Remember Two Things

Originally Posted 11/02/03--12:31pm

Two things happened in college football this weekend that have me shaking my head and lamenting the condition of college football. I have previously written in this space about my feelings regarding Ohio State and the Maurice Clarrett situation, which I feel started this season with the wrong tone. While there have been great moments during this college football season, Saturday was a lesson in why we should never get too comfortable.

Debacle #1--Ohio State at Penn State

The Penn State Nittany Lions are not a Top 25 team. In fact, this year they are not a Top 50 team. They are young and inexperienced but talented and determined. The chips have just not fallen for these Lions. In games where the offense played well, the defense collapsed and vice versa. Turnovers and the kicking game have also done their part to ruin chances for wins this year. However, whether you are a fan or just an observer, you could see that these players were just a few good games away from putting it together and really becoming a team. Some thought that might happen when Ohio State came to town this past Saturday.

What a story it could be. An emotional pep rally on Friday that stirred the emotions of everyone in attendance being led by a man nearly four times the age of the average attendee. This young Penn State team could come out charged with that emotion and put it together against the defending National Champion. Maybe even start a chain reaction that would carry this Nittany Lion team to wins over Michigan and Michigan State as well. A 5-7 season in which you beat the sixth, seventh, and tenth-ranked teams in the country is at least palatable. And it could all start this Saturday against Ohio State in Happy Valley where Ohio State had lost its last three games. In a series where the home team is 9-1 over the last 10 games. Yes, this could be the turning point for this team.

So what exactly is a "turning point" and how would we be able to tell if it was happening? Well, it is actually fairly simple. Teams like this young Lion team shoot themselves in the foot just as much as they are beaten and they usually lack the ability to finish games even when they are ahead. So, what we're looking for is consistent play for four quarters during which, players who were previously unproductive start to find their stride and the team as a whole begins to move in one direction. Look for the defense to play well even though they will be overmatched in size. Look for the offense to get a boost from a patchwork receiving corps that has been horribly inconsistent all year. If these things happen, you should look up and see the Lions in a position to win the game in the fourth quarter.

Now that we have our definition laid out, lets take a look at what happened. After being out for 3 weeks with a knee injury, Zack Mills came back from lackluster performances in his first 3 games to lead this offense. He was accurate, ran well, and made good judgements under pressure. The receivers finally began to inspire confidence. Dropped passes were kept to a minimum, clutch catches were made for first downs, and this group even made a couple of great catches to help pick Mills up when his passes weren't perfect. Barring Ohio State's first drive of the game and their first of the second half, this defense played flawlessly. They were able to get pressure with an undersized front four, brought blitzes in appropriate situations, and the secondary was like a blanket, even converting an interception into a score. The result of all of this: Penn State led for all but about 7 minutes of this game.

This game was everything it was supposed to be and everything Lions fans had hoped it could be. This team was coming together and learning that if they played hard and smart and fought for four quarters, they could beat the sixth-ranked team in the country. This is the kind of win a program can really hang its hat on, or in this case ressurect itself on. And then the disturbing part happened.

Penn State players did look up at that scoreboard in the fourth quarter and did find themselves ahead. It was the product of blood and sweat and effort. They were sore and tired but they were ready. They were ready to "become." And as they stood on the edge of "becoming," finally seeing what had eluded them for three quarters of a season, they had it all snatched from them by non-participants who, with alarming recent frequency, have been the center of attention in college football games (And the NFL for that matter.). Who are these non-participants? Incompetent officials and officiating crews.

