Quit 'yer Bitchin'..

.. about the media coverage for Michael Jackson, will 'ya?

If I read one more post about how there's nothing but wall-to-wall coverage of it, that Farrah's death was just as big, and that our nation's economy and the escalating situations in Iran and North Korea are far more important--I'm going to go find a blade of grass and scream at it (it won't fight back--that's why).

Because, truth be told, the economy and the Iran and North Korea situations ARE far more important! But the bigger issue is this: America, to a large degree, likes its celebrities and its junk--with a large portion of that junk being the dirt that surrounds its celebrities. And, I really don't have a problem with it.

My problem is with those that bitch and complain about it, while talking about it. Don't like it? Don't pay attention to it. And quit blaming the media while you're at it. Let me let you in on a not-so-secret secret: big media spends millions a year on research on what the American public watches/reads/listens to, and guess what? A good part of it is sex, crime, and celebrity dirt. That's why in the news biz we have a saying: "If it bleeds, it leads." And, sorry folks, it seems to be true, because if it weren't true, it wouldn't be peddled. Case in point? "The National Enquirer"--it's still the most widely read newspaper in the world. And good people out there, the media has to make money just like your particular profession does.

Which brings me back to Michael Jackson. Look, I'm pretty indifferent to his music, and I'm in no way qualified to try to pass judgment on his out-of-the-studio controversies--which were many. But I will say he seemed to be the epitome of the "Double T" of his kind: talented and troubled. But its that kind of combination that a large portion of the American public seems to be drawn to following--perhaps because a large portion of the American public is neither talented or troubled, and can draw some solace that perhaps their rather average life isn't so bad after all. And you know what? I have no problem with that. But, I do have a problem with bitching about it. Get a life.

Now, I can hear some say, "But it's the media's fault for pushing this stuff on us--we see it everwhere. It's on TV. It's on news stands. It's on the internet. Quit pushing this stuff on us.". Well, I'll offer you a better solution: don't watch it, don't read it, and don't surf it. Most of you who bitch about it are adults, so act like adults and make an adult decision to be responsible for yourself and what you choose to absorb. And, CHOICE is the key word there. Have you ever heard of "U.S. News and World Report" or Jim Lehrer on PBS? How about showing the kids a globe? I bet many kids--and adults for that matter--probably couldn't find Iran and/or North Korea. Or even Washington, DC. But they probably know where the Neverland Ranch is.

While I'm at it, quit bitching about athletes earning too much money--if you've read my previous posts, you know why.

It all seems like a cruel circle. And somebody made a perfect illustration on a friend's Facebook page today:

"Vince, that sounds like what we felt like we were up against when I was a public affairs officer in Iraq -- the media reported on "bad" news because that was what the public wanted, then people complained they didn't hear enough of the good news/success stories from Iraq. (But didn't pay enough attention when they were covered.)"

Almost sounds like the person who says they like nice guys or girls, but really digs the asshole(s), doesn't it.

Well, I'm one of those media folks who's not going to allow the general public to shoot the messenger unless it is truly the media's fault--and to be fair, there have been more than enough instances of that. But the Michael Jackson coverage, the Farrah coverge, and even the Jon & Kate coverage are not over the top at all. Why? People watch, and many who don't are talking about it. The media to a large degree is a reflection of its consuming public, so look at those three fingers pointing back at you, will 'ya? The public is the one entity in our culture that doesn't have its feet held to the fire. And I do have a problem with that.

But, that's where I stop bitching.

No Way, LA for Blake Griffin.

At least as an L.A. Clipper, and I'm going against my own grain saying this.

I read a column in the OKC paper about a month ago that basically said that now-former Oklahoma hoopster and 2009 collegiate player of the year Blake Griffin should find a way to not play for the Clippers. More specific, that Blake's dad, Tommy Griffin, should not allow his son to ever don the clippers red and white--with a dash of blue. I waited until today, NBA Draft Day, to chime in--largely because I'm going to agree with the aforementioned column--that Griffin and his agent and/or handlers should find a way to say, "No Way, Clippers of L.A.".

The first reason is simple: the Clippers are the NBA's version of a dumpster fire. A grand total of six winning seasons in the franchise's history--with only two of those since move to L.A. back in 1984. Think about that. 25-years, two winning seasons. It's sad that the franchise's "glory days" came when the Clips were the Buffalo Braves back from 1970-78, when the likes of Bob McAdoo, Randy Smith, and Ernie DiGregorio donned the Braves baby blue unies. It was also during those years that franchise's head coach had the longest tenure--Dr. Jack Ramsay from 1972-76. That's right. To be fair, both Bill Fitch (1994-998) and current head coach and GM Mike Dunleavy, Sr. have matched Ramsey--but seriously, 4 or 5-years?

Reason two: the Papers Clips just don't know how to win, and when they do, they can't sustain the momentum. Consider the track record: league titles? Zero. Conference titles? Goose eggs. Division titles? Nil. Now, playoff series victories since moving to L.A.? We have a pulse at two.

Reason three: the old adage, "A fish rots from the head down." And it's been rotten since Donald Sterling bought the franchise back in 1981 when it had been 3-years removed from Buffalo and in San Diego. Before 2003, he'd been known for beyond frugal--how about just downright cheap. But ever after signing some big checks to the likes of Elton Brand, Cory Magette and Cuttino Mobley since 2003--and acquiring Baron Davis before the 2009 season--how many of those guys are still with the team? Davis. Everybody else either fled or got traded. Yes, not exactly the track record of consistent winning, not to mention something as lofty as an NBA title. Why does Sterling hold onto the Clippers? Simple: he bought 'em for $12.5 million back in '81, and they're worth $297 million in 2009. Can you say cash cow? Yep, just another owner looking to print money, and not win titles.

