First day of Spring Practice.
Heres the first couple of paragraphs of a pretty good write up of Coach Kelly's offensive perspective. See the whole article here
Spread and Pass, Brian Kelly's (Somewhat) New Irish Offense
by Anthony Pilcher Analyst Written on March 09, 2010
Frank Polich/Getty Images While the defense may be a bigger problem, one of the primary concerns for many Irish fans is the spread passing offense of new head coach Brian Kelly. Kelly makes no secret of his offensive goal, he wants to be aggressive and vertical, scoring on every possession. As such, he favors the pass over the run, operates heavily from the shotgun, and employs an up-tempo pace.
Some question the lack of a consistent, power running element while others worry about ball control. There are also concerns about the how a spread passing scheme will fare against good defensive competition and Kelly’s ability to fill the roster with elite talent at the skill positions.
Former head coach Charlie Weis’ recruiting record should be enough evidence to negate the last of these concerns, but the others may be valid. There are certainly negatives that come with Kelly’s offense, but many successful teams like Utah, Boise State, Texas, Oklahoma and Florida run versions of the spread, and excel doing it.
So what is a spread offense and how does Kelly’s particular brand work? Furthermore, what is the fundamental problem with his approach and is it compatible at Notre Dame?
What Is Kelly’s Spread Offense and How Does It Work?
At a fundamental level, the intent of a spread offense is to stretch the field horizontally with multiple wide receivers. This effectively accomplishes two goals. First, it makes crisp tackling in open space a commodity. And second, it forces defensive coordinators to use smaller, quicker personnel, and to empty the box in order to matchup on the outside. The result is an advantage for the offense on the interior. Defenses can’t overload the box and the offense has one-on-one blocking opportunities in the running game and in pass protection.
The guys over at NDNation asked Chris Brown of Smart Football to summarize Kelly’s flavor of the spread. True to form, Chris penned a solid synopsis. He makes some excellent points and the entire read is worth the time, but a few highlights are noted here with some additions of my own below.
Kelly’s offense is a “traditional” spread that, for the most part, maintains balance and doesn’t tilt too much towards the run (e.g. Michigan) or pass (e.g. Texas Tech).
The run game is simple, particularly without a running quarterback. There is a lot of zone blocking and Kelly’s approach is based on space and angles rather than power, but he does make frequent use of a lead blocker. Mostly, he utilizes inside and outside zone running plays, counters, and some power runs.
The concepts in the passing game are almost equally simple. Kelly prefers a vertical stem route tree aimed at getting upfield while giving the same initial post-snap motion. This accomplishes his goal of being aggressive, but also detracts from the ability of opposing defenses to read routes as they all appear similar through the first several steps.
Kelly also likes to use overloaded formations to isolate receivers on the backside. This generates favorable one-on-one matchups for players like wide receiver Michael Floyd or tight end Kyle Rudolph, or overloads the strongside of the field if the defense rolls the coverage to double the weakside receiver.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Oh, Boy. If it's not one thing its another.
Last year when I heard of diminished sun spot activity as a possible forecaster of cooling weather, I thought maybe that it was an unsubstantiated theory, possibly being promoted by the carbon fuel industries to dilute anxirty over global warming. But as time goes by, similar reports keep showing up in scientific journals. Maybe there's something to it. Here's a recent example, followed by another article addressing other causes of cyclical glaciation which the quoted scientists are presenting as possibly on our horizon. (From a personal perspective, I dont think it's fair that, as they postulate, we only get ten or twelve thosand years of warming, then a hundred thousand years of cooling. - But I'm glad Kim and Ross have established a familial outpost in the sunny southwest in case others in the family are driven to migrate in ten or twenty years as the Midwest becomes tundra.)
It’s the Sun, stupid!
By Willie Soon, solar and climate scientist
.
5 Mar 09 – (Excerpts) "The amount and distribution of solar energy that we receive varies as the Earth revolves around the Sun and also in response to changes in the Sun’s activity. Scientists have now been studying solar influences on climate for 5000 years.
"Chinese imperial astronomers kept detailed sunspot records. They noticed that more sunspots meant warmer weather on Earth. In 1801, the celebrated astronomer William Herschel noticed that when there were few spots, the price of wheat soared – because, he surmised, less “light and heat” from the Sun resulted in reduced harvests.
The price of wheat soared! As I've been sayingall along, I fear that
we'll be fighting in the streets for food long before we're covered by ice.
"Between 1645 and 1715, sunspots were very rare and temperatures were low. Then sunspot frequency grew until, between 1930 and 2000, the Sun was more active than at almost any time in the last 10,000 years. The oceans can cause up to several decades of delay before air temperatures respond fully to this solar “Grand Maximum.” Now that the Sun is becoming less active again, global temperatures have fallen for seven years.
More active than at almost any time in the last 10,000 years!
"We have known for nearly 80 years that small changes in solar activity can cause large climatic changes. Where sunlight falls, for how long, and with what effect, determine how climate will respond.
"The most recent scientific evidence shows that even small changes in solar radiation have a strong effect on Earth’s temperature and climate.