It happened to the Nittany Lions three times last year and led to stories of Coach Paterno "losing it," and needing to retire. Against Iowa, Ohio State, and Michigan last year, Penn State had drives that could have won those games halted by grossly incompetent officiating. Mistakes that were later admitted to by the Big Ten and its officials. And yet despite these acknowledgements, Conference President James E. Delany (Who, by the way, claims credit for the Big Ten's inclusion in the BCS on the Big Ten's website [http://bigten.cstv.com/school-bio/delany-bio.html], which is like claiming credit for the sun rising. There was never any doubt that the Big Ten would be a BCS conference. Delany did nothing to make the Big Ten more attractive to the BCS. Over one hundred years of quality football took care of that. Claiming credit for "inclusion" is ridiculous. However, it is not surprising considering Delany also claims credit for league expansion, bowl tie-ins, league parity, attendance growth, and relocation of the Big Ten offices, things that have nothing to do with anything he does as Conference President. The final say in expansion rests with the universities. League parity is the result of NCAA rules and recruiting, neither of which has anything to do with Delany. Bowl tie-ins, like inclusion in the BCS, are the result of the Big Ten being the Big Ten, not James E. Delany's negotiating skill. Attendance growth has more to do with the ever expanding fan base and stadiums all across the country than anything else. Relocation of the Big Ten offices? This is something a conference president puts on his resume? Even the spin put on this "accomplishment" at the Big Ten's website can't save this from being just plain silly.) reprimanded Coach Paterno for his officiating complaints last season so severely that after this Saturday's game against Ohio State Paterno refused to even comment on the officiating mistakes when asked by reporters at the post-game press conference.

Two calls went against Penn State late in the game that effected the outcome of this contest. The first was a non-call on pass interference. Matt Kranchick was knocked to the ground on a 3rd down play as the Ohio State defender ran through him to get to the ball. No flag. Appalling. The second was a dropped pass by Ohio State's tight end on third down as the Buckeyes were driving for the winning score. The ball was clearly dropped. There was nothing obscuring anyone's view. It was not a judgement call. There were not four other footballs on the field at the same time to confuse the officials. They just blew the most elementary call in the book. And so, on what should have been fourth down, the Buckeyes had a red zone first down.

I can only hope that this Lion team will have the fortitude to draw as much from this defeat as they would have drawn from the victory. If they can't, it will be a tragedy and another signpost on a road that should lead to instant replay in college football.

Debacle#2--Miami goes back to their roots

Thanks to Howard Schnellenberger, Miami was rescued from perennial football obscurity in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Miami continued a meteoric rise during the 1980s becoming one of the most successful college football programs in the country under Jimmy Johnson. However, they were also the team people loved to hate. Their antics on the field and questionable judgement off the field solidified their image as the bad boys of college football. One Miami-Notre Dame game from that era was billed as the Catholics vs. the Convicts. During a pre-game press conference leading up to the 1986 Fiesta Bowl, Miami players showed up in army fatigues and spoke disparagingly of their opponents, the Penn State Nittany Lions. Miami was just plain good at being bad. College football fans came to understand this and expect it. Miami's image and its behavior wasn't really acceptable or good for college football, but at least it was up front.

After Jimmy Johnson left Miami, Butch Davis and then Larry Coker tried to "clean up" Miami's image. What is unclear is if either coach actually devised or deployed any substantitive policy changes aimed at making the program better or if they were just concerned with cowing public opinion into believing that Miami was somehow "cleaner" without doing anything to actually make it "clean." It WAS unclear, that is, until this past Saturday. As Miami was buried under 31 points and the Virginia Tech defense, their true nature and their tried and true roots came out. Trash-talking, pushing, fighting, and in general, behaving badly. After 39 straight regular season wins, Miami got spanked, and after their behavior on the field Saturday they deserved to be spanked literally.

