In reading ESPNs website this AM, I see a pretty good argument being made for Virginia Tech needing to be in the Championship game against either Texas or USC. Likewise, Alabama could end up undefeated in the always tough SEC conference. This opens the door to two good teams ending up with no losses. In any higher tier of sports this is absolutely unacceptable.
However shall we fix this quandary of who should be playing for #1?
It's high time for college footballs bowl system to go away or be adapted into a round robin playoff system to give the championship title to the team that truly deserves it.
It's not tough. Take the top eight teams via the BCS/Rankings/Voodoo system of the moment used and put them in a playoff. Make each rounds playoff game be sponsored by such and such company just like the bowl game was. Play it in a neutral venue. This would require two extra games, but would leave no doubt who the National Champion really is.
Look at the excitement March Madness creates for the NCAA, and basketball isn't nearly the PR powerhouse college football is. Imagine the extra earnings from powerhouse teams matching up in games that actually matter?
The teams deserve this. The fans deserve this. It's time.
Friday, October 28, 2005
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
Unfrugal overlap
This is a rant on the vast misappropriation of funds in the name of tradition. This is only a rant. No actual anger was directed at anyone, real or imagined. In the case of real anger I would've declared a state of national crisis and threatened to chain myself to some inanimate object, like the White House fence.
Onward.
A little backstory. I have never tried any drug, ever. I have never even smoked a ciggarette. I've never had the slightest inclination from a young age to try or do any drugs. I have also served in the military, worked for the government, and in private sector.
Why are we spending tens of billions on a war on drugs, and on locking up drug users/dealers? Yes, selling drugs to children is bad. However, that is the fault of the parent, just as if their child were smoking or drinking alcohol.
Our prisons are there to lock up dangerous criminals. Way too many of them are filled with drug addicts who are a danger solely to themselves. Want to pay for all these hurricanes? Easy enough, get rid of the ridiculous war on drugs, and funnel all that money into infrastructure, rebuilding, and disaster relief. Problem solved.
Our country is way too beholden to spending cash on things 'because it has always been that way'. That is not a good reason.
Having four branches of the armed services with overlap of jobs and training centers is unnecessary and wasteful. Having four service acadamies essentially doing the same thing is not frugal or wise. If a city had four different police forces because it had always been that way, would it be ok? It's tradition! Baloney.
Why do we have so many federal law enforcement branches that have their piece of the pie? They all have their own bureaucracy and management facilities and once again, overlap of field agents and personnel.
I haven't even touched on tort reform, the many silly laws that need repealed, or the fact we have such an insurance quandary in this country.
It's high time we look at what is important in America, and spend our taxed dollars appropriately. No war on drugs. One military, not four times the need. Streamlined law enforcement with simple and effective goals. If we can add massive lawsuit reform, corporate tax reform, and reducing the red tape for small business', then we'd really get our country pointed in the right direction.
Onward.
A little backstory. I have never tried any drug, ever. I have never even smoked a ciggarette. I've never had the slightest inclination from a young age to try or do any drugs. I have also served in the military, worked for the government, and in private sector.
Why are we spending tens of billions on a war on drugs, and on locking up drug users/dealers? Yes, selling drugs to children is bad. However, that is the fault of the parent, just as if their child were smoking or drinking alcohol.
Our prisons are there to lock up dangerous criminals. Way too many of them are filled with drug addicts who are a danger solely to themselves. Want to pay for all these hurricanes? Easy enough, get rid of the ridiculous war on drugs, and funnel all that money into infrastructure, rebuilding, and disaster relief. Problem solved.
Our country is way too beholden to spending cash on things 'because it has always been that way'. That is not a good reason.
Having four branches of the armed services with overlap of jobs and training centers is unnecessary and wasteful. Having four service acadamies essentially doing the same thing is not frugal or wise. If a city had four different police forces because it had always been that way, would it be ok? It's tradition! Baloney.
Why do we have so many federal law enforcement branches that have their piece of the pie? They all have their own bureaucracy and management facilities and once again, overlap of field agents and personnel.
I haven't even touched on tort reform, the many silly laws that need repealed, or the fact we have such an insurance quandary in this country.
It's high time we look at what is important in America, and spend our taxed dollars appropriately. No war on drugs. One military, not four times the need. Streamlined law enforcement with simple and effective goals. If we can add massive lawsuit reform, corporate tax reform, and reducing the red tape for small business', then we'd really get our country pointed in the right direction.
Friday, October 21, 2005
The real reason movies are becoming less appealing
This weekend I'm watching the Firefly series which I ordered via Netflix. Last weekend I spent watching the second season of 24. In my queue, I have the Battlestar Galactica series, as well as some of the CSI episodes I've missed.
