not thinking of (excuse me for ending a sentence in a preposition). Parents, your perspectives are much appreciated.
Monday, May 21, 2012
Friday, May 4, 2012
To Love and Cherish Candice
"Husbands love your wives as Christ has loved the church, giving himself up for her." Ephesians 5:25, Paul's letter to the church in Ephesus
Warning, this post is going to get sappy. Yes, I am in love and proud to admit it. I am about to embark on a new life with Candice Brooke, and I could not be happier about it, nor more excited. I am getting married to her July 28, and a new life begins for me, one full of hope and promise.
I must admit, I never cared much for being single. Oh sure, I learned to piece together a life of sorts. Perhaps there were opportunities I failed to exploit. Tough to take advantage of all opportunities when you are a full time single parent of two very young kids. My two sons have sustained me these past thirteen years more than I know. But there times I needed love and support they simply could not provide. I knew I had a good marriage before, but likely did not fully appreciate just how good. Being single the past thirteen years has given me perspective. A perspective that I hope leads to an even greater appreciation of Candice and the diligence to never take her for granted and to love her endlessly.
Marriage is not for everyone. This I know. But it is for me. My life's experiences have taught me this. I knew this back in 1991 and I have never lost that knowledge about myself. In 2012, I know this about myself more than ever. I am so grateful for Candice's love. I have felt it in so many ways, and it heals the soul in ways being single cannot. Yes, I will need my moments alone. That's part of my personality. And she will need her time away from me. But even with my "single" time, I most look forward to being married to Candice.
I do not mean to idealize marriage and make it something that it is not. I know we face many turbulent days ahead over issues that likely have not even surfaced yet, even with several marriage counseling sessions. We will fight. We will each have strong opinions about stuff, whether it's the color we paint the bedroom walls to whose kid started the fight and how to punish it. I might have an offhanded remark meant to be funny that will hurt her feelings. I would never intentionally do that, but it will happen at times. She would hurt my feelings at times too, if I had any. At the end of the day, I still love Candice. It's easy to say I always will, but after the past 13 years, with my life's experiences, my appreciation for the blessing that she is to me will not be forgotten and I will always love her.
Men, I come back to the verse at the top. If you are married, love your wife, treasure her. The grass is not greener on the other side. Remember why you married her. Never lose the passion for her. For those of you in great marriages, congratulations! You have worked hard to make a truly extraordinary life for each other. After my life's experiences the past thirteen years, I will always be grateful to Candice, will love her forever, and hope that I never take her for granted. And together, make a truly extraordinary life! I love you, Candice!
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
In Defense of Roy Williams
This comment may draw the ire of many Kansas Jayhawk basketball fans, but I will say it anyway: I am a Roy Williams fan. Now, the vast majority of KU fans have moved on, and retain fond memories of Mr. Williams's time at KU. Sadly, there are still a sizable minority that have not forgiven Williams for leaving. How sad. I am thankful for all the wonderful things he did for the KU program. KU would not have near the program it has today were it not for Roy Williams. For that, KU fans should be grateful and should honor Mr. Williams accordingly.
My gratitude to Mr. Williams dates back to October 31, 1988, before he ever coached a game for KU. That was the day the NCAA leveled sanctions against the KU program for violations that occured during Larry Brown's tenure. KU was prohibited from defending its 1988 NCAA Championship, having a post-season ban placed on it. However, that was not the worst penalty. The NCAA also leveled the KU program by prohibiting the university from hosting on campus recruiting visits for the entire 1989 calendar year. The NCAA designed these penalties to cripple the KU program for at least 5 years. In other words, it would be a long time before KU would contend for the national championship, right? Wrong, thanks to Mr. Williams, and a little bit of luck.
KU entered the 1988-89 season with just 9 eligible scholarship players, so the recruiting restrictions were particularly harsh at a time when KU needed players. But Mr. Williams refused to feel sorry for himself or for the KU program. He vowed that KU would win under his guidance and that they would win the right way. Now, it needs to be remembered that his hiring was not universally welcome at KU. Many KU boosters thought that the Jayhawks, as defending national champions, could hire a big time coach to come in and continue the winning ways re-established by Larry Brown. Hiring the #2 assistant coach off the North Carolina staff was not what the KU faithful had in mind. More than a few KU boosters complained that the Jayhawks went from having the best coach in the country to having the third best in the state of Kansas. KU wound up the 1988-89 season with a 19-12 record, going 6-8 in the Big 8 Conference.
Predictably, after the NCAA sanctions were announced, Williams's first recruiting class fell apart. Thomas Hill changed his mind and went to Duke. Harold Miner changed his mind and went to USC. Only Adonis Jordan kept his commitment to KU (thank you Adonis!). Coach Williams did sign Terry Brown and Pekka Markannen in the spring 1989 class. Then, for the fall 1989 recruiting season, Williams did find some luck. Kansas City and Wichita were both loaded with talent. Kansas City had Jevon Crudup (who went to Missouri), Chris Lindley and Patrick Richey (who both went to KU) while Wichita had Cortez Barnes and Steve Woodbury (who both signed with KU). Williams also signed a power forward from Little Rock named Richard Scott who never saw the KU campus before signing. In a bit of bad luck, Barnes did not qualify academically and Lindley lost a foot in a train accident; neither ever played a game at KU.