This is not a surprise to me, however. I never bought into the "new" Miami, a kinder gentler Miami. They are essentially the same hooligans they always were because they draw their players from the same stock they always have and they treat their football players the same as they always have. Miami's football players are NOT student athletes. They are, in large part, last chance kids that have a talent for football. These are kids that, for one reason or another, have little hope beyond football. They will disappear, be incarcerated, or be dead in 5 years unless they make it in the NFL. This is partly because they have little ambition beyond that, partly because they have no talent beyond that, and partly because schools like Miami offer them litle incentive to make themselves more than that. The sum of these parts is that Miami, more often than not, produces players that will shirk their academic responsibilities to hone their football skills, take classes that are designed to help them pass, and take course schedules that are designed to help them pass three years relatively easily while they wait for the gravy train. Ironically, it is these same players (and players from other similar schools) that will blame the NFL and everyone else for not helping them make the transition back into mainstream America after their playing days are over. What they should be told is: "That is YOUR job, not OURS. If you had taken your studies in college more seriously, you would have a career to fall back on now. You didn't, and we have little inclination to feel sorry for a once-millionaire who pissed away his fortune and now wants sympathy and presumably a hand-out."

Now, does this describe ALL Miami football players? No. But it describes enough to be more important than the exceptions. Miami's behavior on Saturday was not surprising, but it should not be tolerated. Shame on them if it is and shame on us for allowing it and subsidizing it.

Boxing's Black Eye

Originally Posted 09/22/03--4:51pm CDT

When I was younger, I could not understand why people watched boxing or what made them think it was a sport. I was into baseball, football, and basketball. I did not see the attraction of boxing and I dare say that I thought it was a big waste of time. As I have grown older, I have come to appreciate the "sweet science." Now, I would describe myself as a fairly astute boxing fan. In addition, I have to come to care a great deal for the condition of the sport and its future. I find it hard not to care about an endeavor that can produce such classic drama as the Mickey Ward/Arturo Gatti fight from 2001 and 2002. However, I find myself saddened by what I consider to be the deteriorating condition of boxing. I'll outline what I mean by this with a few examples. Mike Tyson was once a great fighter and great champion. During his rise to prominence and eventual mastery of the heavyweight division, he was mentored and parented by the legendary Cus D'Amato. For those not familiar with Cus, think of Mick from the Rocky movies. After D'Amato's death, Tyson's life in and out of boxing began to spiral downward. The bottom of that spiral was his knockout loss to James "Buster" Douglas in Tokyo and his conviction for rape and subsequent incarceration. Although this story is tragic enough at this point, the bigger problem for me came after his release and his return to the ring. There was, of course, the infamous ear-biting of Evander Holyfield. That event definitely signalled to most reasonable people that Mike had some issues that needed to be dealt with, perhaps even with medication. Despite this realization, Tennessee was still willing to license Tyson to fight Lennox Lewis even after the Nevada commission found Tyson unfit to fight. Had Tennessee not licensed Tyson, I'm quite sure another state would have eventually, considering the price was right. At the time, there was an outcry for a national boxing commission to prevent this sort of license-by-whim approach to the sport. This idea was floated not only for the protection of the sport, but also for the protection of the boxers who actually have lives outside of the ring. Being productive in those outside lives is, many times, in direct opposition with being productive inside the ring. However, the only measure of a boxer in the current system is his value to the sport inside the ring. This often puts boxers in very disturbing positions. For example, Meldrick Taylor, a once proud contender, contnues to fight even though he is far beyond his prime and is sustaining damage that even to the casual observer is severe and irreversible. This weekend, I watched the replay of the Mosley/De La Hoya fight. Going into the fight, I already knew that Mosley had won 115-113 on all three judge's scorecards. I also knew that De La Hoya was considering challenging the decision. Now, I am by no means a De La Hoya fan. In fact, I smirked quite contentedly when he lost a decision to Felix "Tito" Trinidad in a fight that he was winning until he began running late in the fight. I thought it was his just reward to lose for not fighting aggressively despite his lead on the scorecards. So, I sat down with my notepad and watched the fight with the sound turned down, as I had also heard that HBO's commentator's had been very pro-De La Hoya during the fight. I also told myself before the fight began that I would give Mosley the benefit of the doubt on close rounds. I scored the bout twice simultaneously, once allowing myself to score even rounds and once forcing myself to give every round to one boxer or the other. After twelve rounds, my scorecards read 117-111 De La Hoya and 115-113 De La Hoya respectively. Now, it has been pointed out by some who have much more boxing experience than I do (Max Kellerman among those and the one I respect the most.), that scoring a fight on television and scoring it in person are two different animals. Television allows the viewer to see punches more clearly and tends to lend itself to judging accuracy better. Scoring in person tends to be weighted towards the harder puncher. However, this fight, coupled with the Oquendo/Byrd debacle from last weekend is leaving a very bad taste in my mouth. Something seems amiss to me here, and once again I believe we must revist the idea of a national boxing commission. A national boxing commission would hopefully end the problems with boxing that I consider the most damaging. First, it would finally create a single champion per weight class rather than myriad of alphabet soup governing body titles that exist today. Second, it would codify a set of rules for licensing boxers that could not be circumvented and that provided for what was best in the interest of the sport as well as the interest of the boxer. Third, it could recruit and TRAIN judges according to set of rules to help make judging a more reliable and consistent (I think of this in terms of referee or umpire training camps for the NFL, MLB, and NBA.). Finally, a national boxing commission would lend legitimacy to a sport that is inching its way towards being more like the WWE than the "sweet science" it once was. If we don not act soon and swiftly, we may be watching the likes of Butterbean and George "The Animal" Steele fighting for meaningless title belts rather than watching fights for the ages like Ward/Gatti. In the end, the future of legitimate boxing lies with the success or failure of initiatives to create a national boxing commission to restore boxing to some semblance of its former self.

