Just Horsin' Around

I grew up on a farm and it was easy to have and ride a horse.  All we had to do was put one in the corral and barn behind the house, and bring home a bale of hay from the dairy whenever we needed it.  I rode often as a boy, with my cousin Janet who lived on the farm next door, until school activities--mostly sports--began to take up all the time available.  I think I was about twelve years old when we sold my last equestrian partner from boyhood.

My father had been a cowboy at heart, who was forced by circumstances into becoming a farmer.  I still remember fondly one night most weeks when he hitched the trailer, loaded one of the horses, and headed to Shady Acres for a little friendly Team Roping competition.  It was easy to fall into a love of horses, and always taken for granted.

Except for an occasional ride with a friend or vacation trail rides, I was out of the equestrian world for many decades.  Day-to-day life and all of its challenges didn't seem to leave much time for it.

Fast forward to about twelve years ago, and my children were experimenting with all of the usual suspects of extracurricular activities.  For Alex, there was soccer and music; for Julia skating, dance, and gymnastics.  Soccer faded from interest and memory for Alex, but his love of music--playing it and writing it, as well as listening to it--is still strong.  With Julia, every activity received a one-year tryout.  Dance, gymnastics, and skating had only one season of interest.  One and done. 

Then, one fine day, a neighborhood friend put Julia on a horse.  That was it.  She was hooked, and her mother and I were hooked along with her.  From then on it was lessons and learning, then lots of practice and competition--first in Hunter classes, but that changed to Stadium Jumping, which became Julia's forte and real love.

All of this started on "school horses" that belonged to her training barn, but that wouldn't last too long.  She needed her own horse on which to train and compete.

Enter Cameo Appearance.

Cameo has been an important part of our family and our lives for almost nine years.  Julia started riding and training on Cameo just before Cameo's 4th birthday.  She was trained to ride, but that was about all.  Everything else, they learned together.

While all of this was going on

Football -- A Game of Opinions and Judgments

The 2020 Super Bowl is in the books, officially ending the 2019 season for the NFL.  However, this post is not about the Super Bowl or how the 49ers blew a big lead, although they did, or the miraculous comeback by the Chiefs, which it was.  It’s about the rules of football and enforcing them at all levels of the game.

I’m a fan and student of the game, as well as being a former player at the high school and college level and a coach of youth football for several years.  One of the things that has always angered me about football is bad officiating.  I experienced it as a player, and as a coach, and I’m still experiencing it as a fan and viewer.

It doesn’t matter if it’s not the Super Bowl.  What matters is that players and coaches deserve to have the success of their efforts determined by play on the field, rather than by an official who misses an obvious fowl, or, just as bad, calls a fowl that didn’t happen.

Previous rule changes have greatly improved the game.  A couple of those changes occurred because they took “Judgement Calls” off the field.

One example is whether or not receiver lands in bounds or out after a catch.  Before the change, it was a judgement call if the receiver was pushed out by a defender.  If in the mind of the official, the receiver would have probably landed in bounds if not pushed, they’re awarded the catch.  The rule, now, is black or white, in or out, irrespective of being pushed.  The receiver either lands in bounds or not.  No judgement.

Another example is on fumbles.  “The ground cannot cause a fumble.”  Period.  If a player had control of the ball when he hit the ground, he is ruled “down by contact,” and it doesn’t matter if the ball pops out on impact.  No judgement, here, because all turnovers have a video review.

This year the pros had a new rule making Pass Interference reviewable, but there is still too much judgement involved.  Defenders and receivers, today, routinely mug each other running down the field and during a catch.  Pushing shoving and “hand fighting” are the norm, rather than the exception.  Whether or not it was Pass Interference by receiver or defender is purely the opinion of the official.  If challenged, it’s still judgement by another official based on the video replay.  That’s better, but not good enough.

We’ve all seen it on television, and heard the announcers say something like, “Well there was contact, but I don’t think it was enough to really hamper the receiver,” or “They were both pushing and shoving, so it was a good No-Call.”  BS.  Either there was contact or there wasn’t.

The Face Mask rule isn’t based on an opinion of whether or not it was intentional, or on the relative severity of the grab of the mask.  The Horse Collar rule isn’t based on the judgement of the official on how hard the defender grabbed and jerked the back of a runner’s shoulder pads.  The offender either did it or he didn’t; black or white.

