It the time of year when college sports are settling championships and, as it's spring, that means championships for a lot of different sports, men and women alike.
I've had a chance to watch some sports I don't normally watch, which is to say women's sports. Women's sports just aren't as popular and therefore aren't on TV as often. A fact to support my claim: One softball team averaged about 750 fans a game throughout the season but averaged about 2,300 fans during this stretch in the post season. But everyone loves a champion, so I tend to watch women's sports more often as a champion is closer and closer to being crowned.
I was particularly interested in women's lacrosse this season because my favorite college team played in the national championship game. Like most women's versions of sports, women's lacrosse is different from the game played by men. Some of the rules are different, the markings on the field are different, nor do the women wear helmets or pads. Oh, also, they wear skirts.
Yes, the thing many women would wear to a job interview, female lacrosse players wear as part of their uniform. They do this in field hockey, as well. Certainly this dates back to a time when it wasn't ladylike to wear pants. Play a stinky, sweaty game? Sure. Wear pants? No, not on your life.
And it wasn't just the players. The officials wore skirts, too. This brought a question to mind: A. Are men not allowed to referee women's lacrosse or if they are, B. do they also have to wear a skirt?
My problem with the uniform situation is part of a larger problem I have with the approach taken to women's sports in general. We're past the era when it wasn't OK for women to wear shorts or pants. We're past the era when women couldn't do a good job as soldiers, police officers and firefighters. We're past women being barefoot, pregnant, in the kitchen, being a homemaker or whatever else they did as a result of societal pressure.
Skirts, seriously? Still?
But skirts are only part of the problem that plagues women's sports along this mindset.
Softball is pretty much baseball. Except with a giant bat, oversized ball, small field and pitching underhanded.
The girls and women who play softball are, of course, good athletes. That isn't the point. The point is the game was created with the thought that women can't just play baseball – the field is too big, the mound is too far from the plate and whatever else.
Women's basketball uses a smaller basketball. Women's track uses smaller hurdles and a lighter shot put.
Some sports are the same, however. Swimming is the same, mixed martial arts is the same and soccer is the same, to name a few. And what happened as a result? Swimming introduced us to great stars like Janet Evans, Summer Sanders and others. Ronda Rousey became the biggest star in MMA and helped expand the sport's fanbase. Brandi Chastain, Mia Hamm and Julie Foudy really made soccer in the United States what it is today. The popularity of the sport exploded following the success of the women's national team in the early and mid 90s. Remember, they won their first World Cup in 1991 – two years prior to the founding of the MLS. The men's team has done comparatively little. The men have won titles in international tournaments with the fewest competing teams, but in World Cups and the Olympics, not so much.
Famously and recently, the women's team made a fuss about wanting to be paid the same as the men's players. That's a completely fair demand to make, particularly given the history of what the women have done for the sport. It's been a big political issue, as well. But how in the world is that supposed to happen when we haven't gotten beyond the mentality that believes women can't do it, whatever it is?
If they wear skirts, use different equipment and play under different rules, then they can do it. But Janet Evans, Ronda Rousey, Mia Hamm and many others have shown if you put women on the same field, with the same rules and the same equipment, they will eventually rise that whatever challenges come with that and excel in the same way our favorite male athletes do.
Pay equality – that's adorable. Just like skirts and ribbons. So cute.
Monday, May 30, 2016
Monday, April 18, 2016
Draft Dodger
The NBA playoffs have started, which means the only thing left for non-playoff teams to look forward to is the draft. A number of college underclassmen have declared for the NBA draft, some of whom have undoubtedly made poor decisions for themselves.
There was one player, however, who didn't declare for the draft who has also made a poor decision for himself and that's Duke guard Grayson Allen.
Allen led the Blue Devils in scoring and his opportunity to improve his draft stock will likely diminish. Examine the facts: Duke has a heralded recruiting class, which means more touches for more teammates. The incoming blue chip freshmen, the potential return of Amile Jefferson and the likely improvement of Luke Kennard and Chase Jeter are going to make it really difficult for Allen to score 20-plus in his junior year. And no matter how you slice it, that will seem like he regressed. The other option to prevent that from happening is to possess the ball more and shoot more, making him look like he's not a team player, which will also hurt his draft stock. Either way, nothing good can come out of playing his junior season.
But look even closer at the stats. They'll tell you a bigger story of particular importance to Allen. Players who stay three or more years at Duke, especially lately, condemn themselves to mediocrity. Consider the following list of Duke stars who played three or more years: Christian Laettner, JJ Redick, Mason Plumlee, Shane Battier, Seth Curry, Kyle Singler, Mike Dunleavy, DeMarcus Nelson, Grant Hill and Bobby Hurley. Certainly it's a list of not only some of the best Duke players ever, but also some of the best players in college basketball history.
