For anyone remotely interested in national politics, the Washington Post buried an incredibly important economic analysis deep inside its "A" section yesterday.
Entitled, "Doing The Math On Obama's Deficits," the article, by Ezra Klein, analyzes the federal government's recent budget deficits to determine what proportion came from policies of George W. Bush, and what from Obama. [There's also a follow-up today, here.]
What we find is that since W Bush became President in 2001, his policies have added $5.1 trillion to the national debt, while Obama's policies have added $983 billion. And that's generous, because the analysis tagged Obama for $620 billion for the two-year extension of the Bush tax cuts.
All told, the Bush tax cuts have added about $2.5 trillion to the national debt since being enacted.
Let's not forget that when Bush took office, he inherited a budget surplus of more than $200 million per year.
So when the Republicans label Obama as fiscally reckless, let's look at the facts. Can our nation afford another period of Republican rule? Borrow and spend is not good policy.
Thursday, February 02, 2012
Friday, January 13, 2012
Bondi Compounds Her Tax Problem
Melissa Bondi is now facing scrutiny from the "mainstream" press about her tax problem, or should we say problems. Her response is not encouraging.
The worst thing a candidate for public office can do when faced with a question about their personal behavior is to lie about it. Yet, that appears to be the path Bondi has chosen, and it will undoubtedly exacerbate the problems for her campaign.
Here's the two tax problems Bondi has:
1. A nearly $20,000 IRS lien for failure to pay taxes on income earned a few years ago; and
2. The apparent failure to pay personal property taxes on a car she garaged in Arlington for a couple of years.
As an aside, commenters on various blogs and news sites have raised other questions, but they seem beside the point. She was late on some car tax payments a few years ago--ok, but she paid them, and a lot of people are late at some point in paying bills. Another candidate, Kim Klingler, had the same problem, but really it shouldn't be disqualifying. Also, some commenters have complained that Bondi is now not an Arlington taxpayer at all, suggesting that should disqualify her for office. We don't see that as very pertinent--an Arlington resident who rents her abode and has no car can still be an excellent County Board member.
However, not paying taxes, and then evading the truth about it, is serious.
As for the IRS lien, Bondi's story is that until the tax judgment appeared on the Arlington Yupette blog a few days ago, she didn't know about it. That is pretty hard to believe. The IRS is far from perfect, but they don't file a tax lien without first making mulitple efforts to notify you of the tax delinquency and offering you an opportunity to negotiate the delinquency, all the while threatening the dire consequences that will befall you if you fail to act. Also, when you get hit with a tax lien--which is public--all kinds of lawyers and other types come out of the woodwork offering to "help" you with the IRS. Since the lien judgment has Bondi's correct address, it's hard to see how she somehow missed all that correspondence--some of which, by law, is required to be sent by certified mail.
Most telling is that in today's Washington Post article on the issue, Bondi "would not say" whether she received notices or warning letters. So, in other words, maybe she didn't know about the lien (still hard to believe), but she certainly knew about the delinquency. It would be one thing if she was in correspondence with the IRS disputing the delinquency and the IRS upped the ante by filing a lien--they will do that; but that doesn't appear to be her story.
The car tax issue is also problemmatic. Apparently, sometime in 2006 Bondi gave up her own car, but used a car that belonged to her father, who lives out of state. The fact that a car is registered out of state, however, does not exempt it from personal property tax. If the car is garaged in Arlington, it is subject to the tax. Bondi hasn't yet said anything to clear up this issue. While the amount of money is probably quite small, we do think it says something about someone who wants to serve on Arlington's Board. Paired with the other tax issue, it says volumes.
Now, people make mistakes, and if we only elected perfect people to public office, we wouldn't have any public officers. We're more troubled at this point, however, with how Bondi is handling her mistakes.
With four other committed Democrats running for the Board nomination, we think Arlington Democrats have better choices.
[The Curmudgeon is supporting Terron Sims. But we'd change horses in a nanosecond if he had Bondi's type of problems.]