So what happened over the next four years, in which the NCAA had targeted the KU program for erosion? KU won 113 games, three Big 8 championships, went 43-13 overall in Big 8 Conference games and went to two Final Fours! Williams would go on to win 418 games, 9 conference championships and appear in four Final Fours, finishing runner-up twice. Only Phog Allen himself has hung more banners in Allen Fieldhouse than Williams. But in those moments, in those days after KU was sanctioned by the NCAA, Williams saved the KU program from inevitable decline, and in fact enhanced the program. That took a lot of doing, and for what he did during that time KU fans should be forever grateful.
My gratitude to Mr. Williams dates back to October 31, 1988, before he ever coached a game for KU. That was the day the NCAA leveled sanctions against the KU program for violations that occured during Larry Brown's tenure. KU was prohibited from defending its 1988 NCAA Championship, having a post-season ban placed on it. However, that was not the worst penalty. The NCAA also leveled the KU program by prohibiting the university from hosting on campus recruiting visits for the entire 1989 calendar year. The NCAA designed these penalties to cripple the KU program for at least 5 years. In other words, it would be a long time before KU would contend for the national championship, right? Wrong, thanks to Mr. Williams, and a little bit of luck.
KU entered the 1988-89 season with just 9 eligible scholarship players, so the recruiting restrictions were particularly harsh at a time when KU needed players. But Mr. Williams refused to feel sorry for himself or for the KU program. He vowed that KU would win under his guidance and that they would win the right way. Now, it needs to be remembered that his hiring was not universally welcome at KU. Many KU boosters thought that the Jayhawks, as defending national champions, could hire a big time coach to come in and continue the winning ways re-established by Larry Brown. Hiring the #2 assistant coach off the North Carolina staff was not what the KU faithful had in mind. More than a few KU boosters complained that the Jayhawks went from having the best coach in the country to having the third best in the state of Kansas. KU wound up the 1988-89 season with a 19-12 record, going 6-8 in the Big 8 Conference.
Predictably, after the NCAA sanctions were announced, Williams's first recruiting class fell apart. Thomas Hill changed his mind and went to Duke. Harold Miner changed his mind and went to USC. Only Adonis Jordan kept his commitment to KU (thank you Adonis!). Coach Williams did sign Terry Brown and Pekka Markannen in the spring 1989 class. Then, for the fall 1989 recruiting season, Williams did find some luck. Kansas City and Wichita were both loaded with talent. Kansas City had Jevon Crudup (who went to Missouri), Chris Lindley and Patrick Richey (who both went to KU) while Wichita had Cortez Barnes and Steve Woodbury (who both signed with KU). Williams also signed a power forward from Little Rock named Richard Scott who never saw the KU campus before signing. In a bit of bad luck, Barnes did not qualify academically and Lindley lost a foot in a train accident; neither ever played a game at KU.
So what happened over the next four years, in which the NCAA had targeted the KU program for erosion? KU won 113 games, three Big 8 championships, went 43-13 overall in Big 8 Conference games and went to two Final Fours! Williams would go on to win 418 games, 9 conference championships and appear in four Final Fours, finishing runner-up twice. Only Phog Allen himself has hung more banners in Allen Fieldhouse than Williams. But in those moments, in those days after KU was sanctioned by the NCAA, Williams saved the KU program from inevitable decline, and in fact enhanced the program. That took a lot of doing, and for what he did during that time KU fans should be forever grateful.
But KU fans turned on Williams after he left. Of course, some of the hurt is natural when someone of such public importance leaves. He told the world that he couldn't turn down Coach Smith twice. But think about this. In 2000, he stayed. Dr. Bob Frederick was still KU's Athletic Director, the man who took a chance and hired Williams in 1988. Williams always maintained his loyalty to Frederick, and by extension to KU. In 2001, Frederick was forced out, and KU hired Al Bohl to replace him. Williams did not get along with Bohl. Ultimately, KU fired Bohl in a last ditch effort to keep Williams. At that point the KU athletic department was a great big circus. If you found yourself working for a person you could not stand, and a longtime friend came calling with a job offer, wouldn't you look hard at taking the new job? That's where Williams was in April 2003. And if my employer was a circus, I would look for exits fast! When long time friend Dick Baddour (North Carolina's AD) came with an offer of more money, a bigger basketball budget a great deal of stability and the opportunity to return home, Williams would have been a fool to say no
Meanwhile, KU was damn lucky to get Bill Self. After KU fired Al Bohl, former Kansas City Power & Light CEO Drue Jennings was hired as the interim AD. How many of you would take a job not knowing who your boss would be? Yet Bill Self took the KU job not knowing who his boss at KU would be. Self also had the pieces in place at Illinois, the nucleus of a team that would eventually be the national runner-up in 2005 (ironically to Roy Williams's North Carolina team).
