The NCAA and the Death of the University

In the past, I've voiced my displeasure of the NCAA and the modern state of college athletics, noting that college sports are laden with scandals and destructive to the well-being of universities, professors, students, and even the athletes. But I barely scratched the surface of the problem. In light of some recent scandals and the continued failure of universities and the NCAA to regulate themselves, allow me to take things a step further. College athletics should not exist, at least not in their present form which emphasizes winning and dollars over education and ethics. 

What could I, a self proclaimed sports fanatic, possibly have against the fun, craziness, and passion associated with college sports? Let's start with the Oklahoma State scandal, shall we? For those who weren't aware, Oklahoma State was recently busted by the NCAA for a plethora of rules violations. As is detailed in a recent issue of Sports Illustrated (Sept. 16, 2013), Oklahoma State was found to have paid several of their college football players "bonuses" based on their performances on the field. Even worse, Oklahoma State also committed several academic violations and ignored their own drug policies in order to ensure that their athletes remained eligible and on the field at all costs. 

I'm going to take a moment to pause from my rant and offer my perspective. I consider any special treatment of college students because of their athletic status to be completely unacceptable, and I find it especially sickening that universities would bend their own academic standards to accommodate their athletic cash cows. The fundamental purpose of the university should always be the furtherance of knowledge, both through research and educational programs. If you disagree with me on this, and look at college as meaning many different things and offering different services for different people, then there's no point in you reading further. Our disconnect is far too great for you to gain anything from this blog entry. 

Okay, assuming you are still reading, allow me to address some of the common arguments that NCAA apologists make.

1. Sure, scandals like Oklahoma State happen, but they are the exception not the norm. The vast majority of college programs are NCAA compliant and don't compromise their values for their athletic programs. 

While I appreciate the sentiment that we shouldn't generalize, the idea that most college athletic programs are traditionally clean has no basis in reality. As of 2011, only 17 of the major 120 NCAA schools have not committed a rules violation. Since then, at least two of those clean 17 have committed a rules violation, one of which was the infamous Penn State scandal.   

2. Okay, fine, so most programs have committed an NCAA violation. But the NCAA has absurdly complex rules and most of the rule breakers have committed relatively minor offenses. 

I will certainly acknowledge that the NCAA is complicated and that not all rule violations are equal, but we should not use this as an excuse to minimize the pervasive unethical culture that is created by college athletics. I'm not going to go through every single violation (I don't have months to research this), but allow me to highlight some of the worst and let you decide for yourself if the offenses committed by many of our most prominent universities are so minor. 

New Mexico (2008)- Academic Fraud

Members of the coaching staff assisted 3 recruits in gaining unearned academic credits. 

Florida State (2009)- Academic Fraud

Miami (2011)- A Litany of Preferential Benefits were provided for Athletes, ranging from cash and expensive yacht trips to prostitutes and abortions 

Arkansas State (2011)- 31 Ineligible Athletes Allowed to Play

This one actually doesn't really bother me, but it does illustrate how college programs will do anything to gain an edge.

Ohio State (2011)- Preferential Treatment/ Benefits/ Cash for Prominent Athletes

Athletes were given preferential treatment, including providing "payment" for work not performed. 

Penn State (2011)- Discovery that Jerry Sandusky, an assistant coach, had sexually abused children for years and that the university had at least some knowledge of impropriety but failed to properly handle the situation

North Carolina (2012)- Academic Fraud and Preferential Benefits for Athletes

Because if you're given a choice between compromising the academics of your university and giving illegal benefits to athletes, why not choose both?

Mississippi State (2013)- Preferential Benefits, including one booster providing a prominent athlete with a car

Oregon (2013)- Major Recruiting Violations

Oklahoma State (2013)- Academic Fraud, Improper Benefits for Athletes including cash payments to athletes, using sex as a recruiting tool, and ignoring university drug policies for athletes

Seriously, read the SI piece (Sept. 16, 2013 and also discussed in Sept. 23, 2013 issue). Every disturbing NCAA and moral violation that you can imagine has happened at Oklahoma State.

Keep in mind that this is just a small sampling of the actual number of NCAA violations have occurred. If you're curious to see the violations of your own school, have at it.

3. Ok, fine. Most schools have committed violations and many of those violations were pretty bad. But none of this would happen if we just were allowed to pay student athletes. Its only fair that they be compensated for their work and the value they bring to their universities. 

