Back in Black and Green

Michael Vick will likely play in his first preseason game Thursday night amidst a great debate over whether or not he should be allowed to play football again. What if the question were asked this way: should someone who abused dogs, albeit brutally, but has served his time be able to make a living ever again? If you answer no, then getting angry at Michael Vick is simply misdirecting your anger because you should be writing your elected officials telling them to have longer sentences for those who abuse animals. By the way, I hope you’re equally willing to pay more taxes so the government can provide either a jail cell or welfare assistance to them for the rest of their lives.

If you say yes, then why shouldn’t Vick be allowed to take a job in the NFL? When I think about it, there are several reasons that come to mind:
a) Playing in the NFL, or any professional sport, should be a privilege
b) Vick should find another less glamorous job
c) Vick hasn’t paid a stiff enough penalty

You can make the argument that playing professional sports is a privilege, but at the end of the day it’s really just another job that gets a lot more glory and pays a lot more than most other jobs. More so than ever before, professional sports are just that: a business. The Eagles decision to hire Vick was a business decision. I wasn’t in the board room but I can imagine the logic went something like this: we (the Eagles) have a pretty good roster this year but the guys are getting old so this might be one of our last chances to make a run at the Super Bowl, which will bring in more revenue for the team including playoff tickets and other revenue. We think Vick can add something to the team, maybe enough to get us there, which gives us monetary value. However, some people will be upset with our decision to hire a dog abuser so we will probably lose some revenue because of that. After doing our calculations, we expect that revenue Vick brings in to be greater than the revenue losses he will create. Therefore, we should sign him.

Except for the fact that you’re dealing with substantially larger salaries, it’s the same process that a company goes through when determining whether or not to hire you. Let’s see, this candidate for our company can generate revenue through his contacts and by being good at what he does. However, his references noted that in a past job he used work time for surfing the internet and sometimes used company supplies for personal use. After comparing the pros and cons, we think he’ll add more to our company’s revenue than he’ll take away. Therefore, we should hire him.

I’ve never taken a Wonderlic test, but I can’t imagine a 20 is going to get you too many job offers. No, it’s not the 11 that his brother Marcus Vick pulled off but it certainly isn’t going to get you in to grade school. I say this not to judge Vick, but to illustrate that everyone has different talents. He can do things with a football that I can only dream of and I can analyze historical events he probably hasn’t heard of. Why is football more glamorous? Because we the consumers make it more glamorous. If we didn’t turn on the TV, go to the game, buy the jerseys, etc. the NFL wouldn’t have the money to pay players like it does. If you want to affect how much Vick, and any other football player gets paid, you’ve got more power to do that than if he were working for the government!

Deserving of the chance to play in the NFL or not, can you fault Vick for signing a contract that guarantees that he will make $1.6 million this year? Do you expect him, or even want him, to say, “You know what, I screwed up so instead of taking a job where I’m going to be surrounded by people who want to help me succeed and where I can earn money to pay off my debts that I’m currently in bankruptcy because of?”

Is Vick truly sorry for what he did? I hope so. I’d like to think so based on the comments he’s made during interviews and the people, like Tony Dungy, that he’s tried to surround himself with. But who am I to make that determination? Right now, Michael Vick has paid his dues according to the rules of our society and should have the opportunity to take a job with whatever company wants to hire him. If he screws up again, then it is back to the courtroom. If he’s truly remorseful, let him get on with his life.

Quotable (Bachelorette Version)

Oh the Bachelorette…I just couldn’t resist…

“Ed leaving made me realize how serious this is…” – Jillian. Really Jillian? Did you not realize that it choosing a husband was serious before?

“I still miss Ed…I would love to be around someone who can cheer me up tonight.” – Jillian. So now you’re just looking for a rebound? This is the problem with turning love into a competition – there’s no turning back. There’s no being patient with each other or compromising – its stay on the show or give up on it ever working. Not such a good model for marriage. In a relationship, compromises are going to have to happen. I have yet to meet a happily married coupe that hasn’t had to make compromises.

“I’ve been asking for a one on one so I can show her I’m a guy she could fall in love with.” – Robby. As cute as these dates are, when they’re created by the show’s producers they don’t show anything about the guys.

“Love doesn’t have an age, love don’t have a job, love can happen at any time.” – Robby.

“I wish I had a bigger vocabulary so I could describe how I felt.” – Robby. I think this one speaks for itself, considering the only word that he could use is “relaxing” before he said that.

“Having these heartbreaking days just keeps getting harder and harder.” – Jillian. Did you think it would be easy to reject people you had hooked up with when they think you’re the only girl out there?

“The fame I’ll get from this…there’s no doubt this will help me. I’ll always have Jillian wrapped around my little finger.” – Wes. Women of the world, please, PLEASE show me you have some common sense. Blacklist him. Don’t pretend y’all don’t get together and have some secret list of undateable guys. You don’t have to justify it – just add him to it.

“I want to get as close to her feet as possible.” – Tanner. Weirdo.

“I feel like when you’re in the snow you can do whatever you want.” – Jillian. I think that comes a few weeks from now when the overnight dates…oh wait, that’s a bad idea, too…

“So this girl is out with your friends. Have you told her how you felt?” Conductor. “No.” – Reid. “That’s a big problem” – Conductor. Finally some common sense. Oh wait, the conductor doesn’t realize how long…err short…they’ve know each other.

“It’s crazy how fast this all happens.” – Jillian. Light bulb moment. Now that the light bulb has gone on, will being able to see what’s going on make any difference? Highly doubtful. And there she goes kissing another guy…

“I think I’m a little shy…but I want a hometown date. I’m going to step it up.” – Tanner. This just seconds before he drops his pants to show Jillian (and all the other guys) what he sleeps in at night.

“It’s real now. There’s real emotions invested.” – Jesse. Were you faking it before? Well, it got him some kissing time with Jillian.

“This is a competition…and whatever you can do to get ahead…It wasn’t something I liked to do.” – Tanner. Not surprisingly, Wes bashes him for it. Have I mentioned I think turning love into a competition is a bad idea? How much will all these guys care about Jillian once she’s no longer a prize to be won? What happens when the new prize is the new office secretary or law firm partner? Sorry Jillian, but you’re just an old trophy gathering dust now.

“Will Michael get a hometown date? Or will his dream of love be crushed forever?” – Narrator. Shame on ABC for pretending like all the guys who don’t get Jillian will never find love. As wonderful as Jillian may be, she’s obviously not the right guy for every guy on the show. Sorry ABC, but the show isn’t “Last Woman on Earth.” Heck, perhaps it show even be titled “A Bachelorette.”

“I really, really like you. I’m not going to tell you I love you, but everything’s lining up.” – Jake. Not bad for this show. Though he blows it a few minutes later when off-stage (yes, off-stage) he says “Jillian’s the one I want to marry.”

What did you think of me when you first saw me when you were with 29 other guys?” “Well, you stood out to me.” – Reid. Well-spoken Reid! I would hope that if you were going on “The Bachelorette,” you weren’t gay so the woman should stand out among the other 29 guys…

“I really thought by now I would have this nailed down…” – Jillian before the rose ceremony. Well, now that you’ve kissed them all multiple times…

“It makes me feel really lucky and really grateful…” – Jillian at the rose ceremony about how she was thankful for all the guys caring about her. Yes, be grateful that you’re a prize to be won. Be grateful that Wes wants to boost his music career. Be grateful that ABC wants high ratings and is willing to use you as a pawn.

“I would have liked to have know what it was. I did everything I could do…” – Jake. Jake, you’re better than a TV show romance. It shouldn’t be a fight for one prize – there are other girls out there. The previews for the next weeks show clips from the finale with Jillian visibly and verbally distraught over how she’s not sure if she’s making the right choice. This isn’t how engagements are supposed to happen. It should be a joyful experience, not one that leaves you in tears of sorrow. It should be a celebration of your final commitment to the one you love, not marriage by elimination. How can you say be happy when you’ve just eliminated several guys you recently spent the night with?

“Am I too cynical?” – Me.

And the winner is...the divorce rate!

After watching (and laughing mockingly at) the past two episodes of ABC's “The Bachelorette,” I've begun to wonder how our culture has substituted its own definitions for love and relationships. How foolish must we be to think that someone can find their true love out of a handful of guys selected by a television station? Because obviously ABC is an expert matchmaker and cares only about the happiness of the bachelor/bachelorette... Wait, what about the two dozen suitors? Actually, I'm pretty sure ABC is more concerned with ratings than any of that.

American culture says you must win to be happy. You have to be the best, better than everyone else. When those values are applied to relationships, you get reality shows like “The Bachelor/Bachelorette.” Instead of individuals looking for someone they are compatible with, they fight like dogs to win – perhaps steal is a better word – the heart of the one person ABC chose for them. One of the most amusing and saddest parts of the show is watching every guy talk about how he feels some sort of deep connection with the girl. Wake up call! You've only known she existed for a few weeks! When the guy on the glacier date said that was the best day of his life, the only excuse I could think of for him saying that was the airplane and the glacier, not the girl. Either that or he's had a pretty boring life. How much of the romance will be left when they're eating TV dinners watching “I Survived a Japanese Game Show” instead of rolling around on their own glacier?

“The Bachelor” and “The Bachelorette” portray love as a prize to be won, a game where there are winners and losers. At the rose ceremonies I've seen, I've never once seen a guy say anything close to, “Ya know, she's a great girl, but I don't think she's the one for me.” Instead its all fluff – sure they always show the girl asking if they guy wants to have kids, but their answers are as predictable as someone who memorized answers for a job interview: “Certainly, I want a family and kids,” they all say. Call me cynical, but I can't believe that all of them truly want that – or at least understand what they're saying they want. Other than kids, there's all this ooey-gooey touchy-feely stuff that seems to be based a lot more on lust than love.

Every guy wants to win – its embedded in being an American and being a guy. However, there are some things that just aren't about winning in the traditional sense. Back in high school, my English teacher had the seniors in his class announce results of college applications regardless of whether they were accepted, rejected, or wait-listed. He insisted that we celebrate rejections as well as acceptances because they were just as valuable because even though it stung, it was better to be rejected outright rather than to be accepted to a college that you wouldn't be happy at and have to either suck it up for four years or go through the process of transferring. Dating should be the same way. Sure, breaking up isn't the best feeling in the world, but you'd be hard-pressed to find a couple that's gone through a nasty divorce who would say fighting for every last piece of property felt better than breaking up.

