Get with the times College

http://www.betanews.com/article/Universities-reject-Kindle-DX-as-a-textbook-replacement/1257968058

The article referenced above dives into an issue I have been preaching for at least a year.  Colleges and Universities across the nation, or planet for that matter should form some type of system in which college students are required to buy an Amazon Kindle, and all books are then stored and subsequently viewed on this device.

Two colleges tested the idea, and they cite certain flaws as the reasons why the devices have not yet been adopted by the schools.  The reasons are absolutely ludicrous in my opinion.  The first flaw is the fact that authors do not like that the Kindle had a text-to-speech function.  What this means is that all books could be read to you like an audio book.  For a tired college student this feature would be fantastic.  Imagine reading, and coming to the point where your eyes began to hurt, you could turn on the text-to-speech function and just listen for a while.  Reviewing information you already read during your downtime could be easier with this function as well.  How this is seen as a flaw blows my mind.

The second flaw stems from an equal rights debate.  The issue at hand is treating the blind in an equal fashion as the rest of the students.  The blind cannot use the kindle(they could listen to the previously mentioned text-to-speech function though) so this would cause inequality.  I laughed when I first read this, then nearly spewed out a stream of expletives.  I laughed because the argument is ridiculous, books in genteral have always put blind students at a disadvantage, because they have to get separate books with brail.  The anger stemmed from the fact that nearly all college professors teach with Powerpoint presentations.  Hence, slideshows in which you need to be able to see are used to teach on a daily basis.  For those who do not use powerpoint, most lectures require a chalk board or dry erase board because very few professors solely lecture today.  Therefore, college seems to be unequal minus the kindle, and the argument against it is flawed.

The Kindle could allow a campus to preach a more green approach to education.  It would also allow students to carry EVERY book in what portable device.  There would be no more discussion about students back problems stemming from heavy books being hauled upon their backs.  Space which is ever so crucial in the 4x4 dorm that most students live in would also be saved.  Best of all, the acquisition of books does not take weeks to come through the mail, and the painful trip to the bookstore can be avoided.  All of the material could be gained instantly through the 3G network that every Kindle is hooked up to.  Plus, almost every book you could want for leisure reading could also be acquired and stored on the Kindle.  Finally, newspapers across the country are readily accessible through the Kindle.  Students could have current events at their finger tips as soon as they wake up to take with them anywhere on campus.

The Kindle is not just a good idea for colleges, but instead it is the next logical step in making the education system in America and the world better.  It is the Ipod of the reading industry, and hopefully its true potential will soon be realized in the education system.

Just a note, this is by no means a commercial for the Kindle.  Any one of these portable reading devices would suffice.

Thomas Jefferson and the Ideal Society: Lessons for the Present

It almost seems cliche today to look back at our founding fathers and try and find some enlightenment on how we should live our lives or conduct our government, but nevertheless it is an incredibly worthwhile endeavor, especially looking back at our third President, Thomas Jefferson. He envisioned something that is lacking in our society today, something that is not only lacking but something that we are in dire need for, public virtue. This is something that we seem to have lost, in the midst of special interest politics and "greed is good" economics. It would be beneficial to take a look back at Jefferson and re-stake a claim to public virtue in America.

There are far too many in America who feel the public good is merely the sum, or the compromise between all the special interest groups in America, all lobbying and publicly pandering to get what they want. It is this conception of the public good that masks true public virtue in America. When people, from an early age are taught that it is essential for the politics of this nation to do what is in their own interest at all times it creates citizens (if in fact that term can be used) that are not concerned about America but themselves and their narrow special interest groups. We need to get back to to seeing that true public good, and instilling public virtue in America. This is found especially in the great idealist, Thomas Jefferson, and in his conception of the ideal society in America: the yeoman farmer republic. Jefferson writes in a letter to John Jay, “We have now lands enough to employ an infinite number of people in their cultivation. Cultivators of the earth are the most valuable citizens. They are the most vigorous, the most independent, the most virtuous, and they are tied to their country, and wedded to its liberty and interests, by the most lasting bonds.” (Thomas Jefferson, “Letter to John Jay (Private), August 23, 1785). For Jefferson there is something about the farmer that harkens back to the earth, that essential, almost primal connection that the yeoman farmer has with the earth cultivates virtue in the republic along side the produce of the nation.

It is important not to get caught up in the particulars here though, it is important to see that Jefferson is not only idealizing a society but he is making some very astute commentary on the ideal citizen as well. He is saying that the ideal citizen for the nation is someone that is concerned not about his or her own interests and status but about the nation as a whole. It is someone who in many ways is selfless, not selfish. Looking out for the common good of the whole and not the sum of special interests.

Some say that Jefferson is an idealist and that his ideas are unrealistic or impractical, but, just because an idea is not practical, does that make it not worth striving after? Jefferson is really onto something here, he has points that need to be heeded, and are not limited merely to the early republic.