This opinion is actually gaining significant traction, as evidenced by star NFL running back Arian Foster's recent admission that he took money and other improper benefits while attending Tennessee, and that he sees no problem with it.

So why shouldn't we pay college athletes? Well, I suppose one's personal answer to that question goes back to his personal view of the university and its purpose in the modern world. If the university can mean many different things and different opportunities to different people, then by all means, let's turn it into a system of minor league athletics and pay student athletes. But if the fundamental purpose of the university should be the advancement of knowledge through research and education, then athletics needs to have a small role with limited, if any, financial influence. 

While I realize that taking such a hard-line stance on this makes it appear that I have no sympathy for college athletes, many of whom come from disadvantaged and impoverished communities, I would argue that the opposite is true. Sure, an athletic scholarship and small paycheck would do a great deal in helping a poor and disadvantaged athlete through college, but it would do so at the expense of helping a poor and disadvantaged student through college. The system as it currently exists enables a future athletic star to have fun at college for a few years, promote his talents on the national level, and then leave to start a multi-million dollar career. All without graduating. That's right, to those naive enough to argue that student-athletes really exist (you're usually one or the other), I present to your consideration the depressingly low rates of college graduation among professional athletes. About half of NFL players have college degrees, despite the fact that most players drafted by the NFL attend college. Of course those numbers are fantastic compared to the NBA (where 21% of professional athletes have degrees) and MLB (around 4%). Part of the reason the NFL and NBA have higher graduation rates than MLB is that those leagues place certain restrictions on draft eligibility to strongly encourage their athletes to attend some college. But none of the major sports leagues mandate graduation as a condition for draft eligibility. 

4. So what can be really be done about it?

First, we need to stop pretending that academics remains the priority of our major universities. The first step is always admitting there's a problem. 

Second, we need to find a way to divorce mainstream athletics and the massive amount of money associated with it from our educational institutions. There are at least 15 college football stadiums that seat more than the largest NFL stadiums. This should never happen. Its impossible for universities to combine to create a sports league that rivals the NFL (the largest sports league in the country) and not be unduly influenced by it. 

How do we do this? One solution could be to remove restrictions prohibiting recent high school graduates from playing in the professional leagues. Its unfair to prospective students that Carmelo Anthony gets essentially a one year scholarship to Syracuse to showcase his athletic talents, but its also unfair to Carmelo to prohibit him for a year from using his talents in his desired field of employment. The only people who really benefit from this unfair system are the colleges, who use college athletes as rentals to rake in money. 

Another option, and one that is far less realistic, would be to abolish college sports as they currently exist in favor of minor league systems. I have nothing against the fact that teams like the Oregon Ducks or Texas Longhorns exist, but they shouldn't be affiliated with universities. Even better yet, what if we could significantly expand our minor league sports systems so that high school athletes can showcase their skills and make money on a smaller level in preparation for the major leagues?

That's what baseball allows, by the way. 

Will any of these things happen? Of course not, but that shouldn't stop us from talking about them. And it shouldn't stop each one of us, myself included, from taking an honest look in the mirror and considering what role we play in enabling the rampant corruption, academic fraud and immorality that have come to characterize the modern university. 

NY Sports: The Big Sour Apple?

"I want to thank the Good Lord for making me a Yankee."
-Joe DiMaggio


I'm back. See, I told you that I wouldn't forget you, readers. At worst, I'm only moderately neglectful, like a parent who leaves their kid at the mall for half a day but then feels incredibly guilty about it and gets the kid ice cream, making it all okay.

"That is your official policy, right?"

Anyway, I'm certainly not here to talk about parenting. Nor am I here to hit you with my weak attempts at satire or conversations of a deep philosophical or theological nature. Nope, today we're having fun. I'm back for a sports rant.

So ESPN the Magazine recently released its 2013 Franchise Issue, which ranks sports franchises across all major American sports. Apparently the rankings are supposed to consider a complex array of factors, including fan experience, cost of attending games, ownership, players, team success, etc.

To make a long (and terribly written) story short, ESPN the magazine really does not like New York sports teams. In fact, they ranked my beloved Jets as the 121st out of 122 considered franchises. Keep in mind this list extends beyond simply the NFL and at least included MLB, NBA and NHL teams.