“The Bachelorette” would make a great romantic comedy – all the laughs, and when it was over, nobody actually gets hurt. However, as a reality show, the problems don't end when the credits role.

Hats...Err...Helmets Off

It's 11:30 at night. I'm watching the College Softball World Series mostly because its the only thing on. Certainly not expecting life lessons. Bottom of the fourth inning in an elimination game in the double-elimination tournament, bases loaded, two outs, Alabama is down two runs to Arizona. Coming up to bat for the Crimson Tide was Brittany Rogers, a four-time All-American lead-off hitter. What an ending to her career it could be to drive in a few runs, give your team the lead, and hang on to make it to the semi-finals of the NCAA tournament.

But then the coach called her back to the dugout. No, it wasn't for a last minute scouting report. Or even a last "good luck" or "go get 'em." It was to send in a pinch hitter. Not just any pinch hitter, a FRESHMAN. This is something that happens in "Angels in the Outfield," not the College World Series.

But unlike Angels in the Outfield, or Terrell Owens, or any other All-Star, Rogers didn't pout. She didn't yell at her coach. She didn't leave the dugout and demand a trade. She went right to the end of the dugout closest to home plate and started cheering - and cheering loudly. When the freshman went down 1-2 in the count, she kept cheering. And when the ball left the bat on its way to the left field, she sprinted out of the dugout to home plate to wait for her replacement to finish her home run trot (complete with chest bumps for the first and third base coaches) so she could congratulate her.

I know assists are not an official batting stat in softball, but chalk one up for Brittany Rogers. Congrats to the freshman for her grand slam, but helmets off to Rogers for her support and sportsmanship. If only the "professionals" would take a hint.

Like, Spiritually We’re All the Same…

The more TV I watch, the more I become intrigued when a commercial, either wittingly or unwittingly, reveals some greater truth relevant to life beyond the tube or whatever product is being sold. In a new Volkswagen commercial, a woman has a conversation with an old Volkswagen van about the differences between Volkswagens and other cars. She starts off saying they’re all the same, until the Volkswagen lists off several features the Volkswagen has and the woman has no response. “So you mean like spiritually, we’re all the same. I can dig it, man,” concludes the old Volkswagen van sarcastically.

I knew there was a reason Volkswagen vans were worth three points when we played beetle bugs growing up! In all seriousness though, how is it possible for van to utter such profound truth when politicians bumble and stumble around the idea that not all religions are the same. It should be a sign of intelligence, not intolerance, that people recognize the inherent, and often irreconcilable, differences between religions. One need not look any further to Hitler to know that history has shown examples of individuals who have used differences in religion for personal gain. However, there have also been a large number of religiously motivated individuals who have worked tireless to improve the human condition for people regardless of their religion like Mother Teresa, so to claim that acknowledging religions are indeed different automatically leads to abuses is playing the politics of fear.

For anyone unconvinced of the differences of religions, one need look no further than monotheistic versus polytheistic religions. Hinduism, Wicca, and Mahayana Buddhism are polytheistic; Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are monotheistic, and Theravada Buddhism and atheism believe in no God. Obviously, of any group is correct, the others can’t be. If atheists are correct that God doesn’t exist, no matter how sympathetic you are, Christians are wrong. As are Hindus, wiccans, Jews, and Muslims. Christians and Muslims believe after people die once, people go to either heaven and hell (with different requirements for getting into paradise) so if they are correct, the religions that believe in reincarnation are wrong.

Some will argue that its only the “big three” – Christianity, Islam, and Judaism – are spiritually compatible because they are all monotheistic and claim their roots in Abraham. While they may have similar roots, their beliefs are undeniably different, especially when it comes to salvation and the afterlife. The bible, Christianity’s main text, clearly states it’s exclusive path to salvation – believe in Jesus as the savior. The Koran does the same except instead of Jesus being the only path, it’s a belief in Allah and good works. To Muslims, Jesus is merely a prophet, not a part of the Godhead, and certainly not a requirement for salvation in the way Jesus is to Christians. To Jews, the afterlife is downplayed and Jesus certainly wasn’t God and plays no part in salvation. Again, given these three diverting views, only one (if any at all) can be correct. If Jesus is only a prophet, he can’t be the savior; if Jesus was neither a prophet nor God, he really isn’t important.

It’s easier for us to focus only on the uniting factors while dismissing differences. And there is certainly a time to put differences aside temporarily to unite behind any number of the values different religions share. However, to ignore them indefinitely, or relegate them to insignificance does no one any good. Every human being has value, regardless of what faith they chose to follow, but to argue that all faiths are the same is foolish.

Killer Kalculators

“Noooo….please I need that! I can’t do this without it!”

“Please…come on…I just need it a little longer.”

“You don’t understand! I have to have it. I get to use it other places…”

These may sound like statements you would expect to hear from drug addicts starting to suffer from withdrawal symptoms, but they are actually cries for help from students I tutor in math. No, my students are not drug users, far from it in fact. But they’ve been afflicted with a different type of addiction – an addiction to the all-powerful calculator. They rely on it for their every move, and even when they understand the concepts being taught, they are but one dead battery (or in the case of a solar-powered calculator a rainy day) away from failing.

The lack of basic math skills has deprived students of opportunities to excel in math. They become addicted to calculators like a drug user to meth. And yes, these addictions come complete with withdrawal symptoms. Many times have I had to pry the calculator out of a student’s hand, only to hear screams and pleadings, begging for the calculator to be returned.

For anyone reading this old enough to have grown up with log tables, slide rules, and having to calculate square roots by hand, this is not intended to send us back to the stone age of mathematics. Those are not computations that are overly useful in day-to-day living. However, when students can’t combine a single digit negative number and a single digit positive number, we’ve got a problem.

The assumption that by middle and high school students have learned addition, subtraction, multiplication and division blurs the reasons for their poor performance. When working with slope (rise over run) and a getting the reciprocal answer (i.e. 1/6 instead of 6), the student appears to not have mastered the concept because the most obvious mistake is doing using run over rise. However, a high school student who isn’t familiar with simplifying fractions could (and did) make the mistake that way. When it comes to finding the slope of a perpendicular line, a student would need to take the opposite reciprocal so when they come up with -1/2 instead of 2, the easiest explanation is that the student doesn’t know the formula. However, the students I’ve tutored often, with a little explanation, pick up the formula just fine. What they struggle with is the basic math.

The saddest part is that these students don’t realize their potential because of their lack of prerequisite skills. Last week, with a little help with the basic math parts, a girl I tutored was mastering concepts very well so I said to her, “Has anyone ever told you you’re actually pretty good at [math]?” and she looked at me and said “No.” And it’s not even completely the teacher’s fault – when you’re responsible for over one hundred and fifty students, its incredibly time consuming to check all of the work for all of the problems of all of the students to find the root causes. Seriously, who would have thought it was addition and subtraction that caused the kids to fail algebra and geometry? Anyone who saw my grade book when I was teaching knows I don’t support doling out unearned praise, but if kids are never encouraged when they do exceed expectations, its no surprise they think they can’t learn it.

Without the foundational skills, students are doomed to an academic life of frustration and failure in the classroom and a life of being scammed and hustled by pawn shops and payday loan companies once they “graduate.” Nobody wants students to be held back, but sometimes it is truly the best option.

Net time us discus civilization-ending chance of sell check. Yes, according to Microsoft Word, that sentence is error-free.

Monopoly Money

As the recession continues, more and more people are finding themselves stretched for cash, some to the breaking point. An old board game favorite, Monopoly, wittingly or unwittingly, provides amazing lessons in fiscal responsibility.

Just a few great points:
1) The best investments aren’t always the flashiest. Growing up, it was the dark blue properties (Boardwalk and Park Place) that were the crown jewel possessions. Nobody thought much of the orange monopoly even though statistically it’s a significantly better investment. In monopoly, the right investments pay off over time. Yes, chance could land you on Park Place AND Boardwalk every time around costing you thousands while your opponents magically avoids your properties. But chance could also win you the lottery. Over time, the best investments will win out.
2) It pays to know how much money you’ve got, and you can’t (shouldn’t) spend what you can’t afford. According to the official rules of monopoly, when you land on income tax, you need to make your decision to pay whether to pay two hundred dollars or ten percent of your net worth before you count your money. If you don’t about your financial health, you could turn down an incredible opportunity or lock yourself into a deal that you simply can’t afford. Also, monopoly punishes people when they spend beyond their means. When you buy houses, you can only sell them back for half price. When you mortgage property, you have to pay an extra ten percent to get it back. In real life, opportunities abound and some have very specific time limits. You can’t borrow from the bank for free, you can’t rack up charges on your credit card, and when you declare bankruptcy, the game is done. Over. Finished.
3) Slow and steady wins the race. You can’t win monopoly in one turn. You can’t even win it in one trip around the board. Some will complain that this makes it a more boring game, but it mimics real life. We want instant gratification and our newer games reflect that. Instead of wanting to play sports games like NCAA football that mimic the actual grind-it-out nature of the sport, we settle for NFL Blitz that not only creates basketballesque scores with football, but also offers instant, violent gratification by allowing players to body slam opponents with late hits.

Look at the house rules people have implemented over time. Free parking, according to the rules, is just an empty space, but it’s turned into a lottery where a lucky (not skillful) player lands on it and wins a certain amount. Landing on go now doubles your salary. These advances are based purely on luck – not skill – and provide instant gratification, unlike the other investments offered by buying property around the board. This is the same thinking that has turned us into a credit card culture and fueled the credit bubble that has recently imploded.

Board games aren’t every thing, but when our culture is immersed in rewarding chance and providing immediate gratification, watching shows like “Deal or No Deal” that use absolutely no skill certainly doesn’t promote financial responsibility. Some may object to using innocent games to indoctrinate people with life lesson, but – for better or worse – everything teaches a lesson. Why not make it one that will help them avoid the pitfalls that have led to this recession?