So why do KU fans still carry a grudge against Williams? This is obviously insulting to Williams, but also insulting to the KU basketball program and to man who succeeded Williams, Bill Self. For to carry the grudge means that you believe the KU program suffered, and is still suffering, because Williams departed. In fact, KU has won 8 consecutive Big 12 Conference championships, and an NCAA Tournament championship since Williams left. I also find it interesting that when KU met North Carolina in the 2008 Final Four, Williams's former KU players were all Jayhawks that day. I believe this is testament to the character of Williams that instilled a sense of loyalty to the institution in his players. The loyalty was not to Roy Williams, but to KU.
On a more personal level, Mr. Williams may have saved my Dad's life. In 1999, after my Dad retired, my Dad and his wife thought it would be fun to take road trips to watch KU play basketball games in other conference venues. Coach Williams gave my Dad some time and they discussed the various venues in the Big 12. For the record, Williams's favorite road venue was Oklahoma State, but he did also strongly advise my Dad to never see a KU game at Missouri. Williams just flat out told my Dad that he would be taking his life into his own hands if he attended a game at Missouri. Thank you Roy Williams for keeping my Dad and his wife from harm!
Bill Self has taken the KU program to the mountaintop. But let KU fans not forget to take the time to honor Williams for stepping up and keeping the KU program on top when a lesser man would have slip down the slippery slope the NCAA had set up for him. Does anyone really believe that Bill Self would be the KU coach today if Roy Williams had failed in those first five years? I do not. Does anyone believe that KU would be the perrenial national championship contender that it is today if Roy Williams had failed in his first five years? I do not. Thank you and God bless you Roy Williams. Oh, one more thing...on Sunday, it is Rock Chalk Jayhawk KU!!
Sunday, March 11, 2012
March Madness
It's Selection Sunday as I write this, the day the NCAA men's basketball tournament field is announced. I love filling out my bracket after the field has been announced. Something about matching wits with other "experts" in the field, whether they are co-workers, family members or the million who will play the ESPN Bracket Challenge for an opportunity to win $1 million that brings out the competitive juices in me (and apparently, many others). However, by the end of that first weekend, my bracket has been shredded by the on-court results (I am usually good for about 20-22 correct calls out of 32 first round games), and I can just enjoy the rest of tournament. But it sure is fun to fill out that bracket. I do believe there some simple rules to follow to fill out a successful bracket.
Calling the Upsets
Predicting the first round upset is the most enjoyable, and challenging, part of filling out the bracket. Upsets happen every year, but correctly calling the upsets is quite difficult. First, the easy rule to follow: Do not ever pick a #16 seed to defeat a #1 seed. It has never happened. In the 27 previous tournaments with the modern format, the #1 seed is 108-0 against the #16 seed. Do not count on it happening anytime soon. Next, do not pick the #15 seed to beat the #2 seed. In the modern format, this has happened 4 times, none since 2001. Do not count on it happening again. The most common upset usually occurs in the 5-12 first round match-up. Why? This match-up usually matches a low ranking member of a power conference (the #12 seed) against a mid major or against a team that posted a glossy record in an overrated power conference. Look for your opportunities here. Other upsets occur when an underrated mid major team is playing against an overrated power conference team. In any event, do not predict your first round upsets to win in the second round. This could save your bracket.
Who Do You Pick To Go Deep?
This is always a dilemma because some highly ranked teams inevitably fall early in the tournament and picking which ones will survive can be tricky. Here, you have to look at coaches. Some coaches seem to do very well no matter what while others have consistently disappointed. In this day and age, the coaches who regularly perform well in the tournament are Coach K at Duke (11 Final Fours), Roy Williams at North Carolina (7 Final Fours), Tom Izzo at Michigan State (6 Final Fours) and Rick Pitino at Louisville (5 Final Fours). For my money, Izzo is the best tournament coach in the field. At a minimum, you are safe to pick these coaches teams to "play to their seed". All coaches have their tournament disappointments, but these coaches are not likely to ruin your brackets with early round defeats. Coaches who have consistently disappointed are Bill Self at Kansas, Fran Dunphy at Temple and Tom Crean at Indiana. I would not pick these guys to go deep into the tournament.
The next factor to look at is experience. Teams that are junior and senior dominated tend to go farther than freshman and sophomore laden teams. When looking particularly at the mid majors, those with lots of experience can win games and go deep in tournament. Another factor that play into a deep tournament run is the strength of a team's guard play. A strong point guard can control the tempo of the game and will always get the ball into the hands of his teams best scorers at crunch time. As I look at the 2012 tournament, I believe that strong guard play and experience can take a team like Missouri far into the tournament while weak guard play can leave a team like Kansas vulnerable to an early round upset. Experience could work against a team like Kentucky, but help a team like Syracuse.