To all my New York friends who found it amusing that the "baby brother" Jets once again got bashed by a major media outlet, take a moment to consider that the article also ranked the NY Giants 66th, the NY Knicks 102nd, the NY Rangers 76th, and THE NEW YORK YANKEES 87TH.

When I was contemplating how to write a response to this article, I initially felt overwhelmed, as literally every single claim/ ranking that ESPN the Magazine made about NY teams are so blatantly absurd that they can't even be intelligently defended. The writers of this article somehow found a way to be subjectively wrong. Their "opinions" ring as hollow and biased as Kim Jong-Un trying to convince the West that his people are wealthy and thriving, despite blatant and overwhelming evidence to the contrary. 

But now that I've somehow managed to compare sports journalists to dictators (whoops), I probably should at least offer some evidence for my viewpoints. Let's start with the easy example, the New York Yankees.

The New York Yankees (Rank 87/122)

Why It's Absurd: For this example, I really feel like the burden of proof should lie with the article authors, but I'll quickly point out a few reasons as to why the Yankees should have been ranked in the top 10 sports franchises.

The New York Yankees are the most storied franchise in the history of North American sports. And no, this isn't just a proud New Yorker talking, just a sports fan with a somewhat functional brain. The first World Series was played in 1903, meaning that MLB has had about 110 AL/NL Championship Series. The Yankees have played in 40 World Series, winning 27 of them. That's right, the 87th best American sports franchise has won almost a quarter of its league's championships. I think its also fair to point out that ESPN's number one franchise, the NBA's Memphis Grizzlies, has never won a championship or even made it to a championship game. Also, they have about 80 years of less sports history, but who's counting?

I would assume at this point, the authors might defend their claim by noting the high prices of getting a ticket to a Yankees game. Fine, let's talk economics, shall we? The Yankees are the 4th wealthiest franchise in the world, and they have the 2nd highest payroll in baseball. Yankee detractors may be quick to note that all the Yankees' money and supposed success will not be getting them to the playoffs this year, but the very fact that people gloat about the Yankees failing is a testament to their astonishing run of sustained success. The last time the Yankees missed the playoffs was 2008; before that the last time was 1994. At least with the Yankees you're getting quality play with your money; Cubs tickets aren't cheap either and they haven't won a World Series in over a century.

J-E-T-S! Jets! Jets! JETS! (Rank 121/122)

Why Its Absurd: And now things get a little more challenging. I understand that, between the bombastic coach, questionable front office moves, and the complete lack of anything remotely resembling offense, its easy to take pop shots at the Jets. I'm not arguing the Jets should be in the top 10 or even necessarily the top 50 sports franchises, but they deserve better than a bottom 2 finish. Here are a few reasons why.

Since I mentioned the Yankees' history, lets start there with the Jets. In terms of playoff success, you can't even begin to compare the Jets to the Yankees, or even to the more iconic NFL franchises like the Steelers, 49ers, Patriots, or Cowboys. But, unlike 14 current NFL franchises, the Jets have won a Super Bowl. That shouldn't mean everything, but it has to mean something.

But, even assuming you don't care about Super Bowl III and would rather discuss current success, I'd be happy to beat you at that game too. Under the Rex Ryan era, the Jets have played some of the best defense in football (finishing 1st, 3rd, 5th, and 8th in total defense from 2009-2012 respectively). They made it to the AFC Conference Championship in both 2009 and 2010, and barring a few plays and an awful quarterback, could have easily won a Super Bowl. In 2011, they were average (8-8) and in 2012 they were slightly below average (6-10). Yet none of this stopped those incompetent bastards from ESPN from ranking the Jets dead last in their NFL Power Rankings before the season began. I'll be the first to acknowledge the Jets have issues, but if you honestly try to argue to me that the Browns (who decided to trade their one franchise player to rebuild two weeks into the season),  or the Raiders, or the Panthers, or the Jaguars (who could only muster 3 field goals of offense against the freaking Raiders) are currently more successful franchises than the Jets you are insane.

Even though they frequently mock the Jets as being the little brother, I'll be a good sport and offer a brief defense for the NY Giants (ranked 66/122) too. The Giants have won 4 Super Bowls, including 2 in the last 6 years. They have an established quarterback, coach, defensive line, and fan base. They may not often be an elite franchise (they have a knack for sneaking into the playoffs), but they are certainly worthy of respect.