Dusting Off a Prediction

Originally Posted 08/04/03--3:05pm CDT
There has been some tumult surrounding comments made by a member of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board. The comments pertain to the corporate culture at NASA and whether that culture can change enough to accommodate the suggestions that will be in the board's final report. It has been argued that suggestions made after the Challenger accident in 1986 were ignored, largely because of the corporate culture at NASA, and that NASA's failure to act on those suggestions was a contributing factor to the Columbia accident (There were no similar issues from a scientific standpoint, however from a management standpoint some believe that the same faulty reasoning that was employed during the Challenger incident was never corrected and was used again in determining a course of action prior to Columbia's re-entry.) I could open this can of worms, but instead, I offer the text of an email that I wrote a couple of days after the Columbia breakup.

As I do not have ready access to televised media for coverage of the Columbia investigation, I have been utilizing NASA's website to a large extent for information on that subject. I have read every PDF file, in varying degrees of completeness, and looked at every image and video file pertaining to the investigation that has been released. What follows is a summary of that information. I am writing this in part to inform you, and in part to enhance my own understanding and sharpen my own perceptions about what is known. This briefing will focus on the events of Friday, February 7, 2003 with respect to information disseminated by NASA through their website.

I read the Stanford report on "Risk Management for the Tiles of the Space Shuttle" that was written in 1994. This report made it into the news mid-week and was furnished to reporters on Friday. I can find no evidence that this report was commissioned, as such, by NASA, however, the report was given to that organization and they have used it to make changes in certain protocols relating to tile management. A list of those changes can be found within the conclusions of the report. The essential purpose of the report was to apply basic risk management techniques to assessing the vulnerability of the Shuttle's tiles to failure from debris impact, manufacturing defect, and installation deficiencies (Believe it or not, an example of an installation deficiency would be a documented case of a tile worker spitting in the RTV [Room-Temperature vulcanized adhesive] used to bond the tiles to the Shuttle's SIP [Strain isolation pad] to speed its curing time. The report notes that while the addition of liquid to the RTV DOES lower curing times, it also increases un-bonding rates.) The report also studied the impact of un-bonding tiles caused by debris impact, manufacturing defect, and installation deficiencies on surrounding tiles. That is to say, how does the partial damage or complete loss of one tile impact adjacent tiles. The report concluded with not only results of the analysis, but also practical suggestions that could be used to reduced the possibility of LOV/C (Loss of Vehicle and Crew) due to tile failure. The following is a list of the most significant findings with respect to what is already known about the disintegration of Columbia six days ago.

