Sanford Speaks Out: April 2010

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Of Money and Mediocity

Of Money and Mediocrity

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

April 28, 2010

Virginia Tech men’s basketball coach Seth Greenberg gave a gracious interview upon learning his Hokies would be on the outside looking in at last months college basketball holy grail – March Madness and the NCAA Tournament.

Greenberg praised his team’s 22-9 regular season mark coupled with a strong showing in the ACC and a third place finish of 10-6 – certainly more than competitive stats to find a home amidst the field of 65, but it was not to be. Greenberg did not sound bitter in looking ahead to the NIT bid he was certain to receive hours after being shunned by the Big Dance.

However, the fatal mistake Greenberg made was in comparing his Hokies to those schools who clearly were “last in” picks by the selection committee. Is that really what one aspires to – being as good as the 64^th best team? Is it enough just to be invited to the Big Dance, or is it far more important to compete and advance to fight for the shot at playing in the Final Four and compete for a national championship? When did striving for mediocrity become acceptable?

To be fair, this is not an attack on Coach Greenberg, whom I like and admire. He has risen through the coaching ranks honing his craft at places like Long Beach State all the while fighting anti-Semitism in locker rooms at places like New Mexico State in Las Cruces. But as an ACC fan and alumnus of the University of Maryland, (losing on a buzzer-beater to eventual Final Four participant Michigan State) I see and read more about those teams and coaches. Clearly what was said about Greenberg and his reaction to his team missing out on the Big Dance could easily have been said of myriad coaches around the nation.

However, and this speaks to the big picture of the NCAA Tournament expanding from 65 teams to 68 staring with the 2011 tournament, and the even bigger picture of the greater acceptance of a society becoming more and more mired in a culture of mediocrity.

Make no mistake, expanding the tournament to 68 teams is merely a slippery slope to what some in the sport and more in the media want – a 96-team behemoth which would also sound the death knell for the NIT (National Invitation Tournament) the original college basketball post-season tournament that currently features 32 teams and culminates with its final four at Madison Square Garden.

While a 96-team tournament simply adds but one game to the current set up for all but the top 32 teams, as they would be given a first round bye, (to which most teams would object) there’s something more sinister at play here other than scheduling logistics. First and foremost, is the money. While I believe greed is good as long as there is a demand for what is being supplied, if one overworks the golden goose, eventually all that comes out of her is crap – and that is what a 96-team NCAA Tournament will provide.

More and more money is pumped into a tournament that is already an adman’s dream with longer halftimes, more timeouts and more commercial breaks, and, oh, there is even some basketball being played. Then there’s the merchandising, which of course, I play my own part as I don the sweatshirt of my alma maters and other favorite schools throughout the three week extravaganza.

And let’s not forget the office pools generating more “unofficial” money than one wants to imagine or even admit. More people who couldn’t tell the difference between an Ohio Bobcat and a Cincinnati Bearcat or a Central Michigan Chippewa from an Eastern Michigan Eagle are willing to plunk down five, 10, 20 or more dollars to fill out a bracket. And of course the man hours lost to productive work not taking place during the first four days of the tournament as 48 of the 63 tournament games are played.

While I vociferously object to a 96-team tournament, I neither endorse the 68-team, or even the current 65-team format due to the aforementioned slippery slope. For the sake of the uninitiated, the NCAA Tournament has grown from a mere eight teams in its inception in 1939 to 64 teams in 1985 and then to 65 in 2001. The 64-team format is both manageable and the most credible by rewarding a mandatory spot to each conference tournament champion and filling out the remaining at-large positions with the most “worthy” teams.

I do take issue with the notion of conference tournament champions being rewarded an automatic bid, however, when a sub-.500 team manages to get hot and win three or four games in a row over a weekend following a less than stellar regular season lasting from mid-November through early March. The conference tournaments are also mostly about money, but for the smaller conferences, yes, they are a showcase for the nation to see their better teams and players for three or four days. I would still grant the automatic bid to the teams who perform well all season long and win their conference regular season title.