Now, I've never been one to encourage a player to tell a prospective player in any sport that he should tell a franchise that, "Sorry, but I just won't play for you.". On a radio show I hosted back in 2008, I railed on John Elway for the stunt he pulled on the then Baltimore Colts back back in 1983 because he just didn't want to play there. Same kind of with Eli Manning and the Chargers in 2004. In my mind, neither player had proven anything on the NFL stage, and looked like prima donnas by demanding not to play for the team that drafted them. Thus, by encouraging Blake Griffin to do the same thing would make me a hypocrite. However, like the English language, there are exceptions, and in the NBA, the Clippers are THE exception. Again, no league titles, no conference titles, no division titles and what still looks like not commitment to adding any. The NFL's Colts? Nice tradition--the Unitas years come to mind. The Chargers? They had at least been to a Super Bowl. The Clippers? The F-word, and that's F for Futility. Big difference. And futility for 25-years is all I need to look at to go against my own grain and not lose a wink of sleep over it.

So, there you go. The Clippers will take Blake Griffin as the top overall pick in tonight's draft. Let's hope his handlers pull off something Elway and/or Manning-esque.

I Can't Wait Until Football Season!

There's a very slight cool breeze among the sweltering heat out there--have you felt it?

I have. And, it's that hint that FOOTBALL SEASON is drawing ever so closer!! Yes, that faint hint of fall that reminds us that 2-a-days loom a mere 6-weeks or so from now, with the regular season for the colleges about 9-weeks, the NFL in around 10.

My appetite got whetted when I interviewed three Central Texas high school standouts and Baylor Sophomore QB Robert Griffin for a piece I'm writing for "Waco Today" magazine's August edition. To hear the anticipation in the guys' voices about the 2009 season, to see their eyes light up with the fire of competition that burns within their being--kind of lit mine as well.

This will be my 20th-year of covering NFL, major college and high school football. And, I'll tell you: at least in these parts, no other season defines a sports guy like football season. It's where you earn your stripes as an interviewer, as a researcher, and as a story teller. Football means so much to the men and women of my profession, and to a large degree, to Americans in general--much like soccer to much of the rest of the world. And, if you've ever wondered why we took to American football instead of "futbol", consider this from the book, "The Meaning of Sports" by Michael Mandelbaum, that football is game that came of age during the industrial revolution of the early 20th-century, and the game of football mirrors that. I quote Mandelbaum in the following excerpts from page 120:

"Industrial life is measured by the clock and football, unlike baseball, is played by the clock. Measured time is indispensable for the coordination among different members of the team on the field that football requires."

And in the next paragraph:

"Football is a sport of the machine age because football teams are like machines, with specialized moving parts that must function simultaneously. Players are like workers in a factory. They must perform their tasks in a precise sequence."

Yes, football resembles the revolution that, other than the one around 1776--made America the great country it is today, and I think that's one of the reasons we embrace the game the way we do--we just may not have known it.

And, let's face it--the hittin' has a lot to do with it, too!

Either way, I can't wait for the season to get here, and I'll try to keep feelin' those fleeting cool breezes until then.

Fehr Not! For He Did His Job Well!

I have to stick up for "fear" for one reason tonight. And it's because you pronounce the last name of now former Major League Players Union director Don Fehr the same way. And it was the "fear" that "Fehr" put into Major League Owners that convinced me--and still convinces me--that he has kept baseball in line with what used to be known as "The American Way".

And, that American Way is capitalism, and it was Fehr's 26-year leadership of the players' union that kept it from caving in on one of the most socialistic and un-American economic tools around: the salary cap. If one has even a rudimentary understanding of economics, one knows this to be true. Fehr understood that players may be RICH, but owners are WEALTHY, and that the owners basically want a salary cap to "have the players save the owners from the owners". Now, for those of you who choose to be stupid and say to yourself, "But those players earn way too much for playing a kids' game!", get a clue and take an economics class. Players have a limited window and opportunity to earn their millions. The owners basically use their franchises as play money, and if their franchises weren't generally profitable, they'd sell 'em. And, Don Fehr understood this, and did his job by being as much as a hard-line negotiator as the fat-cat owners, and never blinked. Sure, he could come across as smarmy and arrogant, but so could the owners, who proved to be liars after the collusion ruling concerning the 1985-87 off-seasons--one that cost MLB $280 million.

As you can tell, I'm firmly in the players' corner when it comes to salaries, and under Fehr's watch, big league salary averages went from $369,000 to nearly $3 million. And don't try to tell me that the owners bled cash during those times, because if they had, they wouldn't have paid the players that kind of money--because that's how the many of the owners made their own money--yeah, a think called "free market capitalism"--something they want to eliminate when it comes to their franchises. Dopes.

Now, that's not to say I'm a 100-percent "Fehr Factor Fan". I'm not. Part of his legacy will be the "steroids era", and he was staunchly opposed to drug testing and anti-doping policies--and with all the steroids and HGH revelations over the past couple of years, that's going to go down as a black mark. But to be fair, don't think for a second the owners didn't know about doping. They did, and they turned a blind eye. Why? Simple. The game was making money, and why get in the way of a profitable venture--again, a thing called "free market capitalism" (unless the minions are making too much money, and then it's time to junk free market capitalism and slap 'em with a salary cap).

Also on Fehr's watch? Three work stoppages, including the 7-and-a-half month players strike that cost fans the 1994 World Series--something that still haunts the game to this day. But hey, when the owners tried to unilaterally institute a salary cap tied to revenue sharing with no benefit to the players? I'd have stood my ground too--especially when it came less than a decade after the aforementioned $280 million collusion ruling. He had no reason to trust the owners, who again, had a history of back-handedness and lying.