First, I think it is important to note that many of the issues talked about, in theory, within the Stanford report are the very same issues being talked about today with regard to the possible explanations for the loss of Columbia. I raise this point because it is very easy to view this document as predictive in nature as a result of those coincidences. However, I think it would be premature and illogical to draw any conclusions from the report other than the ones drawn by its authors. I do not believe it to be any evidence of NASA incompetence vis-a-vis what they should have known regarding the possibilities of tile failure. That is to say, while the report may seem to suggest that scientists at Stanford could foresee this disaster coming 8 years ago, I do not believe the theoretical scenarios developed in the report represent any better judgment or ability to predict or prevent LOV/C in this particular situation. Further, I do not believe NASA was derelict in its duties regarding tile management or contingency planning with regard to tile failure.

The most interesting conclusion the report draws relates to "unzipping" of tiles. This phenomenon is defined best as the loss of a patch of adjacent tiles resulting from the un-bonding of a single tile. This un-bonding could be the result of debris impact, manufacturing defect, and installation deficiencies. Essentially, the "un-zipping" occurs when the missing tile allows aerodynamic turbulence to shake adjacent tiles free or the missing tile permits plasma (super-heated ionized air) to enter the substructure of the vehicle. This intrusion of plasma can alter the bonding characteristics of the RTV causing the tiles to loosen and come free. The resulting patch of missing tiles will continue a cascading effect until either the aerodynamic character of the vehicle is so changed that proper flight attitude becomes impossible to maintain or plasma make further inroad to the aluminum substructure of the vehicle. In either event, one possible outcome is LOV/C. In the case of loss of aerodynamic character, the vehicle would show signs of escalating drag until flight systems were unable to correct for it. The result would either be complete loss of control of the vehicle or disintegration caused by dynamic forces exerted on the vehicle in the process of trying to correct the drag situation. In the case of plasma intrusion, the increased heat upon the substructure caused by missing tiles could cause burn-through, which in turn could cause loss of flight controls and other subsystems or disintegration.

Considering the description of events from telemetry, either of these scenarios seems to be possible with respect to the loss of Columbia. The sudden loss of sensors may be the result of tiles ripped loose during reentry or the result of damage to wiring systems caused by burn-through. The drag situation described in the telemetry is also consistent with tile loss. It is important to note, however, that all other systems indicated that Columbia was flying with proper attitude just prior to loss of signal even though data suggests that flight control systems were losing the battle to control the drag issue. This inability of the flight control system to make a halting correction to the drag situation may indicate that tiles were shed at a continuous rate as described above until it was beyond the ability of the flight control system to control the vehicle or the corrections being made themselves exerted more force than the vehicle's structure could withstand. If there was burn-through as the result of tile loss, the resulting heat could have caused the destruction of wiring and routing systems embedded in the substructure yielding the loss of data from those sensors. If burn-through continued, it could have led to a severing of communication paths from the flight control system to the flight control surfaces or catastrophic loss of large pieces of the vehicle resulting in LOV/C. Again, in either of these scenarios, the loss of one tile is the precipitating event. Although there have only been 2 documented cases of missing tiles after a mission (both cases involved Columbia), there are myriad ways they can be lost. In this case, the impact from insulation that was shed from the ET (External fuel tank) on assent could be a possible explanation for how a tile may have been lost that could have caused "un-zipping" on reentry.

The other interesting development was a pixelated photo of the Shuttle taken from Kirtland Air Force Base in New Mexico just minutes before loss of signal. The photo seems to show a trail of some sort behind the left wing, and some sort of defect along the leading edge of the left wing. However, when one views the photograph, it is hard to conclude anything. The photo itself is heavily pixelated and as such can reveal very little for certain.

