Delayed College Football Thoughts

Sorry, loyal readers, but postings are going to be sparse over the next few weeks as I enter finals.  Bear with me please!

This may be short and sweet, but I think important.  To get back to the parity issue in college football this year (as a top 5 team lost to an unranked team for the 12th time this year), I earlier argued that the simple fact that more talent is spread across the country and not focused in the traditional powerhouses is not enough to explain the unusual circumstances of this season.  There is more to a team than the star running back or quarterback (though Oregon is a potential counterargument - who would guess they would implode so fully after losing Dixon?), and powerhouse teams should not lose as often as they have this year.

To use the home team as an example, Texas should have been much better this year.  Ending the regular season with only three losses is lucky, considering all the close games they won against inferior opponents.  They have the talent, the money, and the facilities to be a perennial 10-win team (which they have been for years).  However, you have to wonder why they played so poorly this year.  I posit that they may in fact be a victim of their own past success.  They have recruited some of the top talent in the country out of high school.  But in DI, talent alone can’t win every game.  These talented boys, who were so physically gifted they were able to avoid really learning the game and their position and instead could rely on their speed and strength to run down opponents, have gotten to the big leagues and realized that they aren’t the only talented players on the field.  Suddenly they need to work together, actually play their positions, study game film, prepare for war each week, and come out of the tunnel inspired.  I think UT’s uninspired play this year is exactly what happens when these talented kids get thrown together and aren’t driven by either an inspirational leader (Vince Young) or a maniacal coach (Pete Carroll).  This year UT had neither.  Sadly, I wonder where the leadership is in any of the traditional championship teams this year. 

While the “parity” card made this season intersting, I hope this is not a growing trend in college football.  I love an occasional upset, but if we start devolving the game into leaderless, uninspired play by uber-talented individual players with no emphasis on teamwork, then we might as well be watching basketball.

Top Five Running Songs

Though I am off in Florida visiting the in-laws for Thanksgiving and wireless is a rare commodity, yet I will not let you down on Top Five Friday!Thanks to the illustrious friend and prolific blogger, Hilary Marchbanks, I was able to decide on this week’s Top Five list.  You see, she recently began running, and when I learned of her ipod usage I decided I had to make her a runlist of some of my favorite running songs to support her in her endeavors. 

These songs are in no way indicative of my top five favorite songs, but instead are songs I have found that really motivate and push me.  You can make fun of the song selection all you’d like, but the fact is these songs will make you run like the wind.

You’re in luck this week, because I am bringing you two top five lists for the price of one.  There are some songs that are perfect for listening to just before a hard race, and then some that are great to hear mid-race, if you’re running with headphones.  So here are the two separate lists; enjoy.

Pre-race or pump up songs:

5.  Zombie by Cranberries.  I know the Cranberries aren’t always the first that comes to mind when you think of pump up music, but this song rocks.  In high school I would listen to it before just about every race.

4.  Today by Smashing Pumpkins.  I really got into this song my freshman year of college.  To live for today, run this race like it’s your last, forget the consequences and just do it.  Yeah, that’s college.

3.  The Cup of Life by Ricky Martin.  I know, it’s cheesy.  But when I hear this song, “Do you really want it?” I get really inspired by the World Cup.  Not really a huge soccer fan, I can recognize the significance of the sport to the rest of the world and understand the heart and soul that goes into it for every player – I want to care that much.

2.  Killing in the Name Of by Rage Against the Machine.  Not until after college did I start getting into Rage, but the message so fit my own philosophy, and the music rocks, I can’t help but wanna push it when this song comes on - “f*ck you I won’t do what you tell me!”

1.  Desire or Where the Streets have No Name by U2.  A twofer, it all depended on the mood.  In high school I was sometimes introspective and imagined the movie about my life which always began with Where the Streets.  Other times I just wanted to accomplish so much and thought the world was my proverbial oyster, I just had to want it bad enough, and Desire seemed to encapsulate that notion.

And now, the mid-run songs:

5.  Nookie by Limp Bizkit.  My first marathon, in 2001, I had an mp3 player that could hold 7 whole songs.  This was one of the free songs that came on it, and so I heard it many times that fine Sunday morning.

4.  Mo Money Mo Problems by Puff Daddy.  Great song, great beat, love Biggie.

3.  Sugar We’re Going Down by Fall Out Boy.  Now this is a great running song that I accidentally got from my boss’s daughter when I was helping her set up her ipod.  Would never have thought of it, but turns out it rocks.