Yes, Don Fehr had his share of detractors. I suppose detractors go with the territory. Longtime baseball writer Hal Bodley wrote that he and Fehr had some bitter battles, but that he also has enormous respect for Fehr, and also calls him one of the most intelligent, articulate men he's ever known. Such men usually are able to put their detractors and supporters in the same kind of place when it comes down to it: other people's opinions.

And, the opinions on Fehr will be mixed. But when it comes to the economics of the game, my opinion will be favorable. He stood up to the fat-cat owners and never blinked.

Sticking Up for "2-a-days"

My eyes about popped out of their sockets when I saw it.

The page-1 headline in the local paper 2-days ago, "Trainers Condemn Hot Weather Football Drills"--and the story that followed--that the National Athletic Trainers' Association basically recommended that 2-a-day workouts for high school football teams in the heat of early August go the way of the doe-doe. Well, if you're wondering why it's taken me 2-days to sound off? It took me that long compose myself, as well do a little homework before I just totally rail on getting rid of something that keeps our young men from getting any **softer**.

Yes, softer. I think I can speak for a lot of guys who remember 2-a-days when they were REALLY rough: full heat of the day for at least one of the two practices; maybe 1-or-2 water breaks--maybe three if you were lucky. And, hardly a player collapsed. Nowadays, you have more advanced training methods and water available at virtually any time, yet there are more and more reports of players collapsing, and some of those dying--like a15-year old in Kentucky last August, whose coach now faces criminal charges for the boy's death. And that, I fear, is why the Trainers' Association wants to get rid of 2-a-days: to avoid litigation. Perhaps smart to "C.Y.A.", but just plain stupid when it comes to turning boys into men-- who would have just another reason for becoming **softer**. And, by **softer** I mean this: another excuse to not to have to do something that's hard and unpleasant to earn a greater reward--yet still expecting that greater reward.

I think this is just another case of the American culture treating the symptom and not the chronic. The chronic problem is not that 2-a-days are necessarily too rough on our kids. No, too many make it through them with absolutely no problems. The chronic problem is that our youth in general play entirely too many video games, watch too many movies, and eat entirely too many Big Macs, Whoppers, Pizzas and fare from a grease pit and then wash it down with sugar soda after sugar soda--and some of those youth go out for football! Well, that kind of lack of activity and diet are a recipe for complacency and obesity, and you don't have to look around too far to see it. It's everywhere. I suppose the kids do it because I think entirely too many adults do the same thing. We've become a soft nation--and getting rid of 2-a-days would be another medal on the "Soft Nation Wall of Shame".

2-a-days not only get players ready for the season--and in the south, the first half of the season you play games when it's sometimes still blazing hot--they also toughen a player up, force him to focus despite the distraction of discomfort, and I think most important: they enable him to earn some spurs with his teammates, coaches and HIMSELF. Yes, 2-a-days can BUILD self-worth--by earning respect by going through the unpleasantness that's inherent in the game of football--which will translate into respect and self-worth in the game of life once football's over. And the stories that they'll be able to tell--all part of becoming a man. Deny them that and you deny admission to true manhood--the manhood of actively pursuing excellence, paying the price, and then enjoying the spoils! And 2-a-days personify just that!

Moreover, most coaches nowadays are well trained to spot players who are getting over-heated, and many teams have moved at least one of their 2-a-day practices to either the very early morning or early evening when temperatures are more moderate, and there's everything right about doing that. The Trainers' Association continues to study cutting-edge ways of keeping players healthy when they're practicing and in games. But neither trainers nor coaches can do anything about what the player does away from the game, and there again is where much of the chronic problem lies, and it's not going to get any better until we, the parents and peers, insist that our kids be more active and stop living on junk, and that may mean that WE get active and stop living on junk.

But it's sure easier to entertain getting rid of 2-a-days, isn't it?

Not in my book, and for the sake boys everywhere, hopefully not in yours.

Joke Department: The Okie vs. The Ivy League

Some of you have heard this one, others have not. Either way, a good laugh for your weekend:

An Okie (substitute your area of the country, if you like) goes to Harvard, and is getting his bearings for the campus, but is having a hard time finding the library. So, he stops another student and asks, "Pardon me, but can you tell me where the library's at?" Well, the student the Okie asks about the library's whereabouts snickers, and then, with his Harvard accent counters, "My dear young man, don't you know it is most improper English to end a sentence with a preposition?"

Now, the Okie didn't only snicker at the Harvardite's response, he also managed to break a smile--before saying, "Oh, my apologies, man. Let me rephrase my question: can you tell me where the library's at..














Asshole?"


There you go, perfect English. That''ll learn him.

Take That, "PC"!

My wife's uncle-in-law e-mailed her the following little ditty on "PC", or "Political Correctness", and I think it's precious. Enjoy.

"Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mass media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

Unknown

Righteous Anger--And Why It's Right.

Yes, I believe in "righteous anger"--even in this day and age where "anger" of almost any kind of frowned upon. And, once again, those cultural and/or societal forces that we still don't like to talk about are wrong, and for good reasons.

First, you may ask what is "righteous anger"? Well, without delving too deeply into the psychological aspect(s), righteous anger is the type that's good for the body, mind and soul--anger that results from a wound against oneself that strikes one's core values--and an anger that can be channeled into something that will not only be non-destructive to the offender, but also not to the one who's been wounded.

Looking at it biblically, Christ's reaction to the money-changers in the New Testament Gospels is a good example. He emphatically turned over the money-changers tables in the temple--all the while accusing them of turning his Father's temple into a house of thieves. The money-changers actions so wounded him that it provoked physical anger from the One who was sinless. And, that's all I need to know about what I consider fact: righteous anger is NOT a sin.

Well, let's bring it to the present day, shall we? What are some justifications of righteous anger in our American culture of 2009? I can think of several, but I'll name a few: for married couples, the violation of the marraige covenant via adultery, abuse and or addiction; a boss that sets up an employee to fail--making life on the job so miserable that the employee either quits or ultimately gets fired; or, just your basic gossip that's designed to passively-aggressively hurt someone.

