Let's Shake On It

By Grant Davies

Many people have heard about the controversy in Kentucky concerning high school athletes shaking hands after sporting contests.

It seems that a few times in the last several years these kids do more than shake hands with each other. A few fights have broken out among teens who have too much adrenaline and too little commonsense. One of the fights took place after a volleyball game. (Really? Who fights about volleyball?)

My reaction is; duh..ya think? Who would have thought HS kids would have raging hormones and show poor judgement from time to time? After all, isn't high school the place where you continue the process of learning how to think before you act? They don't teach you stuff you already know and many kids don't know how to act yet, thus the handshake/sportsmanship exercise.

What to think about all this? Let's face it, there are bigger problems to think about right now. But there is only so much that can be said about the political theater in Washington and others are covering that ad-nauseum. So when this came up it struck me that other stuff matters too. And I'm just the guy to pontificate about stuff.

 If you haven't heard about this yet you can read the story here. Here is what seemed weird to me:

"Kentucky's athletic sanctioning body has ordered high schools not to conduct postgame handshakes in all sports following more than two dozen physical confrontations the past three years."

"Tuesday's directive from Kentucky High School Athletic Association Commissioner Julian Tackett posted on its web site didn't mention specific fights or conflicts but said several fall sports have had postgame incidents. The organization says it's "disappointing" to take such action but that it became necessary because of occurrences statewide and nationally."

So here are some questions that occurred to me:

Am I the only one who thinks that stopping the handshaking instead of addressing the students who have engaged in the unsportsmanlike conduct is a goofy solution? Perhaps the coaching/teaching of the students should be examined as well?  Does it seem like there is some copycat behavior going on after these incidents too?

Did the students who participated receive pre-season instruction about the meaning and the importance of the handshake custom? Did the coaches display the attitude that winning was more important than being a solid person? Were students who engaged in the confrontations excused from further participation in the sport? Were they warned that that was what was going to happen when people lost control of themselves?

Were coaches warned that they would face employment problems if they had these situations repeatedly because of emphasis on the games instead of on the character building of the students? Do they know what their actual job is? If they think that winning games instead of winning hearts and minds is their job, are they the right people to be coaching? If you can't teach kids how to develop character by using sports, then what the heck is your program all about anyway?

The problem is that the kids, their parents, and the coaches/teachers do not "get it." Policies that force them to "get it" by removing them from the teams might be a better approach.

I ask these questions, but as you have already guessed I already think I know the answers. Let's ask those who administer the sports these questions and see if they still think stopping the handshakes is a better solution than actually addressing the problem.

Maybe the administrators are the problem. Maybe the parents are the problem. Maybe I should stick to writing about freedom and smaller government.

Addendum: After writing my commentary, Jim Hayes, a regular reader suggested that I read the comments after the original news story at the link. I did, and one really stood out for me. It seems that a guy who likes math did a little calculating on the numbers in the story to see what would pop up. I didn't check his math since I can barely tally up my bar tab to keep the bartender honest, but I think the comment is too good to leave off this post. Here it is as it appeared after the story:

Drchadh 2 hours ago

Lets Break this down: There are 280 member schools in the KHSAA. There are an average of at least 20 games/year (more for some sports/less for others). There are an average of 7 Varsity [not including JV] High School Sports, including both genders (i.e.- Baseball, Softball, Basketball, Football, Soccer, Volleyball [some schools have much more]). And utilizing the 3 years they included in their decision with 24 physical occurrences, gives us this formula: 280 x 20 x 7 x 3= 117, 600 games over 3 years. Now lets take that into 24 "physical occurrences": 24 "fights"/117,600 games= 0.0002 So what this tells me is 99.98% of the time it WILL NOT happen! KHSAA, here is an idea, lets teach the 0.02% of the participants to NOT fight by suspending and disciplining them, instead of DISCOURAGING sportsmanship for the other 99.98%. We already have a government in place that tells us how to live our life, we don't need the governing body of high schools telling us as well. Thank you and good night.

Good night and thank you Dr. Chad H, wherever you are.

Walter Williams Wisdom

It's been too long since I ran a Williams video, but even if I ran one everyday, it is impossible to overdose on common sense.

A Response to Vladimir Putin - America is Exceptional

President Putin, America Is Exceptional

By Rand Paul

A recent op-ed by Russian President Vladimir Putin has prompted me to respond. While his position that the Syrian conflict can and should be settled through a political and diplomatic solution is correct, virtually everything else in his writing should be taken to task. So I shall.

I begin with Mr. Putin’s disagreement regarding the exceptionalism of the United States of America. I could not more strongly disagree with him. While he is correct that God created every human being as an equal in His eyes, clearly the results of each of our efforts on this earth, individually and collectively, are not equal.

America’s exceptionalism is rooted in our founding documents and values. From the rights granted by our creator, but guaranteed by our Constitution. We should not shy away from saying so, especially when our actions are in keeping with this exceptional founding, as they were this week in our debate over going to war in Syria. Our constitutional checks and balances were on full display, largely resulting in the at least temporary halting of a rush to war.