Sizing Up 2012
Overall, the top two teams are Kentucky and Syracuse. I do not see any noticeable differences between the two. Syracuse has more experience, but Kentucky has more talent and they have a coach who has been to two Final Fours. What are some of the possible upsets in the first round? Well since I spotlighted the 5-12 match up, I really like Long Beach State to beat New Mexico. Other possible upsets include NC State over San Diego State. If California makes it past South Florida, then I could see Cal beating Temple (another 5-12 match up). Another underdog that no one on TV is talking about is St. Mary's, which I think could give Kansas a lot of trouble in the second round. South Dakota State will give Baylor trouble in their match up, but I think BU pulls out an ugly win. Of the Big 12 teams, Missouri will go the farthest in this tournament. I think the Tigers will meet their match in Michigan State. As I said earlier, Tom Izzo is the best tournament coach out there right now.
In the end, the Final Four could be like 2008, with all four #1's making the Final Four. Back in December, I predicted that North Carolina would win it all. I have changed my mind. In the end, Syracuse will be cutting down the nets in New Orleans.
Calling the Upsets
Predicting the first round upset is the most enjoyable, and challenging, part of filling out the bracket. Upsets happen every year, but correctly calling the upsets is quite difficult. First, the easy rule to follow: Do not ever pick a #16 seed to defeat a #1 seed. It has never happened. In the 27 previous tournaments with the modern format, the #1 seed is 108-0 against the #16 seed. Do not count on it happening anytime soon. Next, do not pick the #15 seed to beat the #2 seed. In the modern format, this has happened 4 times, none since 2001. Do not count on it happening again. The most common upset usually occurs in the 5-12 first round match-up. Why? This match-up usually matches a low ranking member of a power conference (the #12 seed) against a mid major or against a team that posted a glossy record in an overrated power conference. Look for your opportunities here. Other upsets occur when an underrated mid major team is playing against an overrated power conference team. In any event, do not predict your first round upsets to win in the second round. This could save your bracket.
Who Do You Pick To Go Deep?
This is always a dilemma because some highly ranked teams inevitably fall early in the tournament and picking which ones will survive can be tricky. Here, you have to look at coaches. Some coaches seem to do very well no matter what while others have consistently disappointed. In this day and age, the coaches who regularly perform well in the tournament are Coach K at Duke (11 Final Fours), Roy Williams at North Carolina (7 Final Fours), Tom Izzo at Michigan State (6 Final Fours) and Rick Pitino at Louisville (5 Final Fours). For my money, Izzo is the best tournament coach in the field. At a minimum, you are safe to pick these coaches teams to "play to their seed". All coaches have their tournament disappointments, but these coaches are not likely to ruin your brackets with early round defeats. Coaches who have consistently disappointed are Bill Self at Kansas, Fran Dunphy at Temple and Tom Crean at Indiana. I would not pick these guys to go deep into the tournament.
The next factor to look at is experience. Teams that are junior and senior dominated tend to go farther than freshman and sophomore laden teams. When looking particularly at the mid majors, those with lots of experience can win games and go deep in tournament. Another factor that play into a deep tournament run is the strength of a team's guard play. A strong point guard can control the tempo of the game and will always get the ball into the hands of his teams best scorers at crunch time. As I look at the 2012 tournament, I believe that strong guard play and experience can take a team like Missouri far into the tournament while weak guard play can leave a team like Kansas vulnerable to an early round upset. Experience could work against a team like Kentucky, but help a team like Syracuse.
Sizing Up 2012
Overall, the top two teams are Kentucky and Syracuse. I do not see any noticeable differences between the two. Syracuse has more experience, but Kentucky has more talent and they have a coach who has been to two Final Fours. What are some of the possible upsets in the first round? Well since I spotlighted the 5-12 match up, I really like Long Beach State to beat New Mexico. Other possible upsets include NC State over San Diego State. If California makes it past South Florida, then I could see Cal beating Temple (another 5-12 match up). Another underdog that no one on TV is talking about is St. Mary's, which I think could give Kansas a lot of trouble in the second round. South Dakota State will give Baylor trouble in their match up, but I think BU pulls out an ugly win. Of the Big 12 teams, Missouri will go the farthest in this tournament. I think the Tigers will meet their match in Michigan State. As I said earlier, Tom Izzo is the best tournament coach out there right now.
In the end, the Final Four could be like 2008, with all four #1's making the Final Four. Back in December, I predicted that North Carolina would win it all. I have changed my mind. In the end, Syracuse will be cutting down the nets in New Orleans.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Ranking The Presidents
In honor of President's Day, I thought I would rank the country's Presidents. Not all of them, but the ones we have had in my lifetime. I was born in 1966, and this country has had nine Presidents in that time.
Now, in all fairness I should explain my biases so that you can see why I ranked the Presidents as I did. I vote for Presidential candidates based on economic policies such as tax policy, fiscal policy, trade policy and how that shapes the candidates view of the government's role in our lives. I also take into account leadership qualities, and the overall sense of confidence the candidate inspires. My own biases are towards free markets and free trade, lower taxes, and reasonable regulation which keeps the government from being overly intrusive in our daily lives. I really pay very little attention to more social issues such as the environment, abortion, gay marriage, etc.. I realize that some people consider social issues to be more important, but they are secondary considerations for me.