The worst thing a candidate for public office can do when faced with a question about their personal behavior is to lie about it. Yet, that appears to be the path Bondi has chosen, and it will undoubtedly exacerbate the problems for her campaign.
Here's the two tax problems Bondi has:
1. A nearly $20,000 IRS lien for failure to pay taxes on income earned a few years ago; and
2. The apparent failure to pay personal property taxes on a car she garaged in Arlington for a couple of years.
As an aside, commenters on various blogs and news sites have raised other questions, but they seem beside the point. She was late on some car tax payments a few years ago--ok, but she paid them, and a lot of people are late at some point in paying bills. Another candidate, Kim Klingler, had the same problem, but really it shouldn't be disqualifying. Also, some commenters have complained that Bondi is now not an Arlington taxpayer at all, suggesting that should disqualify her for office. We don't see that as very pertinent--an Arlington resident who rents her abode and has no car can still be an excellent County Board member.
However, not paying taxes, and then evading the truth about it, is serious.
As for the IRS lien, Bondi's story is that until the tax judgment appeared on the Arlington Yupette blog a few days ago, she didn't know about it. That is pretty hard to believe. The IRS is far from perfect, but they don't file a tax lien without first making mulitple efforts to notify you of the tax delinquency and offering you an opportunity to negotiate the delinquency, all the while threatening the dire consequences that will befall you if you fail to act. Also, when you get hit with a tax lien--which is public--all kinds of lawyers and other types come out of the woodwork offering to "help" you with the IRS. Since the lien judgment has Bondi's correct address, it's hard to see how she somehow missed all that correspondence--some of which, by law, is required to be sent by certified mail.
Most telling is that in today's Washington Post article on the issue, Bondi "would not say" whether she received notices or warning letters. So, in other words, maybe she didn't know about the lien (still hard to believe), but she certainly knew about the delinquency. It would be one thing if she was in correspondence with the IRS disputing the delinquency and the IRS upped the ante by filing a lien--they will do that; but that doesn't appear to be her story.
The car tax issue is also problemmatic. Apparently, sometime in 2006 Bondi gave up her own car, but used a car that belonged to her father, who lives out of state. The fact that a car is registered out of state, however, does not exempt it from personal property tax. If the car is garaged in Arlington, it is subject to the tax. Bondi hasn't yet said anything to clear up this issue. While the amount of money is probably quite small, we do think it says something about someone who wants to serve on Arlington's Board. Paired with the other tax issue, it says volumes.
Now, people make mistakes, and if we only elected perfect people to public office, we wouldn't have any public officers. We're more troubled at this point, however, with how Bondi is handling her mistakes.
With four other committed Democrats running for the Board nomination, we think Arlington Democrats have better choices.
[The Curmudgeon is supporting Terron Sims. But we'd change horses in a nanosecond if he had Bondi's type of problems.]
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Bondi's Tax Problem
According to a posting on Arlington Yupette, County Board candidate Melissa Bondi has a tax problem with the IRS, which resulted in a judgment of nearly $20,000 against her back in March. (And public records confirm the judgment: http://landrec.arlingtonva.us/public/ViewDoc.aspx?popView=false&hideForm=&docId=1621576&fileId=1479128&id=53&cat=j&origin=retrieval )
We'd like to know more about this inasmuch as Bondi has been reported as a frontrunner in the five-way race for the Democratic nomination to replace Barbara Favola on the Board. The Democratic nominee will most likely win the seat; in turn, the Democratic nominee will be selected by a tiny percentage of the electorate at a "firehouse primary" type of caucus, probably by a plurality vote. Since there is very little turnover on the County Board, it's important to know more here.
So far, the news outlets that cover Arlington politics--the Sun Gazette, Arlnow.com, to some extent the Washington Post--have been mum. Some suggestions in comments on the Yupette page suggest it had to do with unreported income from some form of self employment. It's pretty significant, however, that whatever the source, the IRS had to litigate and go to judgment--and we wonder if the judgment has been paid.
