Capt. SAH's 2011 NFL Preview!!

It's here!! Yes, I know I haven't finished my "lawnmower" series, but things have been incredibly busy lately at work and home. I managed to scratch out a much-abbreviated NFL preview with one week until the season opens. Check it out!

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B9XWHxevrOhFNDg5NDM5YWQtYzMwNi00NDliLTk5ZjAtOWI4ZTIzMWZiOTBh&hl=en

Enjoy!!

The Lawnmower Series -- Part 2: Choosing your side

Welcome to part 2 of the lawnmower series, a line of thought that hit me while mowing the lawn. It's been a month since part 1, but I've been busy.

Last time (see the previous blog post), we examined the two primary political viewpoints in the US, and how each seems to contradict itself on the topic of freedom. The "conservative" side touts individual freedom when discussing property, but is quick to throw freedom under the bus when it comes to personal behavior. The "liberal" side touts individual freedom when discussing personal behavior, but is quick to throw freedom under the bus when it comes to property. These seemingly contradictory stances derive from the basic worldview of the adherents.

The question for today is if one of these viewpoints is more correct than the other.

Let's start with a postulate: Life requires work. Whether you believe that God created Adam and Eve or that some random explosion of particles created the universe, there can be no denying that human life requires effort. Not only does it require effort, but it requires specific efforts to obtain food, water, and shelter. A person who wished to do nothing but lie under a shady tree will soon starve to death or die of dehydration. At some point, every person is compelled to do SOMETHING in order to continue living.

It follows that some actions are more conducive to living than others. Playing soccer, for example (this is a sports blog, right?), is a fun activity with some positive health benefits, but it really does nothing to put food on the table. (BTW, this is a good time to point out that while I'll be touching on some general economic theory, I am not going to dive into much detail. I know perfectly well that lots of people around the world "put food on the table" by playing soccer. The key is that they're paid for it with money, which they use to purchase food from others who have spent their time growing/acquiring food. Everyone gets that concept, and that's as much as I'll discuss it.) Conversely, digging in the dirt to plant potatoes and turnips is not a lot of fun, but it is necessary to get food to eat. Somebody has to do it.

So where does that leave our two competing worldviews? Let's start with the "conservative" view. In the conservative's world, a person must work and provide for his/her own life. That's where the rules restricting behavior come into play. Conservatives acknowledge the need for "work" by suggesting and enforcing rules for people that ensure they behave in a manner conducive to life. The payoff for living "correctly" is that you get stuff with which you can do what you please.

So now can we take away the "rules" and keep a focus on freedom of property? The answer is yes. Personal behavior (not including obvious criminal activity such as murder and theft that no political group outside of anarchists support) that is completely unrestrained has no conflict with personal property freedom. People that make good choices with their personal behavior will live, and those who make poor choices will suffer. If a "successful" person CHOOSES to give stuff to another person that is suffering, that's still freedom.

If property rights and freedoms are maintained, there really is no need for legislating personal behavior, as nature itself will enforce these rules. True, it is a very harsh justice, and we may not like it, but it is there nonetheless. Total freedom of property rights is compatible with freedom of personal behavior, with the caveat that poor personal behavior is harshly punished by nature.

What of the liberal view? In the liberal world, people may do whatever they want with their own persons. To acknowledge the truism that people must "work" for life, the liberal view demands that work and its resulting property be shared among all. So can we take away the "restrictions" on property use and still have total freedom when it comes to personal behavior?

The answer is no. As mentioned above, nature itself has "rules" and enforces them ruthlessly. People who ignore these rules MUST have assistance from others, or else they will perish. In other words, the liberal emphasis of personal behavior freedom requires a restriction of property freedom. Otherwise, nature itself will defeat it. This is in direct contrast to the conservative emphasis of property freedom, which can still survive (in some form) when freedom is given to personal behavior.

To sum it up, total freedom of personal behavior is an impossible goal. Nature requires that people work, which restricts freedom. Logically speaking, this makes the "conservative" viewpoint more legitimate in my opinion than the "liberal" one. The liberal viewpoint is a hopeless struggle against the laws of nature itself. If you enforce behavioral rules, everyone can have some property with which they can do as they please. If you allow any and all behavior, you must take property from some to give to others. But since property is (at some level) derived from personal behavior, you must also enforce some type of behavior on some people in order to have property to share. This is why socialist/communist governments around the world always start with an ideal of "share and share alike," but quickly devolve into corrupt oligarchies, as a few politically powerful people decide who has to work and who gets to play.