In spite of my taking issue with the distribution of the automatic bids, the 64-team format works best. Consider, for example in 1974 the last year only one team per conference received an invitation to the Big Dance, the ACC Tournament final featured Maryland and North Carolina State – two of the top four teams in the country – not just the conference. My Terrapins lost a heartbreaking 103-100 game in overtime, that has been labeled by many one of the greatest games played in college basketball. Yet, with that loss, the Terps ended a season with a record of 23-5 that did not include any post-season tournament as they turned down an opportunity to play in the NIT.

Between 1974 and 1985 the NCAA Tournament grew to the 64-team March Madness many have come to love and revere. Expanding to 96 teams does speak volumes about the level of competition being watered down and the acceptance of mediocre programs being rewarded with post-season play.

The epidemic of mediocrity is already poisoning the well starting with children in elementary school as they are given trophies not for winning, but merely for showing up and participating. Schools are banning more forms of competitive activities in favor of ones where no winners or losers are declared. Or worse, when competitive games are played sans scorekeeping. Not to mention grading on curves and the dumbing down of far too much curriculum.

This is deleterious on so many levels. Children must learn about the importance of competition. This is a competitive world and the sooner children learn that, the less they will be disappointed later in life when they are not handed jobs, contracts or other gains or promotions due to a lack of merit and not just for showing up.

Playing by the rules and a moral sense of fair play are not at stake regarding the notion of competition; they are not mutually exclusive. They are all important lessons for children to learn, as sadly, far too many adults have forgotten them.

It is some of these same adults who, in endorsing a 96-team tournament, have likened it to the college football bowl season that rewards 6-6 teams with post-season play, because, once again, we all know there are 34 bowl games due to the almighty dollar, or more accurately, the almighty millions.

Not only is it an obscenity to reward a mediocre .500 team with a bowl game, but there is little demand. Just watch some of those games where thousands of empty seats masquerade as fans. Who really gives a crap about Temple against UCLA in the EagleBank Bowl on a frigid December afternoon in the windy and filthy RFK Stadium in Washington, DC?

Let’s not see March Madness become March Sadness with the inclusion of the Prairie View’s of the world. If teams are worried about not earning their way into the Big Dance, they should work harder – and that especially includes working to make more than 60 percent of their free throws, but that’s a column for another day. For now, 86 the 68-team tournament as it is much ado about money and mediocrity.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and political consultant living in Alexandria, VA. He is also a member of the University of Maryland Terrapin Club and a football season ticket holder.

Of Money and Mediocrity

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

April 28, 2010

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and political consultant living in Alexandria, VA. He is also a member of the University of Maryland Terrapin Club and a football season ticket holder.

Saturday, April 24, 2010

Voting Wrongs, Gun Rights

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

April 24, 2010

The Washington Post, the alleged newspaper of record for the nation’s capitol and its metropolitan area, over the past seven days ending with Saturday, April 24, 2010 ran six articles, editorials or columns each decrying the lack of voting rights yet to bestowed upon the residents of the District of Columbia.

All but one missed the point entirely and the one author who did get the point and mentioned the eight hundred pound elephant in the room that alluded all the others, while correct in his method of solution, is wrong in his thinking. Make no mistake, the Post is not the only newspaper guilty of being disingenuous, they simply provided so many examples of their nascent ignorance.

The issue in question, is, and has been for decades, the potential of granting the citizens of the District of Columbia with a voting member to the House of Representatives with the same powers and authority of the current 435 members. This session of Congress seemed the closest to making those voting rights a reality for the folks in DC, yet too many believed they were hamstrung by a rider to the legislation that would handcuff the DC government regarding gun control in the District itself.

Truth be told, the question of gun rights had been resolved via the Supreme Court’s hearing of District of Columbia v. Heller and by correctly ruling in favor of Heller granting the appropriate Second Amendment rights to the citizens of the District – a long overdue decision.

There was also a compromise proposal coming in part from the pseudo-RINO, former Congressman Tom Davis (VA-11^th) that would be, to borrow a phrase, fair and balanced by giving a House seat to DC and a temporary seat to Utah, which would no doubt be a GOP seat. However, as noted, it would only be temporary and the next census, this one, would redistribute the Utah seat to the state statistically due the next seat.

All of the negotiating, hand-wringing over depriving citizens their voting rights, and the notion of taxation without representation as appears on many DC license plates, is avuncular to a parlor game or sleight of hand.