My bout with righteous anger this afternoon came out of an anxiety attack that got me so pissed that I channeled my anger into cleaning the house and then later charging up my legs at the gym's squat rack (I had a personal best of 8-deep reps at 285)!. My attack came from the anger I felt at myself for not giving my best at one of my free-lance writing gigs, and oustide of me? The mess that is our American economy and the powers-that-be not being willing to allow the folks that are largely responsible for the mess pay the price for the errors of their high-fallutin' ways (AIG, big banks, big autos, etc.. ).

But my biggest piece of righteous anger was at a notion--a notion that we don't like to talk about--taboo, if you will-- that I think is just completely wrong, but needs to be brought to light: we as human beings are NOT designed to be happy-go-lucky positive all the time, or even most of the time. You can substitute the word "CHRISTIAN" for "HUMAN BEING" if you like. Much of my anxiety this afternoon came because I am being told both actively and passively by much of American religious and secular cultuer that I MUST put a happy face on a very scary time in my life--and it just plain pissed me off--largely because it has no root in fact.

Truth be told, I don't really trust people who are positive all the time. I don't consider it real. Now, I don't trust people who are negative all the time, either. In fact, I trust them less. But, neither are being real. And like it or not--and it doesn't matter your religious, economic, or cultural background--our capacity for anger is there for a reason, and if it's channeled in a benevolent direction, it can be, well, beneficial. Again, look at Christ at the temple calling out the money-changers. He wasn't that calm, collected individual that day. No, he was fiery, blunt, and in-your-face. He picked his spot. Why should we be any different?

Well, today, I picked mine. And I don't feel the least bit bad about it, and if you find yourself in a similar situation, you shouldn't either. There's no rule IN THE LIGHT that says one must be calm, cool and collected with a smile on your face with nothing but happy thoughts all the time or even most of the time no matter what. If you feel wronged and feel sufficiently wounded, stand up for yourself and say you don't deserve it. If you're a woman and you do this and get called a bitch, well that would be the offender's opinion, but you know better. You're a human being that doesn't deserve being treated with anything less than the dignity with which you treat others. If you're a guy and the offender calls you a prick, well, same thing applies. Standing up for yourself, your values, your place in this world after being wounded sufficiently is righteous anger--thanks for being a man and standing your ground.

One last thing, though. Righteous anger does NOT give you the place to channel it destructively. Standing up for yourself is one thing--physical retaliation that sends somebody to the hospital, or verbal abuse that is intended to wound the offender is just as bad if not worse than what the offender did to you--largely because you know better. I know what I try to do: pull weeds, pump iron, clean house, shoot basketballs, and not necessarily in that order. But it is absolutely okay to feel what you feel without turning it in a destructive direction toward people, animals and/or property. And the to the "cultural forces" that discourage righteous anger in the darkness of "taboo"? Well, they can kiss my righteously angry ass.

There. And, I'm not angry any more!

The Charm of the CWS.

What's more All-American than a big underdog catching lightning in a bottle and beating the best of the best? Not much. And that's why the College World Series--or CWS for short--is nothing short of the term All-American at its best!

And that's just the beginning of the charm of collegiate baseball's national championship tournament that has the college sports scene to itself throughout this week. I've worked one before (2005), so I have first-hand knowledge of the atmosphere of wonder that is Omaha's Rosenblatt stadium--from the time one enters the park. There's the wonder of watching players play truly for the love of the game (and their scholarship--and some only get partial scholarships), to the fans who follow their team, to the people of Omaha who go to support the CWS--which is a testimony to how that city has embraced college baseball's crown jewel. But consider what's been seen more than once over the last four years and you'll understand what's even more All-American than the hubbub in the heartland this time of year: proof that the underdog not only can win, but does win!

All you have to do is look back at last year's CWS, when lightly regarded Fresno State, who sported 31-losses and entered its 4-team sub-regional as a 4-seed, caught lightning in a bottle, and stormed its way to the CWS title. And if that's not enough, how about Oregon State, with virtually no tradition, won back-to-back titles in 2006-07--and that 2007 title came after going 10-16 in Pac-10 Conference play. And how about one more? And, I was there for this one--in 2005, when Baylor stormed back from 6-runs down to topple top-national seed Tulane 8-7, only to be toppled themselves the next night by Texas, where 1b Chance Wheeless, with a bum shoulder, blasted a walk-off homer in the 9th--reminded some folks of Kirk Gibson's shot off Dennis Eckersley in the 1988 World Series. Texas went on to beat Florida twice to win that national championship.

How do you get any more charming than that?

"March Madness" has nothing on the College World Series, because come "Elite 8" time, the big boys with the big traditions usually rise to the top (North Carolina, Duke, Kansas, etc.. ). College baseball? You get a Fresno State and an Oregon State that proves as elite as often as a Texas or a Cal State-Fullerton.

And, consider two teams in the CWS this year: Southern Miss--in its first ever trip to the series, and Arkansas--who toppled number-7 national seed Oklahoma twice in Norman, and then flogged Florida State in the super regional in Tallahassee to earn its CWS berth, and the Hogs have already sent #2-national seed Cal State-Fullerton into the elimination bracket with a 10-6 victory.

See what I mean?

Anything can happen, and couple that with players and fans who both would rather be nowhere else than the CWS, and you have Americana at its best. And, that's why my eyes will be peeled on ESPN all week long, and if you're a sports fan--or just a fan of things all-American, yours should be too.

TGIF Joke Time.

This is one of my favorites--and for the "holier-than-thou" type, lighten up, okay?

Give me a word that starts with an "F".. and ends in a "U-C-K".







Think..








Firetruck.


