Sipping whisky from a paper cup
You drown your sorrows ‘til you can’t stand up
Take a look at what you’ve done to yourself
Why don’t you put the bottle back on the shelf
Shooting junk ‘til you’re half insane
A broken needle in a purple vein
Why don’t you look into Jesus
He’s got the answer

 

from “Why Don’t You Look Into Jesus” by Larry Norman

 

On “Center Of My Heart,” a song from Tourniquet which was Larry Norman’s final studio album before he passed away ten years ago, he included the line “I’m a walking contradiction.” After reading Gregory Alan Thornbury’s Why Should the Devil Have All the Good Music?: Larry Norman and the Perils of Christian Rock, it’s obvious truer words have seldom been spoken.

Thornbury’s biography of Larry Norman, Christian rock’s founding father in the 1960s and most polarizing figure to this day, is a fascinating and sobering look at the life of a man almost perpetually surrounded by controversy. Much of it was Norman’s own doing, intentional or no; his incessant need to be in control and insistence on being a lone wolf utterly convinced of his selected path’s correctness often frayed and sometimes shattered relationships both professional and personal. Yet, he could also be generous to a fault with his time, money, and talents. He was also a brilliant songwriter and performer, penning and recording work that remains stunningly powerful and genuinely life-changing for those who have ears to hear.

Norman, to quote from a song by Mark Heard whose early career was directly influenced by Norman, was too sacred for the sinners and the saints wished he’d leave. The former were often off-put by Norman’s frequent references to Christ crucified and risen, while the latter routinely freaked out over his mixing straightforward love and political songs, plus generous use of allegory and parable, into his body of work. Norman didn’t care. It was his vision, done his way, take it or leave it.

The book does an excellent job in painting the backdrop for Norman’s life and times, managing the not inconsiderable feat of detailing such elements as the Jesus People movement of the late 1960s and early 1970s in a manner both informative to the uninitiated and not dreary for those already in the know. Some biographers tell a tale of life well; others specialize in times. Thornbury does both well.

Thornbury mentions more than once how Norman in concert sought not to entertain, but rather to challenge his audience, having no hesitation about making it feel uncomfortable through in-between song musings as well as in the songs themselves. He posed questions about faith and how believers should conduct themselves in the world, detailing the need to demolish the Christian ghetto and actually be in the world but not of it. Norman was simultaneously icon and iconoclast, the one without whom most every contemporary Christian artists would not be there while at the same time asking what they were doing there, as they were neither witnessing to non-believers nor edifying those who were already Christians.

The book is unflinching in its examination of Norman and those around him; his first wife Pamela and his early protege Randy Stonehill both come off quite poorly. However, the book also tosses bouquets as easily as it does brickbats. It is no hatchet job designed to speak maximum ill of the dead or the living. In lieu thereof it is, as best as Norman can be capsulated, a multi-level study of a multi-level man who won friends, made enemies, influenced many far more than they are willing to admit, and left it for others to argue about as he decidedly did it his way. If you love Larry Norman, or have no idea who he was, Why Should the Devil Have All the Good Music?: Larry Norman and the Perils of Christian Rock is enriching reading that, even as Norman did with his work, forces reflection.

The book is available from Amazon and Barnes & Noble.

The FBI has a long history of errors, miscalculations, and outright failures that make the current allegations almost pale by comparison.

As a young journalist, I trekked back and forth through the FBI “cordon” around Wounded Knee in 1973, where Native American activists had taken over the site in South Dakota of a famous massacre of Indians by federal troops

DaTech3.jpgA few years later, I wrote about the virtual execution of Fred Hampton and Mark Clark, two Black Panther leaders in Chicago. The duo had been a target of the FBI failed counter-intelligence program of radicals in the 1960s and 1970s.

The Counter Intelligence Program, known as COINTELPRO, was a series of covert and at times illegal, projects conducted by FBI and aimed at domestic political organizations. The program, initiated by Director J. Edgar Hoover, attacked anti-Vietnam organizers, activists of the Civil Rights movement or the Black Power movement, feminist organizations, and others. The program was responsible for the famous recordings of Martin Luther King’s private life.

The murders of Hampton, the deputy chairman of the party, and Clark occurred in a shootout with Chicago police and the FBI. The house where the Black Panthers were staying had nearly 100 rounds of incoming bullets and only one outgoing. Although the City of Chicago coroners ruled the action as justifiable, a court ordered the government to pay nearly $2 million to the families.

But there’s far more than my personal experience with the bureau.