Mr. Putin’s second mistake is to focus on the speck in the eye of the United States, while ignoring the plank in his own. He accuses the United States of alarming interventions in foreign countries. While I certainly have my bone to pick with our foreign policy over the last 15 years, the Russian President is the least qualified person I can think of to make this argument with a straight face.

We went to war in Afghanistan because they were harboring those who attacked us on 9/11. Mr. Putin’s cohorts went to war there three decades earlier for no legitimate reason.

The United States until now has resisted arming one side of the Syrian civil war – all the while the other side has been armed by Russia.

The United States has used diplomatic pressure to attempt to resolve the ongoing situation with Iran – Russia has just announced a large arms sale that will escalate tensions in the region.

Being lectured to on foreign intervention by Mr. Putin would be comical if it weren’t such a serious example of a lack of self-awareness.

Nevertheless here we are. Sometimes the enemy of my enemy is my friend, or at least my temporary ally. As Mr. Putin correctly pointed out, the United States and Russia banded together to defeat the menace of the Nazis a generation ago. And both countries certainly face real and present threats from Islamic extremists, both at home and in areas of strategic importance.

American should not act militarily in Syria because it cannot and should not join the same side as Al Qaeda. Russia cannot and should not continue to support militarily the brutal Assad regime.

And so, the dialogue that began this week must go forward, and it must be given a chance to succeed.

The issue of course, is with the participants and the details of the plan. Asking us to “trust them” is clearly not a palatable option, and we cannot act naively simply to bypass war. Any diplomatic solution must involve a clear plan to rid Syria of these weapons, with strong verification and enforcement mechanisms. As Reagan used to put it, Trust but Verify.

So while I welcome the engagement of the Russians, and the dialogue Mr. Putin this week attempted to begin with our country, I remain to be convinced of the details.

And I respond to him directly with the statement that yes, American is indeed exceptional. Our history has proved it so. While we all share the same Creator, we do not all share the same richness of history regarding human rights, freedom and democracy. There has been in the past 200 years a city on the hill that has shone brighter than all others. We will not be ashamed of that. May God allow us to continue to model this example to the world in these difficult times.

Whose Side are You on When Both Sides are Bad?

By Grant Davies

Imagine for a moment that there is a gang war going on between two crime families of modern day organized crime. They keep killing each other with drive-by shootings, executions, bombings and the like. In one of the attacks, innocent women and children are killed. The whole family and some of the neighbors of one of the thugs are killed in a particularly heinous manner to send a message to the other family and terrify them.

A high law enforcement official says "enough is enough" and vows to intervene. He decides to enter the conflict on the side of the crime family who has suffered the death of the family. Now imagine that the high law enforcement official is not from the US, but instead from another country with a large police force. That police force has the power to intervene and claims it's a moral imperative that they do so.

Both sides are enemies of the police force in question. And both are equally evil and violent. Hardly anyone in the country (or the world) except the members of the police board agree with the intervention. The high law enforcement official (who has argued against such intervention in the past) vows to intervene anyway.

The imaginative story above is not a perfect analogy. There are no perfect analogies. I designed it to get people thinking about our current situation with Syria.

Whatever you think of Glenn Beck, the video below will inform you of one thing; both sides are bad in this conflict. The presentation of the video is flawed in many ways and it's obviously designed to get you to agree with Beck's conclusion on the issue. There are legitimate questions which could be asked about the video itself. I bet you can think of some without my help.

The fact remains that both sides in this civil war are bad actors and that outside of the legitimate revulsion every decent person feels when confronted by the events in Syria, there is no imminent threat to America by those events.

On the other hand, contemplating the horrible specter of the unforeseeable consequences of intervention there is frightening to thinking people who do not support nor oppose the war for reasons of political affiliation.

WW III is a bugaboo that is overused sometimes, but I think it is a possibility because so many of these wars spin out of control. There are too many "what ifs?" and "what thens?" that follow these adventures. WWI was a good example.

What do you think? Feel free to tell others in the comment section below or just contemplate it in the privacy of your own conscience.

Disclaimer: the video is hideous and revolting. You have been warned. Those with a weak stomach are advised to take a pass on it.



Hat tip to contributor J Vanberger for submitting the video.

MSU Professor Threatens Students

I bet the folks who fork over tens of thousands of dollars every year for their kids to be educated at MSU are so happy that this professor is "teaching" them.

Of all the unbelievable things this imbecile says the most troubling is the part where he says "if he finds out" if any of the students are "closet racists" he will "come after them." He claims he can do that because he is a college professor. I'm guessing he is the sole arbiter of who is a racist and why. It's hard to know what he is threatening them with. Sounds serious though.

Allegedly this person is a professor of Creative Writing. As a "creative writer" who was not educated by this doofus, and as a frequent critic of the Republican Party, I'm amazed at what these people say when they don't think anyone will call them on it.

I shouldn't be amazed of course, but I'm sure things have changed since the time when I didn't go to college.