Enjoy your weekend everybody. And for those that refuse to, go firetruck yourself.

News "Cliches" That Have To Go!

Yes, sportscasters aren't the only ones who use "cliches"--but we sure get it from those select news folks that turn their noses up at us for doing it. Tonight, it's time for some equal time.

Now, I'm going to restrict this to the broadcasting side because that's where you see and hear the three cliches that I'm going to be talking about, so here goes:

1) "Behind Bars". This one is my biggest pet peeves--simply because nobody talks that way. We broadcasters are taught to write conversationally, and I have never--no, not once!!!-- have ever used "Did you hear? So-and-so got put BEHIND BARS tonight for that robbery last night". I would say,--and I've heard others say, "He/she got put in jail.", or if I was feeling creative, "He-she got sent to the hoosegow.", but not "BEHIND BARS". Cliche all the way, newsies.

2) "In Harm's Way". See my point above. I have never used this cliche in a conversation, and I've never heard anybody else use it in a coversation. I do hear this said cliche in a lot of politicial rhetoric, and most of us know what political rhetoric is worth.

3) "Straight Ahead.. ". This is a popular cliche used in what we in the news biz call a "tease"--to give a viewer a taste of what's coming up usually after a break. Once again, ever hear this cliche used in a conversation? No. Meant to make the user/writer look clever? 100%. But isn't that what sportscasters are accused of doing when they use cliches? Yes. And rightfully so. Sure looks like we might be in the same kind of boat, eh?

So, if one insists on cracking on the sports guys but continues to use the above three cliches, or any that I haven't mentioned, well let me give you another cliche to drive my point home: "Shut your pie hole".

Pet Peave of the Day: Parking

Ugh! And, it happened twice! And, no, it wasn't trying to find a parking space!

No, it was trying to get out of two different spaces because SOMEBODY PARKED BADLY CROOKED IN THEIR SPACE!! Ugh!! And, I'm not talking about a few inches--I'm talking about askew so much that the violating car's bumper was either on the parking space's line or over into the neighboring space!!

How hard is it to pull in straight? Does it really take that much more effort to back your vehicle back out, and pull back in--so that other folks won't have to? It seems to be asking an awful lot.

Case in point: what I'm talking about here happened in the same parking lot. The first time, I was pulling into a space. Now, I drive a long-bed truck, so it can be a little bit more work for me to park straight, but it's doable, and I did it. I stop the truck, and I start to get out. About then, a mid-size car turns into the space next to my driver's side--and stops with their back end about 8-inches from my front end--badly askew. Get the picture? And, this person didn't even notice--as this person rushed into the building evidently running late (so, leave five minutes earlier!) The second time was on my way out of said establishment, only this time, it was a vehicle on the passenger side of my truck that wouldn't park straight.

So, I decided to do a little counting on my way out of this parking lot. On the front row of parking spaces--and there are 25-spaces on that row, 16 of the vehicles parked there were askew. And, it appears that the perps go across a wide demographic, as four of those vehicles had wheelchair plachards--it seems that obliviousness is not just something that young people choose to do. And, I would guess that probably about half of those vehicles parked askew on that front row did so because of the initial vehicles that chose not to park straight.

So, here's what I'm going to do. I'm going to make something that's the shape of a business card with the following saying on it: "I hope you don't screw like you park. You'd never get in!" I'll just put it under a windshield wiper.

Come to think of it, nah. I won't. The folks I'm talking about are probably so oblivious they wouldn't get it--or even see it.

What My 2-Year Old Taught Me Today..

Two words: a lot. But it's how she taught me that's worth the words tonight.

She taught me that she picks up the good things that she sees in her mother and me, and the not so good as well. Now, while I'm not going to speak for her mother, I am going to speak for myself, so have some fun with these, folks.

Today, Malia taught me:

1) To continue to read to her--because she's picking up more than just the words. And, I have proof on my Facebook page. For those of you who saw it, I took an iPhone picture of her reading a book to her favorite doll Mary and I call her "baby". It made me melt.

2) To not have her do the "pull my finger" trick any more. Tried it after dinner tonight, and the three other adults all told her not to (and rightfully so), and she's starting to roll her eyes at me like the other adults do. Makes me wonder who needs to grow up more (as it does Mary).

3) Live with wonder. Malia's truly innocent and totally honest--as are most 2-year olds. Each new situation to her is met with a wide variety of emotions: fear, curiosity, and in Malia's case, some reservation. That's her personality. But she's taking some cues from Mary and me, and I hope she picks up my sense of wonder of the unknown--even though I have admittedly lost some of mine in some of the battles I've fought over the years. She's teaching me to embrace the wonder of the greatest gift God gave us (0ther than the grace of Jesus), and that gift is life!

4) Take a "spork" with us everywhere we go. Adult forks are just too big, and she drops them like a retiree in Vegas drops coins in the nickel slots. Sporks? Not so much. Pack 'em.

5) Play--but focus. Malia is such a serious child--we could hardly get her to smile until just the last couple of months. She's also very stubborn and strong-willed, and both Mary and I can see both of those personality traits even when she plays. In the adult world, I think we can call that, "Take what you do seriously, but don't take yourself so seriously." Believe it or not, that's the way I view sports--even though, until recently, sports being my bread & butter. On the grand scheme of things, pro and college athletes do great things, and sportscasters cover those great things, but none of us is curing cancer. When it call comes down to it, it's just a game. And each day, a 2-year old who's totally dependent on me and her mother, reminds me of that.

So, I've learned a lot today. Thank you Malia. Now, learn something from Daddy, and try to sleep through the night, will ya? And you can even snore if you want to!

D-Day & Dissent

On this 65th-anniversary of "D-Day", I'm going to reiterate a point I made for Memorial Day: let's celebrate dissent.