So, without further delay, here is my list, from worst to first:
9. Barack Obama
8. George W. Bush, Jr.
7. Richard Nixon
6. Gerald Ford
5. Jimmy Carter
4. George H W Bush, Sr.
3. Lyndon Johnson
2. Bill Clinton
1. Ronald Reagan
As I look at this list, the only ones I would truly label as "good" or better are Reagan and Clinton. I give Reagan the nod because his tax policies, I believe, had a lot to do with the economic expansion that lasted through the Clinton years, too. Plus, Clinton did push for changes to the Community Reinvestment Act that mandated higher levels of subprime home lending by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Reagan truly changed the paradigm of political discourse in this country. He told us that the government wasn't the solution to the problem, but that government was the problem. For that time, he was right. He got two major tax cut bills passed through a Democratic House and Republican Senate. He stared down the Soviet Union, yet also struck a genuine friendship with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. The two signed the only treaty that actually pledged to reduce nuclear weapons. Most of all, his economic policies led to a 92 month economic recovery and expansion that created 19 million jobs. Prior to becoming President, Mr. Reagan was President of the Screen Actors Guild union and Governor of California.
Bill Clinton also presided over a large economic expansion, led by the technology and financial sectors. The economy created 23 million new jobs during his time in office. Whereas President Reagan sought to unleash the private sector, President Clinton was more about public/private partnerships to create jobs. During President Clinton's time in office, the federal budget was balanced, and upon leaving office, the federal budget was actually in surplus thanks to economic growth and limited growth in government spending. Clinton was also surrounded by the smartest economic team of our time, with Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin being perhaps the best of all time in that position. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan could do no wrong during this time. Prior to becoming President, Mr. Clinton was the Attorney General in Arkansas and Governor of Arkansas.
Among the other Presidents, Lyndon Johnson gets high marks for signing landmark Civil Rights legislation into law in 1964. Johnson readily conceded that he was handing the South to Republicans for a generation, but still did the right thing. However, his handling of the Vietnam War leaves plenty of room for heavy criticism. To be fair, Johnson was following US policy of containment, so there was no perceived need to "win" the war. Without any clear objective, besides killing the enemy, it was inevitable that US would not win the war, and ultimately left South Vietnam at the mercy of the communist forces from North Vietnam. Prior to becoming President, Mr. Johnson was Senate Majority Leader, and Vice President of the United States.
George H W Bush deserves high marks for prosecuting Operation Desert Storm, and for creating the RTC to handle the savings and loan crisis. The way that Bush handled the first Iraq War was far different than the way his son handled the second Iraq War. Bush, Sr. garnered worldwide support for the operation, he had a clear mission and a clear exit strategy. I also mention the RTC because Bush, Sr. was hammered by conservatives for this move, but the RTC did clean up the mess and helped save the banking system. This move is a highly under-appreciated move that really helped the economy grow in the 1990's. But Bush did not tend to economic policy as the economy sank into a recession. He also signed a disastrous tax hike into law just as the economy was entering a recession. Really a sad ending to a long and distinguished public service career that included stints as a member of the US House of Representatives, Ambassador to China, Ambassador to the United Nations, and Vice President.
Jimmy Carter gets high marks for brokering a peace agreement between Egypt and Israel, and for appointing Paul Volcker to be chairman of the Federal Reserve. However, Carter's term as President was marred by high inflation, led by high energy prices, and the Iranian hostage crisis. Carter appeared weak when confronted with these crises. He responded to high energy prices with more regulation and a speech in which he stated that a "general malaise" had fallen over the land. With the Iranian hostage crisis, Carter deserves credit for getting all the hostages home alive, but his lack of leadership led to an embarrassing crisis for the United States and let the crisis escalate to what it did finally become. Prior to becoming President, Mr. Carter ran his family's peanut farm and was Governor of Georgia.
Gerald Ford actually gets an incomplete with a term that lasted about 2 1/2 years. His one notable act was pardoning Richard Nixon and as he put it, "ending our long national nightmare." Richard Nixon deserves credit for achieving detente with the Soviets, going to China and opening the way for diplomatic relations, and for getting us peacefully out of Vietnam (if there was any way to get out peacefully). However, his main character flaw (paranoia), led to the largest abuse of power in this nation's history. A bungled break-in at the Watergate complex was ultimately found to be a cover-up that went all the way to the White House. It came to be defined by Sen. Howard Baker's question, "What did the President know and when did he know it?". In addition, Nixon's economic policies were a diaster that ultimately led to the high inflation that we saw in the late 70's. In addition, his Administration saw the creation of the EPA, and OSHA, which greatly expanded the government's role in our daily lives. Prior to becoming President, Mr. Nixon was a practicing attorney, US Senator, and Vice President of the United States.