So in this line of thought, I've established that the conservative view is more compatible with true freedom. You CAN have total freedom of property. In the next installment, I'll look and see if we can add more personal behavior freedom to the conservative view without turning the world into the "harsh justice" scene we envisioned earlier.

SAH

The Lawnmower Series -- Part 1:Cognitive Dissonance

From Wikipedia: Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding conflicting ideas simultaneously.

This struck me as I was mowing the lawn last night. Something that has bothered me for a long time is the natural contradiction found in today's prevailing political groups. The "conservative" group pounds the table for individual freedom, yet typically jumps in first whenever a restrictive new law is proposed (anything from gay marriage and abortion to no-smoking ordinances and "blue laws"). How can a group supposedly so grounded in "freedom" quickly support measures that would appear to limit its expression?

And on the other side, the "liberal" political group pounds the table for individual freedom, yet leads the charge for restrictive tax policies, government oversight of industry, and compulsory "public" service. How can a group that claims to celebrate individuality and acceptance attach itself to authoritarian measures?

This is cognitive dissonance. You cannot support restriction and freedom at the same time, yet seemingly both major political groups in this country are happy to do just that. How did we get to this state? Is one side more "correct" than the other? Is there a "better" viewpoint?

After ruminating on this for a while, I believe I have the key. It's a question of ownership. Most everyone, whether liberal or conservative, would agree with this statement: "I should be free to do what I want with what is mine." The difference comes in what groups believe is personally owned.

Conservatives believe that you own "stuff". Things like money, time, and cars are personal to a conservative. But conservatives don't believe you own people, not even yourself. Therefore, you should have the freedom to do what you like with "stuff", but not with others, even yourself.

Liberals take the opposite view. They believe that "stuff" is shared. Nobody "owns" things like land or water, but must share it. Conversely, they believe that everyone owns him/herself, and should be free to do what they want with their own self and anyone else willing to join them.

How did these opposing viewpoints originate? I believe the conservative viewpoint originated from the simple idea that human life is the pinnacle of creation. All the other stuff in the universe is secondary, and can be used however individual humans wish. Stuff may be assigned to individual people as they see fit, and there's nothing at all wrong with one person having more stuff than another. As the most precious item in existence, however, individual humans are too valuable to risk doing anything that might adversely affect their well-being. So freedom with stuff is perfectly fine, but freedom with individual human activity must be monitored closely. This viewpoint corresponds nicely with (and largely derives from) the traditional belief that God created man to rule the earth.

The liberal viewpoint originates from the idea that all of creation is equivalent (or at least roughly so). The only "stuff" that we can own is the bodies we've been given. We can do whatever we want to our own self, and we can engage others so long as they are willing. But other stuff can only be "borrowed", and it's against the natural order of things for somebody to use more than "their share" of general resources. So freedom to do whatever with yourself is fine, but anything involving outside stuff must be monitored closely. This viewpoint corresponds nicely with the belief that the universe is just a random grouping of particles.

With this, I believe we've answered the question of "how did we get into this state." People (largely, I'm not talking about each and every individual thinker on earth) generally base their political leaning on how they view the universe. Is it a design with humans at the top? Is it a random collection of particles with no defined hierarchy? That leaves the questions of which view is more "correct", and is there a "better" view. I'll tackle those questions next time.

Taking aim at the golden goose

The NFL has long been the most successful sports venture in America. Every franchise is solvent, and most are competitive. Unlike baseball, every team has a legitimate chance to compete, so long as the ownership is willing to try. Unlike hockey, every team has a relatively large and dedicated fanbase. Unlike basketball, any franchise (well... maybe not Cincinnati) can be home to an MVP-type player for multiple seasons. Unlike soccer, the league has national recognition and a built-in TV audience, including folks who really aren't even paying attention to the game. The NFL works. The NFL is popular. The NFL is beloved.