This image is a view of the underside of Columbia during its entry from mission STS-107 on Feb. 1, 2003, as it passed by the Starfire Optical Range, Directed Energy Directorate, Air Force Research Laboratory, Kirtland Air Force Base, N. M. The image was taken at approximately 7:57 a.m. CST (1357 GMT). This image was received by NASA as part of the Columbia accident investigation and is being analyzed.

If we accept that the plume of material behind the right wing is plasma and "normal," then there definitely seems to be more material issuing from behind the left wing. The apparent misshapen-ness of the left wing may only be the result of the geometry of the angle at which the photo was taken. All things being equal, it appears as though this photo was shot from a position to the right of Columbia's terminal path. That, in and of itself, may account for what the untrained eye may see as anomalies. There were also rumors of another photo taken of Columbia by an amateur astronomer that showed some very strange sparks or arcs of light surrounding Columbia very early in reentry. When asked directly about this photo bother General Michael Kostelnik and Ron Dittemore responded that the authenticity of the photograph was being determined and that atmospheric scientists were being used to help explain any naturally occurring phenomena that might put the Shuttle at risk as it reentered the Earth's atmosphere. Assuming they had seen the photograph, my interpretation of their comments is this: Whatever is revealed in that photograph must be so incredible to behold that the authenticity of such a thing being possible is being questioned. That is just my take, but if I am correct, that photo may go a long way in solving the mystery that brought Columbia down.

There will be no briefings this weekend, and only one administrative briefing on Monday. Tuesday will mark the first briefing made by the independent commission assembled under Admiral Harold Gehmen's control. Gehmen was selected based upon his work on investigating the bombing of the USS Cole. In my estimation, although this commission was created as a contingency put into place to prevent another Challenger debacle, transfer of control from NASA to this commission will mark a significant drop in the openness of the briefings. I regard this commission with much suspicion and view its ability to cover up possible wrongdoing or incompetence to be as great and likely as its ability to gather the facts and offer a valid conclusion.