Last night’s Super Bowl did not have a critical Pass Interference penalty blown by an official.  There was a significant interference call against a 49er defender on a catch near the goal line, but it was a blatant fowl and the officials got it right.  There was also an offensive Pass Interference call against the 49ers that wiped out a big play, but the officials got that one right, too.

Looking back one season, a "no-call" of a blatant Pass Interference fowl by the Rams defender against the Saints receiver put the Rams in the Super Bowl.  That shouldn't happen.

What needs to happen, now, irrespective of last night’s officials making two penalty calls correctly, is to take judgement out of Pass Interference.  It’s simple.  The defender and receiver either put hands or body on his opponent or he didn’t.  Yes or no.  Black or white.  Make it like the out of bounds call and the fumble rule.  The change would make it easier for defenders and receivers to do their jobs, as they’d know exactly what they can and can’t do.  It would be easier for coaches to teach, train, and coach defenders and receivers.  It would even make the officials’ jobs easier.  Everybody wins.  Do it now.

Take A Knee?

The concept of free speech was so important to our Founders that it, along with freedom of religion and assembly, was the subject of our First Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

What, exactly, does "Free Speech" mean in the context of our Constitutionally guaranteed rights?  It includes expression and action as well as speech.

From what are we free to speak, or act, or express?  We're free from prosecution and penalty imposed by our governments at various levels.

Does it mean that we can say anything we want to anybody we choose?  No, the obvious exceptions include yelling, "Fire!," in a crowded theater, and my personal favorite, "Your right to swing your fist stops just short of my nose."  We also cannot incite to violence, advocate the violent overthrow of the U.S. Government, etc., etc., etc.

Absent that sort of thing, can we state an opinion that is offensive to some folks--or a whole lot of folks?  Yes, we can.  Being a jerk--or worse--and proving it with words or deeds is not against the law.

Can we say whatever we wish about whomever we choose free of all repercussion?  No, we cannot.  Although we're free from prosecution and penalty from the government, there may be other consequences.

The perfect example of possible repercussions from exercising free speech is in employment.  For forty years, I worked in management in a service industry.  I provided and sold my corporate employers' services to customers and the rest of the community, hoping to turn them into customers, too.

This time period included one of the most divisive eras in modern American history--the Vietnam War.  Our nation was bitterly divided, some supporting the War, and many actively protesting against it.  I was free to say whatever I wanted, pro or con, about the Vietnam War without fear of prosecution.

I was not free to stand in my employer's lobby and state my opinions without those statements reflecting upon my employer.  Whichever side of the debate I took, I was going to anger a bunch of people.  Whichever side of the debate I took, my company stood to lose.  My bosses would have had every right to tell me to shut up and stop alienating a significant percentage of customers and prospects.  If I didn't, they'd have had every right to fire me.

Fast forward about forty-five years, and the current hot button topic is the injustice some people believe that Black Americans suffer at the hands of the police, and the all-around discrimination they continue to suffer from society in general, and white Americans specifically.  Protests are focused on professional athletes sitting or kneeling during the National Anthem or the opening display of our Colors--the flag of the United States of America.

This action absolutely is an exercise of free speech within the parameters of the First Amendment.  They cannot be arrested, prosecuted, or penalized by our Government for it.  Courts have ruled that even flag burning is protected exercise of free speech rights.  However, like Vietnam protests half a century earlier, the athletes and those who support them are not free from public opinion.  Whatever they do or don't do is going to upset some portion of their employers' customer base.

Sitting or kneeling on the football field or basketball court during the National Anthem or opening display of our flag is during their working hours on their employers' stage--and the NFL owners are losing customers.  Don't believe it?  NFL attendance and TV ratings are down.  The latest news, reacting to customer complaints, DirecTV is offering unhappy customers refunds on their all-access NFL package.

Irrespective of these athletes' First Amendment rights, which I will defend irrespective of how personally offensive I find their actions, they are not free from the consequences of those actions.  They are not only harming their employers with their actions at work, but they are in violation of NFL rules to which the players via their Players Association agreed.

Should the players take a knee?  It's their right.  Should owners fire kneeling players?  It's their right, and in my opinion they should.

North Carolina US Senate Race

As a follow-up to some information about school spending that I found and posted on Facebook a few days ago, I've been looking around on the internet, trying to find out where all the money that isn't improving our children's education is going.