On Sept 11, 2001, the United States enjoyed the goodwill of the entire civilized world. George W Bush blew through all of it. He responded to the terrorist attacks by fighting an unnecessary war in Iraq, with very little worldwide support. He deserves credit for recognizing that we were in a war. But he failed miserably to get the support he needed to fight terrorism. The economy also performed weakly as his 2001 tax cut produced very little, if any, additional economic activity. His "tax rebates" were clearly a gimmick and people saw it as such. Prior to becoming President, Mr. Bush was the CEO of an oil company in Texas, the head of the Texas Rangers baseball team and the governor of Texas.
Barack Obama was saddled with worst economy in several generations when he came into office. Strangely enough, he barely addressed economic concerns, pushing for a poorly designed stimulus bill, then focusing on other issues. He came into office as the least qualified of all the previous people mentioned in this list, and it shows. He shows very little command of basic economics, does not appear to share the concerns of his citizens, and shows little, if any, leadership ability. He is surrounded by a weak economic team (Geitner is the worst Treasury Sec I have seen), which hasn't helped anything. Hence, unemployment stayed above 9% for 28 months in a 30 month stretch, while his focus was on social issues, and "fairness", neither of which was creating any jobs. The economy is showing signs of coming back, which may help him win re-election.
So there is my list and my reasoning. Feel free to agree or disagree as you wish, just be respectful about it.
Now, in all fairness I should explain my biases so that you can see why I ranked the Presidents as I did. I vote for Presidential candidates based on economic policies such as tax policy, fiscal policy, trade policy and how that shapes the candidates view of the government's role in our lives. I also take into account leadership qualities, and the overall sense of confidence the candidate inspires. My own biases are towards free markets and free trade, lower taxes, and reasonable regulation which keeps the government from being overly intrusive in our daily lives. I really pay very little attention to more social issues such as the environment, abortion, gay marriage, etc.. I realize that some people consider social issues to be more important, but they are secondary considerations for me.
So, without further delay, here is my list, from worst to first:
9. Barack Obama
8. George W. Bush, Jr.
7. Richard Nixon
6. Gerald Ford
5. Jimmy Carter
4. George H W Bush, Sr.
3. Lyndon Johnson
2. Bill Clinton
1. Ronald Reagan
As I look at this list, the only ones I would truly label as "good" or better are Reagan and Clinton. I give Reagan the nod because his tax policies, I believe, had a lot to do with the economic expansion that lasted through the Clinton years, too. Plus, Clinton did push for changes to the Community Reinvestment Act that mandated higher levels of subprime home lending by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Reagan truly changed the paradigm of political discourse in this country. He told us that the government wasn't the solution to the problem, but that government was the problem. For that time, he was right. He got two major tax cut bills passed through a Democratic House and Republican Senate. He stared down the Soviet Union, yet also struck a genuine friendship with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. The two signed the only treaty that actually pledged to reduce nuclear weapons. Most of all, his economic policies led to a 92 month economic recovery and expansion that created 19 million jobs. Prior to becoming President, Mr. Reagan was President of the Screen Actors Guild union and Governor of California.
Bill Clinton also presided over a large economic expansion, led by the technology and financial sectors. The economy created 23 million new jobs during his time in office. Whereas President Reagan sought to unleash the private sector, President Clinton was more about public/private partnerships to create jobs. During President Clinton's time in office, the federal budget was balanced, and upon leaving office, the federal budget was actually in surplus thanks to economic growth and limited growth in government spending. Clinton was also surrounded by the smartest economic team of our time, with Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin being perhaps the best of all time in that position. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan could do no wrong during this time. Prior to becoming President, Mr. Clinton was the Attorney General in Arkansas and Governor of Arkansas.
Among the other Presidents, Lyndon Johnson gets high marks for signing landmark Civil Rights legislation into law in 1964. Johnson readily conceded that he was handing the South to Republicans for a generation, but still did the right thing. However, his handling of the Vietnam War leaves plenty of room for heavy criticism. To be fair, Johnson was following US policy of containment, so there was no perceived need to "win" the war. Without any clear objective, besides killing the enemy, it was inevitable that US would not win the war, and ultimately left South Vietnam at the mercy of the communist forces from North Vietnam. Prior to becoming President, Mr. Johnson was Senate Majority Leader, and Vice President of the United States.
George H W Bush deserves high marks for prosecuting Operation Desert Storm, and for creating the RTC to handle the savings and loan crisis. The way that Bush handled the first Iraq War was far different than the way his son handled the second Iraq War. Bush, Sr. garnered worldwide support for the operation, he had a clear mission and a clear exit strategy. I also mention the RTC because Bush, Sr. was hammered by conservatives for this move, but the RTC did clean up the mess and helped save the banking system. This move is a highly under-appreciated move that really helped the economy grow in the 1990's. But Bush did not tend to economic policy as the economy sank into a recession. He also signed a disastrous tax hike into law just as the economy was entering a recession. Really a sad ending to a long and distinguished public service career that included stints as a member of the US House of Representatives, Ambassador to China, Ambassador to the United Nations, and Vice President.