Cutting Classes

For the first time ever, the 2009 Fortune list of the one hundred best employers to work for includes an educational institution. Coming in at ninety-eighth is Vanderbilt University, an elite, private institution of higher education. Not surprisingly, a public school system has never been on the list. Just recently, Charlotte-Mecklenburg School District announced that in order to help close the budget gap, teachers will have their pay cut for the rest of this year by a half percent.

Being benevolent, the pay cut also gives teachers ten flex hours. However, they can only use them between June and December – meaning teachers will suffer the pay cut starting now, but not get the small token gesture until next year. Did I mention CMS is cutting a significant number of teachers before next year? Estimates have been tossed around and range from three hundred fifty to one thousand teachers who will be given pink slips at the end of the year. Sorry y’all, no flex time for you.

According to a Charlotte Observer article, Superintendent Peter Gorman, has sacrificially showed his concern for teachers and students by forgoing any performances bonuses that he or his top staff members earn this year, but with his base salary of $267,150, don’t expect to see him in line at Wal-Mart any time soon. Not only that, bonuses for teachers and principals are also potential cost-saving cuts. Some defend Gorman’s salary, saying if he were working in the private sector, he would be making a lot more with a lot more perks. However, Mary McCray, president of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Association of Educators, poses an equally challenging point that many corporate executives have taken large pay cuts to save jobs, so why can’t that happen here, too?

I know that teachers are naturally underpaid and I’ve heard the excuse of the intangible rewards of teaching. Yes, on good days it can be incredibly rewarding when the kid struggling with a concept finally gets it. However, intangible rewards only go so far. Imagine if a customer came into your store and when the grocery bill rung up, he wanted to get a fifty percent discount because of the intangible rewards that you would reap from knowing that you helped someone feed his family.

What better illustration of out country’s priorities than where money goes when times are tough: when big banks fail, the government bails them out and allows them to use bailout money for bonuses. In a TIME article, Joan Zimmerman, a Wall Street career coach justified the bonuses because even though the firms have had “an extremely difficult year…they can’t afford to lose talent either.” While the government is off bailing out banks, it’s cutting education budgets. It’s bad enough to see that whether students learn is dependent on the economy, but it’s even worse that the government wouldn’t even honor the one year contracts that it signed before slashing pay.

I guess retaining talent isn’t a high priority for public school systems.

Charitable Chance

Larry Winget has gone from poor roots to wealth to bankruptcy and back to millionaire status again. He’s got his own TV show called “Big Spender” where he helps people live within their means. I just finished reading one of his books, You’re Broke Because You Want to Be, and I’ve definitely found a similar thinker in his very blunt, to the point manner of speaking. However, one section of the book left me startled.

Winget cites a time when he was deep in debt and “felt like [he] needed to give away $100.” Sure enough, that night his attorney comes by and tells him he’s been forgiven a debt of $100. Some would call this random chance, but Winget took this as a lesson “to never stop giving, no matter what your circumstances” and later quotes a preacher and gives this advice: “I just know that the best way to begin any money venture, whether it is an investment or getting out of debt, is to give some money away. I personally believe in giving away 10 percent of your money…” At this point, I’m thinking some version of tithing is coming up. However, Winget says he doesn’t believe God “needs or even wants your money” and that God doesn’t “give a hoot about your silly 10 percent.” He continues to say that people should give because they have confidence that more money will be coming in. He even goes so far as to say that people have an obligation to give money.

While I agree with many of the things Winget talks about in his book – like making a budget, cutting down on excesses, and living within your means – and his reasoning behind them, this section left me befuddled. Not because I don’t believe in giving, but because his logic is just so flawed. He first seems to argue that if you give, somehow it will come back to you, basically karma. However, then he argues that God doesn’t care if you give. If that is true, God won’t reward you for giving, and you’re left with two random occurrences. If there is no greater being to influence the course of human events, then it was pure chance that Winget was forgiven his debt and therefore there’s no correlation between him giving away money and reaping any benefit from it.

If this is true, Larry would be an idiot for thinking a lucky roll of the dice means he should continue gambling. Larry automatically has some credibility because he’s wealthy, but would you listen to lottery winner who was wealthy from getting lucky on a lottery ticket even though all reason and mathematical probability says buying a lottery ticket is one of the worst investments you can make? To take this a step further, if you take God out of the equation, we are here just by chance and morality doesn’t actually exist – it’s just a creation of man’s mind. But that’s an argument for another essay and I’ll just stick with karma for now.

Part of tithing (the religious term for giving ten percent of your income to the church) is most definitely about trust. But unlike Winget’s version of trusting in yourself, the purpose of the tithe shows your trust in God. I am a huge fan of the personal responsibility Winget preaches through out the book, but when that personal responsibility comes at the exclusion God’s provision, then it’s taken a step too far.

Winget also argues that having money inherently carries an obligation to give to those in need. Again, I agree, but says who? Winget’s already said that God doesn’t care if you give, so who made this obligation? As much as I agree with many things he says, “because I said so” isn’t a very compelling reason. As intimidating as he looks on the cover of the book, “because Larry says so” doesn’t cut it either. Without a higher being instructing me, I would be more likely to accept a doctor telling me that giving will make me feel better, reduce my stress, and therefore increase my life expectancy.

After reading this, you may be thinking I’m some horrible old miser who wants everyone to hoard their wealth. That couldn’t be further from the truth. The point I make is only that karma doesn’t exist on its own. Just as laws cannot be enforced without a government in power over individuals, what goes around cannot come around consistently without a God over His creation. By all means, give money, but also give God some credit, too.

FairTax Redux

As I was wandering through the library the other day, I noticed a second book on the proposed FairTax that had the subtitle “Answering the Critics” so I figured I’d give it a read. Overall, the first section of the book was a remix of the first one and the second deals with specific objections. While many of these were answered with further rehashing, there were several points that I found significant. Were they enough to justify a new book? I’ll withhold my judgment because the same question will probably be asked of this post.

(Here comes the obligatory recap of FairTax for people who haven’t heard of it before…wait for it…)

FairTax basically proposes to eliminate all forms of federal taxation in favor of a single, 23% inclusive sales tax on all new goods AND services sold in the United States. The new plan would replace all existing taxes – not just income taxes, but payroll, social security, Medicare, capital gains, corporate, etc. and replace it just with just one. It also includes a “prebate,” or a check issues at the beginning of each month to each household to as a refund for the sales tax it will incur on purchases up to the poverty level. After reading the first book, two of my concerns about the FairTax were that sales taxes might not be stable enough support the government on a yearly basis because of fluctuations in purchases and that this tax break, even with the prebate – would primary benefit the rich at the expense of the poor.

First, the simpler one to answer. If you compare a graph of the quarterly percent change in state tax revenues from 1995-2007, the sales tax is clearly the more stable option. You can take my word or look on page 129 of the book. And this tax will better reflect the current makeup of our economy. When taxes were first enacted, goods made up the majority of the economy. Even up to 1950, two-thirds of the economy was goods-based rather than service based . It wasn’t until after 1980 that services made up a larger percentage of personal expenditures than goods, but now services account for 60% of the economy. What a waste! Why should a farmer be forced to increase the price of his goods because of taxes and a lawyer not have to because she provides a service?

Now to the fear of the FairTax overburdening the poor. As mentioned earlier, part of the plan includes a prebate to refund the sales tax up to the poverty level of purchases. So if you’re living below the poverty level, all other programs aside, just from the FairTax setup, you get more money in the prebate than you spend on sales tax.

If asked if the taxes system in the US today was progressive, just about everyone I know would say yes. And while it is true the income tax is clearly progressive, there are many other less well known taxes, and even parts of the income tax, that are not progressive, and potentially even regressive in nature. Most people would agree that the rich pay a larger percentage of taxes on their income than the middle class or lower class. However, many of the wealthiest escape the high income tax bracket because they earn most of their income from investments, which are taxed as capital gains at 15%. Don’t believe me? Ask Warren Buffett. In a speech given in 2007, he claimed he paid 17.7 percent of his income in taxes while his receptionist paid thirty percent! And that’s just based income tax.

Just based on income tax? Isn’t that the only major tax individuals are responsible for? If you think taxes are paid only on April 15th, then yes, that’s all. But imbedded in the cost of paying an employee are a number of other taxes. An employer doesn’t just look at the salary they pay an employee to determine how much that employee costs the company – there are payroll taxes, medicare, and social security taxes the company has to match as well – not to mention benefits. So while you might take home $30,000 – well, you would take it all home under FairTax – but you current only get whatever’s left after the government takes out its withholding.

Look at the social security tax. Supposedly its split evenly between wage earners and the company. Because of that extra approximately seven percent, you’re cost to the company to employ just jumped $2100. You might not realize it, but the company certainly does. The social security tax also has a cap so it only applies to the first $100,000 or so that you make. So for someone making $150,000, they pay the same in social security tax as someone making $100,000, which drops their effective tax rate. Sounds regressive to me. Take for example the payroll tax. It’s a flat rate for all wage earners, not a progressive rate, and the wealth who earn their incomes from investments don’t have to pay it.


With over 16,000 amendments to the tax code since 1986, who has time to read them all much less know which ones apply to them and how to take full advantage of them? People who get paid to do it (read: tax advisers). While I have nothing against tax advisers charging money for their services, they do, after all, put in long hours to understand and find niches and loopholes to save their clients money, the information they glean isn’t free to the general public. Who has the money to pay them? And who has the most to gain by legally exploiting the tax code? The people with the most money who pay the most in taxes! Even if a poorer person goes to a tax adviser and finds a way to save 20% on their $1500 tax bill, it would take one hundred of those people to make up for the wealthy person who is shown a way to save 5% on a $600,000 tax bill. Clearly, the more complex the tax code, the more it favors those with a bigger bill.

The FairTax proposal offers a simpler solution to the complex tax code. Is it perfect? Of course not. But it would be a whole lot better than what we’ve got today.

Innocent Until Executed

Benjamin Franklin is supposed to have said that he would rather see one hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man suffer punishment. While I’m not quite sure that I would rather have one hundred serial killers roaming the streets than one innocent man behind bar, I can say for certain that I would rather have one hundred people convicted of first degree murder serving life sentences without the possibility of parole than one innocent man executed for a crime he didn’t commit. But what are the chances of that happening to someone today?