Our concern is about getting someone on the Board whose ethics are suspect. Arlington has long been blessed by good government, without significant scandals, unlike some of our neighbors, such as D.C. and P.G. County. Paying your taxes is a civic responsibility, and electing representatives who fail in this basic obligation is a clear path to trouble.
We'll be looking for more on this one in the days to come--much better that it come out before the caucuses, rather than after, lest Democrats find a way to blow the special election in March.
We'd like to know more about this inasmuch as Bondi has been reported as a frontrunner in the five-way race for the Democratic nomination to replace Barbara Favola on the Board. The Democratic nominee will most likely win the seat; in turn, the Democratic nominee will be selected by a tiny percentage of the electorate at a "firehouse primary" type of caucus, probably by a plurality vote. Since there is very little turnover on the County Board, it's important to know more here.
So far, the news outlets that cover Arlington politics--the Sun Gazette, Arlnow.com, to some extent the Washington Post--have been mum. Some suggestions in comments on the Yupette page suggest it had to do with unreported income from some form of self employment. It's pretty significant, however, that whatever the source, the IRS had to litigate and go to judgment--and we wonder if the judgment has been paid.
Our concern is about getting someone on the Board whose ethics are suspect. Arlington has long been blessed by good government, without significant scandals, unlike some of our neighbors, such as D.C. and P.G. County. Paying your taxes is a civic responsibility, and electing representatives who fail in this basic obligation is a clear path to trouble.
We'll be looking for more on this one in the days to come--much better that it come out before the caucuses, rather than after, lest Democrats find a way to blow the special election in March.
Friday, December 02, 2011
Soccer Ridiculousness--Part 2
In Soccer Ridculousness Part 1 we went over the absurd comments of college soccer coaches who object to any limits on current year-round training and competition for collegiate players.
Today, we cover the current push to prohibit elite players in the high school age group from competing with their schools.
In recent years, the powers that be in US youth soccer established an "academy" program for boys to supplement, compete with and generally confuse things with the existing Olympic Development Program, which was already confusing because it really has nothing to do with the Olympics.
Adding to the confusion, the girls have a different elite training program.
Putting aside, for the moment, the counterproductive effects of having multiple, overlapping and somewhat conflicting "elite" programs, let's get to what the boys Academy program is now trying to do.
Unlike ODP programs, which are run by state associations, the Academy program is run by individual soccer clubs who apply for the Academy franchise. To get the Academy designation, they must meet certain standards and abide by certain rules that are supposed to enhance player development.
One of the rules now being proposed in the Academy is to PROHIBIT Academy players (all of whom are in high school age groups) from playing for their school teams. This is a hugely misguided idea.
It is true that the quality of coaching at many high schools is inferior to that provided at the club level (not just the Academy clubs--almost any club). High school seasons also conflict with club seasons; high school training conflicts with club training. Many club teams "sit-out" the high school season to avoid conflict.
The Academy purists, however, believe that the high school season is detracting from the superior training of their young proteges, so they would simply get rid of the schools.
But that creates a huge dilemma for player who want the benefits of the Academy. School soccer is VERY important to these kids. In club games, the spectators are parents. Many of those parents have been pushing their kids since kindergarten, yelling at them and countercoaching them from the sidelines. Parents, being parents, are solely concerned about their kids, not the team.
In school, the spectators are fellow students. They are cheering for the team--and its stars. Being a star on the high school soccer team is a big deal for the ego of a student. It gives the player an exalted place in the hierarchy of the school social strata.
Now, take the same kid, who everyone knows is a great soccer player, and have him (or her) suddenly NOT playing for the school team because his/her club team is so much more important. Now that player not only loses the exposure to his/her school's cheering students, but actually becomes a traitor to the cause. "Hey John, you're the best player at the school, how come you're not playing for the team?"