2.  Lose Yourself by Eminem.  When this song first came out I knew it was going to be a great running song.  “When you got one chance to seize every thing you ever dreamt of, will you capture it, or just let it slip?” Hil’s vote for best running song ever.

1.  Stronger by Kanye West.  The newest addition with a bullet, this song freaking rocks.  Daft Punk sample is awesome on its own, but Kanye knows how to cook it to perfection.  If you don’t know, you need to find out.  Awesome.

A couple songs that barely miss the cut, mostly for lack of sentimentality (yet), include Sacrifice by the Roots and Wolf Like Me by TV on the Radio.  Let me know what you think; see you next week! 

Choosing Our Next President

One reason modern presidents seem to fail is that they are expected to do too much.  Presidential powers are extremely limited, particularly on the domestic front.  According to my government textbook America’s New Democracy, over 80% of the time presidents either fail to secure passage of their major legislative agendas or must make important compromises to win congressional approval.  “If a president seems less capable in domestic policy, it is not due to disregard for public desires, but rather the limits imposed primarily by legislators closely tied to diverse voter preferences.”  We as a voting public tend to give the president too much credit - positive or negative.  The simple fact is that he or she has limited means to affect change.

However, when considering for whom you plan to vote this coming primary and general election season, consider the things of which our next president will have some control.  First, there are foreign affairs; I don’t mean just the war in Iraq, which is of course part of it, but also, the way the US is represented and understood by the rest of the world.  How will our relations with China, India and Russia evolve, as these economies continue to outpace ours?  What will Iran and other potential and current nuclear powers do in relation to the West?  Will the US use its military might to secure primary resources and attempt to democratize the world, or extend itself for more humanitarian efforts with no hope of return on investment?  These questions will be answered by the next president, more or less independent of Congress. 

In addition, the president holds great power in the appointment of judges.  Of course the Senate generally has the final say, but nominations come from the White House.  Our next president will likely appoint not only another Supreme Court Justice, but lower federal court judges with nearly as much power.  The interpretation of the Constitution is a critical tipping point of our society, and therefore the people with that charge are of critical importance.  Consider well who we might want in those positions of power, and remember the president will be very influential in this arena.

The jury is still out in the Thronson household, but I think beginning with the right questions can ultimately lead to better answers.  Don’t base your vote on a “gut connection,” as Matthew Dowd describes our last two elections in Applebee America.  Consider well the limited powers of the president, and who you might want to represent you in the world as well as in the future of law interpretation.

This week in College Football

News Alert:  Texas Tech knocking off #3 Oklahoma is the eleventh time an unranked team has dropped a top five team this year.  This is the first time in college football history that such a thing has happened so often.  What does it mean? 

The popular answer and buzz word of the day is the newfound “parity” of college football.  Because superstar players in talent positions like quarterback and runningback are more willing to forgo the big-name schools in order to get playing time, the theory goes, talent is spread more evenly across the country enabling less-known schools such as Louisville and Boise State to occassionally compete with the big boys.  And this is true, there are very talented players leading teams like Kentucky and Hawaii, and these talented players can surprise teams and pull off victories.  That is truly the beauty of college football.

However, key players with immense talent do not generally win games on their own.  In fact, the oft-forgotten linemen in the trenches play after play are the real deciding factor in most showdowns.  Offensive linemen that can protect those key talents allow them the chance to shine.  Defensive linemen that can outmaneuver those offensive linemen take away the talented players’ ability to shine.  One side eventually tiring the other is what shifts the critical momentum for the final quarter of play.  And unfortunately the lesser-known schools, for all the talent they may be able to attract, can rarely fill out a line with players big or quick enough to compete with the behemoths the big schools bring in.  This is the heart-breaking reality to bely the parity claim.  Rarely can talent overcome the eventual grind of a bigger, stronger opponent in the long run.