Maurice Clarett--Portrait of a Punk

Originally Posted 07/31/03--7:18pm CDT

I hated this guy from the first time I saw/heard him, and not just because I am a Penn State fan and he plays for Ohio State. It's a typical story. A big, strong, athletic kid from the wrong side of the tracks who channeled his anger and used his gift to rise up and get a college education. He loves his mom. He's proud of his roots. He has a bright smile. Still, for me, there was something not right. Earlier this week allegations that Clarett and other OSU athletes may have violated NCAA eligibility rules by taking oral exams in some classes last year surfaced. The NCAA defines inappropriate action in this regard as any opportunity given to an athlete that any other run-of-the-mill student is not given. This stretches from special treatment in the classroom to sweetheart deals on automobiles, stereo equipment, clothing, shoes, etc. Hell if I can think of one professor in college that would have let me take an oral exam regardless of my reasons. But, I'm getting ahead of myself. Even last season Clarett was attracting attention, and not just because he was breaking OSU gridiron records for freshman. This is the same Maurice Clarett that was declaring himself ready for the NFL after 100 college carries. The same Clarett that blasted OSU and its administration when they would not subsidize a trip he wanted to make back to his hometown to attend the funeral of a boyhood friend. Clarett later apologized for his outburst, but the damage was done and his message was clear: I am Maurice Clarett, damnit! You should be falling all over yourselves to keep me happy regardless of whether or not that means violating NCAA rules. This week, we hear more tales that make college football fans wince. Tales of a confusing relationship between Clarett and Cleveland Cavaliers top pick LeBron James. Both tell differing stories about how well they know each other, and some comments made by James make it seem as though Clarett may have already availed himself of the myriad of illegal compensation schemes available to major college athletes with professional contracts in their future. Then there is what I consider the most telling revelation of the bunch. According to an AP wire story, on April 17 Clarett drove to an OSU workout. During that workout, Clarett claims someone broke into the car and stole "two built-in television monitors and stereo equipment worth $5,000, $800 in cash, $300 in clothing and 300 compact discs were stolen. The property wasn't found, and police have closed the case." Pardon my French, but WHAT THE FUCK! I was lucky to have $8 to my name when I was a college sophomore. I'm sure Clarett supporters will say that the car isn't his and thus the stuff inside isn't either. Fine, who does it belong to then? It better be a legitimate friend or a relative otherwise it is highly suspect and, in my opinion, a violation of NCAA rules. Besides. who lends someone their car with all that crap in it and says, "Here. Go. I have no doubt my stuff will be safe." And it gets better. Today Clarett apologized saying that he purposely lied about the value of the items in the car. HORSESHIT!! This is damage control. He is trying to avoid being investigated for all of the rule violating stuff in that car by saying "mea culpa" I tried to get something for nothing as any poor boy might (All of a sudden he's just a boy who got in trouble instead of the man he claimed himself to be last year when he threatened to go to the NFL.). Better to be slapped on the wrist for filing a false police report than to have to answer for $9000 worth of property plus a car. It's misdirection aimed at heading off the kind of investigation that could end his college career. It is transparent and an insult to rational people. Now I know many will say that this is just the way the game is played. Everyone is taking money or getting favors. And why not? Colleges whore these athletes out to make obscene amounts of money for the schools they represent but aren't allowed any compensation for it. So why shouldn't they wet their beaks a little. Simple. It's against the rules. The choice is still in the hands of the athlete. And when athletes like Clarett choose to violate NCAA rules because everyone else is doing it, it makes me sad not only for the state of ethics in general in America but also for every kid who doesn't take money, especially the ones that succeed in spite of not taking short cuts. I suppose I could have picked a hundred different athletes to write this about, but to my way of thinking Clarett deserves this little bit of infamy. Besides, who cares what I say or who agrees with me? If Clarett loses his eligibiliy, he can just turn pro and get paid legitimately, right?P.S.-- The NFL fully intends to fight tooth and nail to prevent Clarett, or anyone else, from entering the draft early. Current NFL rules mandate that a player must wait three years from the date of their high school graduation before they are eligible. So, if the NCAA finds vioations, we may have seen the last of Clarett until 2006. I guess he could always go to Canada for 2 years.

Musical Shell Game

Originally Posted 07/29/03--11pm CDT
My father began taping old radio shows at home while on leave from the Air Force during the 1950s using a Wolensak reel-to-reel machine. Over the next three decades, he compiled a collection of music that filled an entire walk-in closet. I taped my first radio broadcasts around the time of John Lennon's death in 1980 and have been actively "acquiring" music in a variety of formats and through a variety of means for 23 years. These two examples are personal but not unique. This sort of activity has been going on throughout America for years. Today it has evolved into what many are calling "piracy of epidemic proportions" leading to a complete compromise of "artistic integrity and copyright privilege." One of the many is the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America). And under the first shell the little ball rolls. Sounds impressive. Sounds like someone is seriously concerned with securing the artist's rights and preventing the theft of their artistic and intellectual property. Think again. Take a look at Exhibit 1, what I feel is the alpha and the omega of this issue. And the shells go 'round. This is what it is all about. Money. Artist's make 12% from sales of their album. Record labels make 30%. That's right. Record companies make nearly 3 times what the actual producer of the art does from record sales. And part of what the record label charges the artist for is "packaging." Now I know that packaging isn't restricted to physical paper and cardboard, but for Pete's sake, 30%?! And this in the age of digitally delivered products through portals such as Apple's online music store? And we are to believe that the RIAA gives a rat's ass about artistic or intellectual integrity? We are to believe this even though musicians have testified in front of Congressional committees stating that record labels have more to lose from pirated music than artists do. These same musicians have said that their biggest fear isn't losing 12 cents on the dollar to pirated music, but rather losing control of their REAL intellectual copyrights through restrictive contracts with record labels. Go figure, it is record labels that try to contractually screw artists out of their intellectual property not consumers sharing music. Because, if the label owns the copyright on the song, then the label gets 42% instead of 30%. And that's 42% of forever. So as you watch the headlines for the latest in the online music sharing circus, watch the shell game. Don't be fooled by grand protestations from corporation music. Remember that the RIAA trying to protect a musician's "intellectual property" or keep their "artistic integrity" intact is like the fox guarding the henhouse. For all their ideological smoke and mirrors, it still comes down to one thing: $$$.