The second article:
See entire article by Gregory F. Fegel
http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/106922-earth_ice_age-0
(Most data) shows a strong correlation with the three astronomical cycles known as the Milankovich cycles. … (including) the tilt of the earth, which varies over a 41,000 year period; the shape of the earth’s orbit, which changes over a period of 100,000 years; and the Precession of the Equinoxes, also known as the earth’s ‘wobble’, which gradually rotates the direction of the earth’s axis over a period of 26,000 years. According to the Milankovich theory of Ice Age causation, these three astronomical cycles, each of which effects the amount of solar radiation which reaches the earth, act together to produce the cycle of cold Ice Age maximums and warm interglacials.
In 1976 the prestigious journal “Science” published a landmark paper by John Imbrie, James Hays, and Nicholas Shackleton entitled “Variations in the Earth's orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages,” which described the correlation … between the climate data obtained from ocean sediment cores and the patterns of the astronomical Milankovich cycles.
Imbrie, Hays, and Shackleton wrote that "…the results indicate that the long-term trend over the next 20,000 years is towards extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation and cooler climate."
In 1999 the British journal “Nature” published the results of data derived from glacial ice cores collected at the Russia’s Vostok station in Antarctica during the 1990s. The Vostok ice core data includes a record of global atmospheric temperatures, atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases, and airborne particulates starting from 420,000 years ago and continuing through history up to our present time.
The graph of the Vostok ice core data shows that the Ice Age maximums and the warm interglacials occur within a regular cyclic pattern, the graph-line of which is similar to the rhythm of a heartbeat on an electrocardiogram tracing.
It’s the Sun, stupid!
By Willie Soon, solar and climate scientist
.
5 Mar 09 – (Excerpts) "The amount and distribution of solar energy that we receive varies as the Earth revolves around the Sun and also in response to changes in the Sun’s activity. Scientists have now been studying solar influences on climate for 5000 years.
"Chinese imperial astronomers kept detailed sunspot records. They noticed that more sunspots meant warmer weather on Earth. In 1801, the celebrated astronomer William Herschel noticed that when there were few spots, the price of wheat soared – because, he surmised, less “light and heat” from the Sun resulted in reduced harvests.
The price of wheat soared! As I've been sayingall along, I fear that
we'll be fighting in the streets for food long before we're covered by ice.
"Between 1645 and 1715, sunspots were very rare and temperatures were low. Then sunspot frequency grew until, between 1930 and 2000, the Sun was more active than at almost any time in the last 10,000 years. The oceans can cause up to several decades of delay before air temperatures respond fully to this solar “Grand Maximum.” Now that the Sun is becoming less active again, global temperatures have fallen for seven years.
More active than at almost any time in the last 10,000 years!
"We have known for nearly 80 years that small changes in solar activity can cause large climatic changes. Where sunlight falls, for how long, and with what effect, determine how climate will respond.
"The most recent scientific evidence shows that even small changes in solar radiation have a strong effect on Earth’s temperature and climate.
The second article:
See entire article by Gregory F. Fegel
http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/106922-earth_ice_age-0
(Most data) shows a strong correlation with the three astronomical cycles known as the Milankovich cycles. … (including) the tilt of the earth, which varies over a 41,000 year period; the shape of the earth’s orbit, which changes over a period of 100,000 years; and the Precession of the Equinoxes, also known as the earth’s ‘wobble’, which gradually rotates the direction of the earth’s axis over a period of 26,000 years. According to the Milankovich theory of Ice Age causation, these three astronomical cycles, each of which effects the amount of solar radiation which reaches the earth, act together to produce the cycle of cold Ice Age maximums and warm interglacials.
In 1976 the prestigious journal “Science” published a landmark paper by John Imbrie, James Hays, and Nicholas Shackleton entitled “Variations in the Earth's orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages,” which described the correlation … between the climate data obtained from ocean sediment cores and the patterns of the astronomical Milankovich cycles.
Imbrie, Hays, and Shackleton wrote that "…the results indicate that the long-term trend over the next 20,000 years is towards extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation and cooler climate."
In 1999 the British journal “Nature” published the results of data derived from glacial ice cores collected at the Russia’s Vostok station in Antarctica during the 1990s. The Vostok ice core data includes a record of global atmospheric temperatures, atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases, and airborne particulates starting from 420,000 years ago and continuing through history up to our present time.
The graph of the Vostok ice core data shows that the Ice Age maximums and the warm interglacials occur within a regular cyclic pattern, the graph-line of which is similar to the rhythm of a heartbeat on an electrocardiogram tracing.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Three little words
I went to a link for a ND recruiting story in the South Bend Tribune, and on the right hand side of the page were listed headlines linked to other stories. One caption read "Girl's body found." It chilled me to read those words, even without knowing any of the facts of the story. Whatever singular tragedy was represented by those words, how many times must we see them repeated?
I googled the phrase, and here's the result: 3,730,000 for "girl's body found"
For the sake of comparison I tried a couple other phrases: 1,650,000 for "hope for the future".
557,000 for "Jesus loves you".
and 207,000 for "parents protect children"
Let's say a prayer for the children and their families, and a prayer of thankfulness that our own daughters have been safe and well.
I googled the phrase, and here's the result: 3,730,000 for "girl's body found"
For the sake of comparison I tried a couple other phrases: 1,650,000 for "hope for the future".