So why would I bother write this? Even assuming that I have you convinced at this point, why should anyone care enough about sports to write a lengthy critique of ESPN? Feel free to laugh, but regardless of one's occupation, I think there is something to be said for maintaining professional integrity. Everyone is entitled to their opinions; that's a huge part of what makes sports so much fun. But there's a certain point where personal biases and fan commitments overwhelm one's ability to professionally analyze sports. You'll note that I included a ton of sources and facts in this article, lest I be accused of being a "homer" who just can't handle his teams being criticized. You don't have to believe me, but if a New York based media outlet published a franchise list and placed the Patriots or Red Sox near the bottom, I would also be offended. If you're going to do something, whether its as important as curing AIDS or as frivolous as writing about grown men playing games, then do it right. ESPN writers owe it to their readers to hold themselves to a higher and more professional standard. All right, that's it for the soapbox. I have a crazy hunch that writing this article will prove to be superfluous anyway, as our NY sports teams will prove themselves to be more than adequate this year and for years to come.

A Humble Recommendation

Some recent events have led to believe that my advice may once again be needed. Regardless of whether or not it will be appreciated in its own time (or any time for that matter), I once again feel a need to provide it.

As I have most likely noted at some point, I am now a graduate student. And I am fortunate enough to now attend a truly diverse and rich campus, a campus that has risen above and largely evolved beyond the petty intolerance, bigotry, discrimination and hatred that would be seen in less "enlightened" places.

Although my university may not yet have achieved such a perfect status, I can respect the dedicated professors and other members of the campus community who are committed to silencing dissident voices and making the university a better safer place. And by doing so, they also ensure that the intolerance and hatred of inferior generations of mankind will not plague the sacred halls of this modern educational institution. After all, how can conflict or discord exist in a world where everyone is properly "motivated" to accept the same ideologies? But alas, I'm speaking in general and overly philosophical terms. Allow me to clarify with an example.

Recently, to my amazement, the university allowed a group of students who opposed abortion the opportunity to protest on campus. Naturally, as inevitably happens when individuals are allowed to think for themselves and keep their own consciences, this event resulted in significant conflict and disagreement among the student body and professors. Honestly, I simply can't fathom it. I am sure the university had the best intentions, but letting that protest occur on campus was both foolish and irresponsible. As if creating debates and discord was not bad enough, those monstrosities posed a significant safety risk to the entire campus. Am I the only one who observed the red eyes, the grey scales, the darkened wings? After all, nothing that was ever human could hold such abhorrent views.

In response to this protest, 6 professors wrote a letter to the school newspaper, challenging the wicked hate of the students and comparing anti-abortion protesters to the racists who supported the lynching of African-Americans.

To clarify, I completely support the efforts of these professors, but I am now certain that more needs to be done. To their credit, the professors not only sought to destroy the anti-abortion message but also to label and belittle any students who held it. They did, however, acknowledge that the students had a right to protest

This is unfortunate. I can sympathize with those who are still naive enough to believe that freedom of thought and conscience still have a place in our society, but unfortunately, they are relics of an older, less tolerant time. Humanity has shown again and again that differences only create conflict and instability. Not that I or anyone else can really blame us. After all, there's a litany of complex internal forces that severely limits each individual's ability to perceive and interpret reality. Not to mention our different upbringings, experiences and personalities. People are innately drawn to disagreement. And because we cherish our values, people also are intrinsically motivated to defeat any evil that would dare to rise up to confront them. After all, every man is a hero in his own mind, leaving only the role of villain to anyone who would dare to disagree with him.

So what is the solution? Well, I can determine at least one thing. Allowing individuals the privilege of disagreement has not worked for humanity, nor will it ever be successful. "Agreeing to disagree" will always be at best a fool's hope. In light of this, I can only conceive of one option. Brace yourselves and consider my words carefully, dear reader, and I suspect you will find my recommendation to be quite humble. I recommend that we end this madness, this flurry and fury of conflict, through the greatest conflict humanity has ever seen. Society will establish one absolute set of beliefs, and enforcers shall destroy anything or anyone that opposes them.

I only have one concern, dear reader. It is now obvious that the only way to achieve peace is through the strategic use of warfare to destroy anyone who is "wrong." But how can we ever determine what is right or wrong? This is not to say that I don't believe in absolute truths, but rather, I question the ability of any individual or even group of people to determine all the perfect answers. Darn, and we were so close to world peace...