Ruby Ridge, near my birthplace of Boise, Idaho, ended with the death of the son and wife of Randy Weaver and an eventual big cash settlement. The siege started over Weaver’s failure to appear for a firearms charge in 1992.

More important, the rise of the militia movement happened as a direct result of the confrontation. The incident was so poorly handled that the FBI agent-in-charge was sentenced to 18 months in prison for obstructing an investigation into the FBI’s incompetence.

The 51-day confrontation with the Branch Davidians ended with 76 people dead in 1993 in Texas in an ill-conceived assault that led to a massive fire. Again, the incident added fuel to the militia fire.

The FBI and other law enforcement officials failed to understand the significance of Ruby Ridge and Waco to a growing militia movement, which ultimately led to the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. So much so that the FBI initially thought Oklahoma City was carried out by Middle Eastern terrorists.

I’m not saying that domestic surveillance was inappropriate, but the illegality of some of the FBI’s actions was extensive. Also, I am not saying Hampton, Clark, Weaver, and others were choir boys. But the use of force was more than excessive.

The FBI had some success in the 1980s and 1990s in bringing down the Italian Mafia, although it took four trials to send John Gotti, the leader of the Mob in New York, to jail. Moreover, a variety of other ethnic groups filled the vacuum.

In the buildup to 9/11, the FBI, like many other agencies, failed on numerous opportunities to foil the attack.

Although the CIA may have been primarily responsible for the failure to realize the deadliness of the blind sheikh, Omar Abdel-Rahman, the FBI didn’t adequate investigate his New Jersey mosque, which provided the foot soldiers for the 1993 attack against the World Trade Center.

I crossed paths with him during the uprising in Egypt that eventually led to the assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat in 1981. Everyone in Egypt knew he was a dangerous man and terrorist agitator.

Nevertheless, Abdel-Rahman was issued a tourist visa to visit the United States by the the U. S. embassy in Sudan despite his name being on a terrorist watch list. He even obtained a green card. He ultimately was convicted of conspiracy for his involvement in several terrorist attacks and died in prison.

Furthermore, the FBI failed to recognize the analysis put forward by John O’Neill, who consistently pressed for more cooperation between agencies in fighting al-Qaeda. He was passed over for promotion and eventually took a job as head of security for the World Trade Center, where he died during the 2001 attack.

His story is told in The Looming Tower, a brilliant book about the failures of 9/11, and the subject of a recent television series.

Although there are many dedicated FBI personnel, the agency has not been a shining example of excellence. That’s why it’s not that surprising the FBI is facing yet another round of investigation into errors of judgment.

Here are a few other mistakes: https://www.ranker.com/list/top-10-greatest-fbi-fails-of-all-time/autumn-spragg

by baldilocks

Love is in the air.

Mass murderer Nikolas Cruz is getting stacks of fan mail and love letters sent to the Broward County jail, along with hundreds of dollars in contributions to his commissary account.

Teenage girls, women and even older men are writing to the Parkland school shooter and sending photographs — some suggestive — tucked inside cute greeting cards and attached to notebook paper with offers of friendship and encouragement. Groupies also are joining Facebook communities to talk about how to help the killer.

The South Florida Sun Sentinel obtained copies of some of the letters showing that Cruz, who had few friends in the outside world, is now being showered with attention. (…)

A teenager wrote on March 15: “I’m 18-years-old. I’m a senior in high school. When I saw your picture on the television, something attracted me to you.” (…)

A woman from Chicago enclosed nine suggestive photos, including a shot of cleavage, another in a skimpy bikini eating a Popsicle and a tight shot of her backside as she bent over. Another girl sent photos with Hello Kitty Snapchat filters. (…)

This sort of thing is certainly not unprecedented. Charles Manson, Ted Bundy and, more recently, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev – one of the perpetrators of the 2013 Boston Marathon Bombing – are examples of mass murders/serial killers who attracted throngs of women.

It shouldn’t even be surprising. The Devil has tons of fans; why wouldn’t his servants also attract those who find excitement in evil?

Moving away from these extremes, so-called normal women find “bad boys” attractive, too. Such men may not be killers or law-breakers of any kind, but they are perceived as rule-breakers and that edginess is exciting – for a while. Men are also attracted by “crazy women.” (My streak of deviousness tells me many such women are some of the sanest among us.)

This sort of attraction is symbolic of a certain absence within an individual; a skewed sense of that which is good, faithful and true. For the warped mind, such things are boring.