The bottom line of the article is that we're spending three times as much in inflation-adjusted dollars, now, compared to 1970, but our children's reading, math, and science scores have remained flat. Here's the link to the article that started my search.  It's a good read and good information but very troubling.

http://www.cato.org/blog/addressing-critics-purportedly-no-good-very-bad-chart?utm_content=bufferd20a4&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

While I was searching for education budget information, I stumbled upon the following article about the North Carolina U.S. Senate race.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/oct/07/kay-hagan/debate-kay-hagan-says-thom-tillis-cut-education-50/

Kay Hagan, the incumbent Democrat, in ads and in the recent debate, has claimed that her opponent, current NC House Speaker, Thom Tillis, cut education by $500 million.  Did he?  She claims it's all
Thom Tillis' fault.  Is it?  Among other things, Hagan claims our students don't even have textbooks any more.  Do they?

As this second article points out, during the time Tillis has been NC House Speaker, NC spending on education has increased every year.  So, did Tillis cut $500 million from the budget?  Obviously, he did not.

What the NC State Legislature, House and Senate, did, in a solid majority vote that was also signed into law by our Governor, was to reduce requested spending by $500 million.  So, is it Tillis' fault the schools didn't get everything they requested?  Not in your wildest dreams.  Further, during the same time period that North Carolina state spending on education increased, federal funding for NC education dropped by $337.6 million.  That's right--Federal funding dropped and state funding increased.  How inconvenient for Kay Hagan.

Do our North Carolina students have textbooks?  I can answer this with first-hand information, as I still have one high school student at home.  Many high school students do NOT have textbooks for many of their classes.  Why?  Because they've all been issued laptop computers which provide superior access to information being taught.  It's much more current and easier to update than textbooks, which often are years out of date before they're replaced.  So, is this Hagan claim true?  Technically, yes, but it's disingenuous at best.

My request for all my North Carolina friends who may base voting decisions at least in part on our education needs is to look carefully at the truthfulness of the information being presented.  Then, decide for yourselves.  As for truthfulness of the candidates, what I remember distinctly is Kay Hagan telling us repeatedly, "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.  If you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance.  Your healthcare costs are going to go down."  Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

There's Gold In Them Thar Duck Calls

The Duck Dynasty fiasco might backfire on A&E and other liberal voices.

Before I go any further, I have to throw in a disclaimer.  I don't watch Duck Dynasty.  I'm not a fan.  I don't support Phil Robertson's beliefs or his statements.  This is not a defense of his statements or his opinions. However, I do support his right to believe whatever he wishes and to express those beliefs however he chooses.  This is still America, after all.

I also don't support A&E's decision to suspend Robertson.  I think it was a poor business decision.  Yes, A&E should be free to do whatever it wants with it's network programming.  It is a business.  It's their business.  They ought to be able to do with it what they want, however stupid their decisions may be, but it may not work out that way.

All of this might work out to be terrific for the Robertsons.  Before this is over the entire Robertson Clan may be the most widely known story in America.  Think about it.  They were already widely known and wildly popular.  Duck Dynasty was the most popular non-scripted show on cable TV.

Now, think about Miley Cyrus, as unpleasant as that might be.  She received more media exposure for her twerking performance than she'd ever received or ever would have. Before it, nobody was talking about Miley Cyrus.  Afterward, everybody was talking about Miley Cyrus, and they still are.  Was she being stupid--or smart?  Time will tell but, at least for now, she's laughing all the way to the bank.

Which brings us back to Phil Robertson.  Not everyone agrees with Phil about lifestyle, his religious beliefs, or his opinion of gays, but, thanks to A&E, almost everybody is talking about him.  Even people who don't agree with him, such as yours truly, are talking or writing about him.

Now, factor in what may happen next.  Irrespective of my previous statements about what A&E ought to be able to do, they may not be legally able to suspend or fire Robertson for his seemingly anti-gay statements. Why?  Because of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Among other things, Title VII prohibits discrimination in employment for religious beliefs, and that's exactly what Robertson was expressing in his interview.  He was very clear that his opinions about homosexuality are based on his Christian beliefs.  Oops, how inconvenient for A&E.

If Robertson chooses to fight his suspension, he may just rake A&E over the proverbial coals.  He already has an army of supporters who are setting up a boycott of  the A&E network.  Robertson could use a lawsuit to add to his already sizable pile of money or to break his A&E contract--or both.  Free of the A&E contract, the Robertson Clan and Duck Dynasty could write their own tickets to just about anything they wanted.

Any way you look at it, A&E is a loser and Phil Robertson and his family are winners in this episode.  I'm pretty sure that's not what the authors and supporters of the Civil Rights Act had in mind, but that's exactly how it may unfold.  Oh, the irony.