Those 10 players, however, have combined to average just 92 points a game.
Now consider the list of Kyrie Irving, Jahlil Okafor, Luol Deng, Jabari Parker, Elton Brand and Rodney Hood. Those six players all played two years or fewer at Duke and combine to score 98 points a game. Six players outscoring ten. Perhaps it's a coincidence. Of the 16, only Irving is averaging more than 20 a game. Which list is he on? Of the list of six short term players, Parker is averaging the fewest points per game at 13.8. On the list of ten, only Hill is averaging more than that. Six players on the list of 10 are averaging under 10 points a game. Maybe it's all just a coincidence. So look at some other schools, like Kentucky. How are DeMarcus Cousins, Devin Booker, Karl Anthony Towns, John Wall and Anthony Davis doing? And Kevin Love, Russell Westbrook, Zac LaVine, Jrue Holiday and Darren Collison from UCLA all seem to be doing fine.
And sure, it's easy to say the guys from UCLA and Kentucky all left early and were therefore talented and are therefore excelling in the NBA.
So is the point, then, that Christian Laettner, JJ Redick and Bobby Hurley weren't talented?
So that's where we are with Allen. He could declare early for the draft, while there's still time or take his chances that all of this is just one massive coincidence and stay at Duke for at least one more year. But I think I know where this will end up if he ends up staying at Duke. "Abandon all hope, ye who enter here." Where did I see that before? Oh yeah, the doorway that leads to the home of the Devil. But maybe that's just a coincidence, too.
There was one player, however, who didn't declare for the draft who has also made a poor decision for himself and that's Duke guard Grayson Allen.
Allen led the Blue Devils in scoring and his opportunity to improve his draft stock will likely diminish. Examine the facts: Duke has a heralded recruiting class, which means more touches for more teammates. The incoming blue chip freshmen, the potential return of Amile Jefferson and the likely improvement of Luke Kennard and Chase Jeter are going to make it really difficult for Allen to score 20-plus in his junior year. And no matter how you slice it, that will seem like he regressed. The other option to prevent that from happening is to possess the ball more and shoot more, making him look like he's not a team player, which will also hurt his draft stock. Either way, nothing good can come out of playing his junior season.
But look even closer at the stats. They'll tell you a bigger story of particular importance to Allen. Players who stay three or more years at Duke, especially lately, condemn themselves to mediocrity. Consider the following list of Duke stars who played three or more years: Christian Laettner, JJ Redick, Mason Plumlee, Shane Battier, Seth Curry, Kyle Singler, Mike Dunleavy, DeMarcus Nelson, Grant Hill and Bobby Hurley. Certainly it's a list of not only some of the best Duke players ever, but also some of the best players in college basketball history.
Those 10 players, however, have combined to average just 92 points a game.
Now consider the list of Kyrie Irving, Jahlil Okafor, Luol Deng, Jabari Parker, Elton Brand and Rodney Hood. Those six players all played two years or fewer at Duke and combine to score 98 points a game. Six players outscoring ten. Perhaps it's a coincidence. Of the 16, only Irving is averaging more than 20 a game. Which list is he on? Of the list of six short term players, Parker is averaging the fewest points per game at 13.8. On the list of ten, only Hill is averaging more than that. Six players on the list of 10 are averaging under 10 points a game. Maybe it's all just a coincidence. So look at some other schools, like Kentucky. How are DeMarcus Cousins, Devin Booker, Karl Anthony Towns, John Wall and Anthony Davis doing? And Kevin Love, Russell Westbrook, Zac LaVine, Jrue Holiday and Darren Collison from UCLA all seem to be doing fine.
And sure, it's easy to say the guys from UCLA and Kentucky all left early and were therefore talented and are therefore excelling in the NBA.
So is the point, then, that Christian Laettner, JJ Redick and Bobby Hurley weren't talented?
So that's where we are with Allen. He could declare early for the draft, while there's still time or take his chances that all of this is just one massive coincidence and stay at Duke for at least one more year. But I think I know where this will end up if he ends up staying at Duke. "Abandon all hope, ye who enter here." Where did I see that before? Oh yeah, the doorway that leads to the home of the Devil. But maybe that's just a coincidence, too.
Friday, February 19, 2016
Deal with the Devil
I've stirred some controversy in my journalism career with my stance on private schools. I have to start by saying I don't hate private schools. Most are pretty benign. Places like USC and Stanford –while experiencing some negative issues over the years – are good examples of how academic and athletic success can work well on private campuses.
My general beef is that they are exclusive by nature and there's a general air of elitism surrounding them. That said, if you want to go to Clemson, then by all means, go ahead and go.
This stance isn't true across the board, though. There are some schools with ridiculous legacy programs, wherein a dimwitted student can make it in if their parent went to the same school. I don't want to say names, but don't make me yale it out loud.