Udai and Qusai

Originally Posted 07/28/2003 @ 7PM EDT

We begin with the Hussein brothers and their recent termination in a firefight with US Troops near Mosul, Iraq. My first thought about this topic was: "What should I feel?" No answer became immediately apparent. As an American, I suppose I should at the very least feel satisfaction in the successful operation to seek out the Boys. Perhaps I should even feel some sort of jubilation now that these two "evil" men have been smitten. As a human, one must wonder what their family feels. This may seem silly to wonder, as anyone who loses a loved one must feel grief. However, if the many stories I have heard of the Boys behavior are true, I wonder if they feel relief as well. These were, after all, men who delighted in some of the most perverse torture and humiliation known to man. If one needs an example take Udai's wandering eye, which more than once fell on the new bride of another man; a man who sometimes disappeared shortly after the wedding and a bride who was sometimes used as a plaything and then discarded or killed. Surely these types of men deserved their fate. Udai was so out of control as a young man that he was jailed by his own father. Aside from the family, and myself my interest focused on other Iraqi's. Did they feel outrage? Relief? Grief? A combination of these? I know for my own part, if an occupying army shot and killed my worst American born enemy, I would be pissed. It is a natural response. There is something most unsettling about an outsider exerting force, even justifiable force, in the land of another. And so, I watch some Iraqis weep for the Boys and curse the American military. I wonder if these same Iraqis will sleep better knowing the Boys are dead. I wonder if there is a sleight of hand going on here, a hypocritical twist. Biting the hand that feeds? Vichy France yet again? Many focus on how the average Iraq should feel about an occupying force in their homeland and decidedly unstable social atmosphere in the wake of Sadaam Hussein's crumbling leadership. But what of the American who tries to figure out how to feel about a society that is willing to accept the good that military intervention might bring, while spitting in the faces that bring it. Enter Liberia. Another similar situation. Liberians begging for American intervention line the streets looking for camera to cry into. They curse America each time another body is tagged while we sit back and do nothing. I wonder if these same people will be protesting our presence once we arrive in force. Help! Help, Americans! The big-bad-wolf-evil-konspiracy-of-peace-hating-war-mongers are running amok. And so we go. Weeks later our dead soldiers are dragged through the streets naked and spit on while those same faces cheer and clap. What a fitting reward. It doesn't matter whether it is Liberians in the streets, warlords in Mogadishu, or well-respected and internationally respected leaders who gather in New York. We still go. And we still pay the price. Which brings us to the UN. "May we fight in Iraq," said the American President to the UN. "No, you may not," replied the Security Council. "Why not," asked the President. "Because China and Russia fear that you will use this as an excuse to occupy Iraq and put a strangle-hold on Middle-Eastern oil production as well as using Iraq as a possible jumping off point in invasions of other countries closer to them. And France has decided that it would like to flex its veto muscle just to prove that it is still relevant in post-Cold War international politics. Pay no attention to the French fighters and machine parts and nuclear reactors behind the Iraqi curtain. And when we bat our eyelashes and ask for US troops to 'keep the peace' in Liberia, write the orders, bend over, and take it like an American"

New Beginning...

Ok, this going to be a bit weird to start with. I am migrating (emigrating/immigrating?) the content from my old website here. So, the posts will be from a while ago to start with. I'll be adding to this blog contemporaneously after the migration is complete . Please be patient as I move the old data.