Potomac Soccer Wire recently had an excellent piece capturing just how agonizing this choice can be for players. In this particular case, involving a girls team, the adults helped them work it out the right way--but that's getting increasingly rare.
The Academy and the various adults who rule youth soccer should not be creating this dilemma for players. There is a better way to go: improve high school coaching. There is no reason that most schools cannot use club coaches for their school teams and adopt club training methods. Some high schools already do this, and others should. It won't be the Academy, but the Academy can easily work around the high school schedule and still give its precious charges the training and competition they need.
We'll add one more thing. The folks behind the Academy think that they are bringing a European concept to US youth soccer. In Europe, the professional soccer clubs run academy programs to identify and develop new talent. But the US model is different in critical ways, and DOOMED TO FAILURE as a poor imitation of the European model.
In Europe, the pro club academies don't charge for their programs. As a result, they are drawing from the pool of ALL European players, and they are an attractive option for poor kids to pull themselves up. The US academies, mostly at elite suburban clubs, do charge for their programs, and they attract a talented group of players from a limited subset of the population. It's the exclusion of the rest of the population that makes all the difference!
Today, we cover the current push to prohibit elite players in the high school age group from competing with their schools.
In recent years, the powers that be in US youth soccer established an "academy" program for boys to supplement, compete with and generally confuse things with the existing Olympic Development Program, which was already confusing because it really has nothing to do with the Olympics.
Adding to the confusion, the girls have a different elite training program.
Putting aside, for the moment, the counterproductive effects of having multiple, overlapping and somewhat conflicting "elite" programs, let's get to what the boys Academy program is now trying to do.
Unlike ODP programs, which are run by state associations, the Academy program is run by individual soccer clubs who apply for the Academy franchise. To get the Academy designation, they must meet certain standards and abide by certain rules that are supposed to enhance player development.
One of the rules now being proposed in the Academy is to PROHIBIT Academy players (all of whom are in high school age groups) from playing for their school teams. This is a hugely misguided idea.
It is true that the quality of coaching at many high schools is inferior to that provided at the club level (not just the Academy clubs--almost any club). High school seasons also conflict with club seasons; high school training conflicts with club training. Many club teams "sit-out" the high school season to avoid conflict.
The Academy purists, however, believe that the high school season is detracting from the superior training of their young proteges, so they would simply get rid of the schools.
But that creates a huge dilemma for player who want the benefits of the Academy. School soccer is VERY important to these kids. In club games, the spectators are parents. Many of those parents have been pushing their kids since kindergarten, yelling at them and countercoaching them from the sidelines. Parents, being parents, are solely concerned about their kids, not the team.
In school, the spectators are fellow students. They are cheering for the team--and its stars. Being a star on the high school soccer team is a big deal for the ego of a student. It gives the player an exalted place in the hierarchy of the school social strata.
Now, take the same kid, who everyone knows is a great soccer player, and have him (or her) suddenly NOT playing for the school team because his/her club team is so much more important. Now that player not only loses the exposure to his/her school's cheering students, but actually becomes a traitor to the cause. "Hey John, you're the best player at the school, how come you're not playing for the team?"
Potomac Soccer Wire recently had an excellent piece capturing just how agonizing this choice can be for players. In this particular case, involving a girls team, the adults helped them work it out the right way--but that's getting increasingly rare.
The Academy and the various adults who rule youth soccer should not be creating this dilemma for players. There is a better way to go: improve high school coaching. There is no reason that most schools cannot use club coaches for their school teams and adopt club training methods. Some high schools already do this, and others should. It won't be the Academy, but the Academy can easily work around the high school schedule and still give its precious charges the training and competition they need.
We'll add one more thing. The folks behind the Academy think that they are bringing a European concept to US youth soccer. In Europe, the professional soccer clubs run academy programs to identify and develop new talent. But the US model is different in critical ways, and DOOMED TO FAILURE as a poor imitation of the European model.