One school in particular bugs me. I'll admit my own biases, but the acclaim surrounding Duke is really troubling to me. Certainly part of this feeling is born in me as a fan of a rival school, but there's much more to it than that.
Here's some history: Duke is named after an industrialist, James Duke. Administrators at the school proudly tout the fact that he raised crops like tobacco and cotton without the use of slave labor. That's true. They fail to mention slavery was outlawed when Duke was 7, so...Duke wasn't a slave owner but his father was and it's inconceivable that a man who ran tobacco and cotton plantations would have chosen to not own slaves had he had a chance. Duke was hardly benevolent. His cigarette company controlled 40-percent of the market and was repeatedly sued by competitors and suppliers for unscrupulous and monopolistic business practices. He was at the center of the Black Patch Tobacco Wars, a two year confrontation that had Duke undercut the fair market value of tobacco to his suppliers, even though black patch tobacco was highly prized and very difficult to cultivate. Duke was eventually found guilty of violating antitrust laws and his company was broken into four smaller companies, one of which was RJ Reynolds. Executives from all four would eventually testify before Congress that cigarettes didn't cause cancer.
But it isn't just cigarettes that are problematic. His brother helped found a power company to supply electricity for a series of family-owned textile mills. Duke Energy has a dubious – at best – environmental record, having repeatedly "accidentally" spilled coal ash into North Carolina waterways, killing off wildlife and poisoning drinking water. Flint's water was poisoned through stupidity; North Carolina's was poisoned through unscrupulousness.
Anyone who knows Duke University to any degree understands the school has many references to Trinity. Trinity was the name of the school prior to Duke's donation of the 2016 equivalent of just over $500 million – on the condition the school change its name to Duke, of course. Ah, to be a robber baron, huh?
As his father was a slave owner, Duke did nothing to help advance the cause of blacks in America. It's true the rest of the South had race problems, but sit ins at lunch counters in Greensboro, and even right down the road from Duke in Chapel Hill, were at least efforts to reverse those wrongs. Duke, on the other hand, tightened its stance on segregation. Martin Luther King's "Dream" speech was a year prior to the passage of the Civil Rights Act and National Guard troops forcibly integrating campuses in the South. Duke stood firm on racism. It was fully 7 years after the Dream speech – and 8 consecutive years of losing every game to rival North Carolina – before Duke integrated its campus...with a black basketball player. Had they won even a few games in that span, who knows how long they would have stayed all-white.
Indeed, public campuses had to be forced to integrate by law. Duke could have integrated decades before, after Jackie Robinson debuted in MLB, but they waited until the '70s. Yes, The Brady Bunch was on the air while Duke was still all-white.
There is a moderate amount of evidence that legacy lingers to some degree to this day at Duke. After all, one of the school's most acclaimed players lost his job for uttering racial statements.
So that's the Duke legacy, one of ruthless, unscrupulous business practices, self-aggrandizing donations, and perpetual racism. When someone like Jalen Rose calls black players playing for Duke "Uncle Toms," he's talking less about their personal make up and more about the institution and legacy they support by wearing the Duke jersey.
"Let's think about all the good he's done" isn't enough to wash away all of the negativity. Nobody goes to Al Capone University or Jesse James University or John Wilkes Booth University. Supporting a cancer-causing, environment-wrecking, labor-crushing, antitrust-violating racist might be OK in Durham, but it's not OK with me, no matter how good your basketball team might be.
My general beef is that they are exclusive by nature and there's a general air of elitism surrounding them. That said, if you want to go to Clemson, then by all means, go ahead and go.
This stance isn't true across the board, though. There are some schools with ridiculous legacy programs, wherein a dimwitted student can make it in if their parent went to the same school. I don't want to say names, but don't make me yale it out loud.
One school in particular bugs me. I'll admit my own biases, but the acclaim surrounding Duke is really troubling to me. Certainly part of this feeling is born in me as a fan of a rival school, but there's much more to it than that.
Here's some history: Duke is named after an industrialist, James Duke. Administrators at the school proudly tout the fact that he raised crops like tobacco and cotton without the use of slave labor. That's true. They fail to mention slavery was outlawed when Duke was 7, so...Duke wasn't a slave owner but his father was and it's inconceivable that a man who ran tobacco and cotton plantations would have chosen to not own slaves had he had a chance. Duke was hardly benevolent. His cigarette company controlled 40-percent of the market and was repeatedly sued by competitors and suppliers for unscrupulous and monopolistic business practices. He was at the center of the Black Patch Tobacco Wars, a two year confrontation that had Duke undercut the fair market value of tobacco to his suppliers, even though black patch tobacco was highly prized and very difficult to cultivate. Duke was eventually found guilty of violating antitrust laws and his company was broken into four smaller companies, one of which was RJ Reynolds. Executives from all four would eventually testify before Congress that cigarettes didn't cause cancer.
