Should College Athletes Be Paid?

Critics may argue that if college athletes are paid, all the other members of other extra curricular activities would find it unjust if they weren't paid as well. That includes, but is not limited to, debate teams, cheer squads, and other various clubs but the purpose of secondary education is not to pad the pockets of students who wish to excel, but to further education.

Regardless of what anyone says student athlete's across the nation are generating more and more in revenue for top-tier Division 1 colleges. Student athletes of major Division 1 programs in some cases are bringing in more revenue for their universities than all other university sports and student organizations put together. If a debate team or a cheer squad took in $87 million in revenue and $65 million in profits like the University of Texas football team did in 2008, then they too should be paid. Student athletes are literally being pimped for hundreds of millions of dollars. These athletes devote so much time to the teams that they are apart of and if that team wins a National Title or gets any public notoriety the colleges reap the benefits of all the athletes hard work. Being a student athlete is basically a job in itself and college athletes deserve to be paid for it.

If students were paid to play Division 1 sports then student athletes would have more incentive to stay in school. It could be argued that more student-athletes would choose to stay in school and earn degrees if they were receiving some form of payment. Not many college athletes have a chance in pro sports and staying in school they could earn some type of money while earning a degree at the same time.

Just to mention one misconception, if college athletes were to be paid these kids would not be getting checks and salaries bigger than their parents. The money that they earn would most likely be going to some type of pension, trust fund, or retirement fund. Also, surely certain requirements will have to be met for the athletes to receive any type of funds for sports at all. Such as minimum GPA's, team requirements, etc. College athletes would still have to work hard not only as athletes but as students as well.

Fisher vs University of Texas: Is Affirmative Action Necessary?

Recently the Supreme Court took up a case on affirmative action and the outcome could cause changes in the policy nationwide.

Abigail Fisher claims that she was not admitted into the University of Texas at Austin in 2008 because less qualified minority students were chosen over her.

Obviously it is wrong to select someone for a job or admission purely on the basis of their skin color. However, if two candidates of different races have the same qualifications the edge should be given to the minority. We have to show special attention to minorities or minorities will receive no attention at all.

Let's talk about what affirmative action is because most have a casuistic concept of what it is. Affirmative action is not a quota system, it is NOT A REQUIREMENT and it is not unfair. It simply allows publicly funded organizations to use race as a small factor in the selection process. This was ruled by the Supreme Court on several occasions. According to affirmative action, race can only be one factor among many.

Affirmative action gives opportunity where there would otherwise be none. If society took a look at the narrative of a minority family people would understand this. A typical black family consists of a single mother and a few kids. Seeing that this family has only one parent present the family receives only one paycheck to survive on. The mother is faced with a tough decision; either choose to keep one job and be able to teach her kids but with little money or work 2 or 3 jobs and not have any time to spend with her kids. This results in the children having problems at home. They are forced to go days without lights or water or food, or are subjected to raise themselves because their mother is always working. When these children go to school we cannot expect them to be interested in whether 2x + 3x is congruent to 3x + 2x, their mind is focused on their problems at home. Their mind is thinking of how their family will have supper tonight. These children wind up not learning very much in school and make low test scores and consequently aren't able to go to college for financial and scholastic reasons. These children grow up to be adults and settle for minimum wage jobs for a source of income. These adults start families and realize that minimum wage is not enough to survive. The dad has no qualifications for a well-paying job and he resorts to crime attempting to support his family. The dad is put into prison or leaves his family ashamed that he cannot support them leaving the single mother alone and the cycle repeats itself. If the next generation grew up and made decent SAT/ACT test scores equal to someone from more privileged backgrounds why not give them a chance? Success is not guaranteed but why not give someone an opportunity? Their lives are setup for failure all they can ask for is an opportunity.