557,000 for "Jesus loves you".
and 207,000 for "parents protect children"
Let's say a prayer for the children and their families, and a prayer of thankfulness that our own daughters have been safe and well.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Wiki
While reading about the British naval hero of the Napoleonic era, Thomas Cochrane, an interesting adventurous character, I found references to Francis Burdett. Cochrane has been immortalized, being recognised as a model for O'Brian's Jack Aubrey and Forrester's Horatio Hornblower, but Burdett was not someone I knew about, so I thought I'd share this account of his life.
Aside from the other admirable things he did, I liked that he stopped eating when his wife died and passed away ten days later.
Francis Burdett
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sir Francis Burdett
by Thomas Phillips
Born 1770
Died 1844
Residence Foremarke Hall
Nationality English
Occupation Politician
Political party Radical, Tory
Spouse(s) Sophia Coutts
Parents Francis Burdett and his wife Eleanor
Sir Francis Burdett, 5th Baronet (25 January 1770 – 23 January 1844) was an English reformist politician, the son of Francis Burdett and his wife Eleanor, daughter of William Jones of Ramsbury manor, Wiltshire, and grandson of Sir Robert Burdett, Bart. From 1820 until his death he lived at 25 St James's Place.
Contents [hide]
1 Burdett Family History
2 Education and Early Life
3 Political career
4 Notes
5 References
6 See also
7 External links
[edit] Burdett Family History
Sir Francis Burdett (5th Bart.) was a member of the Burdett family of Bramcote and inherited the family baronetcy from his grandfather Sir Robert Burdett in 1797.
[edit] Education and Early Life
He was educated at Westminster School and the University of Oxford. When young, he was for a long time the notorious lover of Lady Oxford (according to the journal of Thomas Raikes), and afterwards travelled in France and Switzerland. He was in Paris during the earlier days of the French Revolution.
A young Sir Francis Burdett.Returning to England in 1793, he married Sophia Coutts, the second daughter of the wealthy banker Thomas Coutts.[1] She brought him the large fortune of £25,000. They had a daughter – Angela Burdett-Coutts – who inherited the Burdett family's baronetcy from his father and became the first Baroness of the Foremark Burdett family.
In 1796 he became Member of Parliament for Boroughbridge, having purchased this seat from the representatives of the Duke of Newcastle, and in 1797 succeeded his grandfather as 5th Baronet.
[edit] Political career
Baronet and Member of Parliament
His inheritance included the family seat of Foremarke Hall and 'the hamlets of Ingleby and Foremark (sometimes referred to as a manor) which were under his Lordship'[2].
In Parliament he soon became prominent as an opponent of William Pitt the Younger, and as an advocate of popular rights. He denounced the war with France, the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, and the proposed exclusion of John Horne Tooke from parliament, and quickly became the idol of the people. He was instrumental in securing an inquiry into the condition of Coldbath Fields Prison, but as a result of this step he was for a time prevented by the government from visiting any prison in the kingdom. In 1797 he made the acquaintance of Horne Tooke, whose pupil he became, not only in politics, but also in philology.
His last election?
At the general election of 1802 Burdett was a candidate for the county of Middlesex, but his return was declared void in 1804, and in the subsequent contest he was defeated. In 1805 this return was amended in his favor, but as this was again quickly reversed, Burdett, who had spent an immense sum of money over the affair, declared he would not stand for parliament again.
At the general election of 1806 Burdett was a leading supporter of James Paull, the reform candidate for the City of Westminster; but in the following year a misunderstanding led to a duel between Burdett and Paull in which both combatants were wounded. At the general election in 1807, Burdett, in spite of his reluctance, was nominated for Westminster, and amidst great enthusiasm was returned at the top of the poll.
He took up again the congenial work of attacking abuses and agitating for reform, and in 1810 came sharply into collision with the House of Commons. A radical named John Gale Jones had been committed to prison by the House, a proceeding that was denounced by Burdett, who questioned the power of the House to take this step, and vainly attempted to secure the release of Jones. He then issued a revised edition of his speech on this occasion which was published by William Cobbett in the Weekly Register.
A warrant for his arrest
The House voted this action a breach of privilege, and the speaker issued a warrant for Burdett's arrest. The charge was libelling the House of Commons. Barring himself in his house for two days, he defied the authorities, while a mob gathered in his defence. Burdett's colleague Thomas Cochrane offered assistance, but, realizing that Cochrane intended to use military tactics during this civil and political affair, Burdett declined. At length the house was entered, and under an escort of soldiers he was conveyed to the Tower of London. Released when parliament was in recess, he caused his supporters much disappointment by returning to Westminster by water, and so avoiding a demonstration in his honor. He then brought legal actions against the speaker and the sergeant-at-arms, but the courts upheld the action of the House.
Reform in parliament Burdett denounced corporal punishment in the army, and supported all attempts to check corruption, but his principal efforts were directed towards procuring a reform of parliament, and the removal of Roman Catholic disabilities. In 1809 he had proposed a scheme of parliamentary reform, and returning to the subject in 1817 and 1818 he anticipated the Chartist movement by suggesting universal male suffrage, equal electoral districts, vote by ballot, and annual parliaments; but his motions met with very little support. He succeeded, however, in carrying a resolution in 1825 that the House should consider the laws concerning Roman Catholics. This was followed by a bill embodying his proposals, which passed the Commons but was rejected by the House of Lords. In 1827 and 1828 he again proposed resolutions on this subject, and saw his proposals become law in 1829. In 1820 Burdett had again come into serious conflict with the government. Having severely censured its action with reference to the Peterloo Massacre, he was prosecuted at Leicester assizes, fined 1000 pounds, and committed to prison for three months. After the passing of the Reform Bill in 1832 the ardour of the veteran reformer was somewhat abated, and a number of his constituents soon took umbrage at his changed attitude.