Yes, dissent. And, for the same reason I said back a couple of weeks ago: those soldiers that landed at Normandy may or may not have had the same views as you or your at that particular time in history--some more conservative, some more liberal, some from a rich background, others poverty--I could go on and on. But, those soldiers served--and some died--for your right to have your views and voice your views without fear of government retaliation and/or intervention, and they served to protect those rights guaranteed under our U.S. Constitution. That's FREEDOM, folks.

I reiterate this point not only to observe the D-Day anniversary, but to point out how intolerance can creep into our daily lives--and I will adamantly stand against it. It was brought to my attention by one of my Facebook friends that he had been "de-friended" for what he believed was making a political statement. My response at the time was, "His/her loss". My response now is, "How un-American". One of the great things about our country is the many different views and cultures that at least try to live harmoniously under one flag. One of the things that our Founding Fathers wanted to avoid was the danger(s) of a "Theocracy"--meaning if you don't subscribe to the tenets of the state's religion, then there's something wrong with you and you're going to be punished. They also wanted to avoid the dangers of "The Crown"--abuse of power from an all-powerful King or Queen. That's why we have the checks and balances of our Democratic Republic form of government.

Once again, that seems to go beyond the grasp of the far right and far left extremists. Neither can seem to tolerate dissent, and that's not only a shame, it's just downright un-American. I think that anybody who would de-friend somebody just because of a disagreement in political and/or religious view(s) is just downright small, ignorant, stupid or any combination of the three. And, you know what? It's my right to say it. And, you know what? It's your right to disagree with me, and I can live with that. Ain't America great.

So, once again, let's celebrate D-Day by remembering those that began the Allies' march on The Axis 65-years ago, and remember that those men and women may or may not have had differing views that yours--but fought, and again, some to the death, for your right to have them, and express them in "The Land of the Free, and Home of the Brave."!!

Screw the Mags. Here's My Picks!

Okay, I've shown you how the 2009 college football preseason magazines picked the Big 12 South teams to finish. Now it's time to chuck 'em. Now you get mine, and my reasons to back 'em up.

1) Oklahoma. So, you "bummer sooner" homers can shut your pie-holes about me being an OSU homer. Look, professionally, I don't care who wins. My job is to COVER the Big 12, not SUPPORT it. So, I do the adult thing and put my emotion and personal allegiance(s) aside, and call it as I see it with 21-years experience of covering college football. And, one of the first rules is: defense wins titles, and OU's defense will be the league's best this season. And I'm counting on that to trump the now relatively inexperience on the offensive line--one that last season gave Heisman winner Sam Bradford Secret Service-like protection.

2) Texas. It'll be close, and it'll probably come down to the "Red River Rivalry" in Dallas come the 3rd-Saturday in October. Yes, the Longhorns offense will be formidible with the return of Colt McCoy and a more experienced stable of running backs and Jordan Shipley out wide--along with a more experienced o-line. But defensively, I don't see them being as strong as a year ago, and they're still young in the secondary--something that doesn't bode well with the gunslingers that walk the planks of the league (Bradford, Zac Robinson, Todd Reesing to name just 3).

3) Oklahoma State. Yes, the Pokes 3rd, thanks to the 3-headed monster of QB Zac Robinson, RB Kendall Hunter, and WR Dez Bryant. Offensive numbers could be Texas Tech like. It's the lack of a defense that keeps them from contending. If the "d" develops, the Pokes could be the darkhorse, and they do have UT at home, and OU in Norman--they seem to do better against the Sooners there.

T4) Texas Tech & Baylor. Yes, my "out on the limb" prediction--Baylor ties Tech for 4th and could very well pass the Red Raiders. Tech has a new QB in Taylor Potts, and he'll put up gaudy numbers, as will his stable of receivers--minus Michael Crabtree this season, though. Sorry, but they still have to prove to me they can play more consistent defense before I give them any kind of a nod.

T4) Baylor. Yes, the bad news bears--who look poised to finally make a bowl game after a 15-year absence. QB Robert Griffin is the real deal--you already know that. The thing is, are a lot more "real deals" than just Griffin. The Bears linebacker corps rivals any in the Big 12. Nobody wants to go over the middle on safety Jordan Lake. If the Bears can come up with a big win to open the season at Wake Forest and enter conference play at 4-0, they'll be in business. The daunting task will be a grueling Oct. 24 to Nov. 14 stretch--hosting OSU & Nebraska, at Missouri and then host Texas)--go .500 in that stretch? Wham. Bowl game. And they'll probably throw head coach Art Briles a ticker tape parade down Valley Mills Drive in Waco--that's how desperate they are for a winner. And this could be the year they get one.

6) Texas A&M. Sorry, still no "Wrecking Crew" resurrection in Aggieland, and that means life in the Big 12 South tomb.

There you go. Discuss.

The Best of (and worst of)..

My friend and fellow sportscaster Jermaine Ferrell and I were chatting about this last week--what are some of the best sporting events that I've worked over the last 21-years, and that's inspired me to take you on a tour of some truly great events, and more--on the worse side to boot!

If you read my first entry on this blog, you got a taste of some of those events--from the Bowl games, to a Final Four, to a college baseball & a college softball World Series, an NFC championship game, to a golf major, and meeting about every guy's wet dream of a modern day tennis star (I'll give you a hint: she never won a major singles title). So, with all that in mind, I'm going to do some ranking of the best of the best of those events--with my reasoning behind it. And yes, I'm biased when it comes to some of what's to follow, but remember, this is American, Jack!

BEST BOWL GAME VENUE: Rose Bowl. Can't argue with "The Granddaddy of them All". Nestled between two golf courses with the San Gabriel Mountains on all sides? Ewsome.

WORST BOWL GAME HOSPITALITY: Rose Bowl. Tradition of the bowl (Pac 10 vs. Big 10) sours on Big 12 teams, and I was covering two Big 12 teams at two different Rose Bowls. Chilly reception both times.