What are the lessons for today that we can take from Jefferson? Is he saying that we should all quit our jobs and buy a plot of land? Revert back to an agrarian society where we all grow our own food and are tied to the land? Of course not. What we need to take from this is the essence of his conception of society and the citizen that lives in it. Jefferson would say that we need to tie ourselves to this country like the farmer does, but not in a literal sense. We must not not let our roots take hold in the loose soil of special interest but in the hearty and rich soil of the United States as a whole.

This is even more important than ever today. We should put aside affiliations of Red or Blue, Democrat or Republican, and take part in America. We should discern for ourselves, using our talents and our reasoning capability to find out what is best for America. Rise above special interest politics, and our own selfish desires and interests and look to America as a whole. Being a true citizen for Jefferson is putting aside, or rising above selfish special interests and being a a publicly virtuous citizen with concerns for the public good of the entire nation. This is not easy but if it is done rightly the idealism of Jefferson can become a twenty-first century reality.

BCS: Bad Championship Series

The Bowl Championship Series (BCS) is a system built on, and designed by. fear. This was demonstrated once again this past Sunday by their selections to the 5 major bowls, especially the 2010 Fiesta Bowl. This game, which pits 2 undefeated teams, the Texas Christian University Horned Frogs and the Boise State University Broncos is a perfect example of how the BCS is a system driven by fear.

The BCS and the other major conferences (PAC-10, SEC, Big East, Big XII, Big Ten, and ACC) are terrified of these non-automatic qualifying conferences such as the WAC and the Mountain West. This fear has been fostered by what these two conferences have done to the blue bloods of college football this decade. Of course, I am talking about how Alabama was waxed by Utah last year and how Boise State stunned Oklahoma in the 2007 Fiesta Bowl.

In response to the fears of the big conferences and the BCS itself, the selection committee decided to pit these two "minor" conference teams in one game. This scenario eliminates the chance that the Horned Frogs and Broncos can embarrass the blue bloods on the national stage.

This is a complete sell out by the BCS. These two schools are just looking for a chance, they want to prove that they belong in these games, a feat which is impossible to do if they are not given a chance against these bigger schools in the bowls. No one will play them in the regular season, so these schools look to the bowl season to cut their teeth on the established powerhouses of division I college football.

But this is just a small part of a large issue. The BCS is not just afraid of schools like TCU or BSU, they fear the demise of their system itself: the big 5 bowls (Fiesta, Rose, Sugar, Orange, BCS Championship Game). With demands for a national playoff seemingly growing more and more each year the BCS is desperately trying to hold on to its system. To combat this they make the major conferences happy by catering to their needs, i.e. this year's bowl matchups. As long as the major conferences are in the pocket of the BCS , these conferences will still publicly support the BCS and the system will survive. The BCS's justification for pitting the Horned Frogs and Broncos in the Fiesta Bowl is that America wants to see these two undefeated teams face off against each other. No, on the contrary, this is merely a ploy to avoid having one of these teams embarrass their base constituency.

Another way to combat the cries for a playoff and keep the BCS firmly entrenched is to keep people talking. By creating bad bowl matchups it keeps people talking about the system. As the saying goes "there is no such thing as bad publicity." As people talk about the selections the system is getting publicity and debates are sparked. In many ways people enjoy these debates just as much as the games themselves; these controversies are what make people come back and praise the BCS. In this way the BCS entrenches itself into American culture and tradition and combats talk of a national playoff.

Until a solution is found to crown a true champion in college football the BCS will not work as a scientific method of measuring the performance of a team. No, it will merely be a game of smoke and mirrors that operates on the fear of losing its place as the arbiter of the National Championship.

Live by the Sword Die by the Sword: The Bill Belichick Story

Well, in the wake of arguably the best game of the year in the National Football League the only thing that anyone can talk about is "The Hoodie's" decision to go for broke on a 4th down and 2 inside the Patriots' own 30 yard line. Well, I think this was the right call, no matter the outcome.

First Belichick is a veteran of this rivalry, he knows what Peyton Manning has done to them in the past. He knows from the past few years Manning is fully capable of going at least 80 yards to score a winning touchdown. He has seen this movie before and knows how it ends. Time and again the Patriots defense was gassed when Peyton initiates his 2 minute drill and the Colts run right through them. So in Belichick's mind the difference between the 30 yard line and the opposing 20 is minimal.

Secondly, this is not that shocking of a decision considering Belichick's track record. He is a risk taker, this is a classic call from this head coach. He knows that this decision and its proper execution can ice the game for the Patriots. We should come to expect no less from this coach. When you make your living this way you must expect that it is going to come back and bite you at some point. You live by the sword you die by the sword.

Thirdly, this should not be put all on Belichick. The number one myth in sports is the opinion that coaches make all the difference in games. This couldn't be further from the truth. Coaches and managers always get too much credit when things are going well and things pan out and way too much blame when teams lose. This is exactly what is going on here. Tom Brady and the Patriots still had to convert that down, it wasn't "The Hoodie" under center or bobbling that ball. At the end of the day it comes down to execution, and the Patriots really did not execute.