His legacy and death
Consequently he resigned his seat early in 1837, but was re-elected. However, at the general election in the same year he forsook Westminster and was elected member for North Wiltshire, which seat he retained, acting in general with the Conservatives, until his death. He was nick-named by fellow conservatives as "Old Glory". His wife, Lady Burdett to whom he was devoted died on 13 January 1844. Sir Francis, then 74, became inconsoleable and felt he had nothing left to live for. He refused all food and died just ten days later on the 23 January 1844. He and his wife were buried at the same time in the same vault at Ramsbury Church, Wiltshire. He left a son, Robert, who succeeded to the baronetcy, and who inherited his very large fortune, and five daughters, the youngest of whom became the celebrated Baroness Burdett-Coutts after inheriting the Coutts fortune from her grandfather's widow Harriet (Duchess of St Albans) and appending the Coutts surname under the terms of Harriet's will. He was a member of the Literary Association of the Friends of Poland.
PS Cochrane's life was also interesting if you want to look him up.
.
Aside from the other admirable things he did, I liked that he stopped eating when his wife died and passed away ten days later.
Francis Burdett
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sir Francis Burdett
by Thomas Phillips
Born 1770
Died 1844
Residence Foremarke Hall
Nationality English
Occupation Politician
Political party Radical, Tory
Spouse(s) Sophia Coutts
Parents Francis Burdett and his wife Eleanor
Sir Francis Burdett, 5th Baronet (25 January 1770 – 23 January 1844) was an English reformist politician, the son of Francis Burdett and his wife Eleanor, daughter of William Jones of Ramsbury manor, Wiltshire, and grandson of Sir Robert Burdett, Bart. From 1820 until his death he lived at 25 St James's Place.
Contents [hide]
1 Burdett Family History
2 Education and Early Life
3 Political career
4 Notes
5 References
6 See also
7 External links
[edit] Burdett Family History
Sir Francis Burdett (5th Bart.) was a member of the Burdett family of Bramcote and inherited the family baronetcy from his grandfather Sir Robert Burdett in 1797.
[edit] Education and Early Life
He was educated at Westminster School and the University of Oxford. When young, he was for a long time the notorious lover of Lady Oxford (according to the journal of Thomas Raikes), and afterwards travelled in France and Switzerland. He was in Paris during the earlier days of the French Revolution.
A young Sir Francis Burdett.Returning to England in 1793, he married Sophia Coutts, the second daughter of the wealthy banker Thomas Coutts.[1] She brought him the large fortune of £25,000. They had a daughter – Angela Burdett-Coutts – who inherited the Burdett family's baronetcy from his father and became the first Baroness of the Foremark Burdett family.
In 1796 he became Member of Parliament for Boroughbridge, having purchased this seat from the representatives of the Duke of Newcastle, and in 1797 succeeded his grandfather as 5th Baronet.
[edit] Political career
Baronet and Member of Parliament
His inheritance included the family seat of Foremarke Hall and 'the hamlets of Ingleby and Foremark (sometimes referred to as a manor) which were under his Lordship'[2].
In Parliament he soon became prominent as an opponent of William Pitt the Younger, and as an advocate of popular rights. He denounced the war with France, the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, and the proposed exclusion of John Horne Tooke from parliament, and quickly became the idol of the people. He was instrumental in securing an inquiry into the condition of Coldbath Fields Prison, but as a result of this step he was for a time prevented by the government from visiting any prison in the kingdom. In 1797 he made the acquaintance of Horne Tooke, whose pupil he became, not only in politics, but also in philology.
His last election?
At the general election of 1802 Burdett was a candidate for the county of Middlesex, but his return was declared void in 1804, and in the subsequent contest he was defeated. In 1805 this return was amended in his favor, but as this was again quickly reversed, Burdett, who had spent an immense sum of money over the affair, declared he would not stand for parliament again.
At the general election of 1806 Burdett was a leading supporter of James Paull, the reform candidate for the City of Westminster; but in the following year a misunderstanding led to a duel between Burdett and Paull in which both combatants were wounded. At the general election in 1807, Burdett, in spite of his reluctance, was nominated for Westminster, and amidst great enthusiasm was returned at the top of the poll.
He took up again the congenial work of attacking abuses and agitating for reform, and in 1810 came sharply into collision with the House of Commons. A radical named John Gale Jones had been committed to prison by the House, a proceeding that was denounced by Burdett, who questioned the power of the House to take this step, and vainly attempted to secure the release of Jones. He then issued a revised edition of his speech on this occasion which was published by William Cobbett in the Weekly Register.
A warrant for his arrest
The House voted this action a breach of privilege, and the speaker issued a warrant for Burdett's arrest. The charge was libelling the House of Commons. Barring himself in his house for two days, he defied the authorities, while a mob gathered in his defence. Burdett's colleague Thomas Cochrane offered assistance, but, realizing that Cochrane intended to use military tactics during this civil and political affair, Burdett declined. At length the house was entered, and under an escort of soldiers he was conveyed to the Tower of London. Released when parliament was in recess, he caused his supporters much disappointment by returning to Westminster by water, and so avoiding a demonstration in his honor. He then brought legal actions against the speaker and the sergeant-at-arms, but the courts upheld the action of the House.