I think I have it. Let's end disagreement through democracy. How ironic is that? I recommend that individuals be allowed to align themselves according to faith, political views, race, etc. for one final time. We shall arm the masses and allow only the "fittest" ideologies the opportunity to survive. Now I know what you're thinking, dear reader. There will almost certainly be inequalities in terms of manpower and resources depending on the group. But we can correct this. We will strip people of their guns (they will not be needing them soon anyway) and provide them with swords, knives, shields and the like. Guns not only provide unfair advantages; they also make conflict far too easy. No, in this perfect world, men will look each other in the eyes as they slit each other's throats, all the while realizing that such is the sacrifice for creating a perfect, dissent-free world. And since we clearly cannot live together peaceably, what other choices do we really have?

This post is becoming needlessly lengthy, so I'll conclude by addressing any potential concerns. Some optimists may consider my theories to be absurd; they may admit that extremists exist, but in their minds the majority of good, reasonable people will also stand to counter them. Perhaps you are right, but I have no doubts that the voices of well-tempered people seeking harmony can be easily silenced or perverted. The process is already happening, my friends. People may be capable of giving flowers, at times we may even desire it, but we have become far more skilled at throwing feces. And just when our supplies of waste begin to run out, when reason and compromise begin to be considered, politicians rush to our aid and spew enough hyperbolic shit to last us for decades.

Come to think of it, that is the key. If I can gain the politicians, my humble recommendation will surely become the newest bill in a long line of foolhardy, fear-driven legislation. After all, whether its abortion, gay marriage, immigration, foreign or economic policy, no force is more powerful in convincing the people to hate and fear the other side than those well-suited wolves. Yes, I shall gain their votes. And since they are never cheap, I should begin fundraising immediately.

I know there may still be doubters. Some of you may even be regretfully wondering how our circumstances could have become so dire. I suppose we all have our theories, but now we can only afford to think of solutions. And anyone who approaches my recommendation with an open mind (ha) will have to conclude that, despite its grim nature, it is the only real solution. After all, if we don't murder all dissenters, then we guarantee a bitter, conflicted world for the remainder of our history. Even a brutal war drawn out for decades will represent only a tiny drop in the bucket of tremendous conflict that humanity will inevitably experience if we continue to nurture freedoms of conscience and speech. Its not like individuals will suddenly begin to articulate their ideas in a respectful manner. And even if they could, their neighbors would surely be too driven by fear and anger to actually consider what is said. Finally, since disagreement is an inevitable force that cannot be completely mitigated even in light of rational discourse, people would also magically have to learn to coexist in peace and respect with those whom they disagreed. And if that does not seal my argument for the eradication of most of the species, then nothing ever will.



Author's Note: First, I realize this is quite long. I would like to extend my personal thanks to anyone who actually took the time to read it. Second, do not be afraid to ask me questions. Obviously, this post is intended to create honest dialogue and questioning. Third, Jonathan Swift.

A Convenient Faith?

A few months ago, I wrote a satirical piece designed to emphasize the importance of the agency at which I'm currently interning. In hindsight, it seems as if writing to defend the work of a homeless outreach agency, an agency that provides meals and various assistance services (including housing searches) would be unnecessary. At the very least, only the most detached, cruel and selfish people would have an objection to such important programs, right? It shouldn't matter where the funding for my agency comes from, since their work is essential and alleviates a great deal of human suffering. 

Alas, apparently my 30 or so page views were not enough to demolish the naivete and negative stereotypes  with which the average American views the poor. Even more discouraging is the tendency of Christians, a group of people that above all others should be inspired to strive for social justice, to downplay the problem of poverty in an endeavor to support their own political agendas. 

A friend of mine recently shared an economics article written by an alumni from my undergraduate institution. Now, I don't question the good intentions of this writer. I also don't question his expert knowledge of economic principles; he has a Ph.D and at least one book published after all. That being said, no amount of cold detached principles, knowledge or even good intentions can substitute for a real understanding of poverty.