Many of us are a little or a lot warped in this way. The key to defeating this kind of thinking is, of course, sticking close to the God of the Bible. Through this, we can get a clear view of the faults in ourselves and we can ask God to help us remove these faults.

I understand this for a good reason. I’ve had to give over to God my own warped view of what a loving man-woman relationship should be. I was never into Bad Boys, but there were other issues.  Sometimes, it necessary to have a seat and stay sitting down for an extended period. So it is that I have remained single for some time.

And that’s the key: recognize the problem, remove oneself from it, and ask the Professional Fixer of Things for help.

As for the wannabe lovers of serial killers, however, the fist step — recognition — can’t happen when one’s eyes are closed.

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng has been blogging since 2003 as baldilocks. Her older blog is here.  She published her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game in 2012.

Hit Da Tech Guy Blog’s Tip Jar for his new not-GoDaddy host!

Or hit Juliette’s!

Cite.

by baldilocks

Today, everyone is talking about the op-ed penned by retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens.

Rarely in my lifetime have I seen the type of civic engagement schoolchildren and their supporters demonstrated in Washington and other major cities throughout the country this past Saturday. These demonstrations demand our respect. They reveal the broad public support for legislation to minimize the risk of mass killings of schoolchildren and others in our society.

That support is a clear sign to lawmakers to enact legislation prohibiting civilian ownership of semiautomatic weapons, increasing the minimum age to buy a gun from 18 to 21 years old, and establishing more comprehensive background checks on all purchasers of firearms. But the demonstrators should seek more effective and more lasting reform. They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment.

Emphasis mine.

Nice of Mr. Justice Stevens to dispense with the mealy-mouthed lie that many gun control advocates use: that “we don’t want to take your guns away.” His bluntness — a characteristic often found in senior citizens who have retired – is very refreshing.

The justice doesn’t offer much argument here; just a blurb on 2A history, summary information on related court rulings and a short mention of his dissent in DC v. Heller.

And, of course, no gun control op-ed is complete without a ritual denunciation of the NRA.

[Heller] — which I remain convinced was wrong and certainly was debatable — has provided the N.R.A. with a propaganda weapon of immense power. Overturning that decision via a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Second Amendment would be simple and would do more to weaken the N.R.A.’s ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation than any other available option.

Something I’ve been thinking about recently. What if the NRA just upped and decided to disband? They’d give all the money back to the donors and members and then :::poof::: They’re gone. Do these people think that gun owners would just give up? Stop buying, selling and making firearms and ammo? Hand over all the handguns to their local LEO? Beat all their AR-15s into plowshares? I guess this is what the sliming of NRA is supposed to accomplish. Short-term thinking at its finest.

And it’s so cute that Justice Stevens makes no mention of the other probable outcome of a repeal of the Second Amendment: a nation-wide bloodbath. And I’m not even talking about those who would take up arms against the government and its various levels of agents.

The criminals among us – from which persons like a retired justice of the Supreme Court would be well-protected – would have an open field.

And that’s what the Organized Left is hoping for. A 2A repeal would be a signal for the Nikolas Cruzes, the Omar Mateens, the Dylann Roofs, the drug cartel kingpins from Mexico — and Hezbollah — and countless lesser-known felons that America is ripe for plunder. Go forth to steal, kill, rape, and destroy.

Justice Stevens is speaking for the The Organized Left; following orders, I suppose. And the OL is still looking to execute – if you’ll pardon the pun – the Fundamental Transformation.

They want full control of the citizenry and your guns are standing in the way. Never forget that.

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng has been blogging since 2003 as baldilocks. Her older blog is here.  She published her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game in 2012.

Hit Da Tech Guy Blog’s Tip Jar for his new not-GoDaddy host!

Or hit Juliette’s!

DaTech3.jpgIt isn’t exactly a pact with the devil, but a number of Roman Catholic churches and other religious organizations have made a deal with a vitriolic, anti-Trump group that backs illegal aliens.

The group, The New Sanctuary Movement, or NSM, has been around for 10 years, but it has been pushing its agenda more aggressively in recent months. Also, the organization has strongholds here in Philadelphia and cities throughout the country, including Austin, Boston, Denver, New York, Portland, and elsewhere.

For example, here is one of the recent statements of the organization: “Trump’s campaign of hate, racism, and exclusion took the White House. The backlash of white voters was harsh and strong, and Trump’s rhetoric now has the power of the White House behind it.”

But there’s more. “The organization has launched a campaign to recruit 1,000 people to disrupt immigration raids.”