Reform in parliament Burdett denounced corporal punishment in the army, and supported all attempts to check corruption, but his principal efforts were directed towards procuring a reform of parliament, and the removal of Roman Catholic disabilities. In 1809 he had proposed a scheme of parliamentary reform, and returning to the subject in 1817 and 1818 he anticipated the Chartist movement by suggesting universal male suffrage, equal electoral districts, vote by ballot, and annual parliaments; but his motions met with very little support. He succeeded, however, in carrying a resolution in 1825 that the House should consider the laws concerning Roman Catholics. This was followed by a bill embodying his proposals, which passed the Commons but was rejected by the House of Lords. In 1827 and 1828 he again proposed resolutions on this subject, and saw his proposals become law in 1829. In 1820 Burdett had again come into serious conflict with the government. Having severely censured its action with reference to the Peterloo Massacre, he was prosecuted at Leicester assizes, fined 1000 pounds, and committed to prison for three months. After the passing of the Reform Bill in 1832 the ardour of the veteran reformer was somewhat abated, and a number of his constituents soon took umbrage at his changed attitude.
His legacy and death
Consequently he resigned his seat early in 1837, but was re-elected. However, at the general election in the same year he forsook Westminster and was elected member for North Wiltshire, which seat he retained, acting in general with the Conservatives, until his death. He was nick-named by fellow conservatives as "Old Glory". His wife, Lady Burdett to whom he was devoted died on 13 January 1844. Sir Francis, then 74, became inconsoleable and felt he had nothing left to live for. He refused all food and died just ten days later on the 23 January 1844. He and his wife were buried at the same time in the same vault at Ramsbury Church, Wiltshire. He left a son, Robert, who succeeded to the baronetcy, and who inherited his very large fortune, and five daughters, the youngest of whom became the celebrated Baroness Burdett-Coutts after inheriting the Coutts fortune from her grandfather's widow Harriet (Duchess of St Albans) and appending the Coutts surname under the terms of Harriet's will. He was a member of the Literary Association of the Friends of Poland.
PS Cochrane's life was also interesting if you want to look him up.
.
Tuesday, March 09, 2010
When at a loss for words, talk ND football.
Irish fans usually get all hot under the collar when the idea of giving up their independent status and joining a conference comes up. Lately it's coming up more often. Reasons include difficulty in scheduling quality opponents during October and November when conference play dominates schedules, the potential for better money than even its exclusive deal with NBC pays, and being less vulnerable to getting shut out of the BCS (Bowl Championship Series). Here's the latest conjecture. Note, adding Texas to the Big 10 has been mentioned occasionally lately.
From Rock's House
"Here's a scenario
by I Got A Rock (2010-03-09 16:14:04)
The Big Ten calls ND and says they have Texas and Pittsburgh ready to join, but want to keep an even number. They propose the following:
ND joins with the other two.
Divisions:
South -- Texas-ND-Pitt-Penn State-Indiana-Purdue-Illinois
North -- Michigan-Ohio State-Michigan State-Minnesota-Iowa-Northwestern-Wisconsin
Six division games, two crossovers with one protected. Guaranteed games every year with Texas, Penn State, and one out of Michigan and Ohio State. Four non-conference games, two if you count USC and Navy as protected.
If you look at the tiers, you've got four in the top tier every year with Penn State, Texas, USC, and Michigan or Ohio State. Some years Wisconsin would be the second crossover, so that would make five.
That's a pretty compelling schedule every year."
A conference championship, usually between Michigan or Ohio and ND or Texas would be a pretty fun annual event, make a lot of money, and probably reinvigorate the Big 10 If Texas won't move to the Big 10 consider Missouri as a substitute: not quite as enticing.
The Irish fans who most strenuously object do so because of the Big 10's rejection of Rockne's efforts to join the conference in the 1920's. Big 10 coaches didn't want to play Notre Dame and appealed overtly to anti-Catholic prejudices to justify their rejection of Notre Dame. Alternatively to joining the conference, Rockne developed a national following by traveling across the country to play the best teams available.
From Rock's House
"Here's a scenario
by I Got A Rock (2010-03-09 16:14:04)
The Big Ten calls ND and says they have Texas and Pittsburgh ready to join, but want to keep an even number. They propose the following:
ND joins with the other two.
Divisions:
South -- Texas-ND-Pitt-Penn State-Indiana-Purdue-Illinois
North -- Michigan-Ohio State-Michigan State-Minnesota-Iowa-Northwestern-Wisconsin
Six division games, two crossovers with one protected. Guaranteed games every year with Texas, Penn State, and one out of Michigan and Ohio State. Four non-conference games, two if you count USC and Navy as protected.
If you look at the tiers, you've got four in the top tier every year with Penn State, Texas, USC, and Michigan or Ohio State. Some years Wisconsin would be the second crossover, so that would make five.
That's a pretty compelling schedule every year."
A conference championship, usually between Michigan or Ohio and ND or Texas would be a pretty fun annual event, make a lot of money, and probably reinvigorate the Big 10 If Texas won't move to the Big 10 consider Missouri as a substitute: not quite as enticing.