After reading The Innocent Man, by John Grisham, my first thoughts were “Of course these men are innocent. How did these juries not see through the lies that put forward by the prosecutors, who were obviously just desperate for a conviction?” However, the jury did not get all of the information in the book. The information juries hear is finely filtered through the evidence that is allowed to be presented, the questions the can be asked of witnesses, and the objections that can be raised. Juries are, at least in theory, a group of our peers, people with no special training in criminology, evidence, or courtroom procedure. Even those jurors who have some outside knowledge are not allowed to inquire on their own about the evidence. While a fictional tale, Twelve Angry Men presents a case in which a defendant with incompetent counsel appears guilty from the courtroom proceedings but, through the determination and expert knowledge of the jurors, is eventually found innocent. Though they were able to use their own knowledge and review exhibits entered into evidence, they could not ask for anything not entered that they felt might be relevant and could not request additional witnesses who were not called much less recall witnesses to ask them their own questions.

I am generally optimistic about others’, especially those in positions of power, ability to do the right thing, but that optimism could blind me to their abuses of power. While the implications for the defendant are deadlier than those harmed in other professions, in truth, prosecutors who continue to waste effort to prove a suspect guilty simply because they have nowhere else to turn, have invested too much time into the lead to admit it was incorrect, or even feel pressure to convict someone – anyone, even – to close the wounds for the victim or the victim’s family, are no different than the marketing executive who doubles the ad budget of an ineffective campaign, the general manager of a sports team who refuses to cut a free agent he brought in because he’s just going through a two-year long cold streak, or the lottery player who continues to buy tickets because tomorrow will be the day his luck changes. Almost everyone has, intentionally or unintentionally, overcommitted resources to a failing project. Would I like to think that if I were the prosecutor, I would have stopped the questionable investigations long before the reached the courtroom much less the guilty verdict. Certainly. But do I also understand how various pressures inherent in our judicial system make this possible? I’d have to be blind not to.

Under our laws, most people involved in criminal proceedings – including judges, prosecutors, and juries – cannot be held liable for convicting an innocent person unless they have made an egregious violation. All people, even those with the best intentions, will make mistakes. In the adversarial system we use, fairness depends on two equal sides both seeking to prevail. While in theory they both want the truth, they also are enlisted to fight for their client. In the same way even the best referee cannot cause a game between the L.A. Lakers and a middle school AAU team to be equal, the most well-versed judge cannot make up for an incompetent attorney. A jury cannot possibly be expected to have the knowledge required to determine whether “expert” witnesses are to be believed. Even a well-intentioned prosecutor can proceed with cases that indict innocent people. To allow the prosecutor to be punished for proceeding with good intentions would cripple the legal system.

Some argue that the death penalty should be abolished because it is unjust in that it is imposed on certain demographics – most often the poor or minorities – a disproportionate amount. While I agree with the ends of their argument, the means ring hollow because it confuses justice with equality. While often linked, justice and equality are not interchangeable words. Whether a punishment is just or not should be determined by comparing the crime committed and the circumstances it was committed under, with the punishment given. Only when considering whether it is equal should the punishments of others be considered. When equality becomes the determining factor of whether a punishment is “right” or “wrong,” justice becomes a sliding scale with no anchor because as simple as it would be to make all first degree murders receive life in prison without parole, it would be equally simple to assign any other punishment – whether it be the death penalty or fifty hours of community service – and as long as all convicts received that same punishment, the punishment would be equal. And fifty hours of community service for murder is clearly unjust.

Since the system is known to be imperfect, death penalty cases are automatically appealed, as they should be. When a person’s life hangs in the balance, every effort should be made to ensure the correct decision is made. However, this takes significant sums of money. Studies have found New York spends about twenty-three million for each execution actually carried out and in Maryland the figure jumps to thirty-seven million (See http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty for full stories and more.) Surely our government has been things to spend its money on than giving prosecutors the option to seek the death penalty. Governments estimate future prison construction based in part on illiteracy rates of elementary-aged children. What better use for those funds than to help those kids struggling so they don’t end up behind bars?

While I still think death can potentially be a just punishment for certain crimes, I do not have enough trust in the criminal justice system to administer it fairly and properly. The finality of the punishment prevents any correction of errors, and who among us is perfect?

“Skin” is the New “Sin”

I can’t remember a free meal I didn’t enjoy. Sure, at some the food could have been better or the company different, but I’ve always been happy to eat for free. In the same way, I’ve never met a tax I didn’t have to pay that I didn’t like. As long as the sales tax targets something I don’t generally buy, especially if it’s a product I’m not particularly fond of, it sounds good – at first.

Amidst the recent budget shortfalls, some law makers have turned to adult services. No, not to de-stress, but to tax. A number of states and even the federal government have at least considered a possible tax on explicit movies, literature, and other products, much the same way that there are specific taxes on alcohol and tobacco, also known as “sin” taxes.

The “skin taxes” as they are called will have no negative effect on my finances, and should they be passed, survive constitutional challenges, and generate revenue, they might actually lessen my tax burden by making others pay more. However, I’m still uncomfortable with the motivation behind these new taxes. The legislators aren’t moral warriors attempting to use any means necessary to rid their districts of what immorality, they just want to raise funds in a way that offends the least number of people. However, flinging morality around as an insincere excuse for raising revenues doesn’t sit well with me.

Right now, I’m not being targeted. Nobody’s threatening to tack on a twenty percent tax on peanut butter and jelly, spaghetti, yogurt , or – heaven forbid – camera equipment. I guess those must be common enough that representatives don’t think they can just slap a tax on it and not feel repercussions at the ballot box. But what happens when some senator decides religious books are “immoral” for misleading people? Or instead of the “pole tax” that Texas has instituted to force strip clubs to have a five dollar cover, what if politicians decide that people are going to attend church no matter what so they should levy a five dollar cover charge to get in? Perhaps that example is just a bit drastic, but what about charging a cover on trips to the camera store, car dealership, or supermarket?

Certainly there are some times when legal means can be used by sincere individuals to achieve moralistic ends, such as using zoning laws to prevent strip clubs or adult stores from taking root in a new community, but as long as taxes are seen as a valid means for behavior control rather than purely as a revenue generator, I certainly don’t mind “skin taxes,” as well as taxes on tobacco, alcohol, anchovies, women’s clothing, and almost any other item I don’t have to purchase. However, unless I am chosen as dictator – or at least total given control of what gets taxed so I can make sure someone doesn’t tax items that I use – taxes should be a method for raising money and nothing more.

Investing in the Government of America

Why is losing an Olympic gold medal by a tenth of a second so much more painful than ? Or why is watching an NBA championship slip through your fingers as a last-second shot slip through the net more heart-wrenching than losing 21-19 in a pickup basketball game at the local park? Though losing a job anytime hurt, why is it more wrenching to see a business you founded go under than be laid off from a 9-5 job?

Simple: the more you effort you expend on something, the more valuable it becomes to you. And it also applies to government.

According to IRS statistics, in 2006 about 1/3 of all tax filers owed nothing in taxes. This sobering statistic doesn’t even include people who don’t bother to file taxes, or those who don’t make enough to have to file a return. During this year’s presidential election, Obama and McCain promoted tax cut that would increase that number to 44% and 43%, respectively. That means that they pay nothing for the benefits of living in America. No, it’s certainly not a perfect country but we certainly have it better than most. When you’re given something for free, you’re much more likely to take it for granted than if you pay for it. When my parents paid for my TI-89, I took it for granted a lot more than I do my camera equipment that I paid for myself.

In a publically held company, shareholders votes are proportional to the capital they have invested. The person who has 30% of the capital invested gets 30% of the votes. Chances are, that person is pretty involved in making sure the decisions of the company are good ones. The person who only owns a few shares likely votes by proxy – if they even bother to vote at all. What would happen to voting turn out if even a nominal fee – say, $0.50 or $1 – were charged? While I’m guessing that fee wouldn’t even cover the cost of opening poling places and counting the votes, and I know some people wouldn’t vote simply out of protest, I think most people who did vote would spend more time examining the issues and candidates to make sure they got the most bang for their buck. No, the poll tax will not return, nor should it, but how dearly can people treasure a freebee they take for granted?

I am certainly not suggesting we convert to an aristocracy, but what happens when a majority of Americans have no monetary stake in the government?

A political candidate will be able to shout from the podiums-turned-pulpits that if elected, he or she will increase taxes on the wealthiest 49% - or, to ensure victory, just those whose incomes are in the to 30% - and eliminate the tax burden for the rest of the country. At that point, America will turn from a democracy to a tyranny of the majority – at least until the wealthy decide to leave.

As valuable as every person is, those with capital to invest provide the catalyst for the economy. If wealthy individuals and businesses chose to move elsewhere – and, unlike the poor who usually cannot afford to move out of a bad situation, the wealthy could chose to relocate – they will take their investments with them leaving fewer jobs for those already struggling to make ends meet not to mention the decrease in tax revenues

Am I arguing that everyone should pay the same dollar amount, or even the same percentage of their income, in taxes? Certainly not. But to have a skyrocketing percentage of the population that has no stake in ensuring the government spends its money wisely is foolish.

Tax Refunds for All!

I just got the federal part of my tax refund and was thrilled to realize the government owed me money. Virginia paid me a whole $3 and I’m still waiting on North Carolina to pay me a larger amount. I was thrilled – I mean, who wouldn’t be happy to have the government pay them extra money? And then I realized something that took away my joy.

The government was simply giving me money back that it had forced me to lend it without paying me any interest!

While I can understand giving people the option to have taxes withheld if they would prefer not to keep track of setting aside money to pay in one lump sum, or using it as a punishment for delinquent tax payers, having the government borrow my money interest free is ridiculous. Not only that, but if for some reason you don’t have enough taxes withheld, the government gets to charge you penalties. Just a little one-sided, don’t you think?

Not only that, the “refund” I get obscures how much I really pay in taxes each year. Because people are so accustomed to taking home less than they earn, they just become accustomed to not having that income. Therefore, if you had asked me how much I paid this tax season, I would have said, “Nothing, I actually got a paid by the government.”