Jimmy Carter gets high marks for brokering a peace agreement between Egypt and Israel, and for appointing Paul Volcker to be chairman of the Federal Reserve. However, Carter's term as President was marred by high inflation, led by high energy prices, and the Iranian hostage crisis. Carter appeared weak when confronted with these crises. He responded to high energy prices with more regulation and a speech in which he stated that a "general malaise" had fallen over the land. With the Iranian hostage crisis, Carter deserves credit for getting all the hostages home alive, but his lack of leadership led to an embarrassing crisis for the United States and let the crisis escalate to what it did finally become. Prior to becoming President, Mr. Carter ran his family's peanut farm and was Governor of Georgia.
Gerald Ford actually gets an incomplete with a term that lasted about 2 1/2 years. His one notable act was pardoning Richard Nixon and as he put it, "ending our long national nightmare." Richard Nixon deserves credit for achieving detente with the Soviets, going to China and opening the way for diplomatic relations, and for getting us peacefully out of Vietnam (if there was any way to get out peacefully). However, his main character flaw (paranoia), led to the largest abuse of power in this nation's history. A bungled break-in at the Watergate complex was ultimately found to be a cover-up that went all the way to the White House. It came to be defined by Sen. Howard Baker's question, "What did the President know and when did he know it?". In addition, Nixon's economic policies were a diaster that ultimately led to the high inflation that we saw in the late 70's. In addition, his Administration saw the creation of the EPA, and OSHA, which greatly expanded the government's role in our daily lives. Prior to becoming President, Mr. Nixon was a practicing attorney, US Senator, and Vice President of the United States.
On Sept 11, 2001, the United States enjoyed the goodwill of the entire civilized world. George W Bush blew through all of it. He responded to the terrorist attacks by fighting an unnecessary war in Iraq, with very little worldwide support. He deserves credit for recognizing that we were in a war. But he failed miserably to get the support he needed to fight terrorism. The economy also performed weakly as his 2001 tax cut produced very little, if any, additional economic activity. His "tax rebates" were clearly a gimmick and people saw it as such. Prior to becoming President, Mr. Bush was the CEO of an oil company in Texas, the head of the Texas Rangers baseball team and the governor of Texas.
Barack Obama was saddled with worst economy in several generations when he came into office. Strangely enough, he barely addressed economic concerns, pushing for a poorly designed stimulus bill, then focusing on other issues. He came into office as the least qualified of all the previous people mentioned in this list, and it shows. He shows very little command of basic economics, does not appear to share the concerns of his citizens, and shows little, if any, leadership ability. He is surrounded by a weak economic team (Geitner is the worst Treasury Sec I have seen), which hasn't helped anything. Hence, unemployment stayed above 9% for 28 months in a 30 month stretch, while his focus was on social issues, and "fairness", neither of which was creating any jobs. The economy is showing signs of coming back, which may help him win re-election.
So there is my list and my reasoning. Feel free to agree or disagree as you wish, just be respectful about it.
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Give Me Old Fashioned Rivalries
Kansas vs. Missouri. I have loved this rivalry and tonight's game promises to be a good one, with #8 Kansas visiting #4 Missouri. I was born and raised in a family of Jayhawks, so I will be rooting for Kansas. Sadly, this will be the last time the two teams play in Columbia, with Missouri jumping to the Southeastern Conference. To put it mildly, conference realignment sucks. The past few months have seen a lot of big names jump conferences, with Pitt and Syracuse going to the ACC, Texas A&M and Missouri going to the SEC, and West Virginia and TCU going to the Big 12.
The conference realignment has also seen the destruction of three historic rivalries: Texas-Texas A&M, Kansas-Missouri, Pitt-West Virginia. My question is this: how does that make college athletics better? It doesn't. It will make college athletics worse. Much worse, I'm afraid. One of the great things about college athletics are the long rivalries, with all the fan hostility, the pranks, one-upmanship of it all. Within college athletics, almost all the great rivalries fall within the confines of conference match ups. Michigan-Ohio State, Auburn-Alabama, Duke-North Carolina are among the biggest, but many rivalries are more regional or local in nature. It could be Arizona-Arizona State, Mississippi-Mississippi State, or Kansas-Kansas State. Each of these rivalries are extra special because of the added meaning of a conference game. While I do appreciate Missouri's desire to continue playing Kansas, I believe Kansas did the right thing in saying no. This kind of a rivalry game belongs within the confines of a conference match up. A non-conference basketball game in December would never carry the same significance as tonight's game. And that will be missed.
Ten years from now, Kansas and Missouri will be tuned out from each other. So will Texas-Texas A&M. This is so sad. There will be no rivalry, the students will have no appreciation for what once was. Kansas will still have K-State, Texas will still have Oklahoma. Texas A&M does have a long history with Arkansas, and some history with LSU. But that's what will replace its rivalry with Texas? Not even close. And what about Missouri? There is nothing in the SEC that will even remotely begin to replace their rivalry with Kansas. It will be as if a piece of each school's heart has been cut out. No one wins in this scenario.