The reality is the one issue not addressed by Post writers Tim Craig and Ann E. Marimow in “Gun law proposal complicates Hill vote,” or by Marimow and Ben Pershing in “District voting rights scuttled,” or in Robert McCartney’s editorial “Plenty of blame to go around on lack of D.C. vote,” or a Post editorial “D.C. voting rights? Not this deal,” or local opinions offered by DC Shadow Senator Michael Brown, the aforementioned Davis and DC City Councilman Mary Cheh (D-Ward 3).

Only in the April 24 column “What will it take to get a vote for the District,” did Colbert I. King deal with the issue head on – the Constitutionality of whether or not District citizens should have voting representation in the House. While I often enjoy King’s columns and sometimes agree with him, this is not one of those times.

King, does, aver correctly, that the power to grant DC congressional representation does fall into the hands of the Congress itself. However, what Congress can giveth, Congress may also taketh away. So, King once again, takes the correct tack by suggesting an official constitutional amendment – this I agree with in practice, but not in theory.

If, and this is a big if, the District of Columbia is to ever attain congressional representation, it should be garnered via a constitutional amendment. This would require a two-thirds vote from both houses of Congress to propose such an amendment and then three quarters of the several states would need to sign off on the amendment making it so.

How easy is that? Since the Bill of Rights, the first 10 Amendments, were ratified on December 15, 1791, the Constitution has been amended a mere 17 times. That’s one amendment every 12.88 years, and really, since one amendment repealed another, that’s 15 constitutional changes in 219 years, or once every 14.6 years, for the stats junkies.

This is a serious enough issue to demand a constitutional amendment. That’s the practice side of the issue. The theory side of the issue is where I part company from King. In no way do I support the granting of congressional representation to the District of Columbia.

The founding fathers did not intend for the seat of the government of the United States of America to be treated like a state. Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution states, “The Congress shall have Power… To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings; – …”

It is a district – the seat of the government, not a permanent residence. When the Capitol was erected upon the swamp on which it currently rests, members of the citizen legislature were expected to ride into town on their horses or carriages, serve their term or two, then return to their farms, businesses, law practices, etc. and resume life as private citizens. Their staffs, small as they were, were expected to do likewise.

It was neither expected nor predicted that the District of Columbia would grow to become a burgeoning metropolis of greater than 600,000 in the city and more than two million residents in the surrounding cities and counties in Maryland and Virginia.

However, that being said, no one forced the residents of DC to become such, thus making their demands of representation disingenuous. Again, according to the Constitution, only states are entitled to representation in the House and Senate.

Article I, Section 2 states that “The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States…”

And just for good measure, Article I, Section 3 states that “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State…”

Although the issue of Senate representation has not garnered as much attention or press as that of House representation, the statehood supporters would certainly have an interest in the addition of members in both houses. Shadow Senator Brown called for as much in his April 20 Local Opinion item:

“We want our full rights and we want them now…. It’s time to make us equal. It’s time to make us a state.” But Mr. Brown is misguided. His conclusion is demonstrative of a common ailment suffered by most members of the House and Senate – Constitutional forgetfulness.

This is not the partisan Republican talking here, knowing that DC would undoubtedly elect two Democrats to the Senate and one more to the House, but one who believes the seat of the government should not be made a state as it is distinct in its existence and use by the Federal government.

I should also point out the absurd recommendation made by McCartney in his April 22 column. He suggests dividing California into two states, giving each new state two senators or just amending the Constitution to grant the current Golden State an additional two senators to compensate for its population.

McCartney’s trip to fantasy land suggests that Southern California would presumably elect Republicans and Northern California would supposedly elect Democrats and that the two new Republicans would be a counterweight to the two Democrats the DC voters would send up the street to the Senate. At least McCartney knows this plan is loopy. “Far-fetched? Absolutely,” he asks and answers.

Back in the world of reality, there is a solution that would make the most sense and give DC residents the representation they should have as residents of an actual state – and under my plan, they would attain just that.