“Really? REALLY?” Seth might ask. No, I didn’t get paid by the government. No, the government didn’t donate some money to me. Really, the government just gave me back all the extra money I paid over what I owned. The only difference between paying for a Big Mac with a Benjamin and paying taxes with withheld earnings is that the McDonalds cashier gives you the extra back right away and Uncle Sam takes several months.

It took me taking a second – and third, and fourth – look at my tax return to figure out how much I had actually paid the government. I doubt many people can say exactly how much they paid, and if people can’t say how much they paid, how upset can they possibly be if it is misspent? And if I think the government paying me, they must be doing something right!

Withholding is a genius idea to dull people’s sensitivity to paying taxes. Instead of citizens writing one big check each year, they simply miss a smaller amount each paycheck, and since they’re not used to having it anyway, people don’t miss it. Even tax increases are blunted. Nobody care much about a cup of coffee costing five cents more until they realize how much it costs them per year – but how many people actually total their coffee spending for their year? And coffee companies don’t even give a refund at the end of the year. If the government takes an extra $20 out of your weekly paycheck, but passes a stimulus package that gives you a big, one-time check of $600, most people are going to remember the refund, not the fact that they were paying an extra $1,000 over the year.

Don’t just look at the bottom line of your 1040 for your refund. Look a few lines up for how much you actually paid.

Retiring Too Young

Number retiring ceremonies are always a special: they represent a salute to years of hard work and success for a team. They celebrate the commitment that an individual to a team and reward it with a commitment from the team – no one else will wear that number again. Forever will that number be associated with that player like the Chicago Bull’s #23 belonging to Michael Jordan or the New York Yankee’s #3 belonging to the Babe.

However, sometimes teams go overboard when retiring numbers. Recently, Texas University retired the number of Kevin Durant, a one-and-done collegiate mercenary who happened to spend a year at Texas before jumping to the NBA. While not blaming Durant for his decision – seriously, who wouldn’t turn down almost $4.5 million per year salary and a $60 million endorsement deal with Nike – you have to wonder whether one season, no matter how incredible, justifies retiring a number.

As incredible as Durant’s single season was, it was only one season. However, it was just that – one season. Retiring his number for one year is too much. I guess that’s one advantage to going to a school without a rich basketball tradition. Texas has only three Final Fours in its history, and only one since 1947.

The part that’s sadder than Texas’ lack of a national championship is one defense for the retirement of Durant’s number: he’s a good guy who the University wants to be forever linked with it. To the best of my knowledge – thanks A-Rod and others for having me insert that – Durant is a good, clean, upstanding ambassador for anyone he chooses to represent. But for a University to have to sink to idolizing a person who, let’s face it, came just to serve a year in college ball only because he couldn’t enter the draft and really didn’t have any academic ambitions shows the fracture turned chasm between academics and athletics for so-called student-athletes.

Texas has only retired three men’s basketball numbers, but the tradition it’s building is already on shaky footing. Only one athlete played more than one season, and that was Slater Martin back in the 1940s. What if all colleges required that in order to have a number retired, the athlete had to graduate? No, not in four years, not even in consecutive years. If it means ten, twenty, even thirty years from now Durant goes back to Texas to finish his degree, he’s certainly eligible! If Shaquille O’Neil can go back to LSU and get his degree eight years after his college career ended, anyone can! As the the Big Aristotle (or Big Cactus or Big Jabbawockee or whatever he calls himself now) said, he feels like he “can get a real job” as a result of his degree.

However, as crazy as Texas retiring Durant’s number is, the Miami Heat have them beat. The Heat have two retired numbers – take a guess as to which two.

Need a hint? Neither honor an athlete who played for the Heat.

Still stuck? One was already mentioned in this article.

Give up? On April 11, 2008, the Miami Heat retired the # 23 in honor of Michael Jordan. The Heat have also retired Dan Marino’s #13.

Tax the big, evil, corporations!

It sounds like a great plan: the government needs more money to help Joe the Plumber get by so it’s going to get that money by raising taxes on I. M. Evil, Inc. Uninformed voters love the plan because their taxes don’t go up and politicians applaud themselves for how government saves the little guy. However, the little guy might be getting raw end of the deal anyway.

Who are corporations more loyal to: shareholders and owners or its employees? Hold up. Since when do corporations have feelings? The “feelings” of a corporation are defined by its board of directors or shareholders. While it’d be idealistic to think that corporations cared more about its laborers than its stock price or dividends, in the end it’s a trick question because the shareholders ARE the corporation and will act in self-interest. Certainly, having productive employees is desirable, but only because it makes good business sense. The more productive the employee, the more profit for the shareholder. However, when decisions must be made on issues where what’s best for Joe the Plumber isn’t necessarily best for Tom the Shareholder, Tom’s usually going to win out.

Increasing taxes on corporations is like trying to negotiate a better deal with a used car salesman. The used car salesman might seem to take a hit when he agrees to compromise by lowering the price of the car by $500, but as he’s dropping that price, he’s already calculating how to make it up by dropping the value of your trade-in by $300 and squeezing an extra $200 out of the financing. Corporations work the same way. When a corporation encounters an additional cost, whether it be demands for higher wages or more benefits, increases in the cost of goods, or rising taxes, it has to figure out how to distribute those costs among the different parts of the company.

But just cut the profits, you say, and no one gets hurt except the company and they can certainly take a hit, right? Wrong. Those profits belong to the shareholders, whether they’re used for reinvestment or dividends. Falling profits hurt Tom the Shareholder. If the company raises prices to cut the drop in profits – assuming they are in an industry where demand allows that – then Joe Plumber is going to spend more of his paycheck, leaving less for him. Or the company can decide to cut costs by reducing compensation or benefits. Then Joe the Plumber has to find a second job and spend his own money to buy his health insurance.

The government won’t let that happen. Workers have rights and we’re going to make sure companies aren’t allowed to do that here in America. Fine, says Evil, Inc. – err, Evil Inc.’s board or directors – instead of building my cars here in America where I have to pay a higher corporate tax rate and hurt my shareholders because I have to take the hit in the profit category, I’ll move to Canada, where I can pay my workers well because I don’t have to deal with the higher corporate tax. When this happens, Joe the Plumber doesn’t have a job at all.

Perhaps I’m too idealistic in believing that most companies aren’t out to take advantage of their employees, but it just doesn’t make good business sense. Between a higher turnover ratio of unhappy workers - a Gallup poll found that “the length of an employee's stay in an organization is largely determined by his relationship with his immediate supervisor,” the training expenses for replacement employees, and the bad publicity for those companies, treating workers well has tangible benefits. However, when those tangible benefits are outweighed by costs imposed by outside forces, the workers lose.

When workers lose, the economy loses. There is no simple fix for our economic crisis, but we should demand better solutions from politicians than pandering for votes based on misinformation, and until voters take the time to study these issues and make informed decisions, shallow policies will continue to win at the ballot box.

Real Rivalries

After watching the Lakers-Celtics overtime game Thursday night, I wondered if there were any sports in which rivalries really mean much anymore. Back in the day, everyone knew about the Celtics led by Larry Bird and the Lakers led by Magic Johnson. Michael Jordan always led the Bulls – well, at least before he retired, the second time. Those teams would always be led by stalwarts, not imports. Not to take anything away from Danny Ainge, but two years ago Kevin Garnett could have cared less about the Celtics.

So what am I looking for? First, rivalries need to attract attention. Not just from those involved, but anyone who follows the sport. Sure, my brother and I might be just as competitive as Peyton and Eli, but nobody cares. Second, rivalries need to be permanent. A war isn’t nearly as intense if people can switch sides whenever they want. Finally, the more compelling rivalries the better. You can’t just have the Celtics or Lakers winning every other year. Or if you do, the Hawks-Sonics game needs to mean something, too. And not just wh0 has the best odds at picking the next Kwame Brown.

The 2006 World Cup final had 715.1 million views making it the most watched sporting event. Not fair, you say, because the World Cup only happens once every four years? This year, the Super Bowl noticed 95.4 million viewers, so even if we round up to 100 million and multiply by four, the Super Bowl only generates 400 million viewers per four year period – just over HALF the World Cup final.

No other sport has such a rich tradition around the world. Soccer has legitimate leagues around the world. Almost every nation in Europe, South America, and Mexico have leagues. Whether the MLS should count or not is debatable. Who else plays American football besides us? The NFL tried expanding into Europe and failed. Sure, Major League Baseball has players from all over the world, and maybe Japan can hold a candle to MLB, but the World Series of Baseball, err, World Baseball Classic, whatever it’s called, it’s not even close. Aramis Ramirez decided he didn’t want to play in it because he wasn’t going to start. Beckham wants to give up Hollywood and for a chance to play in Europe and maybe, just maybe, have a shot at making England’s 2012 roster.

Even America and Mexico have a strong rivalry this isn’t subject to capitalism. Unlike Johnny Damon who impersonated Benedict Arnold for a $52 million payday when he left the Red Sox for their hated enemies the Yankees. No matter how much how much money the Mexican government offers, Landon Donovan can’t decide he wants to play for Mexico. Capitalism does have a role, however. After Radioshack dropped out, U.S.-based Blockbuster is sponsoring a promotion in Mexico City that is giving out voodoo dolls who resemble American players for Mexican fans to prick. Nothing says rivalry like the losing coach being executed for his shortcomings. No coaches have literally walked the plank, but between 1991 and 1997, three Mexican coaches were given pink slips after suffering defeat at the hands of the Americans.

Players must make the best of their situation, no matter what country they’re from. Unlike Manny Ramirez who walks out grounders until he gets his way, Demarcus Beasley can’t jog up and down the pitch until he gets traded to a Germany, Italy, or some other country he believes has a better chance of winning a World Cup. No, it’s not fair that some countries have more natural talent, but that just encourages individuals to push those around them. It’s a similar concept to college football – for the most part, players can’t just up and leave, they have to make the best of their situation. Think Tim Tebow on an international scale. What? Can’t imagine anything bigger? Come on, only 26.767 million people saw the game.