WORST BOWL GAME VENUE: None. Covering a bowl game is nothing but a hospitality grab, and we sports guys do that with gusto because we don't get paid enough not to.

BEST BOWL GAME HOSPITALITY: Cotton Bowl. Hands down. For us media types, an open media room with food and drinks 24-7, internet, games, media guides, free ducats to the New Year's Eve Cotton Bowl Ball (in 2004, the entertainment was "The Temps"--no, not a cover band called "The Temps". No, I'm talking about the original "The Temptations"!! Ab fab!

BEST BOWL GAME BRANDING: Tostitos Fiesta Bowl. Every time you entered the perimeter of the stadium "park", a bowl staffer at any of the stadium entrances asked you, "Do you have your bag of Tostitos?". And, then you got a bag of them. I must have had two dozen bags on game-day alone. And, I couldn't eat Tostitos for a year afterward.

BEST FAMILY ATMOSPHERE EVENT: Women's College World Series softball in OKC. I grew up in OKC, but had never been to the Hall of Fame Stadium until 2007 when I covered both Baylor and Texas A&M, who both earned berths--and man did I miss out all those years. Packed houses, fans on the edge of their seats, tailgaiting in the parking lots. Thoroughly impressed.

WORST FAMILY ATMOSPHERE EVENT: Final Four, Indianapolis 2005. Only because half of the Hoosier Dome was cut off for the Women's National Championship (to make the seating around 29,000), and about half of the seats set up for the venue were so high up that the players must have looked like specks--not kid friendly. I could say the same thing about a men's final four played in the same type of venue, so let's not play the gender card, ladies.

MOST ELECTRIC ATMOSPHERE EVENT: College World Series baseball. There's a charm to Omaha's Rosenblatt Stadium that's almost impossible to describe. All I can say is walking from the media room where we record the game to the stadium concourse then onto the field? You get the feeling that these guys still play for the love of the game--and the venue creates that type of vibe.

MOST MEMORABLE BOWL GAME: 1999 Independence Bowl. And for two reasons: 1) 'Twas **the last** football game of the 20th-century--it ended around 10:30pm on New Year's Eve (Deuce McAllister and Ole Miss beat OU on a last second field goal); and 2) All of us in the press box waited 'til the clock struck midnight to see if the "Y2K scare" would come to friution. It didn't, but every single one of us in the Independence Bowl press box in Shreveport, LA said, "But we know exactly where we were when the century turned!"

MOST CROWDED SIDELINE: NFC Championship Game, 1993. If you moved, you lost your spot and you weren't getting it back. Paaaaacked!

BEST CLOSE-UP PLAY: 1996 Fiesta Bowl, Nebraska vs. Florida. Huskers were bludgeoning the Gators, who had no answers not only for Tommie Frazier and Lawrence Phillips on offense, but a blitzing linebacker in Jamel Williams, who slammed Gators' QB Danny Wuerffel into the end-zone turf for a safety--about 8-feet from the spot I was occupying. The chunk of grass hanging out of Wuerffel's helmet after he slowly got up made a real cool piece of video!

BEST JOCKEYING-FOR-VIDEO-POSITION: 1996 Fiesta Bowl. Getting in position with my video camera to get the coaches handshake at the game's end--I'm dead center about 3-feet in front of NU's Tom Osborne and about 10-yards in front of UF's Steve Spurrier, and the scrum begins, and I refused to give ground. I felt like a pinball between bumpers, but I didn't lose the shot. If you ever watch replays of the game and see the handshake, you can't miss me--I'm the guy in the short-sleeve red shirt, and I was the only guy in short sleeves that night, as it got down to about 50-degress at game's end, and in the desert, that's cold for the natives.

BEST "WALK" EVENT: Senior PGA Championship, Oak Tree in Edmond, OK. Walking down a fairway pretty much right next to Fuzzy Zoeller, and it's like he's a hacker just like you and me. Then another fairway, with Tom Kite, then another with Dr. Gil Morgan. Wow.

BEST EVENT FOR GUYS WANTING TO LOOK AT WOMEN: Surprise here: Women's College World Series. In my single days, my response would have been, "A LOT of talent around here!"

BEST EVENT FOR WOMEN WANTING TO LOOK AT GUYS: Hell, I don't know. I don't look at guys.

And finally, BEST EVENT OF ALL: None of the Above. No, that one would be one that I got to have a part in and had somebody else cover: the 1982 Oklahoma State High School Basketball Class 5A State Tourney, where the Northwest Classen Knights dismantled future NBA All-Star and All-Time Free Throw leader Mark Price and Enid 81-69, to win the state championship, and did it on statewide TV.

Knight on.

Mr. Young, It's Getting Old.

Mr. Young being Tennessee Titans back-up quarterback Vince Young, and "old"? Well, let's explore.

It's "old" news that Vince Young is a mega-talent as far as athletic ability--all you have to do is look at his history. He's been the best of the best at every level of football he's played minus the NFL. He's been a winner at every level, and nobody's going to forget anytime soon how he took his Texas Longhorns on his shoulder to upend USC in the 2006 Rose Bowl--I was there, so I know first hand.

But that was college, and the NFL is a bigger, faster level--one that Vince Young is just another mega-talented athlete among many others, and some of them are even better, and some of them are on the other side of the ball. Somewhere along the way, I think Mr. Young developed a sense of entitlement because he's been **that guy** who's been head and shoulders better than everybody else around him. But at the NFL level, he isn't **that guy**, and in the last year, he's been benched, and in the last 24-hours, he pretty much demanded a trade, and today, his agent said Young now wants to compete for the Titans starting job. So, what's getting old? Well, Vince (good name, by the way), the sense of entitlement is, my friend--because you're not **that guy** anymore!

