There are few things more aggravating than witnessing a conservative who praises free markets, small government and individual liberty be elected to office only to have him transform into a sanctimonious busybody who knows no restraint in interfering with the private affairs of free citizens. A spectacular example of this took place this week in Washington D.C.
“What can we say — it’s December and the BCS is in chaos again,” said the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, the top Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. He said the BCS system is unfair and won’t change unless prompted by Congress.
The astonishing ignorance required to make this statement must take years to cultivate.
Unfortunately, certain characteristics which draw people to public service also contain the impulse to be destructive once in the seat of power. The admirable ambition to create a better nation, state or district can become a justification for mayhem and mischief in the absence of the constraint of wisdom in a politician.
The first question an officeholder, confronted with some unresolved issue, should always ask themselves: Is this problem the business of government and do we have the authority to insert ourselves into it ? Anticipating the response to this, I acknowledge the door was left wide open long ago and most of the horses are already out of the barn, but do indulge my glimmer of optimism here. The sphere of private activity in America is enormous and there remain areas we as citizens can still hope to protect. One of them is college football and how a national champion is determined.
I maintain the worst and possibly unfair system we can devise is superior to any solution coerced from the public by incessantly nosy and hyperactive politicians who see no common sense boundaries and recognize no restraints on the responsibilities of governance. This violation of freedom is both inane and preposterous:
WASHINGTON – Dismissing complaints from some members that Congress had more pressing matters, a House subcommittee approved legislation Wednesday aimed at forcing college football to switch to a playoff system to determine its national champion.
“We can walk across the street and chew gum at the same time,” said the subcommittee chairman, Illinois Democrat Bobby Rush, one of the bill’s co-sponsors. “We can do a number of things at the same time.”
Really now, Congressman Rush. After making this ridiculous claim, any pretensions you may have to be an expert on gum, walking or college sports have vaporized.
The legislation, which still faces steep odds, would ban the promotion of a postseason NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision game as a national championship unless it results from a playoff. The measure passed by voice vote in the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s commerce, trade and consumer protection subcommittee, with one audible “no,” from Rep. John Barrow, D-Ga.
“With all due respect, I really think we have more important things to spend our time on,” Barrow said before the vote, although he stressed he didn’t like the current Bowl Championship Series, either.
But, wait, while it is not my habit to praise Democrats in these pages, I have to give credit where credit is due:
In a statement before the vote, BCS executive director Bill Hancock said, “With all the serious matters facing our country, surely Congress has more important issues than spending taxpayer money to dictate how college football is played.”
Yet Barrow wasn’t alone in criticizing his colleagues’ priorities; Reps. Zach Space, D-Ohio, and Bart Stupak, D-Mich., made similar arguments. Space said that with people facing facing tough times the decision to focus on college football sends the “wrong message.”
Even though their reasoning is seriously flawed, veering into concerns for public sentiments rather than appropriate behavior for a legislative body, the three Democrats in the House are correct to object.
Not to be outdone, one man in the Senate who has yet to acknowledge there is any human concern too small, too trivial or too private to reside outside the limits of Senate business has once again mounted the grandstand to save the day:
There is no Senate version, although Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, has pressed for a Justice Department antitrust investigation into the BCS.
God save the Republic, please.
As Dr. Don Boudreaux so eloquently put it when he noted this event on his blog, Cafe Hayek….Words Fail Me.
{ 22 comments }
While my initial thoughts about this subject were simply “keep the government’s hands off my college football,” I have since looked a little deeper at the issue. Now the fact is that since the advent of the BCS, which effectively created a new class of Division IA schools that now cut the pie 64 ways instead of the previous 120 or so teams that had a shot, half of the field has been frozen out of the big money TV deals. Additionally, the bowl picture was altered to make all but one of the games completely meaningless. But here’s the kicker. Virtually (but not all) of the competitive teams are now government run, large student body, state and federally funded operations who merely consider the football activity as another source of revenue. Since the government is in control of the schools anyway, why would it matter if the feds decide to impose some rules governing their athletic activities? We are all paying the bills through taxes, supporting student loans, government grants for every weird idea under the sun – why not go ahead an add athletics to the field. It long ago ceased to be an amateur endeavor at that level and merely serves as a farm activity for the NFL, so why not go ahead and let the government take control, pay the players legally, supply them with drugs, women and guns so they won’t have to go out, and play the game on the field for the benefit of the bookies and gamblers just as the NFL does. Heck, you could even fix a few games for the benefit of the children every now and then.