But it isn't just cigarettes that are problematic. His brother helped found a power company to supply electricity for a series of family-owned textile mills. Duke Energy has a dubious – at best – environmental record, having repeatedly "accidentally" spilled coal ash into North Carolina waterways, killing off wildlife and poisoning drinking water. Flint's water was poisoned through stupidity; North Carolina's was poisoned through unscrupulousness.
Anyone who knows Duke University to any degree understands the school has many references to Trinity. Trinity was the name of the school prior to Duke's donation of the 2016 equivalent of just over $500 million – on the condition the school change its name to Duke, of course. Ah, to be a robber baron, huh?
As his father was a slave owner, Duke did nothing to help advance the cause of blacks in America. It's true the rest of the South had race problems, but sit ins at lunch counters in Greensboro, and even right down the road from Duke in Chapel Hill, were at least efforts to reverse those wrongs. Duke, on the other hand, tightened its stance on segregation. Martin Luther King's "Dream" speech was a year prior to the passage of the Civil Rights Act and National Guard troops forcibly integrating campuses in the South. Duke stood firm on racism. It was fully 7 years after the Dream speech – and 8 consecutive years of losing every game to rival North Carolina – before Duke integrated its campus...with a black basketball player. Had they won even a few games in that span, who knows how long they would have stayed all-white.
Indeed, public campuses had to be forced to integrate by law. Duke could have integrated decades before, after Jackie Robinson debuted in MLB, but they waited until the '70s. Yes, The Brady Bunch was on the air while Duke was still all-white.
There is a moderate amount of evidence that legacy lingers to some degree to this day at Duke. After all, one of the school's most acclaimed players lost his job for uttering racial statements.
So that's the Duke legacy, one of ruthless, unscrupulous business practices, self-aggrandizing donations, and perpetual racism. When someone like Jalen Rose calls black players playing for Duke "Uncle Toms," he's talking less about their personal make up and more about the institution and legacy they support by wearing the Duke jersey.
"Let's think about all the good he's done" isn't enough to wash away all of the negativity. Nobody goes to Al Capone University or Jesse James University or John Wilkes Booth University. Supporting a cancer-causing, environment-wrecking, labor-crushing, antitrust-violating racist might be OK in Durham, but it's not OK with me, no matter how good your basketball team might be.
Monday, January 25, 2016
Well endowed
With all of the political debates and town hall meetings, there have been a lot of political issues discussed in the lead up to this year's presidential election.
One that is certainly gaining some interest, particularly among younger voters, is the idea of a free college education for every student who wants one. Bernie Sanders has been touting this a lot but he isn't the first politician to pose the idea.
Naturally, there is opposition to the plan. After all, who wants a nation full of smarty pants college grads *does keg stand* whooo!
Actually, much of the opposition has been centered around paying for the program. Bernie is fond of the tried and true "tax the rich" concept. The rich, for some reason, are not super fond of this idea, nor are many of the poor, who idolize the super-rich for reasons they themselves don't fully understand.
Maybe, some might suggest, we get some of that tasty off-shore cash we hear so much about. Heck, even Donald Trump has acknowledged the billions in tax dollars currently being sheltered by our ridiculous tax policy.
But what about a third option? One neither Trump nor Sanders is talking about but is entirely plausible. The college themselves could pay for the plan. On their own. Without help from students or taxpayers.
Certainly colleges won't be super keen to this concept. Never mind the fact that taxpayers have underwritten the whole of higher education for decades through federally secured loans while our economy has grown to one in increasing need of advanced education in a variety of different fields. Point remains, they won't want to do it. Sure, but they could.
And that would be the real resistence to the idea. Colleges and universities across the country wouldn't want the nation to know they could because they simply don't want anyone to know exactly how much money they have access to without public funding or tuition to help.
Every college, or at least every college I'm aware of, maintains an endowment, which is basically a large savings account made up of donations from alumni, businesses and other sources. Many of these accounts are modest but several are quite large. The Harvard endowment, for instance, is in the billions – and that doesn't mean 2 or 3 billion, that means closer to 40 billion.
Many of the largest college endowments belong to private schools. It makes sense, really. Harvard, Yale, Stanford and Princeton have alumni made up of a who's who of the rich and powerful. Ivy League types often have more cash to donate than, say, Heald grads.
But public colleges also have quite large endowments.
Texas A&M, for instance, could use something like 10-15% of its endowment and provide more than $20,000 in tuition to more than 45,000 students.
I'm not an endowment expert, but it seems like a school could repair 10% of its endowment in perputity and never carve into the larger body of the account ever. Further, graduates would certainly be much more inclined to donate if they graduated debt-free.
Further-further, debt is crushing our country and student debt is a major component of that. What would it do to the economy if millions of college grads spent $3-400 a month on consumer goods and services rather than loan repayments?