To be fair, my only experience with poverty has been the semester and a half that I've spent as an intern at a homeless outreach agency. And it only makes sense that we naturally tend to dismiss the poor, as there are legitimate psychological reasons and motivations behind the relative detachment and indifference with which the middle and upper classes view the poor. An article I had to study for a class, Cognitive and Behavioral Distancing from the Poor by Lott, does an effective job of both explaining the problem of poverty and why people who aren't in poverty live in denial of the suffering of others. Since it's a long article and I have other points to make, allow me to just pull a few quick highlights from this article (Lott) in contrast to the claims made by the economics article (Ritenour)

"Other articles (Bullock & Lott, 2001; Lott & Bullock, 2001b) have documented the dramatic and increasing inequity in economic resources between the rich and the poor in the United States. For example, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (Shapiro, Greenstein, & Primus, 2001) reported that between 1979 and 1997, the after-tax income of the poorest fifth of U.S. households decreased from $10,900 to $10,800, while that of the top 1% of households increased from $263,700 to $677,900."

- Lott, 2002

"In fact, most officially poor people in the United States are in fact living relatively comfortably."

-Ritenour, 2013

"Clydesdale (1999) concluded that “Americans with high social statuses, whether economic, occupational,or educational, are more likely to view the poor unfavorably” (p. 103)..In [another] important finding, a phone survey revealed that respondents who had personal contact with the poor were less likely than others to blame them for their circumstances (Wilson, 1996)."

-Lott, 2002

"If people who do not work receive income maintenance from the state, it reduces the quantity of income they have to give up if then do not work, thereby making leisure more attractive at the margin."

-Ritenour, 2013

Bottom line, people who are detached from poverty are able to deny and distance themselves from the problem. People distanced from poverty also tend to view poverty from their own limited and privileged perspective, making it difficult for them to picture a scenario where someone can be both a good, hardworking person and poor. In light of this, they can apply their political beliefs in limited government (which I would generally consider to be good principles by the way) to argue for the destruction of the welfare system. What's more, many Christians use Biblical principles in favor of private property to argue against any government-mandated redistribution of wealth. But do government programs truly represent theft? Let me just highlight a few verses here. 

5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience. 6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

Romans 13: 5-7

It seems like God is okay with taxes, as they represent a vital support to our communities and to our government. And I truly doubt that most Libertarians or Conservatives would oppose all taxes, as government cannot function without them.

But what about welfare and other wealth redistribution programs? After all, the government is terribly inefficient, and these programs aren't really helping the poor anyway, are they?

I'm not going to claim that the various government agencies designed to assist the poor are perfect; I'm not even going to claim that they should all exist. But, as Christians, we need to be very careful before we advocate the abolition of all welfare systems in favor of the private sector. I never did understand the whole private sector argument. When government and the private sector can't fully meet the need, do we honestly think that private sector charities are enough to help our brothers and sisters in need? Christians should be less susceptible to this foolishness, as we understand that people are born selfish, flawed and sinful. 

I may not be able to speak for every federally funded agency, but no one can ever question the work that is done at mine. 

My agency has a Housing First program funded by HUD. Programs that follow this model have been proven to be both helpful and, believe it or not, cost effective. What's more, members in this program have been chronically homeless and have a disability. In fact, a recent report I conducted indicated that at least 2/3 of clients in our program have a mental illness, and about a third of clients had at least 3 disabilities. By providing housing without making demands or threats, Housing First helps bring stability and hope to these people's lives. But its programs like this that would be cut if we abolished government support programs. 

I suppose I can't blame some people for feeling this way though. After all, until you've met a homeless woman so traumatized and mentally ill that she's afraid to go to shelters, or an older man with such poor health a case manager had to call 911 for him, or another woman whose paranoid schizophrenia made it difficult for her to even cash checks, or a woman whose severely developmentally delayed with no family support or...

You get the picture. 

I'm not typing this to gain myself moral high ground. I'm not a good enough or strong enough person to work at a place like my interning agency. But I write this to combat a simplistic and faulty understanding of poverty, and to defend the work of those in the social services.  Because at the end of the day, principles are fine, but what you do with those principles, the life you live, that is what really matters. A Christian faith that drives people to charity, whether through the public or private sectors, is noble. But a faith that seeks to exult political principles over programs that actually help people; that faith has become seriously derailed. 

Sources:

Lott, B. (2002). Cognitive and behavioral distancing from the poor. American Psychologist, 57(2), 100-110. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.57.2.100

Ritenour, S. Economics for Everybody. (2013, March 20). The Poor, Economic Policy, and Christian Ethics [blog post]. Retrieved from http://www.economicsforeverybody.com/2013/03/the-poor-economic-policy-and-christian-ethics/

Wow, I'm getting too old for this...