So then where do this year’s uncharacteristic losses come from?  I would say it is a combination of overall underachievement and slightly more even conferences.  The perennial conference kings are playing non-inspired football for whatever reason, meanwhile the other teams in the conferences are hungry and smell blood.  This is where parity in the talent positions can be a factor.  A team like Illinois has enough talent at key positions to drop an unmotivated Ohio State when they want it bad enough and the Buckeyes are looking past them.  But the parity alone is not what won the game for the Illini - OSU had to be willing to give them the win.  Enough of that sermon…

Just when the future was looking brightest for either team, both Oklahoma and Oregon lose their quarterbacks and drop a dangerous road game.  What an interesting karmic coincidence, given these two teams’ history ever since the botched call “cost the Sooners a national championship”.  Oregon can’t forget due to their own self-righteousness, and Oklahoma won’t forget because of the alleged slight they suffered.  Now its as though the college football god just took the ball away from them and said, “now neither of you can play with it.”

Notre Dame finally found someone they could beat, sorry Duke fans, basketball fever is just around the corner.

And finally, my Washington State Cougars blew it again.  They get your hopes up, draw near the bowl eligibility requirement, only to have Brink throw 6 interceptions and an “easy win” away.  Oregon State had only one 2 of the last eleven games played in Pullman.  Way to go Cougs, break my heart again.  There’s always next year…

Top Five Covers

Welcome to the inaugural top five blog post.  I hope to post a new top five list evrey Friday on varied and interesting topics, with the intention of being told by ya’ll all the critical blanks I left off the list.  Should be a good conversation starter, at least that is the hope.

I wanted to start this little series with a bang, so here comes a list near and dear to my heart - the top five cover songs.  I think we can all agree that a song performed by the original artist is generally always better than any cover, but occasionally a different band can capture the essence of a song in a new way that improves the overall delivery of the song.  I am not in any way commenting on the quality of the original versions of these songs, just that if I have my choice I would rather listen to the cover for whatever reason.

There are many lists available out there, this is clearly a hot topic in pop culture.  Over the summer the New York Post did a list of the top 100 covers of all time, which contain a few of my own choices but in my opinion is woefully inadequate with Dolly Parton’s cover of “Stairway to Heaven” as their number one.  There are plenty of nobodies like me that have their own lists, such as this one.  If you google best cover songs you can waste hours reading other people’s opinions.  Or you can just stick with mine and trust me.  So here goes -

5.  Gin and Juice by the Gourds - originally by Snoop Dogg.  This is a great cover of a great song, with the rockabilly twist that brings naughty out of Compton and into the trailer park.  Fun stuff.

4. With a Little Help From My Friends by Joe Cocker - originally by the Beatles.  The first on the list be the Beatles that has since been owned by the remake artist.  I think it is safe to say that most people don’t even know this was originally a Beatles song, especially those of us that grew up watching the Wonder Years.

3. I Will Survive by Cake - originally by Gloria Gaynor.  Great cover.  Cake makes this song their own with a new voice and a male desperation to match the original’s female angst.

2. Hurt by Johnny Cash - originally by Nine Inch Nails.  Cash said that this song was the most accurate depiction of drug addiction he had ever heard, and I think it is clear through his painful cover that he knows what he is talking about.  Love the original, but nothing can beat Cash.

And for the number one cover of all time, IMHO…

1. Live and Let Die by Guns & Roses - originally by the Beatles.  Not that the Beatles didn’t do a great job with the original, but GNR brought it into the modern age with a revved version that only turns it into a 10 on the rock charts, elevating it from the 9.5 it originally held.  Axel’s whiny voice complements the message and the music so well, it has to be the best cover ever.

Many honorable mentions follow, I have a hard time narrowing it to 5.  But to fit into the format I want to start, I had to.  Here are some more favorites:

Come Together by Aerosmith, and Helter Skelter by U2 are more Beatles covers that rock.  Smashing Pumpkins do two great covers - Landslide originally by Fleetwood Mac and You’re All I’ve Got Tonight originally by the Cars.  Two Stevie Wonder songs have great covers - Higher Ground by Red Hot Chili Peppers and Reggae Woman by Better Than Ezra.  Three more honorable mentions - About a Boy by Joss Stone, she is so hot; Where’s My Mind by the Toadies; and Smooth Criminal by Alien Ant Farm.

So that’s my list, if you have thoughts, concerns, etc, let me hear them!

Kick the Flamers Out

Many people claim that increased use of the internet has contributed to heightened partisanship in national politics. The theory goes that an online visitor can seek out voices that agree with her own opinion, and quickly find herself in an “echo chamber” where her point of view is only reinforced and hardened into an extreme version of itself. This happens on both sides of the political spectrum. And not only that, but the absurdity of these extreme chambers of thought successfully drive away any centrist, moderate, or compromising individuals, leaving only the insanity to escalate unchecked. But can it be that bad?