The upshot of all this is that the NFL makes money and entertains its fans. It has done so without any significant interruption for almost 25 years. But at this moment, a "labor dispute" is threatening to not just disrupt league proceedings, but potentially kill off the entire 2011 NFL season. Why on earth would all those involved, players, owners, and league officials, risk hurting such a demonstrably lucrative venture, especially during a rough economic time? As always, it boils down to pride and ego. However, the core issue is actually not one of players vs. owners, but of successful owners vs. unsuccessful owners. Let me explain, and then attempt to choose a "side" in this debate, if there can be a "good" side of a labor dispute.

The immediate reaction of folks who hear that the league's owners might "lockout" the players is one of disbelief. We all know that the NFL is rolling in TV money. Their contracts with the networks is lucrative, to say the least. On top of that, ticket prices have been climbing much higher than the rate of inflation for a long time. Parking, concessions at the stadium, and merchandise have never been pricier. And yet attendance continues to remain steady, or even climb in almost every location. The owners are absolutely loaded with money. LOADED! So it doesn't pass the smell test when they cry that (unspecified) "costs" are killing their balance sheets.

Which is where we dive into the details. Most franchises are making money hand over fist. For them to be crying foul is nothing short of a lie. That said, there are a few places that are legitimately struggling. Teams like Buffalo, Jacksonville, and Cincinnati might actually be in danger of losing money. A few more teams are making money, but not nearly at the rate they would like. So what gives? Why does imbalance exist when the NFL's highly-touted "revenue sharing" system has been in place for so long?

It turns out that the NFL does not share all revenues among its members. It only shares TV revenues and some portion of merchandising and ticketing revenues. Parking, concessions, local media deals, luxury suites, and a hefty chunk of merchandising revenue belongs to the individual teams that sold those items. Therefore, a team like say.... Dallas is raking in money. Not only do they get their share of the TV money, but they're getting ridiculous income from a bevy of luxury suites, local media deals, and a large fan base eager to purchase anything with a star on it. Contrast that with say.... Buffalo. Even if the Bills were to sell out every Sunday (which they no longer do, apparently), Ralph Wilson stadium (named after the current Bills owner) simply doesn't hold as many people as Cowboys stadium, and perhaps more importantly, it doesn't have nearly the number of luxury suites.

So while Jerry Jones (owner of the Cowboys) is making more money than he knows what to do with, Ralph Wilson can legitimately say that his franchise is just barely making ends meet. As the owner of a business, if you are struggling for profits, you want to cut costs. What is the biggest cost for an NFL team? Player salaries. Therefore, Wilson and other NFL owners want to force the players to take a pay cut even while the league's overall revenues (and profits) are through the roof.

This is why the owners are asking the players to take the fall. This is why the owners are proposing such unwanted changes as the 18-game regular season (more games == more ticket/parking/concession/suite sales). It's really only a few owners who need these changes. Most of the owners would be fine with the status quo, but they don't want to antagonize their buddies in the club (plus lower salaries for players just means even more money for them).

The obvious reaction from the players (and many fans) is to ask why these "struggling" owners don't just ask the other owners to chip in a little more to the community pot. It's not like there isn't enough money to go around. But that would never be the first choice for these guys, for reasons of pride.

You see, the owners are big-shots. They are used to being treated as big-shots. A big-shot does NOT go to another big-shot and ask for a handout. That would be too humiliating. These struggling owners would much rather have a showdown with "labor" than to grovel for money from their fellow, more successful, owners.

And for all you wondering why the more successful owners don't just volunteer to carve out some extra funds to prop up the struggling teams, consider their point of view: They've worked hard to get new stadiums built (although usually with significant public monies). They've worked hard to sell suites and local advertising. They've invested a lot of time and energy into promoting their team and making it as lucrative as possible. Why should they throw money to guys who apparently can't get the job done (or in the case of Cincinnati, just don't care)? They would rather those owners make way for new blood (or move their teams to LA) so that the league would have more successful teams, rather than paying out for failure.

So should the players yield to the owners' demands? Why should they? They are paid a healthy sum of money, but it remains that only a few players make the kind of money that lasts a lifetime. Most NFL players last only two or three seasons, making far less than the millions of dollars given to Peyton Manning and such. They're certainly still well-compensated for their time, but does it seem fair that they take a "hit" when the league is so successful? Does it seem fair that the players should take the hit when overall NFL revenues and profits continue to climb? Should they take that "hit" just so a few bad owners can literally keep up with the Joneses?