#1 El Gordo, redistributed wealth usually comes with strings attached.
A better question might be, “Why is the federal government taking money from people and giving it to post secondary institutions in the first place? From where do they claim the authority to do so?”
I think this is another indication that the notion of a government with constitutionally limited power has been turned completely bass-ackwards, resulting in an environment where an omnipotent and unlimited government (and those who benefit from their interference) are inclined and even encouraged to make political footballs out of issues they have no business regulating in the first place.
#1 El Gordo
Herein lies the trap used by government power addicts everywhere. Once you reach a certain tipping point at which the general public perceives, rightly or wrongly, they are footing the bill for everything, then it takes very little nudging to convince them everything is the business of politicians.
Co-opt the populace via cynicism and resignation to join your jihad on liberty and private decisions so you don’t have to fight them at the ballot box or in the arena of public debate anymore. The herd of cats transforms into a herd of sheep.
It’s interesting to watch the transition of many folks we elect.
They go to Washington as our representatives. After a while, they are legislators. Then lawmakers. Some even make the leap — in their own minds — to lawgivers.
I do not believe they change because they start off as bad people. I blame us.
We want too much from them, willingly ceding lots of power over our own lives and forgiving or forgetting the transgressions of those who keep the pork flowing home.
Pogo was right!
This is even sillier than Congress meddling in the steroids/baseball issue. You know when they start invoking the interstate commerce clause to justify new legislation they have no business or authority. Idiots, the lot of ‘em.
#4Fink
There’s plenty of blame to go around. I won’t let them off the hook that easily, but nice, trenchant comment.
A few years ago before dan ran for the Senate, there was an article in the Chronicle about a soldier who killed in Iraq or Afghanistan, I don’t remember which. The Chronicle used the opportunity to exploit the family’s to show their political opinion about the war.
There was an immediate outcry on conservative radio, demanding an apology from the Chronicle, which of course never came. Dan decried that theChronicle was a vanishing breed anyway, and proposed a website to compete with them.
This is that website.
To my opinion, (and only my opinion), this has degenerated to something that someone does in their spare time, and is no longer a voice in the community, if indeed it ever was.
I have criticized the lonestartime previously, and the webmaster took the opportunity to search ALL of it’s history to find any comments I ever made, and used it to attack me.
I am not here to attack you, but I am entitled to an opinion, and it is as stated.
#7 Your inane comments are always the same thing: “This site sucks”. There is nothing constructive about your serial mindless ramblings.
I am entitled to an opinion as well. I’m of the opinion you should go away and not come back. Ever.
The bright side of this is that if they’re spending time debating college football playoffs, steroids in baseball, or whether ferrets should be allowed in cave dwellings, they’re not doing something more destructive to the nation.
Most of us can agree the one thing Congress does well is “SCREW THINGS UP”.
#7 bgordon
Other than being a friend, Dan Patrick has nothing to do with this website. Whatever you believed was his vision for Chronicallybiased.com is irrelevant to what happens on Lone Star Times currently.
It has been a number of years since David Benzion bought this site from Dan, renamed it, reformatted it and invited a group of contributing editors to monitor the site and provide content.
So let me see if I can summarize this for you:
A. Dan Patrick’s chronicallybiased.com website no longer exists.
B. Patrick sold the site to David Benzion years ago.
C. Benzion changed the name, the focus and format of the site.
D. A group of contributing editors provide content on subjects which interest them and which they believe most of the readers will find of interest.
E. We don’t much concern ourselves with the Houston Chronicle these days because they, like the rest of the legacy, deadtree media are receding in importance in this age of New Media.
F. We provide a website whose traffic generates one of the highest for an independent political blog in the state.
G. Each one of us has a family, a real life and a job or business, or both. This is a labor of love for all of us here at LST and as much as I personally would love to devote 8-10 hours a day to it, it is not feasible. I and my colleagues have to make a living since no one derives income from this site.