I know of bloggers that embrace other points of view, and will even recognize and acknowledge the validity of an opposing argument. Sure, if there are places to go online that turn into “echo chambers” of like thought there are places to go that open debate is allowed. But unfortunately what tends to happen is that these open forums are invaded by people with obstinate opinions, and attacks shift from the issues to the personalities, and that open forum is burned down by the “flamers” that can’t carry a reasonable conversation. Once the flamers take over, they drive rational individuals out, and the forum has been lost.

A perfect example of this on a micro level is our neighborhood association listserve. Through a controversial issue (Walmart moving nearby) passions have been whipped up, bizarre and inappropriate actions have been taken by both sides of the issue, and the listserve has deteriorated to nothing but a name-calling playground. It has driven away the reasonable voices for fear of retaliation, and we are now at a stalemate.

We as a wired world cannot let this happen. We cannot relinquish the greatest communication tool ever invented to the hotheads and tantrum-throwers and walk away. There are ways to keep this from happening, if we rational, reasonable souls can unite. One example of a moderated solution is to have a forum with peer reviewers - where before I can post two random members of the group review my thoughts and filter them for inappropriate content and then give the ok. It may require a little more work, but isn’t civility worth it?

I bring this to everyone’s attention only because I care. I want a reasonable, compromising voice to help us make the world a better place, not just a place that either agrees with more or is the enemy. Why can’t we all just get along? Help me with this.

Is Raising Kids a Fool’s Game?

No mom, I don’t think raising kids is a fool’s game.  This is the title of a recent article from BusinessWeek Online (http://news.yahoo.com/s/bw/20071112/bs_bw/nov2007pi2007119694057) which asks an interesting question.  While the costs involved in raising children in the US seems to be escalating out of control, and these little ones are contributing to a lesser degree to the family’s economic well-being (they are no longer needed to help in the fields the way they once were), is it worth it to have children any more?

Considering the opportunity costs that spending money on children requires - the missed vacations around the world, the generous gifts to alma maters and worthwhile charities, or real estate investment - does it really ever pay off?  I don’t know about you, but I have seen my share of smart-mouthed, impolite, disrespectful teenagers that make me cringe to imagine having to love despite their attitudes.  Is this what you get for rearing and sacrificing for your progeny?  How does it make any economic or emotional sense to have kids these days?

Here’s your answer: the aging and slow-growing population, along with the lengthening life expectancy, are going to insure that when my friends and I reach “retirement age,” whatever that might be, there is going to be no governmental safety net, no Social Security benefits and Medicare.  The unending nursing shortage will only grow worse, meaning that as supply grows more slowly than demand services are going to increase in cost.  In the end, it will pay to have children to provide convalescent care for us as we get too old to care for ourselves.  And since the odds seem to be increasing that your kid will turn out to be completely unreliable it makes sense to have more than one - just in case.

So the question of whether raising kids is increasingly a fool’s game seems a little short-sighted.  Have kids (or adopt them) so you can be sure someone will be around to provide service for you when you can no longer take care of yourself, and hope that the present value of your investment will rival the potential cost of that service in the future.  Welcome to graduate school economics!

My College Football Musings for the Week

When Notre Dame began the season 0-4 I was quietly happy to see the only team with the gumption to have an exclusive television contract and their own BCS rule in such embarrassing straights.  At 1-9 (with their only win a larger testament to Karl Dorrell’s ineptitude than their own talent), I am just sad for the struggling Irish.  Which really ticks me off, because they rob me of the guilty pleasure of my hatred for the pompous prima donnas - almost.

The Ohio State drop off seemed inevitable, didn’t it?  No one outside of the Buckeye nation really thought they were the best team in the county, did they?  The Big Ten is pathetically weak this year, so OSU’s record was no indication of their ability.  I am just glad it was Illinois and not Michigan that knocked them off.  The only thing that could have been worse than Ohio State getting drummed in the national championship game again would be Michigan, losers to Appalachian State, in the Rose Bowl.  Luckily we won’t have to suffer through either.

Is Kansas really that good, or is the Big 12 just as bad as usual?  If the Jayhawks can survive the next couple weeks, I think they deserve a shot at the title even if they are not traditional contenders.  That is a big if, but nevertheless, a team from a BCS conference without a loss should be in the championship game over any team with a loss.  Can Kansas hang with an LSU, or Oregon?  I’d say not a chance.  But deserve to be there, I would say absolutely.