In Europe, the pro club academies don't charge for their programs. As a result, they are drawing from the pool of ALL European players, and they are an attractive option for poor kids to pull themselves up. The US academies, mostly at elite suburban clubs, do charge for their programs, and they attract a talented group of players from a limited subset of the population. It's the exclusion of the rest of the population that makes all the difference!
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
The Future Car Is Literally Just Around The Corner
We've previously stated that it's only a matter of time before we humans stop the activity known as driving a car. Cars will drive themselves--doing a better job than most humans--while humans use their time in their metal exoskeletons for other purposes.
Well, Volkswagen has announced that it will make it's "follow me" technology available on certain delivery vans in Europe shortly. This technology allows a vehicle to literally follow its driver as he/she walks down the street, or to come pick up the driver from about a block away.
This is the next logical step from automated cruise control and cars that can park themselves. Of course, it's only a few more steps to fully automated vehicles. We can think of some immediate good uses for such, even as many drivers cringe at the thought. One is for blind people--what a blessing an automated car would be for them! Likewise for others with handicaps (permanent or temporary) that prevent them from driving.
Another group is very old people who can no longer safely drive. Just think, Florida could be the capital of automated driving. (Come to think of it, no one in Florida drives very well.)
There's also folks who have lost their driving privileges, either temporarily or permanently. They're a good market for the new technology because they usually have lost their right to drive due to BAD DRIVING.
Looking further down the road, so to speak, we foresee a whole new car concept. A driverless car can be configured completely differently from today's cars. There is no need for a steering wheel, brake pedal, accelerator and dashboard in such a car--those are for humans. Likewise, there is no need for fixed seats that face forward. Instead, you can have seats that swivel so a group can have a discussion while riding. Or, seats like those in first class on international flights that can lie flat so you can go to sleep. Leave for grandma's at midnight, take an Ambien and wake up a few hours later at your destination.
Indeed, there's no need for windows on such a car, although most people will want them. But the windows could also be darkened, or better yet, turned into computer screens. You could surf the web and play video games; of course, there will be those who watch porn as well. Which leads to other things you could do while riding in an automated car with someone you love.
If all cars were automated, you could also make them a lot lighter and smaller. Little women wouldn't insist on SUV's so they can see over traffic, and we wouldn't have to engineer massive cars of sheet metal to survive collisions with idiotic drivers of other massive piles of sheet metal.
And if all the cars are automated, they can go a lot faster, getting you to your destination more quickly. That's because automated cars would not need, for example, the staggered start that humans take at a stop light--they could all start at the same time and pace. You might not even need stoplights--just a system by which the vehicles yield to each other, as they could know exactly where all the cars around them are going.
You can also drink and ride--at least up to a point.
The way people interact with cars would be quite different as well. No need to look all over for a parking spot--you'd get dropped off where you want to go, and then the car would go find it's own remote parking spot. When you're ready to go, you just ask the latest version of the Siri app on your smart phone to have you picked up. Like an instant cab without the smelly driver.
Furthermore, if you can summon a car to pick you up, anytime, why own a car? Why not sign up for a car sharing service and get whatever type of vehicle you need at the time. Driving into the office? Order up a nifty electric one-seater. Taking the family to the beach? Get something more akin to an SUV, but without having to OWN one and drive it on the daily commute.
There will still be problems to work out--that smelly person who had the car before you; the people who leave their trash behind; the people who try to override whatever safety systems are in place, etc. You can always count on a few people to do their best to ruin a good thing, but most of these obstacles will be overcome.
It'll be a good while before everything's automated--there will always be a few diehards crying out about "freedom" to drive themselves (at least until they try one of those porn trips). But, the day is coming. Just look down the street.
Well, Volkswagen has announced that it will make it's "follow me" technology available on certain delivery vans in Europe shortly. This technology allows a vehicle to literally follow its driver as he/she walks down the street, or to come pick up the driver from about a block away.