Hollywood is in a tiff regarding the fact the movie industry is losing money, and less people are inclined to go to theatres. While they lament the fact movies aren't as good as before, and that people are pirating away from watching releases, they miss the simple and obvious true cause of their decline. The acting, writing, and entertainment value on TV is better than it is at the movie theatres.
I love movies. However, I must admit that I do not feel a compulsion to go out to watch good entertainment. In fact, with my Home Theatre System the opposite is true. It's expensive and not worth the bang for the buck anymore. The picture isn't as good as my system at home, and one cannot discount the pause button while watching.
The fix for this is rather simple. First, we need must see movies that people know about and are inclined to see at the theatre. Second, we need theatres that are both compelling to visit and more affordable. 30 dollars for a couple for two hours is not a good deal, anyway you slice it. Finally, the paradigm needs to be re-evaluated. People like bundles and deals. Dinner, movies, and a free snack bag would be nice for a set price.
As TV continues to grow, and the art of creating movies becomes less expensive I don't see a way for the theatre to survive unless it reinvents itself.
Hollywood is in a tiff regarding the fact the movie industry is losing money, and less people are inclined to go to theatres. While they lament the fact movies aren't as good as before, and that people are pirating away from watching releases, they miss the simple and obvious true cause of their decline. The acting, writing, and entertainment value on TV is better than it is at the movie theatres.
I love movies. However, I must admit that I do not feel a compulsion to go out to watch good entertainment. In fact, with my Home Theatre System the opposite is true. It's expensive and not worth the bang for the buck anymore. The picture isn't as good as my system at home, and one cannot discount the pause button while watching.
The fix for this is rather simple. First, we need must see movies that people know about and are inclined to see at the theatre. Second, we need theatres that are both compelling to visit and more affordable. 30 dollars for a couple for two hours is not a good deal, anyway you slice it. Finally, the paradigm needs to be re-evaluated. People like bundles and deals. Dinner, movies, and a free snack bag would be nice for a set price.
As TV continues to grow, and the art of creating movies becomes less expensive I don't see a way for the theatre to survive unless it reinvents itself.
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
ID vs Evolution
Over the course of the last year I've read many different viewpoints on Intelligent Design versus Evolution. Now, I am a technical person with a background in science, but hardly a micro or evolutionary biologist. However, the discussions being represented on both sides really lean more towards what should be taught versus a knowledge of the cutting edge of discovery.
The problem I see is evolution is both fact and a great mystery. It encapsulates many, many different things and this is a problem. Animal physiology changing slightly is indeed fact. It is seen, can easily be verified, and is proven. Likewise, species slightly altering and forming newer ones is also in my mind verifiable. Common descent and the origins of life are not proveable, not factual, and not verifiable. Equating these as fact and putting them under the large umbrella of evolution is utter rubbish, but happens with more commonality. These are still a mystery and unfortunately many in the science community wish to present ideas as facts, when this is not at all what science should be about.
Intelligent Design is an interesting idea and it's supporters have some excellent points. However, the one single damning part of ID that seems to be ignored is it does not use materialistic naturalism in how it is setup. Saying we do not understand how something occured, and thus it is irreducibly complex is not a scientific answer, nor a good basis for an argument for anything. While this may indeed be true it misses the simple guiding point of science in a faux Occlams Razor argument.
So, where does this lead us? Well, there are certainly vast deceits being pushed by both sides here. Evolution tries to call it's many facets factual which is a great misleading of science. ID tries to hoist non scientific methodologies without a good reason.
I wish there was a way to wipe the slate clean, bring in fresh ideas, remove the pre concieved notions, and work towards progress which neither evolution or ID seems to be doing well. One is faux science, the other is science of faux principles. Galileo and Newton must be rolling over in their graves.
The problem I see is evolution is both fact and a great mystery. It encapsulates many, many different things and this is a problem. Animal physiology changing slightly is indeed fact. It is seen, can easily be verified, and is proven. Likewise, species slightly altering and forming newer ones is also in my mind verifiable. Common descent and the origins of life are not proveable, not factual, and not verifiable. Equating these as fact and putting them under the large umbrella of evolution is utter rubbish, but happens with more commonality. These are still a mystery and unfortunately many in the science community wish to present ideas as facts, when this is not at all what science should be about.
Intelligent Design is an interesting idea and it's supporters have some excellent points. However, the one single damning part of ID that seems to be ignored is it does not use materialistic naturalism in how it is setup. Saying we do not understand how something occured, and thus it is irreducibly complex is not a scientific answer, nor a good basis for an argument for anything. While this may indeed be true it misses the simple guiding point of science in a faux Occlams Razor argument.