The Irish fans who most strenuously object do so because of the Big 10's rejection of Rockne's efforts to join the conference in the 1920's. Big 10 coaches didn't want to play Notre Dame and appealed overtly to anti-Catholic prejudices to justify their rejection of Notre Dame. Alternatively to joining the conference, Rockne developed a national following by traveling across the country to play the best teams available.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Prayer
"Prayer is not asking. Prayer is putting oneself in the hands of God, at His disposition, and listening to His voice in the depth of our hearts."
— Mother Teresa
“Prayer for others…. is the very beat of a compassionate heart. To pray for a friend that is ill, for a student who is depressed, for a teacher who is in conflict; for people in prison, in hospitals, on battlefields – is not a futile effort to influence God’s will, but a hospitable gesture by which we invite our neighbors into the center of our hearts. To pray for others means to allow their pains and sufferings, their anxieties and loneliness, their confusion and fears to resound in our innermost selves….It is in and through us that God’s Spirit touches them with his healing presence.” — Henri J.M. Nouwen
Are you like me? Do you wish prayer to me more pro-active? I don't pray to win the lottery, I don't even pray for world peace, or that a friend may be healed, but I like to think that in praying for others, I can ask God to send them grace, grace being in my lexicon an enabling gift. A gift of faith, a gift of comfort, a gift of wisdom. As we pray in the requiem, let the perpetual light shine upon them.
But these wise and holy contemporaries seem to be telling us that only we will be affected by our prayer, and that through our changed selves will God reach others.
Not much of a fast track, there, since I, at least, am able and willing to reach out to so few and not as generously as is needed.
But then we are reminded:
For you see, in the end, it is between you and God. It was never between you and them anyway."
— Mother Teresa
Perhaps, I should try a little harder.
.
— Mother Teresa
“Prayer for others…. is the very beat of a compassionate heart. To pray for a friend that is ill, for a student who is depressed, for a teacher who is in conflict; for people in prison, in hospitals, on battlefields – is not a futile effort to influence God’s will, but a hospitable gesture by which we invite our neighbors into the center of our hearts. To pray for others means to allow their pains and sufferings, their anxieties and loneliness, their confusion and fears to resound in our innermost selves….It is in and through us that God’s Spirit touches them with his healing presence.” — Henri J.M. Nouwen
Are you like me? Do you wish prayer to me more pro-active? I don't pray to win the lottery, I don't even pray for world peace, or that a friend may be healed, but I like to think that in praying for others, I can ask God to send them grace, grace being in my lexicon an enabling gift. A gift of faith, a gift of comfort, a gift of wisdom. As we pray in the requiem, let the perpetual light shine upon them.
But these wise and holy contemporaries seem to be telling us that only we will be affected by our prayer, and that through our changed selves will God reach others.
Not much of a fast track, there, since I, at least, am able and willing to reach out to so few and not as generously as is needed.
But then we are reminded:
For you see, in the end, it is between you and God. It was never between you and them anyway."
— Mother Teresa
Perhaps, I should try a little harder.
.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Is it appropriate to talk about
family on Blogger? I guess so.
Daughter Kim is moving to Las Vegas. So much is loaded into that simple statement. Excitement and happiness for her and husband Ross. The move is in order for Ross to take advantage of a very attractive job offer. (We'd all had our fingers crossed following an interview in Chicago last week, but Chicago did't pull the trigger and the Las Vegas firm did). And they'll probably get a ton of house cheap in Vegas these says, and the hot dry weather will probably ameliorate the symptoms of Kim's fybroid myalgia. I even imagine Kim completing her degree at UNLV as a day student, attending classes with little Remy strapped to her back.
Kim and Ross's moving away will leave a big hole in our lives, and little Remy won't even be born as of their departure date. I don't know how they expect to raise a child without my proximate support. I will so miss being involved. Although, that makes me consider another positive aspect: Ross's new insurance will cover any medical costs involved with the little one's arrival.
As I've mentioned here before Kim is the source of a lot of guidance for me. She can be disapproving in such a thoughtful way I can never take offense.
I always say, and really believe that Kim, of all the children, was destined to make her own way in the world, sometimes I expected with hardly a glance back. I rely on that sense to keep me from pining away, but that's not to say she is not a very loving child, and we'll miss her very much.
And I'll sure miss being able to suggest to Janett on those occasions when I've badly upset her, that maybe she should call Kim and talk to her about it.
Monday, February 15, 2010
My third post of the day
Tonight I watched the last three episodes of Friday Night Lights. It was a pleasant diversion with a happy ending, and I was lifted up a little bit. I was taking a break from worrying about all the things I worry about, largely at Kim's recomendation that I distract myself from my concerns.
As I enjoyed watching the show, the characters I've gotten to like over the last few years dealt with some pretty serious stuff, didn't handle things too badly and never once referred to politics or the economy. We all deal with the crises and rejoice at the beauty in our own lives, and ultimately trust in God that whatever happens, we'll find our way through with His help and guidance.
So then I pondered upon my inclination to grapple with the most portentious problems of our time, and decided that it was a touch maniacal. Maybe, driven by a need to understand forces way beyond my control, maybe to divine the root of evil that causes injustice and unhappiness in our world, but ultimately a symptom of an ego that has become unbalanced, and tilts at windmills that may be dragons. Even if they be dragons, there should be more productive ways for me to spend my energies.