Well here we go again, readers. Don't pretend you didn't know this was coming. However, just to inform any potential new readers, know that I may have written scathing, semi-humorous, semi-serious rants against Valentine's Day in the past. You can find them here, and here, and here, and....here. Huh, I've been doing this for a while. This is now my fifth year. Dang, when I started writing these I was just starting my undergrad. Everything is so different now...

Nostalgia isn't funny. Get to the funny.

But to get to my point, well, my point is that I don't really know what I can argue anymore. I've pretty much said it all. Bet you never thought you'd read that, huh? I'm speechless? Well, not quite. 

Thanks to the talented artist over at The Oatmeal, I think I can manage at least one more Valentine's Day post worth your eyes. One of his recent comics, which can be found here at the original site, takes the somewhat ironic position of complaining about the people who complain about Valentine's Day.

It's like the Inception of meaningless complaining.

Is that what I've become? Cliche? Just another bitter single guy projecting my frustrations, incapable of actually making a good, rational argument? Well, if that truly is the case, I would like to at least point out that I started hating Valentine's Day before it was considered cool or mainstream to hate Valentine's Day.

Anyway, let's assume that the writer of the Oatmeal is, like me, using comedy to make a serious argument that he genuinely believes in. If he is, what do you think he would say about Valentine's Day critics? Maybe that we're just bitter for being reminded about our own singleness? After all, if we're only complaining about the massive consumerism and watering-down of Valentine's Day (when all holidays have been violated in this manner), then we're being hypocritical, right? And Valentine's Day is so harmless its impossible to actually have rational reasons for disliking it anyway.

Well, that's a lot of arguments, fictional antagonist with whom I'm now apparently having a conversation. First of all, the watering-down and consumerism of any holiday can be inappropriate, detrimental and destructive. For instance, if I see one more commercial that has Washington and Lincoln dancing around like idiots trying to sell cars, I may have to start a whole new annual rant series. We do still realize that these were good and real men who had an incalculable impact on our nation's history, right? Leave the car sales to businessmen in sleazy suits and random inflatable objects, please. And I won't even get started on how we treat Christmas and Easter, or how incredibly important those days are to millions of people. 

So while I may have been more tolerant of the mass commercialization of other holidays, I wouldn't say the direction any of our holidays has taken has been positive. But this shouldn't even matter, because Valentine's Day is different that our other holidays. It's different not because it has no message, but because the little message it does have is negative and destructive. 

Bottom line, any holiday that celebrates something also will play a significant role in shaping and defining it. And when we're talking about a concept as important as love, we better make sure we're defining it properly as a society. Although you could ask thousands of people and not get the exact same answer as to what is love (baby don't hurt me, don't hurt me, no more), I would like to believe that our first thoughts wouldn't be about cards and flowers, perfect nights and fuzzy feelings. Personally, my faith teaches that love is to be a continual choice and sacrifice, even commanding husbands to be willing to die for their wives. Regardless of one's personal beliefs, however, I think most of us can agree that the obligation-laden, excessive, superficial consumerism promoted by Valentine's Day has little to do with actual love. 

So to briefly sum it up just in case you're still not seeing the difference...

Valentine's Day is about obligation; love is about free choice.

Valentine's Day is about the here and now; love is about perseverance and commitment.

Valentine's Day is about flowers, fancy dates, pretty smiles, and youthful excitement; love is what holds a relationship together once the superficial has melted away. 

So men, please treat all the women in your life right every day of the year, not just on Valentine's Day. You shouldn't need a special day to remind you to do the right thing, the decent thing. And women, don't learn to tolerate anything less. This love thing can be tough to get right, but its totally worth it. And trust me, there's plenty of guys waiting in line for the chance to try to do things the right way if your current guy blows it. *Cough* Ahem. 

I'd like to conclude this post by posting a video from RED's new album. Maybe I'm just looking for any excuse to hype them at this point, but this song in a few words manages to describe love in a manner that I couldn't in an entire blog post. Enjoy. 

Love is never free. Love is not easy. But no one comes out the same. And love will leave a mark.

 

Release the Panic

A small tribute to my favorite band upon their release of what's sure to be another blockbuster album.

7 years ago, a new band arrived on the scene, calling for an End of Silence. 
Screaming about Innocence and Instinct, their message was difficult to understand. 
At least it will be Until We Have Faces. But don't let this realization get you all Red or riled up. 
After all, its time to Release the Panic.