We hear a number of whites say affirmative action is discrimination against whites. Well it is, but it is necessary to compensate for the discrimination already taking place against minorities. If whites made up less than 15% of the population, as most minorities do, they would be begging for an equal opportunity while trying to coexist in a country full of others. If these whites being discriminated against were equally qualified what is the big fuss about? Is it life threatening that he/she has to settle for Yale instead of Harvard because a minority student was admitted over him/her? Is it so serious that he/she has to settle for $109k a year instead of $110k a year? If someone is qualified chances are that person will get what they earned. It is utterly ridiculous that whites, who make up 72% of America's population, are playing the race card.

There will come a time when affirmative action is no longer needed for Blacks, Hispanics, and other racial minority groups to have an equal opportunity. However, even after, affirmative action will continue to be necessary. Affirmative action is needed for all disadvantaged individuals. Individuals such as, women in the workplace, such as males who are becoming a minority in colleges and universities, even poor white families. Whether it be race based, sex based, age based, need based, affirmative action will be necessary until the day all Americans receive a fair chance at the American Dream.

The Ron Paul Revolution

Whether the President has been Democrat or Republican the result has been the same: more government, more looting of Americans, more inflation, more police-state measures, more unnecessary war, and more centralization of power. Ron Paul wrote in his book, The Revolution: A Manifesto, "With national bankruptcy looming, politicians from both parties continue to make multi-trillion dollar promises of 'free' goods from the government, and hardly a soul wonders if we can still afford to have troops in - this is not a misprint - 130 countries around the world." Every 4 years we face an election between only 2 candidates who hardly differ but pretend to represent dramatically different philosophies of government. There will be a revolution needed to make a change.

Ron Paul on Civil Liberties:

When asked if he would legalize drugs and gay marriage, he replied:

"My defense of liberty is the defense of their right to practice their religion and say their prayers where they want and practice their life. If you do not protect liberty across the board it's a 1st Amendment type issue. We don't have a 1st Amendment so that we can talk about the weather. We have the 1st Amendment so we can say very controversial things. So, for people to say that yes we have our religious beliefs protected but people who want to follow something else or a controversial religion you can’t do this. If you have the inconsistency then you're really not defending liberty but there are strict rules on freedom of choice of this sort because you can’t hurt other people, you can’t defame other people. But, yes you have the right to do things that are very controversial."

Ron Paul on Monetary Policy:

"You can't have a government like this without an income tax but we don't want a government like this. This was not the kind of government found by our founders of the country. It's not what was written in the Constitution. We've only had an income tax since 1913. But, if you want a welfare state and if you want to police the world and pay for the defense of Japan and Germany, send foreign aid to the Soviet Union you not only need the income tax you need the Federal Reserve to print up the money when the deficit is accumulated. So, we think the government should be much smaller. If the government is small then you don't need an Income tax."

Ron Paul on Foreign Policy:

"Going into Iraq and Afghanistan and threatening Iran is the worst thing we could do for our national security. I am less safe, the American people are less safe for this; it's the policy that is wrong. Tactical movements and shifting troops around and taking in 30 more and reducing by 5, totally irrelevant! We need a new foreign policy that says we ought to mind our own business, bring our troops home, defend this country, defend our borders... "

Ron Paul on Welfare:

"I don't have the right to steal from you because somebody out in the street needs your help. You have an obligation personally to help them but I don't have the right to interfere with your right to take something from you and deliver it to somebody out on the street."

Ron Paul's Revolutionary aims have influenced masses of people including 2012 Libertarian Presidential Candidate Gary Johnson. "His efforts have changed America; they've changed me," says Gov. Johnson. I don't agree with all of Ron Paul's policies but I do agree that we need to change the way America operates and it may take a Revolution to do so.

References:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGcNVTfJ-XE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4AUUYFeB9c




Lea este artículo en Español: Haga Clic Aquí

Replacement Refs - The NFL Exposed

Does the NFL care about anything other than profitability? Their little experiment with the replacement refs shows that they do not. Fortunately, their experiment came to an end Wednesday as they reached an agreement with the professional refs. Still, going through the preseason and 3 regular season weeks with replacement referees shows that the NFL doesn’t care about anyone but its owners and they do not care because all the fans will continue to watch no matter what.