Correction: Subdued Dull Sunday

I do my best to write only the truth, but occasionally I do make mistakes, and when I do, I like to correct them. Last week I wrote about how the Super Bowl is no longer the cultural phenomenon that it used to be (Subdued Dull Sunday). I was wrong. No, not about eighth graders, but about most people not having the same enthusiasm for they game that they used to. I forgot about a very important demographic, imprisoned males, who apparently are still incredibly passionate about watching the game. On Sunday, at least eight inmates in Prince George’s County jail picked their locks and stormed out of their cells, furious that they were unable to watch the game (Washington Post Article). Now that’s what I call passion! If I were in jail and could pick a lock, I’d try to escape, not watch a football game.

I can’t believe I didn’t see it – it’s a genius guerilla marketing strategy. Most people would think, “Why in the world would a company target inmates?” Think on the bright side: in a down economy, who’s not becoming unemployed? Criminals! What profession is always open to new employees? Crime! Now, I still don’t claim to be economist, but gaining a strong following among the growing demographic sounds pretty smart to me. Inmates don’t have much purchasing power while in prison – just ask Michael Vick who’s making twelve cents an hour washing dishes. But when they get out, they can make crime pay.

Jail mates share secrets like middle school girls. If they share how to pick locks or avoid drug busts, they’ll certainly share favorite teams. Once inmates are released, the first thing they’ll steal is a TV to watch the game. Television ratings don’t care what kind of TV is tuned to the game – flatscreen or plasma, color or black and white, purchased or stolen – just that its on. It’s a good thing prisoners follow pro football that has an undisputable champion – if they stormed the guards just for the Super Bowl, think how many more brawls there’d be if the NFL used the BCS rankings to determine a winner!

So I was mistaken, the NFL is not headed for financial disaster or obscurity. They have a secret plan to increase profitability centered on incarcerated males, and seeing as the inmates revealed that they can pick their locks just to watch the games, it seems foolproof. Unless, of course, the inmates just wanted to watch the commercials like the rest of us.

To Compromise or Patronize: The White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships

Obama named Joshua DuBois to head the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, which, among other responsibilities, will lead his efforts to depolarize the debate over abortion. Some point to Obama’s decision to subtly reverse a ban on using U.S. funds overseas for abortions and abortion counseling, rather than making a major statement with it on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. The only reason I can see that this would lower the volume of the outcry is because fewer people who would be offended by it would know about it. If you’re going to stab someone, have the guts to do it from the front.

The argument that removing a proposal to expand Medicare to cover contraceptive services from a stimulus bill balances this out rings hollow. Sure, pro-lifers would generally support this, but how is the government spending more money on condoms going to stimulate the economy? Until someone explains this to me, I will only applaud Obama for removing a bum rider from the bill.

I am not cynical enough to claim Obama is intentionally belittling pro-lifers, but his suggested compromises seem aloof to the entire issue. Certainly pro-lifers want fewer abortions, but telling a staunch pro-life advocate to compromise by trying to lower the number abortions but not legally restricting the action is akin to wanting to take steps to reduce the number of murders but not making it against the law. Even Obama’s actions thus far are confusing given his goal of people on both sides of the issue coming together to “try to prevent unwanted pregnancies.” Thus far, Obama has suggested making contraception more readily available, helping pregnant women continue their education, and lowering barriers to adoption.

However, one issue that seems to be completely overlooked in the abortion discussion is why abortion is even an issue in many cases – sex outside of marriage. No, abstinence education will not magically drop the unwanted pregnancy rate to zero. No, it will not suddenly stop people from having sex outside of marriage. But its absence from Obama’s proposals in favor of more contraception is notable. As a culture, we continually try to define “freedom” as the absence of consequences whether it be not paying debts, not accepting the consequences of taking performance-enhancing drugs, or not reserving sex for the bonds of marriage.

“I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning…the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was…liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom,” said Aldous Huxley, atheist and author of Brave New World.

I am not contending that every pregnancy ended by an abortion is the result of a hedonistic orgy. However, the best estimate as what percentage of abortions are cases of rape or incest is about one percent. According to a Pew poll in 2003, only twenty-five percent of Americans support abortion in all circumstances. That number jumps to eighty-five percent when the woman’s life is endangered. The natural middle ground on abortion seems to be limiting the circumstances under which abortion is legal, not obliterating restrictions on abortion like abolishing state laws that offer protection to medical professionals who refuse to participate in abortions and parental notification laws by passing the Freedom of Choice Act.

David Freddoso, author of The Case Against Barack Obama, states that Obama has never voted for any restriction on abortion, ever. If Obama wants to truly compromise on the abortion debate, he will have to tone down his extreme views instead of attempted to bait-and-switch pro-life advocates with his promises to reduce the number of abortions without admitting there is anything wrong with the procedure itself.

Down the Pipe

Name as many current NBA players as you can in ten seconds. Lebron, Kobe, Steve Nash, Dwight Howard, Kevin Garnet, Paul Pierce, Ray Allen…and time.

Name as many current NFL players as you can in ten seconds: Peyton and Eli, Big Ben, Kurt Warner, Larry Fitzgerald, Bouldin, Hightower, Willie Parker, Santonio Holmes...and time. Can you tell the Super Bowl was last weekend?

Name as many swimmers – past, present, or future – as you can in ten seconds. Michael Phelps…umm…all those other guys he beat…wait wait…and time. Wait, Mark, Mark – you know the guy who’s record he beat? Can I at least get half a point for that?

Swimming isn’t a household sport, but right now Phelps has as much star power as any swimmer ever. He’s translated his trips to the podium into advertisement deals with Rosetta Stone, Hilton, Subway, and AT&T, just to name a few. After all, who wouldn’t want the most decorated Olympian endorsing their product?

Recently, however, a photo of Phelps and a pipe surfaced. While not confessing to inhaling, Phelps did admit the photo is legitimate. Granted, this is not technically a positive test, but in the NFL, the first positive result would result in up to ten tests a month and the second would cost the player four games in salary. Certainly no apology would garner a pat on the back from Commissioner Roger Goodell.

Why should Phelps be treated any differently than Plaxico Burress? Burress now faces charges for carrying concealed weapon without a permit and could receive up to seven years in prison. New York is known for cracking down hard on crime, so it wasn’t seen as a string-up-the-star charge. Richland County Sheriff Leon Lott has a reputation for cracking down on drug crimes, so it logically follows that – assuming the evidence supports it – he would press charges against Phelps.

Unlike Phelps, Burress is replaceable. Certainly he was an incredible receiver, especially when you consider the injuries he was playing through. However, the NFL also has Randy Moss, Terrell Owens, Larry Fitzgerald, and many wide receivers to replace him in the hearts of fans. Swimming doesn’t have a number two guy. Not only is Phelps so far ahead in skill, his name recognition alone generates press for Phelps. If Phelps disappears, so does swimming. If swimming disappears, so does Speedo and FINA, so its no surprise these groups issued statements supporting him. For better or worse, Michael Phelps is swimming in America.

More alarming is the continuing trend of immortalizing athletes and then expressing shock that they are indeed human. Eleanor Roosevelt once gave the advice to “Learn from the mistakes of others. You can’t live long enough to make them all yourself.” Yes, it’s a headache to explain t youngsters that their hero is not perfect, but it also presents teaching opportunities. Parents can either bemoan the fact their children idolize athletes who make mistakes, or can use those moments as an entry point for discussions of awkward topics. It won’t make talking about drugs as easy as asking “how was your day?” but it sure beats trying to come up with something out of the blue. This way, the kid doesn’t has as strong a suspicion that the only reason you bring it up is out of fear that they’re using.

What has happened, happened, and no amount of writing, discussing, or blogging will make it disappear. Why not just move on and worry about our own problems and let others do the same?

Credit Cards are like Prescription Drugs

In the right hands prescription drugs can do wonders – cure illness, relieve pain, and stop the spread of disease. In the wrong hands, even unqualified hands, it can cause dependence, sickness, and even death. In the same way, credit cards can be an excellent method of securely paying for purchases, keeping track of expenses, building a good credit score and even earning some cash back on everyday expenses. However, careless spending and missed payments can negate those benefits and even lead to financial death – bankruptcy.

Credit cards first came into popular use after World War II and have steadily grown since then. Now, almost everyone carries at least one credit card in their wallet. It offers convenience and security. Yes, cash is still king. I have yet to encounter a store that turns away Lincoln, Jackson, and Franklin, but gas stations that charge two different prices for cash and credit are almost as common as the California condor and I’ve seen as many brick and mortar stores that do the same as I’ve seen dodo birds. More and more people are realizing that when – not if – their wallet is misplaced or stolen, losing a piece of plastic is much easier to rebound from than having Grant get kidnapped. And with the internet becoming the world’s largest shopping mall, credit not just the preferred method but the only method.

How do these credit cards make their money? A portion comes from what amounts to a commission on the sales paid for by credit cards that merchants pay – typically about two percent. The bigger portion comes from consumers who carry over balances or run up fees such as for going over their credit limit. Credit card debt isn’t covered by collateral, like a mortgage, so credit card companies charge very high interest rates – sometimes over 20%. If an investment returned 20% per year, you would double your money in less than four years. Like a prescription drug, once you’re hooked, it’s hard to break the addiction.

So how are credit cards not closer to heroin than penicillin? First, used properly, they’re a great way to build credit. I’ve had a credit card since I was sixteen – yes, my mom cosigned my first one and I rarely used it back then – but I haven’t missed payments or had an other negative effects so now creditors can see that I’ve been able to handle credit for years making my credit score better. No, you don’t get a check just for having a good credit score, but it will mean lower rates on loans and opportunities for more favorable credit cards.

No, not all credit cards are created equal. While I’m sure platinum cards with high annual fees have their uses, I refuse to carry a card that I have to pay for. There are some that can over decent merchandise or travel rewards, but I’ve found the best return is cold hard cash. There are a number of credit cards that offer one percent back on all purchases. With a little searching, you can find cards that offer double, triple, or even centuple that. If you want to get fancy, you can find different cards that give specific benefits for different spending categories. I’ve got one card that I use solely for gas because it gives me five percent back. Another card gives me three percent back on the top three categories I spend in for the month – and then if I wait until I have two hundred dollars in rewards it pays back two hundred fifty, a twenty-five percent increase. Now that’s an investment I like.

It takes management and discipline not to overspend, but a little saving here and there can really add up.