OK, so what if a political type could encourage public schools to undertake this plan. What about private schools? What would convince them? Competition.
What kid is going to pay to go to Stanford, USC or Duke when there is a suitable substitute a few miles away they can attend for free? And what will those private schools do with no students? Change their names to Duke Pile of Empty Worthless Buildings? Of course they'd follow suit lest they become obsolete and pointless.
And all it takes is one domino to fall. And all that might take is to know that your tax dollars are paying for universities and, for many larger schools, they don't need to.
So go ahead. Flick the first domino and watch the rest of them tumble into place.
One that is certainly gaining some interest, particularly among younger voters, is the idea of a free college education for every student who wants one. Bernie Sanders has been touting this a lot but he isn't the first politician to pose the idea.
Naturally, there is opposition to the plan. After all, who wants a nation full of smarty pants college grads *does keg stand* whooo!
Actually, much of the opposition has been centered around paying for the program. Bernie is fond of the tried and true "tax the rich" concept. The rich, for some reason, are not super fond of this idea, nor are many of the poor, who idolize the super-rich for reasons they themselves don't fully understand.
Maybe, some might suggest, we get some of that tasty off-shore cash we hear so much about. Heck, even Donald Trump has acknowledged the billions in tax dollars currently being sheltered by our ridiculous tax policy.
But what about a third option? One neither Trump nor Sanders is talking about but is entirely plausible. The college themselves could pay for the plan. On their own. Without help from students or taxpayers.
Certainly colleges won't be super keen to this concept. Never mind the fact that taxpayers have underwritten the whole of higher education for decades through federally secured loans while our economy has grown to one in increasing need of advanced education in a variety of different fields. Point remains, they won't want to do it. Sure, but they could.
And that would be the real resistence to the idea. Colleges and universities across the country wouldn't want the nation to know they could because they simply don't want anyone to know exactly how much money they have access to without public funding or tuition to help.
Every college, or at least every college I'm aware of, maintains an endowment, which is basically a large savings account made up of donations from alumni, businesses and other sources. Many of these accounts are modest but several are quite large. The Harvard endowment, for instance, is in the billions – and that doesn't mean 2 or 3 billion, that means closer to 40 billion.
Many of the largest college endowments belong to private schools. It makes sense, really. Harvard, Yale, Stanford and Princeton have alumni made up of a who's who of the rich and powerful. Ivy League types often have more cash to donate than, say, Heald grads.
But public colleges also have quite large endowments.
Texas A&M, for instance, could use something like 10-15% of its endowment and provide more than $20,000 in tuition to more than 45,000 students.
I'm not an endowment expert, but it seems like a school could repair 10% of its endowment in perputity and never carve into the larger body of the account ever. Further, graduates would certainly be much more inclined to donate if they graduated debt-free.
Further-further, debt is crushing our country and student debt is a major component of that. What would it do to the economy if millions of college grads spent $3-400 a month on consumer goods and services rather than loan repayments?
OK, so what if a political type could encourage public schools to undertake this plan. What about private schools? What would convince them? Competition.
What kid is going to pay to go to Stanford, USC or Duke when there is a suitable substitute a few miles away they can attend for free? And what will those private schools do with no students? Change their names to Duke Pile of Empty Worthless Buildings? Of course they'd follow suit lest they become obsolete and pointless.
And all it takes is one domino to fall. And all that might take is to know that your tax dollars are paying for universities and, for many larger schools, they don't need to.
So go ahead. Flick the first domino and watch the rest of them tumble into place.
Thursday, September 24, 2015
Papa preach
The Pope is in town, an by town I mean America. The Pope only rarely visits, so his trip to the US has been dominating the news the last few days.
He's had a number of things on his itinerary and he's made time for a short speech at different stops along the way.
I'm not Catholic, so what the Pope says is not normally something that interests me. This particular Pope, Francis, has been different, however. It's interesting to me that his interpretations of the Church's role in society have been such a change from previous Papal commentaries.
Recently, one of his speeches included the idea that human beings need to do more to take better care of the environment. Ecology isn't often a topic for church discussion, but I think the Pope has hit on something important – as pointed out by comedian Louis CK, who said of the Earth, if God gave this as a gift to us, why would we think he wouldn't want us to take care of it – what did you do, Louis's angry God asks. Who did this? Why are the polar bears brown?
It's a rare moment, for sure, when the Pope and Louis CK are on the same page, but here we are.
The most interesting thing about the environmental debate – aside from the fact there is one in light of the mountain of evidence supporting man-made changes to the environment – is the nature of the questions being asked.
There are two groups of people engaged in this debate, those who believe man's presence on the Earth and use of fossil fuels in particular, is having an adverse affect on the environment, weather patterns and the like and those who don't know how to science that good.