And even if I felt that my insights were somehow special and needed to be shared, was I trying to give a helpful caution to those around me, or just being a self- important Cassandra? In any case I've spelled out sufficient dark scenarios that my family, friends, and acquaintances are well aware of my concerns. and now I'll try to relax a little, and maybe focus on more postive endeavors.
As I enjoyed watching the show, the characters I've gotten to like over the last few years dealt with some pretty serious stuff, didn't handle things too badly and never once referred to politics or the economy. We all deal with the crises and rejoice at the beauty in our own lives, and ultimately trust in God that whatever happens, we'll find our way through with His help and guidance.
So then I pondered upon my inclination to grapple with the most portentious problems of our time, and decided that it was a touch maniacal. Maybe, driven by a need to understand forces way beyond my control, maybe to divine the root of evil that causes injustice and unhappiness in our world, but ultimately a symptom of an ego that has become unbalanced, and tilts at windmills that may be dragons. Even if they be dragons, there should be more productive ways for me to spend my energies.
And even if I felt that my insights were somehow special and needed to be shared, was I trying to give a helpful caution to those around me, or just being a self- important Cassandra? In any case I've spelled out sufficient dark scenarios that my family, friends, and acquaintances are well aware of my concerns. and now I'll try to relax a little, and maybe focus on more postive endeavors.
Quants
Quants; another 21st century vocabulary word you may have wondered about.
An article with passing reference to Purcell vs Mack at Morgan Stanley
And a post to move my previous post into obscurity further down the page :O)
'The Quants' Review: When the Money Grid Went Dark 1 comment
by: Sydney Williams February 15, 2010 | about: GS / MS / FIG Sydney Williams 13
Complex algorithms targeting minute market inefficiencies minted billions in profits, until the math no longer worked.
In June 2005, John Mack returned to Morgan Stanley (MS) as CEO, replacing his bitter rival, the staid Philip Purcell, a one-time McKinsey consultant and the boss of Dean Witter. Since his departure four years earlier, the firm's shares had collapsed 40 percent.
Shareholders—and many of the firm's directors—wanted a more aggressive leader. Goldman Sachs (GS), Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers (LEHMQ.PK) now followed a new market paradigm, and Morgan was not keeping pace.
Mack, a former bond trader, had been serving as chairman of the hedge fund giant Pequot Management. He acted swiftly, committing billions in risk capital to proprietary investing and trading. His objective: double revenues in five years while keeping costs flat.
By 2007, own-account trading was dominating the big Wall Street banks' banner profits. Morgan, like its competitors, was leveraged at more than 30 to 1, borrowing $30 for every dollar it owned.
Life was great. Mack and other Wall Street bosses were earning tens of millions of dollars, while their gargantuan firms controlled the world's capital flows.
And then the lights dimmed. It was August, and the party was ending.
In little more than a year, Bear, Lehman and Merrill Lynch would disappear. Morgan would come within days of collapse, and even mighty Goldman could not guarantee a certain future.
Scott Patterson's fascinating new book, The Quants [Crown Business, February 2, 2010], describes the extraordinary paradigm that catapulted Wall Street into the stratosphere, and ushered its sudden descent. "Quant" is Wall Street lingo for a mathematical whiz-kid, the nerd with the PhD from MIT or the University of Chicago.
For years, brokerage firms confined quants to backrooms, building models supporting front-line traders and research analysts. By the early 90s, quants were proving that their skills were much more valuable, though mostly at small hedge funds.
The big firms noticed, but did not commit completely to their labyrinthine models until after the dot-com meltdown. They were feasting just fine, thank you.
For all their size, Wall Street's mighty banks tend to focus their gambling on a handful of market activities, whether technology banking or proprietary trading—an ironic contrast to the mantra of diversification preached as they peddle their different products and services.
The tech bubble boosted profits, and bankers controlled Wall Street. Quantitative investing exploded from the ashes of the stock market collapse. Its breathtakingly complex strategies and their uncanny success lured billions of dollars from pension funds and endowments, not just wealthy individuals.
Wall Street's new titans were traders, wholly confident in the ability of black-box strategies to mint massive profits.
Character sketches
Using vivid character sketches, Mr. Patterson offers his reader a fast-paced narrative focused on quantdom's central figures. The godfather is Ed Thorp, a math genius whose books Beat the Dealer and Beat the Market became must-reads for the legions who followed him. Thorp devised a mathematical formula for card-counting, which he later applied to the markets as the pioneer of covertible bond arbitrage. Perhaps most important, he perfected a business model to sustain his strategy.
Other characters include Ken Griffin, the imperious founder of Citadel, with whom Thorp shared his trading strategy and business model; Cliff Asness, the hot-tempered founder of AQR; Jim Simons, the reclusive founder of Renaissance Capital; and Peter Muller and Boaz Weinstein, who orchestrated in-house hedge funds at Morgan Stanley and Deutsche Bank (DB).
Sometimes friends, sometimes rivals, these kingpins share an obsession for poker, and would live well as professional players, if not for the enticement of Wall Street's billion dollar payoffs.
They work behind glass doors, travel in private jets and pursue the Truth.
The Truth was the universal secret about the way the market worked that could only be discovered through mathematics. Revealed through the study of obscure patterns in the market, the Truth was the key to unlocking billions in profits.