The Fallacy of Gun Control

The internet is full of wonderful stuff.  Some of it is true, some of it is kind of true, and some of it informs us with unintended information.  I found this to be so, today, with an article on the Examiner.com.

First, let me explain that I have no affiliation with Examiner.com but do occasionally read articles on it.  I'm usually captured by the headline, which, of course, is the intent of the headline.

Today's headline was, "DOJ [Department of Justice] Internal Memo Confirms Obama Plan for Gun Confiscation."  OK, I was hooked.  The article that followed was from an organization named Firearms Policy Coalition, which is another outfit with which I have no connection.  Here's the link to the article:  http://www.examiner.com/article/doj-internal-memo-confirms-obama-plan-for-gun-confiscation

You can click through the article to the actual DOJ report.  Or you can access it here:  http://static.infowars.com/2013/02/i/general/nij-gun-policy-memo.pdf

Contrary to the headline and the article's claims, the DOJ memo does not indicate plans for confiscation. What the DOJ report actually does is highlight how little overall crime, gun violence and mass shootings will be reduced by all of the assault weapons bans that have been proposed unless they are coupled with targeted buybacks and/or confiscations.

One of the things I found to be the most compelling in the DOJ memo is in the opening paragraph.  It states that the average number of deaths attributable to mass shootings in America is on average 35 per year.  While every individual matters and the loss of a single life by violence is wrong and should be condemned, the number is 35.  The DOJ memo continues that all of the proposed gun control measures are not likely to have any impact on that number.  Not ANY.  Zip.  Nada.

Did you get that?  If all of the considered and/or proposed firearms bans--assault weapons, semi-automatic weapons, high-capacity magazines, gun registration, sales restrictions--were implemented, they are not likely to reduce the number of deaths attributable to mass shootings.

Remember that number?  35.  By contrast, in 2012, the number of traffic fatalities in America was 34,000.  About 30,000 Americans die annually from accidental prescription drug overdoses.  Cancer deaths were expected to exceed 575,000 in 2012.

The US population is 315,000,000, of which an estimated 65,000,000 are gun owners.  So what? Well, first, gun ownership is one of our inalienable rights, which is codified in the Bill of Rights.  Further, it means there are 65,000,000 gun owners in America who did NOT shoot anybody this year, or last year, or the year before that.

Yet, the prevailing liberal view is that we must control, reduce and limit gun ownership to stop these terrible mass shootings.  Gun control advocates seem to believe this, or at least want us to believe it, in spite of their own studies, analyses, and reports showing their proposed gun control will not have the desired results.

Now you have the facts.  Form your own conclusions.

"I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today."

The current mess in our Federal Government is filling the Blogosphere and mainstream media these days.  Most of what we see and hear is presented as fact or news.  Well, most of it isn't fact or news.  It's opinion, slanted by the political ideology of the presenter.  Some of it is so egregious as to be laughable.

Let's be clear about a couple of things.  Not raising the debt ceiling and defaulting on our sovereign debt are two very different things.  I'm not sure if the media doesn't get that or has simply decided it's better theater to present it that way.

Default means not paying our bills and not honoring (paying interest and principal) on Treasury Bills, Notes and Bonds.  That would not be good.  It would damage further the US credit rating and could force interest rates higher throughout the US economy.

Not raising the debt ceiling would simply restrict the Federal Government's ability to borrow more money and further increase our already staggering debt. It would NOT mean default.

Fiscal conservatives don't want the US to default on its sovereign debt.  They want to stop, or at least slow, the uncontrolled and unsustainable growth of that debt.

Fiscal liberals want to keep borrowing and taxing and spending like there's no tomorrow.  As Wimpy in the Popeye cartoons used to say, "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today."  To fiscal liberals, Tuesday will never come.

Are the preceding two paragraphs my opinions presented as if they were facts.  No, they are demonstrated fact based upon verifiable evidence interpreted with a bias toward fiscal responsibility.

As is usually the case in disputes such as this, neither side of the argument is in the right.  We can't and shouldn't keep spending at present rates but we don't have to balance the budget overnight.

The answer lies in pulling back Federal spending to realistic, sustainable levels. The smart way to accomplish this is to use a scalpel, rather than a meat cleaver.

Nobody is holding the economy hostage.  In case you hadn't noticed, the world is still spinning and the sun will still come up tomorrow.  It will eventually come up on Tuesday.