This is the next logical step from automated cruise control and cars that can park themselves. Of course, it's only a few more steps to fully automated vehicles. We can think of some immediate good uses for such, even as many drivers cringe at the thought. One is for blind people--what a blessing an automated car would be for them! Likewise for others with handicaps (permanent or temporary) that prevent them from driving.
Another group is very old people who can no longer safely drive. Just think, Florida could be the capital of automated driving. (Come to think of it, no one in Florida drives very well.)
There's also folks who have lost their driving privileges, either temporarily or permanently. They're a good market for the new technology because they usually have lost their right to drive due to BAD DRIVING.
Looking further down the road, so to speak, we foresee a whole new car concept. A driverless car can be configured completely differently from today's cars. There is no need for a steering wheel, brake pedal, accelerator and dashboard in such a car--those are for humans. Likewise, there is no need for fixed seats that face forward. Instead, you can have seats that swivel so a group can have a discussion while riding. Or, seats like those in first class on international flights that can lie flat so you can go to sleep. Leave for grandma's at midnight, take an Ambien and wake up a few hours later at your destination.
Indeed, there's no need for windows on such a car, although most people will want them. But the windows could also be darkened, or better yet, turned into computer screens. You could surf the web and play video games; of course, there will be those who watch porn as well. Which leads to other things you could do while riding in an automated car with someone you love.
If all cars were automated, you could also make them a lot lighter and smaller. Little women wouldn't insist on SUV's so they can see over traffic, and we wouldn't have to engineer massive cars of sheet metal to survive collisions with idiotic drivers of other massive piles of sheet metal.
And if all the cars are automated, they can go a lot faster, getting you to your destination more quickly. That's because automated cars would not need, for example, the staggered start that humans take at a stop light--they could all start at the same time and pace. You might not even need stoplights--just a system by which the vehicles yield to each other, as they could know exactly where all the cars around them are going.
You can also drink and ride--at least up to a point.
The way people interact with cars would be quite different as well. No need to look all over for a parking spot--you'd get dropped off where you want to go, and then the car would go find it's own remote parking spot. When you're ready to go, you just ask the latest version of the Siri app on your smart phone to have you picked up. Like an instant cab without the smelly driver.
Furthermore, if you can summon a car to pick you up, anytime, why own a car? Why not sign up for a car sharing service and get whatever type of vehicle you need at the time. Driving into the office? Order up a nifty electric one-seater. Taking the family to the beach? Get something more akin to an SUV, but without having to OWN one and drive it on the daily commute.
There will still be problems to work out--that smelly person who had the car before you; the people who leave their trash behind; the people who try to override whatever safety systems are in place, etc. You can always count on a few people to do their best to ruin a good thing, but most of these obstacles will be overcome.
It'll be a good while before everything's automated--there will always be a few diehards crying out about "freedom" to drive themselves (at least until they try one of those porn trips). But, the day is coming. Just look down the street.
Soccer Ridiculousness--Part 1
In a belated effort to restore some semblance of balance to collegiate athletics, the NCAA is considering some significant changes to off-season training for a number of sports, including soccer. Currently, collegiate athletes in soccer pretty much face year-round training and competition, including international tours in the off-season.
The NCAA's Resource Allocation Workgroup is proposing to ban off-season competition and international tours, and to reduce the number of games in the season by about 10 percent. These are rational steps to reign in a sport--that like many others on college campuses--has gotten out of control.
Yet to hear the college soccer coaches yowl, you'd think the NCAA was proposing to shut soccer down. These coaches--many of them foreigners--need to realize that college soccer is NOT PRO SOCCER, even though it may appear that way at times.
An article in last week's Potomac Soccer Wire illustrates the hysteria. “The spring [off-season] games are critical,” noted University of Utah women’s soccer coach Rich Manning on his twitter feed. “Who would want to run, lift and train for 6 months a year with no games. And when you consider the NCAA doesn't allow players to play on outside teams, it's almost a death sentence to anyone getting better from ages 18-22."