However, this is not a complete apology for the Patriots disaster on Sunday night. There are some things that the Patriots and Bill Belichick did mismanage against the Colts. First, the Patriots were careless with clock management. They wasted their time outs which is something they rarely do. This came back to bite them in the end because not only could they not stop the clock when the Colts were driving to the eventual game winning touchdown, but it also cost them on the 4th and 2 play. If Belichick and the Patriots didn't squander their time outs they could have challenged the spot of the ball. The spot was questionable to begin with and I think that if it was challenged the video evidence would have shown that Kevin Faulk indeed did make that yard and this whole post would be a mute point.

Secondly, the Patriots should have just let Joseph Addai score on the second play of the drive. If they had done this the Patriots would have had more time to develop a little bit of a drive to set up Stephen Gostkowski for a last second field goal. With the Patriots' explosive offense this would have been more than attainable with more time. Why didn't they do this? To me, this shows a complete contradiction on Belichick's part. He had no confidence in his defense when they would have been given 80 yards to stop Manning and the Colts but he thinks that they can stop the Colts when it is 1st and goal from the 1 yard line. Why not just tell your players that if the Colts are close just to let them in?

But as Phil Jackson says, "give them some (expletive) credit." The Colts played a great game. They still had to punch the ball in from the 30 yard line. The Colts hung in there and did not lose hope. They fought hard and won the game. Peyton Manning has ice water in his veins and is a proven leader in the NFL. The Colts are a complete team and have shown that they can win games in many different ways. Watch out for these guys in the playoffs.

Patience Is Still a Virtue Eric

Patience becomes harder to find everyday in our society.  Our world use to run one letter at a time, and the letter could take months to deliver, but now anyone can be contacted instantly due to technology.  Email and text messages have made everyone available at all times.  This may seem like a philosophical piece, but I assure you it is not.  This piece is my criticism of the worst coach in the NFL, Eric Mangini.(Note: I am leaving Tom Cable off the list, due to the fact that the Raiders should not even be considered an NFL team at this point in time)

Eric Mangini lacks a virtue which is one of the essential pieces to running a successful football organization.  Patience was never taught to poor Eric, and his struggles in the NFL are proof of that.  His tenure with the Jets will not be discussed, because there is far too much information after a half-season with the Browns to worry about his past.

It all began during training camp and the preseason when Mangenius decided to test the patience of every Cleveland Browns fan.  He turned the team into a soap opera right from the beginning by treating his quarterback like "the man behind the curtain".  No one knew who was getting the starting gig, and Mangini attributed this to the fact that it spawned friendly competition.  The fans patience was tested due to his lack of decisiveness.  In reality, this hurt the team because both quarterbacks were splitting first team reps.  Less practice yields a weaker result.

Finally, Mangini made his decision to go with Brady Quinn.  After lackluster results Quinn was yanked during after the first half of week 3.  Quinn was not performing well, but Mangini has caused himself to doubt both of his quarterbacks for allowing them to battle for the starting job for two long.  His lack of patience with Quinn, forced him to insert Derek Anderson into the game.  Anderson's performance cannot be described as anything but abysmal.  He was 11/19, for 92 yards with 3 interceptions.  Ironically, Mangini felt that Anderson was able to move the offense better, and the starting job became his after this performance.

The saga continued, and Anderson put up some of the worst numbers ever seen, including a 2/17 game for 23 yards and an interception against the Buffalo Bills.  Amazingly, the Browns won this game.  Shortly after Braylon Edwards, the number one receiver in Cleveland was dealt to Mangini's old club the Jets.  He has been impressive so far, and one can only blame the system in Cleveland.  Without Edwards, whoever quarterbacks this team will be worse, due to a lack of a solid receiver.  Again, Mangini shows his lack of patience.

Now, in week ten Mangini has seen enough and Quinn will again be the starter for the Cleveland Browns.  There is an expression, "a watched pot never boils", which mirrors this situation.  Mangini wanted instant results, coming from quarterbacks who have had less reps than all other starters in the league due to their coach issued duel.  Neither has had sufficient time to develop, and this is evident through their play.  For all Browns fans, hope may not be here this year, but maybe Mike Holmgren will grace you with his presence as their football operations chief, and turn this awfully impatient team around.  Until then, the Mangini suffering will continue, but only for seven more weeks.

-Philadelphius

Pittsburgh Hype?

While doing some reading today I noticed on the television program, "Around the Horn" the commentators were gushing about their new found seat on the "Pittsburgh Steelers Bandwagon." I thought to myself, "Are the Steelers really this good?"

My answer is that this remains to be seen, in any case it is far too early to be anointing them the repeat Super Bowl Champions. There are at least two teams, if not three who are superior to the Steelers: the Colts, the Saints, and the Patriots. Albeit this team has a far easier schedule than the other teams but is this the kiss of death? Is an easy schedule and finishing strong, which the Steelers are apt to do, do a disservice to them? I think this will make the Steelers weak and unprepared to meet the top caliber talent and atmosphere that playoff football in the NFL will demand of them.

In fact, this team may not even win its own division! The Cincinnati Bengals, very quietly are 4-0 in the AFC North, with a win against those very same Steelers. So lets not be so quick to get our boarding passes in hand for the "Steelers Bandwagon," there is still a lot of football to be played.