So, where does this lead us? Well, there are certainly vast deceits being pushed by both sides here. Evolution tries to call it's many facets factual which is a great misleading of science. ID tries to hoist non scientific methodologies without a good reason.
I wish there was a way to wipe the slate clean, bring in fresh ideas, remove the pre concieved notions, and work towards progress which neither evolution or ID seems to be doing well. One is faux science, the other is science of faux principles. Galileo and Newton must be rolling over in their graves.
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
Information Overload on Miers
I've come to the point where I feel there is just too much information for an inquisitive person to try and absorb via the Internet.
The Miers nomination is a great case in point regarding this dilemma. There is such a broad spectrum of opinion and news being presented it's somewhat difficult to envelop and remain objective. This is compounded because the average person has absolutely no idea who on earth Harriet Miers really is.
So, given that we're being bombarded via TV News, Blogs, Radio, and probably even Smoke Signals with various messages how does one determine if Ms Miers is the right stuff for our SCOTUS?
How did we determine Roberts was qualified? Ah yes, he was at the top of his class at Harvard and has been an administration 'constitutional' lawyer for years. However, most people had no clue about him prior to the nomination, so really outside of his years as a lawyer for the administration and a brief tenure on the Federal Court there is little difference between Mr. Roberts and Ms. Miers save that he is from an elitist school and has more of a meritorious paper trail.
As anyone who has worked a real job can tell someone, and unfortunately I do not include lawyers in this category, scholastic achievement means nothing. It's great if one is trying to show off their resume, but in practice it is merely ones past and not who one is. Our esteemed President is a prime example of this, as he was not what one would call an academic.
Miers could be 100 times the lawyer Roberts is and crush him in court and in character, however many are not even giving her the benefit of the doubt because she was succeeding in private practice. Likewise, her breadth of knowledge is obviously much larger than many others, due to the simple fact she has DONE so much more. This point seems to be missed by the blogger community and our mainstream media.
I guess the writers and lawyers covering this with their elitist attitude and disdain have forgotten one simple fact, private practice is more difficult and more of a benchmark for talent than being a well educated yes man.
Roberts is a much better scholar and teacher than Miers. However what he isn't is a better Lawyer based on what one can read.
SCOTUS is supposed to represent the best we have in the law community to perform their rule in the Judicial Branch. This is not limited to constitutionality as some tunnel visioned folk have misrepresented, but to be a bastion of right, wrong and the checks and balances that are in the best interest of our country and it's judicial branch.
Give me a Harriet Miers or William Rehnquist over a Roberts, Souter, or Bork any day and twice on Sunday.
The Miers nomination is a great case in point regarding this dilemma. There is such a broad spectrum of opinion and news being presented it's somewhat difficult to envelop and remain objective. This is compounded because the average person has absolutely no idea who on earth Harriet Miers really is.
So, given that we're being bombarded via TV News, Blogs, Radio, and probably even Smoke Signals with various messages how does one determine if Ms Miers is the right stuff for our SCOTUS?
How did we determine Roberts was qualified? Ah yes, he was at the top of his class at Harvard and has been an administration 'constitutional' lawyer for years. However, most people had no clue about him prior to the nomination, so really outside of his years as a lawyer for the administration and a brief tenure on the Federal Court there is little difference between Mr. Roberts and Ms. Miers save that he is from an elitist school and has more of a meritorious paper trail.
As anyone who has worked a real job can tell someone, and unfortunately I do not include lawyers in this category, scholastic achievement means nothing. It's great if one is trying to show off their resume, but in practice it is merely ones past and not who one is. Our esteemed President is a prime example of this, as he was not what one would call an academic.
Miers could be 100 times the lawyer Roberts is and crush him in court and in character, however many are not even giving her the benefit of the doubt because she was succeeding in private practice. Likewise, her breadth of knowledge is obviously much larger than many others, due to the simple fact she has DONE so much more. This point seems to be missed by the blogger community and our mainstream media.
I guess the writers and lawyers covering this with their elitist attitude and disdain have forgotten one simple fact, private practice is more difficult and more of a benchmark for talent than being a well educated yes man.
Roberts is a much better scholar and teacher than Miers. However what he isn't is a better Lawyer based on what one can read.
SCOTUS is supposed to represent the best we have in the law community to perform their rule in the Judicial Branch. This is not limited to constitutionality as some tunnel visioned folk have misrepresented, but to be a bastion of right, wrong and the checks and balances that are in the best interest of our country and it's judicial branch.
Give me a Harriet Miers or William Rehnquist over a Roberts, Souter, or Bork any day and twice on Sunday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)