Saving for a Rainy Day in the Middle of a Thunderstorm

Sun Trust has an ad showing now that says some people woke up and stopped trying to keep up with the Joneses, stopped wanting flashy and started wanting solid.

Thanks for the heads up Sun Trust. Oh wait, it’s not foresight, it’s hindsight.

It seems that as long as people aren’t content to have an average amount of wealth, the economy is always going to be cyclical. And it seems that the best time to have money to spend is during a recession because everyone’s lowering prices. To most Americans, this is a paradox – how can someone have money to spend during a recession? Well, it starts by saving money during more prosperous times.

For those of who don’t know what I’m talking about when I talk about “savings”, don’t feel bad because you’re not alone. “Savings” refers to money that is put aside for future use, whether it be for a large future purchase, emergency, unemployment, or retirement. A survey released in 2008 by the American Savings Education Council and America Saves revealed that only 62% of people have “a savings plan with specific goals” while 47% of Americans save less than 5% of their incomes but only 43% thought that they weren’t saving enough for retirement.

So that means the 4% of the US thinks less than a sub-5% percent savings rate was sufficient for retirement. But I’m sure that 4% are the richest 4% who are still saving millions even though it reflects a small portion of their income. NOT. The study also shows that the higher your income the more likely you are to save, and save at higher rates. So the rich get richer – not only because they make more money, but they also save more money – and the poor get poorer.

In the end, at lot of it comes down to education. Typically, the better educated you are the more money you make. It should come as no surprise then that the individuals with the highest incomes save the most. In fact, education is likely to be the confounding variable. Certainly saving more money is easier with a larger income, but it is both possible to do with a smaller income and not to do with a large income. While not all professional athletes are stereotypical dumb jocks, many are not scholars either, and about 60% of NBA players go broke within five years of retirement.

Not only does a better education teach people to save to prepare for the future, but it also prevents them for falling for budget-breaking scams – both legal and illegal. Predatory lending obviously preys on the uneducated, but so do payday loans and even the lottery. The lottery is a horrible investment – if you can even call it an investment. A typical return on the Mega Millions lottery is about $0.50 per $1 you spend; see http://www.durangobill.com/MegaMillionsOdds.html for all the math. How many people knowingly make an investment that is EXPECTED to lose 50% of it value? Personally, it’s great for me that other people are making charitable donations to the government so I have to pay less in direct taxes, at least until the government has to pay unemployment and welfare. And then everyone is forced to foot the bill.

So start saving for the next recession now so when the price of your dream home, car, or even flat-screen TV drops, you’ll be ready to buy – with cash, not credit.

Super Bowl Commericals (Fourth Quarter)

Coke Zero - Repeat: Eh - not quite deserving of its predecessor. Coke Zero commercials were never that funny to begin with. At least give the kid the suit jacket - who wants a ripped shirt?

Cash4Gold.com - MC Hammer: Much better anticipated than when I first saw it was going to be a cash for gold commercial. MC Hammer seems to be the default old guy for cheap commercials every super bowl.

Taco Bell - Call me sometime: Old. Was funny the first time but gets old really fast.

GE - Smartgrid Technology: Why does the vast majority of America need to know about smart electrical grids? It's not like we have a choice for which energy company we use. Cute touch with the Wizard of Oz though. Still, someone please tell me why we need to know about this.

Hulu: See commercials anytime: It only softens the brain. Probably very true and people are still going to watch commercials over and over online...

Finally getting dinner...

GE - Wind Power: Another pretty good commercial from GE but the question still remains: Why does most of America need to know GE is building windmills? Can I buy one for my backyard to reduce my electric bill? No? Then why do I care? Do they want me to donate to them or something?

Pepsi - MacGruber: Umm....Yes, I get the reference. However, what does MacGruber stand for? Obviously not resourcefulness, he's not a hero, he's just a corporate sellout who even changes his name because a company pays him. So which Pepsi person thought it'd be a great idea to portray your company as the one promoting sellouts? What happened to individuality? Not to mention the result of said selling out is getting blown up?

There's been surprisingly few commercials this quarter. The Cardinals just scored but it didn't go to commercials. Is it possible that not only has NBC had to run crummy ads multiple times to fill airspace but has also simply run out of ads? As cool as an overtime game would be, I don't know if I can take too many more crummy commercials. (For the record, I will take an overtime game even if I have to look away

Bud Light Lime: Doesn't make me want to try it. Maybe Bud Light figured most people would be too drunk at this point in the game to realized that simply carrying Bud Light Lime doesn't equal girls and sunshine.

The FCC needs to stop the "committee hearings." There's no reason for that.

And still no more commercials. Either NBC is completely out of commercials or they're idiots. If I had anyone will to pay anything close to what a Super Bowl ad goes for, take the money and run! It's like an empty hotel room - even if the hotel doesn't get 100% of its target price, it's not like it can save it for tomorrow to see if the price goes up. Once the Super Bowl is over, it's over!

And now the Super Bowl IS over. And we're still not going to commercials.

Super Bowl Commericals (Third Quarter)

Ok second half. I'm expecting improvements from both the ads and the Cardinals. And from dinner. I can't believe I'm actually going to start making food while the game's going rather than during a commercial...

Coca Cola - not sure how to describe it: Boring. Next.

Bridgestone - Spacemen "Jump Around": After the Mr. and Mrs. Potato head, I expected more. Really didn't see the connection to tires...but maybe I'm just getting tired.

Denny's - Mobsters: Not bad until the end. Start with the mobsters talking about putting a hit out on someone but keeps getting interrupted by whipped cream being sprayed on the pancakes. Ends promising a gland slam breakfast to everyone in America. Sweet. I will be trying to find where the closest Denny's is.

Monster.com - Moose Body: Slightly better than average. Gets the point across but is rather boring. Knowing the potential for job sites - especially given the large newly unemployed target audience - I expected more.

Budweiser - Irish Clydesdale: This is going to be sweet. As soon as I heard the Irish accent and saw the horse, I got excited. Great fake jobs - the racehorse especially. Even an appeal to patriotism. But still, not quite sure how horses equate to buying beer.

Race to Witch Mountain: Not on my list to see.

The Office: Three guest stars - doesn't really amuse me. White guy yelling "Barack is president!" to try to revive a black guy - slightly amusing.

Finally going to put food in the microwave...

Transformers - Revenge of the Fallen: I'm biased because I really liked the first one. Otherwise I would have thought it was just a special effects show with absolutely no plot. When special effects were truly groundbreaking, you could sell a movie with just special effects - I can't tell you the plot of Independence Day, but I can tell you a lot of buildings looked really cool blowing up. Not anymore. If I don't see a better trailer with some semblance of a plot it's off my list. And they better have a plausible explanation for

I didn't notice who the ad was for - If you hate going to work, it may be time: I was about to completely blast this ad until the koala got punched. That was kind of cute. Otherwise, how many people are seriously thinking about leaving their job right now? And the repetition was just annoying.

Coca-Cola - Animals Stealing Bottle: Better than the earlier attempts, bright colors, kinda cute computer generated animals...can you tell I'm stretching to complement here?

Frosted Flakes - New baseball field: Did anyone mention to Kellog that the Super Bowl is a football game? Not a baseball game?

Usama Young - Snow Cone Vendor: Haha. Actually was amusing. Especially the end about being in the super bowl.

Unnamed security company (I refuse to give you more publicity than you deserve) did you seriously waste a SECOND ad slot with the guy getting stuck in the door? This is one company that obviously doesn't need a bailout.

Hangintherejack.com: Umm...at least that other not to be named website thought they could attract views by an attractive woman potentially naked in the shower. As bad as that is, it's probably going to get a lot more traffic than some egghead mascot who just got hit by a bus.

I think that was the third local newscast commercial I've seen tonight. NBC must be really desperate. If this can't get the Republicans and Democrats together to pass a stimulus bill I don't know what will.

Chuck in 1-D: Another dumb waste of a repeat.

Speaking of wastes, that security company just ran the SAME BAD AD a THIRD TIME! And now the fee pig is back! These two companies should be financing a bailout because the obviously have too much free money. Or perhaps they should spend some of it on a better marketing department.

And a FOURTH local news ad. I knew they were having a little trouble with ads, but this is nuts.

Super Bowl Commericals (Halftime)

Nextel – Roadies running the airport: Sorry, but as much as I loved that commercial the first time I can’t give it the major props as I would have loved to have seen a really funny new one of roadies running the world. I guess technically I still shouldn’t give it major props because it’s not a new series (see Bud Light ad commentary) but I was looking forward to a new set or roadies running the world commercials.

NFL Network – Darren McFadden: Darren who? I haven’t heard from this guy since he was in college. Why in the world does he get a Super Bowl ad? Well, why would anyone be featured? Here’s what I can think of: 1) Star power: Someone everyone recognizes and wants to watch on TV. Not McFadden. 2) Star team or at least major market: Nope. The scariest thing about the hapless Oakland Raiders is owner Al Davis’ face. 3) Great personal story: Nope. Not that I know of and certainly not that the commercial shows. 4) It’s Darren McFadden: Check! Ok, this isn’t really a reason, but I can’t think of any other justification for this ad.

Heroes – Hall of Famers vs. Heroes: Sweet. Finally a TV show commercial that does more than just show clips from the upcoming episode. NBC finally did well working in all of the powers of the characters in a reasonable manner. Forgive the lack of names as I don’t watch the show, but the cheerleader surviving a major hit, the dude flying on a crossing route, and the Asian guy stopping time to grab the ball away from a defender worked well. Cute line to tell Jerry Rice he’s going to need some help on offense and major props for picking a football player to have super powers to make it unique to the show. Not sure John Elway was the most practical to have be able to fly, but it works.

Bruce Springsteen just told me turn my tv. So I switched to ABC’s Wipeout. That wasn’t all he said? He said to turn it up? Opps. And changing back…just in time to see him slide hips first into the center of my HD screen. Back to wipeout.

The ref calling delay of game was the best part of the halftime show. Can the FCC suspend the Super Bowl halftime should for disrespecting the officials?

Toyota: Another letdown.

Priceline – The Negotiator: This commercial really wasn’t that funny the first time it came out – a long time ago. It’s certainly not funny now.

Overstock.com – Carlos Boozer: Confusion overrides minor amusement.