So I will savor tonight's game. Next year college athletics will feel much emptier without the big rivalry games. Conference realignment sucks, and it will not make college sports better. College athletics will have lost a bit of its soul, and lost a bit of what truly makes it special and so fun to watch. A few more moves like this and college sports will have all the uniqueness of a Pacers-Nuggets game (or was that Suns vs. Bobcats?).
P.S. Rock Chalk Jayhawk, KU!
The conference realignment has also seen the destruction of three historic rivalries: Texas-Texas A&M, Kansas-Missouri, Pitt-West Virginia. My question is this: how does that make college athletics better? It doesn't. It will make college athletics worse. Much worse, I'm afraid. One of the great things about college athletics are the long rivalries, with all the fan hostility, the pranks, one-upmanship of it all. Within college athletics, almost all the great rivalries fall within the confines of conference match ups. Michigan-Ohio State, Auburn-Alabama, Duke-North Carolina are among the biggest, but many rivalries are more regional or local in nature. It could be Arizona-Arizona State, Mississippi-Mississippi State, or Kansas-Kansas State. Each of these rivalries are extra special because of the added meaning of a conference game. While I do appreciate Missouri's desire to continue playing Kansas, I believe Kansas did the right thing in saying no. This kind of a rivalry game belongs within the confines of a conference match up. A non-conference basketball game in December would never carry the same significance as tonight's game. And that will be missed.
Ten years from now, Kansas and Missouri will be tuned out from each other. So will Texas-Texas A&M. This is so sad. There will be no rivalry, the students will have no appreciation for what once was. Kansas will still have K-State, Texas will still have Oklahoma. Texas A&M does have a long history with Arkansas, and some history with LSU. But that's what will replace its rivalry with Texas? Not even close. And what about Missouri? There is nothing in the SEC that will even remotely begin to replace their rivalry with Kansas. It will be as if a piece of each school's heart has been cut out. No one wins in this scenario.
So I will savor tonight's game. Next year college athletics will feel much emptier without the big rivalry games. Conference realignment sucks, and it will not make college sports better. College athletics will have lost a bit of its soul, and lost a bit of what truly makes it special and so fun to watch. A few more moves like this and college sports will have all the uniqueness of a Pacers-Nuggets game (or was that Suns vs. Bobcats?).
P.S. Rock Chalk Jayhawk, KU!
Friday, January 20, 2012
Why I Am A Dick Vitale Fan
I like Dick Vitale. I know many do not like him. He's loud. He's obnoxious. He's pro-Duke, pro Coach K. He's bald (that's not really so bad!). What I saw Monday night in Lawrence, prior to the Baylor-Kansas game was amazing. I am talking about the stuff that did not happen on camera.
Monday night, the old man really "worked the room". He would say hello to everyone who said hi. Took pictures with all kinds of people, signed lots of autographs. The only thing that stopped him was arena security that was worried about people being able to pass through the aisle. He hammed it up with the students. And he did it all with a smile. I saw a man who truly loved being there. He was not there just to do a job. Mr. Vitale is in his 70's. Yet he brings the enthusiasm of teenager to his job. I am sure he's seen it all before. You would think this is routine for him, just another night, another arena, another job, another game to get through, then onto the next game, the next arena. I saw a kid at heart, like someone who was seeing his first game ever at historic Allen Fieldhouse.
Dick Vitale put ESPN on the map. Not just the college basketball map. The map. He gave ESPN a presence in college basketball, long before ESPN ever broadcast NFL games, major league baseball games, college football games, long before ESPN had any star personalities. The man simply put ESPN in the "majors" through his sheer force of personality. He's earned his accolades. He can rest on his laurels. But he does not. I can only hope I bring the same enthusiasm to life and to my job when I am his age. The world will be a much better place if we all did that.
I know there is plenty to criticize about Dick Vitale. But I am a fan.
Monday night, the old man really "worked the room". He would say hello to everyone who said hi. Took pictures with all kinds of people, signed lots of autographs. The only thing that stopped him was arena security that was worried about people being able to pass through the aisle. He hammed it up with the students. And he did it all with a smile. I saw a man who truly loved being there. He was not there just to do a job. Mr. Vitale is in his 70's. Yet he brings the enthusiasm of teenager to his job. I am sure he's seen it all before. You would think this is routine for him, just another night, another arena, another job, another game to get through, then onto the next game, the next arena. I saw a kid at heart, like someone who was seeing his first game ever at historic Allen Fieldhouse.
Dick Vitale put ESPN on the map. Not just the college basketball map. The map. He gave ESPN a presence in college basketball, long before ESPN ever broadcast NFL games, major league baseball games, college football games, long before ESPN had any star personalities. The man simply put ESPN in the "majors" through his sheer force of personality. He's earned his accolades. He can rest on his laurels. But he does not. I can only hope I bring the same enthusiasm to life and to my job when I am his age. The world will be a much better place if we all did that.
I know there is plenty to criticize about Dick Vitale. But I am a fan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)