The people still unsure climate change is a thing, I assure you, it's a thing. It's totally happening and, to quote a Saturday Night Live skit, I get 500 letters a day telling me the same!
Still others think it's a thing but aren't sure man is causing it. That's the heart of the main point of contention in this debate. Is man causing it. That's where my issue comes in.
Of course we are, but that's not my point. My point is, it's the wrong question. I'm in the question-asking business so I know what questions are the right ones to ask and is man causing global climate change isn't the right question.
Te right question is can man fix it?
Who cares how it's happening? Is it happening? Yes. Did we cause it? Unimportant. When your house is on fire, you call the fire department. They come and put the fire out. THEN they try to figure out the cause. Nobody figures out the cause THEN calls the fire department. The cause is unimportant right now. Can humans fix the problem? That's the only question that matters.
If no, then kiss your ass goodbye because this is how ice ages start. It's been a while since the last one, but this is how they start. The planet heats up then it cools off – a lot.
If yes, then let's get to the fixing it part or, as Jeff Spicoli said in Fast Times at Ridgemont High, otherwise we'll be bogus, too.
That's it. End of questions. Can we fix it? Probably we can, I think. It's hard, but mankind can do hard things. As Louis CK said, you just throw human death and suffering at it until it's done. Well, there's been plenty of human death and suffering so far. If we don't fix it quickly, there will be a lot more to come.
He's had a number of things on his itinerary and he's made time for a short speech at different stops along the way.
I'm not Catholic, so what the Pope says is not normally something that interests me. This particular Pope, Francis, has been different, however. It's interesting to me that his interpretations of the Church's role in society have been such a change from previous Papal commentaries.
Recently, one of his speeches included the idea that human beings need to do more to take better care of the environment. Ecology isn't often a topic for church discussion, but I think the Pope has hit on something important – as pointed out by comedian Louis CK, who said of the Earth, if God gave this as a gift to us, why would we think he wouldn't want us to take care of it – what did you do, Louis's angry God asks. Who did this? Why are the polar bears brown?
It's a rare moment, for sure, when the Pope and Louis CK are on the same page, but here we are.
The most interesting thing about the environmental debate – aside from the fact there is one in light of the mountain of evidence supporting man-made changes to the environment – is the nature of the questions being asked.
There are two groups of people engaged in this debate, those who believe man's presence on the Earth and use of fossil fuels in particular, is having an adverse affect on the environment, weather patterns and the like and those who don't know how to science that good.
The people still unsure climate change is a thing, I assure you, it's a thing. It's totally happening and, to quote a Saturday Night Live skit, I get 500 letters a day telling me the same!
Still others think it's a thing but aren't sure man is causing it. That's the heart of the main point of contention in this debate. Is man causing it. That's where my issue comes in.
Of course we are, but that's not my point. My point is, it's the wrong question. I'm in the question-asking business so I know what questions are the right ones to ask and is man causing global climate change isn't the right question.
Te right question is can man fix it?
Who cares how it's happening? Is it happening? Yes. Did we cause it? Unimportant. When your house is on fire, you call the fire department. They come and put the fire out. THEN they try to figure out the cause. Nobody figures out the cause THEN calls the fire department. The cause is unimportant right now. Can humans fix the problem? That's the only question that matters.
If no, then kiss your ass goodbye because this is how ice ages start. It's been a while since the last one, but this is how they start. The planet heats up then it cools off – a lot.
If yes, then let's get to the fixing it part or, as Jeff Spicoli said in Fast Times at Ridgemont High, otherwise we'll be bogus, too.
That's it. End of questions. Can we fix it? Probably we can, I think. It's hard, but mankind can do hard things. As Louis CK said, you just throw human death and suffering at it until it's done. Well, there's been plenty of human death and suffering so far. If we don't fix it quickly, there will be a lot more to come.
Thursday, August 6, 2015
This goes to 11
I live in California and right now our state is on fire. I don't mean that in the Alicia Keys sense, either. California is literally on fire. Fire crews have been battling the nearly two dozen raging fires to the best of their abilities. They deserve a lot of credit for preserving property and keeping the bulk of the damage limited to things that will grow back sooner or later.
Still, there has been a firefighter killed in the northern part of the state and some property damage done. As good as these fire crews are doing, certainly they'd love to do even better. Part of the reason they are doing a good job this year, even amid California's tinder-dry brush, is improved resources from the air.
Cal Fire, the state's main wild land fire resource, has utilized a small fleet of DC-10 airliners, converted from commercial use to battle fires. It's made a big difference. But, like all things that go up to 10, maybe there are times when folks could use that little bit extra and turn it up to 11, as Spinal Tap suggested.
That 11 could come in the form of the Air Force C5. The Air Force is in the process of upgrading their fleet of C5 cargo planes. New and retrofitted planes will be able to carry more, fly farther and higher and generally do everything better than the current C5.