Disruption of immigration raids rather than protests rises to the level of obstruction of justice, a felony under federal law.

The Santa Clara Law Review poses a variety of problems with the pact between the organization and religious groups.

“[The] churches face numerous dangers. First, their activities could be viewed as overly political and their section 501(c)(3) status {nonprofit] could be revoked. Second, their activities are not lawful because the defenses asserted in the 1980s by the Sanctuary Movement will not prevail here. Finally, given that even compromise legislation to provide legal status for all illegal immigrants has struggled to pass, the flagrant approach adopted by the New Sanctuary Movement may do more to fray nerves than to garner support for illegal immigrants facing deportation.”

Perhaps more important, the author argues that the harboring of immigrants in churches is almost certainly illegal under any interpretation of the law.

For more, download the article at https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/lawreview/vol50/iss3/7/

Not surprisingly, the MSM fawn over the NSM. Here is some nonsense from my hometown paper, The Philadelphia Inquirer: “…the overall goal is still big and formidable: to end injustice against immigrants, express radical welcome for all people, and uphold values of dignity and justice in practice and in policy.”

That reads like a TV commercial for the American military, with a flag waving in the wind and The Star Spangled Banner slowly rising in volume throughout.

But there’s even more. Here in Philadelphia three of the group’s organizers protested against their own leader, calling for his removal because he’s white.

Many Catholics like me voted for Trump. In fact, the vote mirrored the general election results, with whites voting largely in favor of the president and Hispanic Catholics supporting Hillary Clinton.

I don’t go to church to listen to political claptrap; I don’t think I am alone. Let’s leave the sanctuary movement to sort itself out rather than with the support of the church!

Kanapou (Hawaii) in 2012. Cite.

by baldilocks

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

— Genesis 1:28 (KJV)

Thinking about skipping the fish course after reading this. Forever.

Environmentalists expressed concern in October 2016 after a team of researchers from The Ocean Cleanup Foundation surveyed the vortex of trash piling up between California and Hawaii, spotting chunks of plastic glued together measuring more than a yard.

“[It’s a] ticking time bomb because the big stuff will crumble down to micro-plastics over the next few decades if we don’t act,” Boyan Slat, founder of Ocean Cleanup, a nonprofit that helps remove pollution from the world’s oceans, told Newser at the time.

The size of the trash pile has nearly doubled in size since then, containing at least 79,000 tons of plastic — “a figure four to sixteen times higher than previously reported,” Scientific Reports said.

Researchers gathered 1.2 million samples during a multi-vessel expedition in October 2017, exactly one year after their previous test.

They used large nets to scoop the debris and took several aerial images to examine the extent of the GPGP.

Large items such as bottles, ropes, plastic bags and buoys were the most common objects spotted in the pile. Fishing nets had an overwhelming presence, accounting for nearly half of the weight of debris picked up by research vessels.

Los Angeles and other municipalities may have had a point when they decided to “ban” plastic grocery bags. They’re not actually banned; one just has to pay for them, now. Reusable bags are now ubiquitous, if the doorknobs in my apartment are an indication, but I do use plastic bags as liners for my trash can. I’m rethinking this.

But what about bottled water? I do recycle every empty container, but what happens to them after that?

And though most Americans are consistent recyclers – optimistically speaking – what about citizens of other countries, the one to the south of us, for example?

For years, we have been inundated with propaganda about the alleged calamity of Global Warming/Climate Change – whatever it’s been called this decade – as if individuals or governments possessed the ability to do something about the weather.

Then, come to find out that an ocean containing a continent-sized trash heap is a true problem that human beings can fix, or, at least, try not to make worse. I’m not usually a collectivist, but this is a problem that all of humanity owns.

I look forward to our betters making a global issue out of this. For once, I would listen.

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng has been blogging since 2003 as baldilocks. Her older blog is here.  She published her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game in 2012.

Hit Da Tech Guy Blog’s Tip Jar for his new not-GoDaddy host!

Or hit Juliette’s!

by baldilocks

Sitting in for Fausta.

A frequent response from black liberals/leftists to black conservatives and our advocacy for conservative principles is that whites laugh are at us because of this. Seems silly, yes? And, whether it’s true or not, I used to be nonplussed at this assertion. Why should I care one way or another?

The interesting part about “whites laughing at us” notion is that it points the subconscious belief of liberals/leftists that black people are incapable of inductive reasoning and can only mimic white persons of any political persuasion and only do so for their entertainment – and money. This is why it never occurs to many black liberals/leftists that their conservative counterparts have reasoned their way to a different conclusion. So they attempt to play on our egos.