Look, NFL history is littered with QBs who where outstanding college specimens who were either busts in the NFL or just serviceable guys. Do the names Danny Wuerffel, Chris Wienke, virtually every recent Miami QB minus Vinny Testaverde (who's more of a longevitiy guy than a star quality guy), Heath Shuler, and Ryan "Cryin'" Leaf ring a bell? And, there are a couple of dozen more. And, don't play the race card either--you don't see one African-American name among the above--so don't go there!!

No, this is a simple case of a guy who's not making good choices on and off the field. And, evidently, his coaches are trying to tell him it's getting old, and he has a year to get it corrected--this is his "walk"year. On the field, one of his first instincts is to run, and that's okay up to a point. But the NFL is a pocket-pass league--the guys who can stay in the pocket, stay cool under pressure and when the 4th or 5th-read doesn't come open, THEN you can run--if you have time. Vince Young wants to run after the 1st or 2nd-read, and that was one of the knocks on him when he came out of UT. You don't see a lot of those kind of guys flourishing in the NFL, and Vince Young won't be the first. Off the field, come on Vince--"making it rain" with Nelly on-stage? You're not enduring yourself to your fan base or your coaches. Both entities don't exactly have fond memories of former Titan (and Dallas Cowboy) Adam "Pac Man" Jones "making it rain" in the venue he did it in, either. And, like it or not, you have to mentally consider those type of things.

Which, begs my final point: it's getting old that Mr. Young either can't or won't make the mental adjustments he needs to make to become an NFL star, and I'm not even talking about the famed Wunderlich Test. Consider his coach, Jeff Fischer, the longest-tenured NFL head coach today. He was NOT one of those mega-talented guys, but did have enough talent to play both at USC and in the NFL. But, he had to work a little harder, work a little smarter, and sharpen his mental approach to play with guys who could run him around in a circle. So, don't think he can't spot the guy who either can't or won't do the same. He can. He has. And that's why Kerry Collins has continued to be his starter. Collins is older, slower, more beaten up. But Collins was humble enough to change his errant mental ways off the field (principly his battle with alcohol), and earn his spurs afterward with the Giants, Raiders and the Titans. Yes, I think Vince Young is a better athlete, but I think Collins is a better NFL quarterback, and until Vince Young chucks his sense of entitlement, he's not going to change a lot of minds--including Jeff Fischer's. Know your coach, Vince. He already knows you.

Now, this is not "pick on Vince Young" hour. Again, athletically? He's off the charts. That's old news. But unless he adjusts his mental approach both on and off the field, Vince Young's going to be old news in the NFL archives sooner than later.

Please don't FORCE prayer in public schools!

It's a hot button issue, and it really shouldn't be--that is if you believe what Christ says.

Those of you who know me know that I'm a Christian. I pray. I believe in prayer. And I believe in personal prayer in public schools, but I stand firmly against FORCED and/or MANDATED prayer in schools--and you can put any particular faith as an adjective in front of the word "prayer".

My reasoning is simple, and it's called The Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Makes sense. Now, if you're one of those who advocates Christian prayer in schools, I want you to apply "The Golden Rule" to this scenario: if this was a predominantly ISLAMIC nation, would you want to be forced to hear and/or pray an ISLAMIC prayer in school? I think not. In fact, I KNOW you wouldn't. And now begs the question: why would you want to do the same thing to someone of another faith? Doesn't forcing a Christian prayer on someone of another faith violate "The Golden Rule"? You bet it does, and that's a big Christian no-no. From what I understand, it's a big Islamic no-no, and a definite Buddhist no-no.

Look, my Lord & Savior Jesus Christ NEVER forced himself or his message on anybody. All were--and are--free to CHOOSE to follow.. of their own free will. All you have to do is look at Christ on the cross--when he was mocked by those on Golgotha, who said something like this, "Jesus said he could save others, but he can't save himself. Come down off the cross, and we'll believe." Now, do you think he couldn't have done just that? Yes, he could have. Imagine; Jesus snickers, pulls his hands and feet off the cross through those nails with noblese oblige, heals up in a flash, flies down, and then tells the crowd, "Okay folks, you wanted me off of there, I'm off. Now, on your knees, and now!!" But, he didn't. He endured the pain of death so that we who believe won't have to when the day of judgment comes--out of LOVE (our choosing Him), not FORCE or MANDATE.

Well, my friends, the same thing applies to prayer in public schools--not matter what one's faith. Out of Christian love with Christ as our example, it must be a CHOICE, not a MANDATE. That's why I advocate a "moment of silence". It allows everybody to pray a prayer of their chosen faith, and those who don't want to pray don't have to. It respects EVERYBODY, and leaves out NOBODY.

Now, I can hear it now from the far right: "But we're right, Vince. Our God is the one True God, and we're called to witness to everybody that Jesus is the only way to heaven!" And, I'm not going to argue with that. But I will counter that shoving your narrow view of a God that is bigger than you could ever imagine down a non-believer's throat isn't going to get you to heaven either. Don't you think extremists of other faiths are saying the same thing you are? Their extremists believe the same thing about their particular faith! Again, apply "The Golden Rule". Would you want them taking the same attitude with you about their faith that you're taking to them by forcing them to hear a prayer of your choosing? Heavens no! If you don't get this, then I say your God is too small--and that's a shame. He will not be put in a "human box"! I apply the same argument to the extremists of other faiths.

How about we have more prayer at home?

I'm saying all this because I was recently invited to join a Facebook group that advocated putting Christian prayer back in schools. Sorry, not going to join. It would violate "The Golden Rule". I sin enough because of my down-fallen nature. I don't need a violation of "The Golden Rule" on top of it.

Besides, as the old saying says, "As long as there are tests, there will always be prayer in schools".