LMAO: Not too bad, but there was a minimal connection to the shows. I think 30 Rock is on the night they were talking about, but I certainly can’t tell you what time.

CPI Security: Burglar Gets Trapped: Old line, really not that funny. Even fails to get the point across because if the burglar gets stuck, why do you even need a security system? He’ll be right there waiting for you. He doesn’t even break the door. If I’m going to spend my money, you better protect me from something scary. Like Al Davis. Maybe my next job should be in the CPI marketing department…

Charlotte Metro Credit Union – Fee Pig: This can’t be a national commercial, can it? Not only is it boring, it’s got to be at least three months old. Where is the stimulus package?

Nextel – Garbage Truck Holds Truck Hostage: Slightly funny the first time – but old. I expected more.

High Life – One Second: Not bad. Would have been funnier unannounced.

Super Bowl Commericals (First Half)

So to the best of my knowledge, the Super Bowl ads have sold out (see my blog from two days ago for details). For my blog today I’ll have a running commentary on the commercials.

Doritos – Snow globe predicts the future: Pretty well done. Not quite sure how it makes me want to eat Doritos more but that failure to properly use phony technology is almost always going to garner a few laughs. Promotion possible for the creators of this ad.

Budweiser – Weird actor does dumb commercial: Slightly amusing but not Super Bowl worthy. I mean, you’ve got to come up with something better than a weird Swedish commercial shown in Times Square for the big game.

Halftime Show Ad: Ok, maybe NBC didn’t sell out all of the ads. Why in the world would you waste valuable ad time telling about the halftime show when you can have your announcers do that? Oh, wait, they did that about seconds later. Sorry NBC but I’m seriously considering watching ABC’s “Wipeout” during halftime. Can we get someone my generation has heard of for the big show at the big game? And please, I know its asking a lot, lets not make an awful mix like we suffered through with NSYNC/Aerosmith. On their own they would have been fine. Think less is more.

Bridgestone – Mr. and Mrs. Potato Head: Amusing AND product related. Who hasn’t had a blabber mouth that your stuck with (not necessarily a wife) and wanted a way to make them zip it? Or at least had to slam on the breaks and hope your car can stop in time?

Side note: do they still make potato head dolls?

Not even going to mention the name of the company that always seems to think attractive females make men want a website. Garbage.

Budweiser: Clydesdales playing fetch: Ok, I’m impartial because in college I was a “Clydesdale” on the cross country team, but still a sweet commercial. Again, a lack of product/commercial connection, but who doesn’t love Clydesdales showing up the Dalmatian?

Budweiser – Clydesdale Romeo: I’m starting to wonder if its possible to make a bad Clydesdale commercial, especially when the Clydesdale is the underdog. America loves an underdog, and the underdog Cardinals are certainly not looking like they’ll satisfy that love tonight.

Cars.com – child prodigy grows up: Another well done commercial. Amusing set up and then great product placement. Sucks in the businessman (pie chart at 3), ladies man (asking out the older girl prior to 4th grade), genius (applies for dean of Princeton), professional (open heart surgery), and person who fears making the wrong big investment (almost everyone), then provides a simple solution that attracts even the tech geek as he uses his blackberry to go to cars.com.

Not a commercial, but people always look funnier in slow motion. Take Santonio Holmes: Roders-Cromartie deflects the ball and it hits Holmes in the head. At full speed it doesn’t look bad but when you slow it down you can see his head bobbling all over the place as he tried to locate the ball.

Hyundai – everyone knows how to say it now: Is that how you even spell it? The only other recognizable company in the commercial was BMW – and honestly that was the most memorable part.

Pixar – Up: Is this seriously a movie? I mean really. How much can go wrong with an old man and a young boy stuck in a house? Michael Jackson do NOT answer that.

Bud Light – Skiing: Nice use of an ongoing campaign with the drawings. But the super Bowl really isn’t the place for ongoing campaigns. This is where you go big or go home and while it’s not the worst commercial by any means, this one can go home.

Another commercial for the halftime show? Seriously. Obama better get the economy going so we can start watching better ads…

H&R Block - Death: Ok. I guess it works, but not that great. Would have been better if it used “I’ll see you in eight days” as the closing line rather than “Can you validate my parking?”

Telefora – Send Live Flowers: Harsh words from the dead flowers in the box. Needs a little more memorable name. If I didn’t write it down at the start of the review, I would have forgotten it before I started typing this last sentence.

Please tell me the blue car is not going to be a Viagra ad…hmm, its not. Just some type of ad for NBC. Call an emergency session of congress and pass a stimulus bill now!! Please!!!

Cheetos – Pigeons: Eh, the other one was funnier. Sure this woman’s kinda annoying but it didn’t make me crack up when she got swarmed by pigeons. I know pigeons are brave, but why would one fly on her bag on the table right in front of her when the food is on the ground? Poor technical research.

Ok my friend just asked me what the halftime show is going to be. So not only are the halftime show ads annoying they’re also useless. Well done NBC.

Incredible return by Harrison. And now he's completely out of breath. I see a future commercial using him lying flat on the ground, totally sapped, and then is given Gatorade, Vitamin water, Powerade, heck even an oxygen tank company, and then show him dominating the second half. Bailout package to the company that comes up with the best commercial!

And great sideline reporting: "Coach, you were about to score and then they did. What happened from your perspective?" "Well, since I was on the near sideline, the ball started out to my left, made its way right in front of me, and then kept going to my right."

Monsters vs. Aliens: Seriously?

Sobe - Aliens and weird guys trying to dance: Why would I want a product that makes me dress in all white? Or dances like that? Or turns me into one of those ugly aliens? That's all.

Taking a College Tour

One of the most important things to remember about the college admissions process is to remember that you’re always being watched. This is no different on tours. Tour guides can submit reports on the prospectives they show around and they going in the admissions folder along with the interview reports, transcripts, etc. Obviously, having a tour guide write a nice recommendation is not going to get you in if you don’t have the grades, but it can help separate you from others.

Be prepared to think on your feet. Some tour guides will have a funny question or icebreaker during introductions just to get to know the prospectives a little better. When I give tours, I like to ask what students like to do for fun. These are not evaluative questions – there isn’t any one right answer – but there are definitely some wrong ones. Yes, the following are actually answers I’ve gotten on tours:
- “Talk on my cell phone”
- “Hang out with my friends”: Seriously now, who doesn’t like to hang out with their friends?
- “I don’t have much free time”: Well, what do you do with your time? If you don’t enjoy anything that you’re doing, you’re wasting your life away. Sure you won’t enjoy everything
- “I don’t know”: Whenever the tour guide gives you a chance to talk, they’re giving you a chance to stand out. You don’t have to come up with some ridiculously unique activity, just something that shows you are passionate about something.

Some better answers:
- “Play soccer/basketball/football/etc.”: This is a solid answer, especially if you are considering continuing the sport in college. The tour guide might either: a) be on the particular team or b) know someone on the team. If the guide is on the team, you can make a personal connection with the guide so they are more likely to remember how wonderful you are and what a great addition you could make to the school or they might even be able to set up a meeting with the coach. Most admissions offices will have the office phone numbers but coaches aren’t usually in the offices over the summer. If a tour guide is on the team, they might have the coach’s cell number. Numerous times over the summer when someone mentioned that they ran track or cross country I was able to call the coach and set up a meeting that day. If the coach couldn’t meet then, they’d usually tell me to give their CELL number to the prospectives to call them. Even if the guide isn’t on the particular team, they might know someone on the team who they can put you in contact with – and that’s information you’re not going to get from a college’s web page.
- “Participate in Model UN/Student Government/something that you would like to continue should you come to this college”: When prospectives say they enjoy participating in something that they plan to continue in college, it shows they’re most likely doing it because they enjoy it rather than just resume building. Similar to sports, they may be personally involved with the activity or may know someone involved so they can give you an inside scoop on how the activity works at the university.

On the tour, show some interest. Many times the tour guide will be VOLUNTEERING their time to show you around. When you give up an hour of your day to show someone around, they appreciate it when you show some genuine interest. The most boring tours I’ve given are when I have only one family and the kid seems to be just along for the ride. Even simple things like making eye contact can help show your interest.

One of the best ways to show interest is to ask RELEVANT questions. Whether they like to admit it or not, most good tour guides will have some type of routine that they follow on the tour and most of them will cover almost all the relevant parts of the college experience; which means there’s no reason to interrupt the tour guide to ask about Greek life while the guide is talking about the business school. However, when campus housing is covered, it would be a good opportunity to ask about how many students live on campus or if it’s guaranteed for all four years.

The best questions are ones that go beyond simple facts that could be looked up online. Tour guides are not impressed when prospective students ask “So how many students go here?” because that just means the prospective didn’t do their homework before visiting the school. It only takes short amount of time to do some research and find a unique club or activity you might be interested in if you came to the particular school but your interest can leave a good impression.

After the tour, be sure to thank your tour guide. If they give you an email address, shoot them a quick email to thank them for their time. Even better, send them a note. Believe it or not, these can end up getting filed in your admissions folder. Will a thank you note alone be the difference between being accepted and rejected? Probably not. But when you are applying to a competitive school, a trend of courtesy – thank notes to your tour guide, your interviewer, anyone else who you met and took some of their time to talk to you about the college – might be the difference. Most competitive colleges will receive many more qualified applicants than it has room for in its class, so you need to stand out in almost any way possible.


Quotables:
“Do you really have to say “Hi” to everyone? I mean, isn’t that impractical?” – a not so socially minded prospective student on a tour in response to the Speaking Tradition

“I assume the Honor System covers cohabitation?” – a mother innocently wondering how roommates getting locked out for hookups was handled

Me: “There are numerous upper classmen who voluntarily come back early to help the freshmen move in. Typically, cars don’t even get to come to a complete stop before they are surrounded by five to six upperclassmen asking ‘Where’s the stuff going?’ The parents tell them, and then watch joyfully as their child’s stuff disappears.”
A few sentences later…
Mom: You were just kidding about the freshmen’s stuff being stolen, right? Don’t you have some type of honor system here…?
Me: When I said “disappears” I meant it disappears from the car at a very rapid pace and is moved to the freshmen’s dorm room…