Also, there will almost certainly be some that are never retrofitted and are destined to end up in the desert bone yard somewhere. So why not adapt those for fire service? OK, I get that carrying a sloshy fluid like fire retardant or water makes flying a plane complicated – but the vacuum of space also made flying complicated and yet, the moon. So, you know, obstacles are beatable.
Without getting overly technical, the payload capacity of the C5 is about double the DC10. The aid ground crews get from a single DC10 pass would be double, in theory.
A higher volume of water would not only help douse flames better, they would help calm related fire conditions. Hot air rises, which pulls surrounding air into the area, which helps keep the fire stoked. Much of the water from a C5 would douse flames, but much of it would also cool the air, settle that rising air and calm fire-generated winds. In the use of retardant, a C5 could cover a much larger area and help contain the flames to a smaller perimeter. Rather than dozens of fire crews spread across 100 square miles, they could be spread across 40 or 50 square miles.
My politician friends will, of course, point out the cost of conversion and operation. Yep. There's also a cost to insurance companies for fire damage and to state and federal expenditures for fighting fires. Why not fight it as quickly and aggressively as possible and minimize the resources needed and risk to property and life?
Until then, we'll just have to hope crews on the ground keep doing a great job. Maybe one day soon they'll get a bit more help from above.
Still, there has been a firefighter killed in the northern part of the state and some property damage done. As good as these fire crews are doing, certainly they'd love to do even better. Part of the reason they are doing a good job this year, even amid California's tinder-dry brush, is improved resources from the air.
Cal Fire, the state's main wild land fire resource, has utilized a small fleet of DC-10 airliners, converted from commercial use to battle fires. It's made a big difference. But, like all things that go up to 10, maybe there are times when folks could use that little bit extra and turn it up to 11, as Spinal Tap suggested.
That 11 could come in the form of the Air Force C5. The Air Force is in the process of upgrading their fleet of C5 cargo planes. New and retrofitted planes will be able to carry more, fly farther and higher and generally do everything better than the current C5.
Also, there will almost certainly be some that are never retrofitted and are destined to end up in the desert bone yard somewhere. So why not adapt those for fire service? OK, I get that carrying a sloshy fluid like fire retardant or water makes flying a plane complicated – but the vacuum of space also made flying complicated and yet, the moon. So, you know, obstacles are beatable.
Without getting overly technical, the payload capacity of the C5 is about double the DC10. The aid ground crews get from a single DC10 pass would be double, in theory.
A higher volume of water would not only help douse flames better, they would help calm related fire conditions. Hot air rises, which pulls surrounding air into the area, which helps keep the fire stoked. Much of the water from a C5 would douse flames, but much of it would also cool the air, settle that rising air and calm fire-generated winds. In the use of retardant, a C5 could cover a much larger area and help contain the flames to a smaller perimeter. Rather than dozens of fire crews spread across 100 square miles, they could be spread across 40 or 50 square miles.
My politician friends will, of course, point out the cost of conversion and operation. Yep. There's also a cost to insurance companies for fire damage and to state and federal expenditures for fighting fires. Why not fight it as quickly and aggressively as possible and minimize the resources needed and risk to property and life?
Until then, we'll just have to hope crews on the ground keep doing a great job. Maybe one day soon they'll get a bit more help from above.
Sunday, July 19, 2015
Blue Chip Season
After blue chip basketball recruit Jayson Tatum's recent announcement to sign with Duke, many recruiting experts anticipated this meant fellow blue chippers Dennis Smith and Harry Giles would join Tatum in Durham.
Giles and Smith can certainly do so, but it would be a mistake.
The path through Duke to NBA stardom does not pan out often. Bobby Hurley, Christian Laettner, JJ Reddick, Kyle Singler, Shane Battier and a handful of other all-time Duke (and ACC, for that matter) legends, have combined to average 62 points in their careers. But that's not the important point for Smith and Giles.
Duke, for as many players as it does send to mostly fruitless NBA careers, has done horrendously poorly in compiling NBA championships. Since Coach K has been at Duke, only three players have ever won NBA championships. North Carolina, as a comparison, just passed the 30 player mark this season when Harrison Barnes and James Michael McAdoo earned rings with the Warriors. But that's also not the point for Giles and Smith.
The real point for Giles and Smith to consider is what they want out of playing in college. Anything else anyone can name is all well and good, but I'd have to assume that each of these players has hopes of being drafted as high in the NBA draft as possible one day.
With that, the smarter bet for these two is to go somewhere besides Duke so they can more clearly stand out apart from Tatum and other top-level recruits who have signed with Duke already. Moreover, it might be smart for them to sign with North Carolina to not only have a chance to stand apart from other recruits, but have multiple opportunities to prove they are better than these other recruits. Playing with them at Duke makes that difficult.