A death sentence? Coach, most of these players are going to have to go on to something other than soccer, or at least they should (although coaching apparently is always an option). They ought to have some time to do something else in their lives. They don't need to train all year either. Yes, they need to maintain their conditioning, but that's not the same.
As for getting better (or playing all the time), if they want to go pro, go pro.
Anyway, other sports also have only one season. Football, basketball, baseball, to name a few. Although it is true that some of these teams--notably basketball--do tour around the world in the off-season (remember Georgetown's brawl with a semi-pro team in China this past summer?), so we hope the rules will be enforced equitably.
Bad as the Utah coach's comments are, they pale in comparison to the utterly ridiculous statements of Rob Kehoe, Collegiate Programs Director at the National Soccer Coaches Association of America. He's quoted in Potomac Soccer Wire thusly: “If you have players that have eight months without competition opportunities, what happens to their discipline? In a campus situation, they’re going to be bored and involved with the scourge of the college campus, which is substance abuse and relationship abuse issues. The sport serves as a deterrent from being involved in things that are irresponsible, illegal activities that are very prevalent on college campuses."
Whoa! We had no idea that colleges were such cesspools, with soccer literally being the only thing saving these poor young men and women from a life of destitution and ruin.
Soccer is a good sport, but it's only a sport. There are plenty of good ways of allowing college soccer athletes to maintain (and even improve) their skills without subjecting them to year-round competition. They need an occasional break from soccer, and time to focus on what the rest of their lives will bring.
Soccer COACHES, of course, have nothing better to do, but that's exactly why they shouldn't be the ones determining what limits should be placed on the sport within colleges.
The NCAA's Resource Allocation Workgroup is proposing to ban off-season competition and international tours, and to reduce the number of games in the season by about 10 percent. These are rational steps to reign in a sport--that like many others on college campuses--has gotten out of control.
Yet to hear the college soccer coaches yowl, you'd think the NCAA was proposing to shut soccer down. These coaches--many of them foreigners--need to realize that college soccer is NOT PRO SOCCER, even though it may appear that way at times.
An article in last week's Potomac Soccer Wire illustrates the hysteria. “The spring [off-season] games are critical,” noted University of Utah women’s soccer coach Rich Manning on his twitter feed. “Who would want to run, lift and train for 6 months a year with no games. And when you consider the NCAA doesn't allow players to play on outside teams, it's almost a death sentence to anyone getting better from ages 18-22."
A death sentence? Coach, most of these players are going to have to go on to something other than soccer, or at least they should (although coaching apparently is always an option). They ought to have some time to do something else in their lives. They don't need to train all year either. Yes, they need to maintain their conditioning, but that's not the same.
As for getting better (or playing all the time), if they want to go pro, go pro.
Bad as the Utah coach's comments are, they pale in comparison to the utterly ridiculous statements of Rob Kehoe, Collegiate Programs Director at the National Soccer Coaches Association of America. He's quoted in Potomac Soccer Wire thusly: “If you have players that have eight months without competition opportunities, what happens to their discipline? In a campus situation, they’re going to be bored and involved with the scourge of the college campus, which is substance abuse and relationship abuse issues. The sport serves as a deterrent from being involved in things that are irresponsible, illegal activities that are very prevalent on college campuses."
Whoa! We had no idea that colleges were such cesspools, with soccer literally being the only thing saving these poor young men and women from a life of destitution and ruin.
Soccer is a good sport, but it's only a sport. There are plenty of good ways of allowing college soccer athletes to maintain (and even improve) their skills without subjecting them to year-round competition. They need an occasional break from soccer, and time to focus on what the rest of their lives will bring.
Soccer COACHES, of course, have nothing better to do, but that's exactly why they shouldn't be the ones determining what limits should be placed on the sport within colleges.
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
VA GOP Takes First Step Toward Self Destruction
We knew they couldn't resist.
With its new dominance of all of Virginia's government, what's the first bill pre-filed by a GOP legislator? Why, of course, a bill to define human life as starting at conception.
Even Mississipians rejected this really bad idea.