H. We have no immediate plans to radically change the format here, would not do it based upon the vague complaints of one reader, but we remain open to civil, concise and constructive suggestions and criticism.
If you do not like what we offer here, there are millions upon millions of other websites in the blogosphere to patronize. I’m sure at least one of them has something to please you, but then, maybe not.
One way to get our attention would be to change your tactic of only commenting here every few months to tell us how lame and inadequate you find our efforts.
If there is anything at all unclear, anything you don’t understand about the above statements, please let me know.
Texpat
11, Texpat:
You said:
G. Each one of us has a family, a real life and a job or business, or both. This is a labor of love for all of us here at LST and as much as I personally would love to devote 8-10 hours a day to it, it is not feasible. I and my colleagues have to make a living since no one derives income from this site.
That’s what keeps you guys grounded in the real world, which is a good thing.
….reminds me of a guy who goes into a Mexican restaurant the second Friday of every month for the last sixty moons.
He sits at the same table, doesn’t look at the menu, but tries to order Chinese food each time.
His reply to the manager’s explanation they serve only Mexican food is that when the building was built 10 years ago, it was a Chinese restaurant and they served, yes, Chinese food and he wants some now.
The man seems totally unfazed by the conjunto music, platters of fajitas, chile rellenos, Dos Equis beer that has filled the building for 5 years.
If there was a Chinese place once in that spot, there must always remain a Chinese place there and let no sliver of reality intrude upon this realm.
I was trying to figure out how this discussion related to BCS football, but when TP began describing all those grand Mexican dishes I was finally able to put it all together. Football, Mexican food, beer…..
Here’s a little more on bowls and bailouts – Who will win the Big Bank Bailout Bowl?
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/Who-will-win-the-Bailout-Bank-Bowl-Championship-Series-79088117.html
bgordan
The commentors have as much say in what direction this site goes as the front pagers, just look at the direction this thread went.
We can take a texpat post anywhere we want, from badgelicking, to homophobes, to the WoD, to backyard graves, or just ignore it all together!
Life is good, lighten up. I love this place, keeps my mind off the honeydew list.
Hey BGordon
The internet is a big place. Google is your friend. Go find a place that suits you and don’t let the door hit you in the ass.
SQUAWKBOX
LONESTARTIMES.COM MODERATOR
Looks like it’s time to investigate your family tree to determine how much American Indian blood you have and how much of the latest Obama Pie you are entitled to.
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/12/09/us-to-pay-34-billion-to-settle-native-american-suit/
How does this relate to BCS football you ask? Well, back in the days of segregation, Bear Bryant reportedly wanted an outstanding black running back on his football team – but Alabama would not allow admission to blacks at that time. The Bear asked them what was wrong with them – didn’t they know an American Indian when they saw one?
I would love for nothing more now than for our Congress to just sit back and do nothing. I would gladly pay their salaries to do nothing for the foreseeable future. Remember the government shut downs in ’95? I rather enjoyed the idea of the great bureaucratic wheel grinding to a halt. I am not proposing anarchy just a protracted time out for all of D.C.
I think most people are elected and go to D.C. with the notion that they have to DO something. What they fail to understand is that they really do not need to DO anything. The U.S. Constitution defines a very narrow scope of work within which to act. Anything outside of that is superfluous.
El Gordo #18;
Way back when one of my wife’s ancestors married an Indian in Forida. I want some of those billions. You know, for the wife and kids.
Now, back to topic.
#2 (bob) & #3 (texpat);
Excellent points. I know this is a big reason the Cub Scouts do not want to accept any government funds. Within church, I was once involved in organizing small community organization within a local college campus. The number one reason nobody involved wanted college, ergo, state government, monies was to prevent the door to government control inside.
I whish Orin Hatch could have been there. He would have learned a thing or two. What a dumb dumb.
The next time the 66th school gets jobbed by the NCAA basketball tourney selection committee, I propose Congress take over the selection process.
It makes about as much sense as what these yo-yos are doing.
Good job, texpat.
Comments on this entry are closed.