Need an example: Jahlil Okafor was drafted in the top five this year. His teammates Justise Winslow and Tyus Jones slid down from their previous draft projections, thus costing them money. Having worked as a sports writer for 16 years and talking over and over to scout after scout, their number one question always is: Is Player B that good or is he being made to look good by Player A? Because of Okafor, Winslow and Jones weren't defended as rigorously as they could have been – which is helpful for getting open shots. NBA scouts, evidently, thought Okafor was making life easier on his running mates and they weren't really as good as they seemed.
That's fine if the goal is to win in college. But is it?
There has been case after case of players playing at Cal or Oregon State, Creighton, Butler and so on, who have excelled despite being the central focus of a team's offense. They boosted their draft stock by not playing next to other top-level recruits.
So what of the case for North Carolina, then? Certainly UNC has no lack of top talent but they have something that Duke and Kentucky can't offer and that's opportunity.
Marcus Paige and Bryce Johnson are leaving after this season, not only opening up needed playing time for both Giles and Smith, but also voiding the "star" role on the team, which would allow the two to really showcase how good they are on their own while also having one other player to help take away some pressure.
What will further aid them at UNC, in the eyes of scouts, is Carolina's notoriously tough schedule. They play Duke, obviously, but almost always play teams like Kansas, Michigan State, Kentucky and other top-tier teams. It's easy for Giles and Smith, then, to not only show they are better than the top players at Duke but also better than every other player at every top program by giving them a chance to play them head to head.
So those are the facts staring these blue chip players in the face.
And it's not an argument to sway. The facts are simply facts. Risk losing money in the draft, get caught in whatever weird funk seems to haunt Duke players in the NBA and abandon hope of winning NBA championships, or make a smarter choice all the way around and choose a different school.
Giles and Smith can certainly do so, but it would be a mistake.
The path through Duke to NBA stardom does not pan out often. Bobby Hurley, Christian Laettner, JJ Reddick, Kyle Singler, Shane Battier and a handful of other all-time Duke (and ACC, for that matter) legends, have combined to average 62 points in their careers. But that's not the important point for Smith and Giles.
Duke, for as many players as it does send to mostly fruitless NBA careers, has done horrendously poorly in compiling NBA championships. Since Coach K has been at Duke, only three players have ever won NBA championships. North Carolina, as a comparison, just passed the 30 player mark this season when Harrison Barnes and James Michael McAdoo earned rings with the Warriors. But that's also not the point for Giles and Smith.
The real point for Giles and Smith to consider is what they want out of playing in college. Anything else anyone can name is all well and good, but I'd have to assume that each of these players has hopes of being drafted as high in the NBA draft as possible one day.
With that, the smarter bet for these two is to go somewhere besides Duke so they can more clearly stand out apart from Tatum and other top-level recruits who have signed with Duke already. Moreover, it might be smart for them to sign with North Carolina to not only have a chance to stand apart from other recruits, but have multiple opportunities to prove they are better than these other recruits. Playing with them at Duke makes that difficult.
Need an example: Jahlil Okafor was drafted in the top five this year. His teammates Justise Winslow and Tyus Jones slid down from their previous draft projections, thus costing them money. Having worked as a sports writer for 16 years and talking over and over to scout after scout, their number one question always is: Is Player B that good or is he being made to look good by Player A? Because of Okafor, Winslow and Jones weren't defended as rigorously as they could have been – which is helpful for getting open shots. NBA scouts, evidently, thought Okafor was making life easier on his running mates and they weren't really as good as they seemed.
That's fine if the goal is to win in college. But is it?
There has been case after case of players playing at Cal or Oregon State, Creighton, Butler and so on, who have excelled despite being the central focus of a team's offense. They boosted their draft stock by not playing next to other top-level recruits.
So what of the case for North Carolina, then? Certainly UNC has no lack of top talent but they have something that Duke and Kentucky can't offer and that's opportunity.
Marcus Paige and Bryce Johnson are leaving after this season, not only opening up needed playing time for both Giles and Smith, but also voiding the "star" role on the team, which would allow the two to really showcase how good they are on their own while also having one other player to help take away some pressure.
What will further aid them at UNC, in the eyes of scouts, is Carolina's notoriously tough schedule. They play Duke, obviously, but almost always play teams like Kansas, Michigan State, Kentucky and other top-tier teams. It's easy for Giles and Smith, then, to not only show they are better than the top players at Duke but also better than every other player at every top program by giving them a chance to play them head to head.
So those are the facts staring these blue chip players in the face.
And it's not an argument to sway. The facts are simply facts. Risk losing money in the draft, get caught in whatever weird funk seems to haunt Duke players in the NBA and abandon hope of winning NBA championships, or make a smarter choice all the way around and choose a different school.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)