In the end, of course, somebody will have to give in. I expect that this time it will be the owners. Why? Because public sentiment is overwhelmingly behind the players. Unlike a lot of other pro athletes, NFL players take an obvious pounding to do their jobs. Unlike most other pro sports, NFL rosters are loaded with "rank and file" players who aren't making millions every season. And most importantly, people aren't stupid. They see the owners crying about money, yet drive off in Bentleys while the TV networks shower the league with enormous sums of cash. It doesn't add up.

For further proof, check out these articles for the general mood:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/110304
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=6177574
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=gallo/110217_nfl_labor_goodell_smith&sportCat=nfl
I'll grant you that all those links are from one site, and that Rick Reilly is always somewhere to the left of Mao and Lenin, but I think they represent a pretty broad section of NFL fans. Of course, there are plenty of people who still can't believe anyone could be "paid" to play a game, but they are in the minority.

So what will happen? I expect that the owners will either agree to some new revenue sharing that includes more items, or that they'll have to axe/move some of the underperforming franchises. They'll never do this without the players giving up SOMETHING, if only to save face after such public negotiations, but I expect to see the players "win" this showdown. Let's just hope that no matter what happens, pride doesn't cause us to miss the always-entertaining NFL season.

SAH

Lacie, the Babe

I met my wife Lacie's mother long before I met Lacie, although I didn't know it at the time. According to the legend, I was whining about the scarcity of quality single girls during a Wednesday night class and she said to herself "he just hasn't met my daughter." Turns out she was right.

I met Lacie through her little sister, Ola. It was a Wednesday night and I was leading the kids singing during our VBS-style main session. Afterwards, Ola came by and told me I needed to learn a certain song and sing it the next time. She said her sister could help her teach it to me. I only knew Ola was a pretty blonde girl from the high school group. I didn't even know her mom was the same lady who sometimes sat in the singing group with us on Wednesday nights. But I was happy to meet an older sister.

I followed her over towards another blonde girl, only a little older with a spiky haircut and gorgeous blue eyes. No, I didn't realize at the time that this was the woman of my dreams, the girl I would marry. But she certainly was pretty. Ola told her why we had come over and the two of them proceeded to belt out "Who's the King of the Jungle (Huh, Huh)?" complete with motions.

To be honest, what struck me more than Lacie's beauty was how frank and open she seemed to be. Here was a girl who was being introduced to a new person... a guy at that... and was immediately asked to perform a silly song (and yes, it IS a silly song... that's part of the fun) in front of said guy. I think a lot of ladies would have balked if their little sisters had made such a request. But Lacie just smiled and sang her heart out, motions and all. I thanked them for teaching me a new song, but made a mental note of this new person on the scene.

I next met Lacie at a Halloween party held by some folks at the church. I'll spare you the long story and cut to the chase. I recognized Lacie from the earlier meeting and decided to take a chance by striking up conversation with her. My smooth line? "Hey, you're Ola's sister, aren't you?"

The courtship began. Some highlights:

• My sister-in-law Jenni (a fantastic person with only one significant character flaw.... she refuses to bow at the altar of a Dallas Cowboys helmet) met me the morning after I first brought Lacie over to share some family Christmas time and told me, "She's perfect! Perfect!"
• My mom thought she was Ola when she first met her because she looked "so young."
• I accidentally knocked her over with my Charles Barkley move playing basketball. She told me that all she saw was "this big red thing" (I was wearing red shorts) and she hit the deck.
  
• Lacie made me a "romantic dinner" of PBJs and electric candles hosted upstairs in the music building at Sterling College where she attended at the time. She played songs from "The Princess Bride" for the mood.
• I traveled to Mexico accompanied by Lacie's mom and Ola (it was part of a church mission), but Lacie gave me the first hug when we returned.
• And of course, we were wed on March 15th, 2003.

8 years later, Lacie is the best person in my life (excluding Jesus, naturally). She is still the same open, cheerful person I met back then. She has shown tremendous character overcoming a painful loss and greets each day with new hope. She continues to inspire me by the way she tirelessly cares for our daughter Jesstine. She graduated from Wichita State with a degree in Music education, and teaches elementary kids how to recognize rhythms and sounds. She still sings like an angel and looks like one too. Simply put, Lacie makes life better. As Dick Van Dyke would sing, "It's a jolly holiday with Lacie...."

Happy Valentine's Day, Babe. I love you!