When people laugh derisively at something you say – and tell you that this is what they are doing – they do it with the assumption that this type of laughter will wound you in some way. But what happens if this has no effect on you?

Thinking through the obvious, ridicule is given its power only by the target. On the Internet, if someone throws some scorn my way, I choose my feelings and my response. For a long time, I’ve realized that derision does almost nothing to my feelings – I was often the target of bullies as a child and, therefore, have developed a certain immunity to it. The small effect it does have on my feelings is that it will fill me with glee. Ridicule mongers are invariably illogical, and I can usually expose it without breaking too much of a sweat. I might have a small sadistic streak. Pray for me.

Human beings instinctively hate being laughed at, being the butt of ridicule. This is a subtle form of pride.

How to become immune to it: become dedicated to the truth over all else, especially if it is an uncomfortable truth. Allowing wounded pride to subordinate truth is one of the gravest dangers to one’s soul.

You can always laugh back, since there is joy in sticking to the Truth. And you will laugh last.

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng has been blogging since 2003 as baldilocks. Her older blog is here.  She published her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game in 2012.

Hit Da Tech Guy Blog’s Tip Jar for his new not-GoDaddy host!

Or hit Juliette’s!

As the media applauded the student protests against guns, most reporters failed to understand the nature of constitutional law and the First Amendment.

Simply put, students who are not 18 years old don’t, for the most part, have many rights under the Constitution during the school day. Schools can ban websites and social media. Cellphone usage can be restricted. Free speech is limited. Moreover, those who participated in the recent protests could be legally disciplined.

But most news organizations used an advisory from the “always-ready-to-help-and-misinform” ACLU promoting the protests rather than digging into the legal issues.

DaTech3.jpgMost journalists cited Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, a U.S. Supreme Court decision from 1969 that supported a limited right for students to protest during the Vietnam war. In that case, the court found that students in public schools could wear black arm bands in protest against the war.

The court observed, “It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”

But the opinion went much further, restricting a number of rights. School administrators could restrict protests if the actions significantly disrupted or interfered with the normal activities during school hours.

Many people, including me, would argue that the anti-gun protests did exactly that.

But many school administrators, toeing the leftist line, decided to use the protest as a “teachable moment.” A few schools in Arizona, Arkansas, and elsewhere followed the essence of the court decisions, saying that the protests were indeed disruptive.

In a dissenting opinion in Tinker, Justice Hugo Black argued that “if the time has come when pupils of state-supported schools, kindergartens, grammar schools, or high schools, can defy and flout orders of school officials to keep their minds on their own schoolwork, it is the beginning of a new revolutionary era of permissiveness in this country fostered by the judiciary.”

 Since the Tinker decision, the courts have been fairly consistent in restricting the rights of high school students. In Bethel School District v. Fraser,  a 1986 case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a high school student’s speech that included sexual references during a student assembly was not constitutionally protected. In Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, the court ruled that schools have the right to regulate the content of school-sponsored newspapers. In Morse v. Frederick, the court held in 2007 that schools may restrict student speech at a school-sponsored event. Several cases have restricted the display of the Confederate flag in schools.

Somehow the ACLU memo didn’t mention these cases, and journalists, as usual, chose to follow the leftist line rather than dig deeper into the facts of the issue.

A final note: An Iowa journalist wrote an excellent column about rural America, where people blame the shooter rather than the weapon. It made sense to me.

See https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/16/opinion/guns-gun-control-america.html

 

As the NCAA’s March Madness begins this week throughout the country, the extent of the scandal sweeping throughout college basketball continues to grow.

All four of the tournament’s No. 1 seeds—Virginia, Villanova, Kansas, and Xavier—have been mentioned in some form or another in an FBI investigation. Moreover, about 20 percent of the 68 teams in the competition also have been investigated.

DaTech3.jpgAs The Associated Press’ Eddie Pells points out: “There’s an undeniable chance the team cutting down the nets in San Antonio on April 2 could be forced to forfeit its title a few years down the road after the NCAA sorts through the damage.”

In fact, Louisville recently lost its 2013 title as a result of the FBI investigation, and the coach, Rick Pitino, was fired.

The investigation initially centered on Adidas and college basketball programs associated with the brand. In September, the FBI arrested 10 people, including basketball coaches and Adidas personnel, and charged them with bribery, money laundering, and wire fraud. The schools implicated in the original indictments included Arizona, Auburn, Louisville, Miami, Oklahoma State, South Carolina, and Southern California. But the charges have gone beyond these schools and Adidas.