Integrity is firm adherence to a code of moral values. The NFL did not adhere to any moral values while allowing college D-3 and high school refs to officiate NFL regular season games for 3 weeks. Roger Goodell states “my most important responsibility is maintaining the integrity of professional football,” but it looks as if his most important responsibility maintaining the wealth of the owners. He does this with no regards to the players, coaches, officials, the fans or anyone else. This whole experience has led many to question whether the league is as moral as it says it is.

In the past few years the NFL has been preaching player safety. They have been doing everything from handing out huge fines to suspensions all for the health and safety of the players. They have been taking so many steps forward when it comes to player safety but with the ref lockout they took a huge step backwards. NFL players were in danger of serious injury. The NFL replacement refs did not have the experience to make the calls to prevent player injuries. They were not accustomed to the speed of the game so they could not make the crucial calls needed to protect the players. Now, it appears to some that the only reason the NFL was implementing player safety rules were to quiet the critics who said the sport was too gruesome and to attract more fans. Whether the NFL really cares about player safety is questionable.

Some would ask why wouldn’t the NFL care? The answer is simple, through player strikes and lockouts, through ref lockouts, through all the NFL has been through fans continue to watch. With such an inelastic demand, the NFL can do just about anything they want, including replace their officials with D-3 and high school refs. The NFL knows that they can make major changes to the game without changing the demand of the game. That is why they take unnecessary risks and make huge mistakes because it won’t hurt their profit. No matter what, people will buy jerseys, tickets, watch the games, and spend money on the NFL.

The NFL has been exposed for what it truly is: A “duly adjudicated illegal monopoly”, as declared by a jury in an antitrust lawsuit against them, who only care about their owners and their money. It’s much like the times of John Rockefeller and the monopoly he had on oil. He could raise prices as high as he wanted because his customers had no choice but to buy from him, there was little competition. If we had another choice, perhaps a different Football League to watch in America, we wouldn't put up with their nonsense. If you like the sport of professional American Football you have no choice but to be a prospect of the NFL and that is why they don’t care.

Punish Sandusky, Not Penn State

Penn State did not deserve the NCAA sanctions set against them. The penalties did not punish those who were at fault, it harms more than the athletics program, and it was unfair to those not involved. There was no reason to punish an entire school for what essentially 4 people did a decade ago.

Who was at fault for Sandusky's crimes? You can put the blame on 4 people: Sandusky, Paterno, and 2 others previously involved with the athletics program. These 4 individuals won't be punished as a result of the NCAA sanctions. Sandusky is no longer involved with the program in any way. Sandusky will be locked away for a long time, the sanctions will not affect him at all. Neither will the sanctions affect Paterno. He was let go first of all and sadly he has passed away. The other 2 individuals involved will be serving jail time leaving them unaffected by the penalties as well.

There was a 60 million dollar fine as a part of the NCAA sanctions against Penn State. Penn State is facing several lawsuits from Sandusky victims which may cost them hundreds of millions of dollars. The Big Ten Conference will donate Penn State's portion of conference bowl revenue for the next 4 years, projected at $13 million. The school looks to lose close to $15 million each year over the periods laid out by the Big Ten and NCAA. With the $60 million tacked on from the NCAA it could mean cutting scholarships for athletic and non-athletic students. It could also mean cutting professor salaries and things in other educational areas.

It is the Penn State students, fans, and players truly hurt by the NCAA sanctions. None of them had anything to do with what Sandusky did. Penn State will not be a major bowl contender for a long time to come and it is because of the penalties from the NCAA. That hurts no one but the fans, students, players, current coaches, etc. People who had nothing to do with Sandusky's crimes.

The Sandusky case was a criminal case and had nothing to do with football. This was only a reaction from the NCAA who felt like they had to do something and that something had to be big. The NCAA should have left Penn State alone and let the judicial system punish those who were involved.