The question is whether Virginia's Republican legislators, needing to play to their base, will have the good sense to say "no" to this bill. If not, they'll put Governor McDonnell in an awkward position, one that will dash any aspirations he has for higher office (Senate, GOP VP nominee)--if he vetoes such a bill, he loses the religious right; if he signs it, his moderate image (the basis for his success so far) is shattered.
Moreover, if this bill goes into law (and believe us, this one is just the tip of the iceberg--you can bet there are plenty of other religiously inspired bills to come from the same group), Republicans can kiss their majority goodbye in short order.
VA voters are concerned about the economy. They didn't elect Republicans to institute a Taliban of state-controlled religion in the Commonwealth.
With its new dominance of all of Virginia's government, what's the first bill pre-filed by a GOP legislator? Why, of course, a bill to define human life as starting at conception.
Even Mississipians rejected this really bad idea.
The question is whether Virginia's Republican legislators, needing to play to their base, will have the good sense to say "no" to this bill. If not, they'll put Governor McDonnell in an awkward position, one that will dash any aspirations he has for higher office (Senate, GOP VP nominee)--if he vetoes such a bill, he loses the religious right; if he signs it, his moderate image (the basis for his success so far) is shattered.
Moreover, if this bill goes into law (and believe us, this one is just the tip of the iceberg--you can bet there are plenty of other religiously inspired bills to come from the same group), Republicans can kiss their majority goodbye in short order.
VA voters are concerned about the economy. They didn't elect Republicans to institute a Taliban of state-controlled religion in the Commonwealth.
Friday, November 04, 2011
First World Problems Versus Third Word Problems
This morning my older son reminded me how trivial some of our utter frustrations can be.
It wasn't a great morning. The Curmudgeon is a single parent for most of this week, and it's the first hour and a half of each school day morning that is the real challenge. The last two days were great, though, with everything running like clockwork.
Yesterday, however, unbeknownst to me, our housekeeper apparently unplugged my clock radio, then plugged it in and reset the time, but she conveniently had me "fall back" an hour just a little too soon for the switch to standard time this weekend. As a result, my alarm would have gone off an hour late this morning, but for one of the kid's alarms waking me up only a half hour late (and quite confused as to why his alarm was going off at what seemed like 5:35 a.m.).
So this morning was a big rush, with dad grumbling quite a bit about our housekeeper's negligence.
Then older son lightens the mood on our trip to school by saying this a good example of "first world" problems and how they compare to third world problems.
First world problem: alarm clock reset to wrong time;
Third world problem: no electricity
First world problem: this steak is medium, not medium rare
Third world problem: we have no food
First world problem: she said something mean about me on Facebook
Third world problem: a militia group raped all the girls in our village
You get the picture. So next time you're angry about something that has happened to you, play the first world/third world game. You'll feel better.
It wasn't a great morning. The Curmudgeon is a single parent for most of this week, and it's the first hour and a half of each school day morning that is the real challenge. The last two days were great, though, with everything running like clockwork.
Yesterday, however, unbeknownst to me, our housekeeper apparently unplugged my clock radio, then plugged it in and reset the time, but she conveniently had me "fall back" an hour just a little too soon for the switch to standard time this weekend. As a result, my alarm would have gone off an hour late this morning, but for one of the kid's alarms waking me up only a half hour late (and quite confused as to why his alarm was going off at what seemed like 5:35 a.m.).
So this morning was a big rush, with dad grumbling quite a bit about our housekeeper's negligence.
Then older son lightens the mood on our trip to school by saying this a good example of "first world" problems and how they compare to third world problems.
First world problem: alarm clock reset to wrong time;
Third world problem: no electricity
First world problem: this steak is medium, not medium rare
Third world problem: we have no food
First world problem: she said something mean about me on Facebook
Third world problem: a militia group raped all the girls in our village
You get the picture. So next time you're angry about something that has happened to you, play the first world/third world game. You'll feel better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