In February, Yahoo Sports published a report, based on documents obtained by the FBI that named more than a dozen more schools and more than 25 current and former players as having been potentially involved in the scandal.

But college basketball is not alone in the cavalcade of corruption.

As The Atlantic noted several years ago: “With so many people paying for tickets and watching on television, college sports has become Very Big Business…. When you combine so much money with such high, almost tribal, stakes—football boosters are famously rabid in their zeal to have their alma mater win—corruption is likely to follow.”

Simply put, with a lot of money to throw around corruption flows through the system. But the athletes don’t get much of the cash. Sure, they get a scholarship and some walking-around money. But the best players spend a year or so in college before jumping to pro ball.

Here are just a few of the football scandals in recent years. In 2010, the NCAA sanctioned the University of Southern California after determining that star running back Reggie Bush and his family had received “improper benefits” while he played for the Trojans. Among other charges, Bush and members of his family were alleged to have received free airfare and limousine rides, a car, and a rent-free home in San Diego, from sports agents who wanted Bush as a client. The Bowl Championship Series stripped USC of its 2004 national title, and Bush returned the Heisman Trophy he had won in 2005. As Auburn University football stormed its way to an undefeated season and a national championship in 2010, the team’s star quarterback, Cam Newton, was dogged by allegations that his father had used a recruiter to solicit up to $180,000 from Mississippi State in exchange for his son’s matriculation there after junior college in 2010. Jim Tressel, the highly successful head football coach of the Ohio State Buckeyes, resigned after the NCAA alleged he had feigned ignorance of rules violations by players on his team. At least 28 players over the course of the previous nine seasons, according to Sports Illustrated, had traded autographs, jerseys, and other team memorabilia in exchange for tattoos or cash at a tattoo parlor in Columbus, in violation of NCAA rules. A University of Miami booster gave illicit cash and services to a dozen Hurricanes football players.

The NCAA, the “nonprofit” association that runs college athletics, takes in close to $8 billion a year. According to a Business Insider report, there are now 24 schools that make at least $100 million annually from their athletic departments. In 2015, the most profitable athletic department in the country was at Texas A&M, raking in over $192 million. The University of Texas wasn’t far behind with $183 million.

Champions Way, a new book by New York Times reporter Mike McIntire, is the latest inquiry into the seedy underbelly of college sports. The “corporate-athletics complex,” as he calls it, corrupts universities, skirts federal tax laws, bullies the IRS, relies heavily on private donors, and sets players up to fail after their sports careers are over by pushing them into academically vapid curriculums.

NCAA President Mark Emmert has stated the obvious. “If true, [the charges] point to systematic failures that must be fixed and fixed now if we want college sports in America.”

Don Jackson, an attorney who has worked on numerous college eligibility cases, told Yahoo Sports that the root of the problem is that the NCAA’s model of amateurism doesn’t work.

“This problem can be solved if players are compensated,” Jackson said. “The NCAA is not capable of adequately policing tens of thousands of athletes around the country.”

Some people argue that paying athletes would corrupt the system. That system is already corrupt and getting worse all the time.

by baldilocks

One Ring to rule them all.

With Louis Farrakhan’s well-known anti-Semitism, hatred of whites, and alliance with the Women’s March and the Congressional Black Caucus being in the news, I am reminded of something startling that I talked about back in 2012.

When I was on my way to church this morning, I saw something very interesting near my house.

The “Church” of Scientology has been building centers in and around South Central Los Angeles and in Inglewood — something that had previously been unheard of. Today, being Fathers’ Day, I guess there was some big event at the center near me.  But guess which organization was celebrating the day with them? The Nation of Islam.  FOI, bean pies, and white “garments” (similar to burkas) all over the place!

Did a little research when I got home.  There isn’t much to go on, but one website reports that, back in 2009, Louis Farrakhan said that there was some sort of “marriage” between the two organizations.  Marriage, eh? One wonders who will get to be on top in the end.

(I recall getting a funny look when one of the FOI tried to give me an unsuccessful hard-sell on a bean pie. Yes, I recall that they are delicious, but I can’t in good conscience give my money to that organization.)

A “marriage?” Between those two? Bizarre doesn’t begin to describe it.

I don’t live in that house anymore and, therefore haven’t had an up-close view of the evolution of this relationship. So, let’s see what’s out there. Continue reading “These are Some Really Strange Bedfellows”