What Romney Didn't Say About the 47 Percent

Recently there was a video released where Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney stated that about half of Americans do not pay taxes and are dependent on government. Here is what Romney said: "There are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47% who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. But that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. ... These are people who pay no income tax."

Well Romney was right that about 47% of Americans do not pay federal income tax. However, he was not being totally honest about those 47% of Americans who do not pay income tax.

Here is the truth about the 47%:
More than 60% of those who don't pay income tax are working Americans. All Americans who work must pay a payroll tax. The payroll tax helps support Social Security and Medicare and is automatically taken out of every working American's paycheck. There are very few Americans paying no federal tax at all.

As far as those who do not pay any income taxes, sometimes they have a valid reason not to. The majority of these people are the elderly who have no jobs and are most likely retired, individuals below the poverty line, and students who more often don't have an income besides loans, grants and scholarships. These individuals should not be forced to pay income taxes seeing that if they were they would not be able to support their families and lifestyles. Also, a few of those who are not paying federal income taxes are the top earners who have found various ways to avoid paying them. More than 20,000 high earners did not pay federal taxes through a combination of credits and deductions.

The truth is the 47 percent are people who do pay some form of federal tax or are not capable, at the time, of doing so. With a few who are rich who avoid paying income taxes. The truth is these people do not believe that they are victims. These people do not believe the government has a responsibility to care for them. These Americans do not believe they are entitled to anything but fair treatment and an equal opportunity.

America's National Debt Crisis

The least popular thing Congress does is voting to raise the debt ceiling. However, Congress is required by law to authorize the government to borrow money to pay for programs that Congress has passed.

In the 2010 elections the Republicans took control of the house, while the Democrats maintained control of the Senate. In 2011 the main disagreement between the House Republicans and President Obama and Senate Democrats was over the debt ceiling. This was all because in May of 2011 America's debt limit had been reached and the government could only keep functioning until August 2 without borrowing. In Bipartisan negotiations progress was made toward outlining 1-2 trillion dollars in possible savings. The talks fell apart in June due to a lack of compromise by both the Republicans and Democrats.

By late July the Federal Reserve was preparing for a Federal government default as the August 2 deadline approached. If no deal was reached by August 2 it would essentially mean the world's biggest economy would run out of money. With 3 days left the White House and Congressional Leaders came to an agreement to raise the debt ceiling. As a result of all the turmoil, S. &P. downgraded the credit rating of the U.S. for the first time.

In January of 2013, they will have to do it all over again. That's right, a 2nd Round of the National Debt Fight. Another credit rating downgrade can and most likely will be avoided but if there is more of the same it could raise all kind of consumer fears which could be bad for the economy.

Welcome to the SEC: SEC Openers

This Saturday both SEC newbie’s, Texas A&M and Missouri, got to play their 1st game in the SEC. Both teams went into their games with confidence and played a hard fought 3 quarter game, the only problem was the games were 4 quarters long.

The Florida Gators were 0-5 under Will Muschamp coming into the game against Texas A&M and the Aggies came out strong trying to make it 0-6. The Aggies led at halftime 17 to 10, Florida needed to make a statement in the second half if they wanted to win this game. The Florida defense stepped up and held the Aggies scoreless in the second half while the offense put 10 points on the board. Muschamp said "In the second half we just played more disciplined football." Due to the disciplined 2^nd half play of Florida, Texas A&M loss their SEC opener 20-17.

With a sellout crowd in Columbia, Mizzou challenged the Bulldogs. Missouri took the lead 17-9 early in the 3rd quarter and for a while it looked like Missouri would come out with a win in its SEC opener. Coach Mark Richt. Said "There were times when I was just starting to wonder what was going to happen." Then Aaron Murray threw a 7-yard Touchdown pass and a 2-point conversion to tie the game at 17. From then on it was all uphill for Georgia as they won the game 41-20.

These were history making games for both Texas A&M and Missouri. However both teams will need to play harder in the 2nd half if they want to be a force to reckon with in the SEC.