The land creating the District of Columbia was initially carved out of Maryland and Virginia in July 1790. In 1847, the land on the southern side of the Potomac reverted back to Virginia, eliminating the Old Dominion from the equation. The residential sections of the District should be apportioned back to the bordering Fourth and Eighth Congressional Districts of Maryland – both of which are majority Democratic districts.

Both Congressmen Donna Edwards (D-4^th) and Chris Van Hollen (D-8^th) are in little jeopardy of failing to win reelection this November. Since Van Hollen defeated moderate Republican Connie Morella in 2002, Democratic candidates are all but assured of victory every other November and this would not disturb the proverbial electoral apple cart or the balance of power.

If anything, eventually such gerrymandering of the District of Columbia would create a need for a ninth district in Maryland and in that part of the state it would more than likely be a Democratically-held seat when reapportionment comes up in a future census. That said, I cannot be accused of partisan politics here.

The District of Columbia would be preserved as the seat of the government of the United States of America, the House of Representatives would remain steadfast with its 435 members and the Senate would also retain its present count of 100 senators. Crisis averted and all remains right in this corner of the world.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and political consultant living in Alexandria, VA.

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Voting Rights Restoration a No-Brainer

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

April 20, 2010

In response to the Post editorial last week “Virginia’s disgrace,” and all the sanctimonious hand-wringing, there is a simple solution to the problem regarding the reinstatement of felons’ voting rights.

For all those felons concerned about losing their voting rights: DON’T COMMIT THE CRIMES IN THE FIRST PLACE. No one forced these folks to commit felonies in the first place. This is not rocket surgery and does not facilitate deep contemplation.

For those who know me, this is a shock – not in the opinion, but in that it is the shortest one ever offered by me.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and political consultant living in Alexandria, VA.

Wednesday, April 7, 2010

To Protect and Defend

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

April 7, 2010

Article II, Section I of the Constitution of the United States of America requires the President swear an oath of office that includes the words to “protect and defend” that very document.

Upon the administration of said oath, that president becomes Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. United States military officers in turn swear an oath that includes the words, “I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

This administration, under the auspices of Barack Obama is about to enter into an unholy alliance with the world, with few exceptions, declaring the United States will not take up and use nuclear weapons against any nation that does not already posses them. Apparently Iran and North Korea are the exceptions to this insidious decision.

How obtuse can this so-called leader be? This is not a game of HORSE Obama is playing on the White House basketball court where he can “spot” his opponent the “H” and “O” simply because he is an inferior player. War is war and is designed to annihilate ones enemies in an effort to permanently end their enmity or prevent them from being able to destroy our way of life.

Obama’s pronouncement is disgraceful and there is no doubt that former President Harry Truman is spinning in his grave like a dreidel at Chanukah. G-d bless the memory of Harry Truman, a Democrat, who had to make two of the most difficult decisions in American History by dropping not one, but two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end World War II in victory against Japan. Japan initially attacked the United States with the bombing of Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, officially drawing this nation into the war.

Conventional and historical wisdom denotes that had the United States not used the most stringent of its armaments – the atomic bomb – in order to vanquish our enemy, the potential loss of American life could have reached a devastating and unthinkable one million combat personnel. Should atomic weaponry not have been employed simply because Japan had not yet procured the equalizing technology? Should LeBron James sit out against the hapless Washington Wizards in an effort for the Cleveland Cavaliers to level the playing field?

That extremely faulty logic is not just insipid, but dangerous, and this kind of handcuffing of the United States military could be deemed an act of treason perpetrated by the Commander in Chief for not being prepared to advance the course of a conflict with the maximum capabilities available. Should the most damaging and deleterious of our military capabilities not be used should the United States come under an attack by a non-nuclear nation who instead opts for chemical or biological weapons?

Obama has demonstrated his inability to lead having given free passes to both North Korea and Iran by his lack of sanctions against those rogue nations. Concurrently, Obama has taken to berating and chastising Israel, our closest ally in the Middle East, simply for building houses for their own citizenry.

As Commander in Chief, Obama has the obligation to enter into a potential war with as much fervent zealousness as can be delivered. To do otherwise or consider doing otherwise would put the national security of the United States in a vulnerable position, weaken our defenses, and could be characterized as treason, or at the very least, impeachable.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and political consultant living in Alexandria, VA.