And now for the final thought… Last year my friends thought I was crazy to choose Oregon as the next national champion.  Sadly, they did not live up to expectations in 2006.  However, with nearly the same roster they are making a pretty good run at it this year.  To be that close to choosing an outside-odds winner is pretty impressive.  They have to take care of business, but if they do I think I should get props for picking the right team, just the wrong year.  Fellas?…

Who is this Ron Paul guy and why is he so popular in Austin?

So Ron Paul, the Texas Congressman, is running for president.  This isn’t news, he’s been doing it for months.  What is interesting is how popular he has become, particularly in the liberal bastion that is the People’s Republic of Austin.  Why does there seem to be more bumper stickers in our great city for this Republican with an odd libertarian slant than the Democratic frontrunners?

Ron Paul is a man who has made a political career as the anti-”politics as usual” politician.  A gentle-looking old man with a goofy smile, Paul is not afraid of anyone and will speak his mind right in the face of popular opinion if he thinks the popular opinion is wrong.  He doesn’t use candidate-speak to answer tough questions, he answers you like your grandfather would at Thanksgiving dinner, “yes sonny boy, I did sleep with that hooker in Korea while I was over there fighting for this country.  So what?”  He doesn’t confom his beliefs and platform to the latest polling numbers which show that voters really want someone that can cook a mean turkey.  He says what he really thinks and has been doing so for decades, so we know his genuine nature is not a front for the campaign.  And this is what attracts people to him in rabid droves, it seems.

People are growing increasingly tired of politics as usual, and here in Austin we get a larger share than most with the circus that comes to town every biennium and meets in the pink palace.  I think that is why Ron Paul is growing in popularity here, and I think that popularity is very good news for the system.  Whether or not you agree with Paul’s agenda, you have to like his tenacity and ability to tell Washington to shove it.  He won’t win the nomination, and he claims he will not run as a third-party candidate, so he is pretty harmless overall, but his rebelliousness and the support it has won is a harbinger for things to come.  Maybe not this cycle, and maybe not on the level of presidential politics yet, but soon the people are going to join Paul in telling off the career politicians and we will have a revolution at the polls at which candidates that are more interested in solving problems than getting reelected will win.  When that happens we will hopefully turn around this crazy ship and start addressing real issues.  This is very good news for all of us.

Austin Red Light Cameras

So the City of Austin implemented cameras at stop lights around town in order to cut down on red light runners.  The camera will catch these overeager drivers take their picture, and send them a nice little ticket in the mail.  No muss - no fuss.

 I am not necessarily against this.  I think it sounds like a way to both raise revenues and increase safety, if applied well.  I understand the arguments against it, and my libertarian roots scream against the Big Brother element of cameras on every corner.  But I am willing to let the experiment run and see if results are as expected, as long as the City takes great pains to keep the effort transparent and as clean as possible.

However, I have to wonder about an interesting observation from this morning’s commute to school.  The stop light at Anderson Lane and Burnet Rd, one which I drive through nearly every morning, is suddenly running on a different pattern than ever before.  In the past, each direction has had a good length of time to clear before the cross traffic gets its turn, mainly by the overlap of the opposing left turn lights.  This morning the left turn lights no longer overlapped, and the light was much shorter in every direction than before.  So instead of waiting a reasonable amount of time for the light to change and then having ample time to get through the intersection, one now waits through more than one light change for one’s turn. 

In my mind, this prompts impatience and encourages drivers to hurry through at the tail end of the yellow light.  When my turn came to scurry through the intersection I looked up and - low and behold - there was a pesky camera watching me.  I know I was legally through in time, but the cars behind me that cut it close may not have noticed the camera.  Ah, revenue generating at its best.

I am not saying that the light pattern at Anderson and Burnet was changed because this ordinance just went into effect (last night), but it does seem suspect at best.  If this is the case, then shame on the City.  If its a happy coincidence, then I guess my paranoia is finally getting the better of me.  We shall see.  Keep your eyes open, friends, and see if you don’t notice similar changes in your neighborhoods.  Only through diligent observation can the people avoid the loss of all liberty.  It starts slowly, incrementally, and pretty soon we don’t even miss our rights.  Stay alert.  (Uh oh, my libertarianism scratching through again)