—The Quants
Another one of Mr. Patterson's core characters is Eugene Fama, who, he writes, "connected the dots and put the efficient-market hypothesis on the map as the central feature of modern portfolio theory". Professor Fama's hypothesis presents the notion of market equilibrium, where the market's various participants in hunting for inefficiency collectively create efficiency and balance.
As the market bounces around, its returns fall along a bell-shaped curve. For quants, the Truth occurs in detecting small price variances caused by market participants continuously working towards an equilibrium, and knowing that small moves are more likely than large ones.
Their mainframe computers deploy rapid-fire, complex algorithms that hunt for microscopic price discrepancies. Leverage allows them to expand small gains into massive gains. For years, they sourced (borrowed) cheap (low-interest rate) Yen-denominated capital, paying it back with their outsized returns and keeping the profits, the so-called carry trade.
Mr. Patterson explains how each of the quants was becoming "part of and helping create a massive electronic network, a digitized, computerized money-trading machine that could shift billions around the globe in the blink of an eye, at the click of mouse". He defines this network as the "Money Grid", a machine with "octopuslike tentacles reaching to the farthest corners of civilization, yet it is also practically invisible".
Complex algorithms, the quants would learn, do not account for irrational human behavior, and once-in-every-10,000-years events can occur once every few years—or, even, every few days. The black swan—a term coined by quant-doubter Nassim Nicholas Tabel to describe unexpected events—does not just exist in Australia, it exists in every country on every continent.
Nor do they account for the dangerous concentrations of capital that form when copycat funds plow into similar positions.
New governance
Patterson avoids direct finger pointing, and does not portray quants as nefarious wrong-doers: rather as victims of miscalculated self-confidence. And while it's tempting to blame "hedgies" for collapsing the financial system, it would be wrong to do so.
The system itself allowed hedge funds to emerge and flourish. The irony of Mr. Mack concentrating and leveraging his firm's capital is that he nearly destroyed Morgan Stanley at the behest of his shareholders—or, rather, the core group which brought him back in 2005 to compete with Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns.
Mr. Mack and his CEO cohorts bear a considerable portion of the blame, as they lorded over the system that fed aggressive risk-taking. But they weren't alone. Government contributed directly to the financial collapse, with poorly crafted legislation and insufficient regulation, in particular rules creating and fostering the sub-prime mortgage market and poor oversight of mounting system-wide risks.
Patterson's book reminds us that Wall Street governance needs to change. Financial innovation is too smart and happens too quickly for any government regulatory body to keep pace. The only way for the system to find balance is for its participants to regulate their own risk-taking.
Clearly, the publicly-traded investment bank model does not work, at least not as scripted. Take basic accounting rules. Even though a firm possesses considerable "intellectual capital"—and, in fact, could not exist without this capital—accounting rules don't force it capitalize this expense and place it on the balance sheet.
Instead bonuses appear as an expense item on the firm's P&L, inflating returns. If firms capitalized employee bonuses, shareholders would view risk-taking much differently.
Ideally, a firm would seek to align itself more closely with shareholders, or government would encourage this. The simplest means for this to happen would be for the firm to scrap its shareholder structure altogether, and return to its original partnership model. Goldman only listed in 1999, and arguably has performed best for having lasted the longest as a private partnership.
Once risk-capital becomes owners' capital the dynamic changes. The dollar you gamble isn't just someone else's dollar, it's mine. So be careful.
For all their perfection, black box models are not perfect. They had survived various currency and debt crises, the spectacular blow-up of Long-Term Capital Management, and numerous other market spasms. The hubris of the narrow cadre of individuals controlling capital flows—investment bankers, central bankers, and government officials—was their belief that the models were indomitable risk-reduction tools.
No doubt, new models will emerge, likely featuring behavioral finance and more "qualitative" elements. Already, many experts are concerned that quant-driven strategies targeting dark pools and flash trading could destabilize the financial system once again.
Until the system itself gets smarter, don't expect smart models to abate volatility anytime soon.
An article with passing reference to Purcell vs Mack at Morgan Stanley
And a post to move my previous post into obscurity further down the page :O)
'The Quants' Review: When the Money Grid Went Dark 1 comment
by: Sydney Williams February 15, 2010 | about: GS / MS / FIG Sydney Williams 13
Complex algorithms targeting minute market inefficiencies minted billions in profits, until the math no longer worked.
In June 2005, John Mack returned to Morgan Stanley (MS) as CEO, replacing his bitter rival, the staid Philip Purcell, a one-time McKinsey consultant and the boss of Dean Witter. Since his departure four years earlier, the firm's shares had collapsed 40 percent.
Shareholders—and many of the firm's directors—wanted a more aggressive leader. Goldman Sachs (GS), Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers (LEHMQ.PK) now followed a new market paradigm, and Morgan was not keeping pace.
Mack, a former bond trader, had been serving as chairman of the hedge fund giant Pequot Management. He acted swiftly, committing billions in risk capital to proprietary investing and trading. His objective: double revenues in five years while keeping costs flat.
By 2007, own-account trading was dominating the big Wall Street banks' banner profits. Morgan, like its competitors, was leveraged at more than 30 to 1, borrowing $30 for every dollar it owned.
Life was great. Mack and other Wall Street bosses were earning tens of millions of dollars, while their gargantuan firms controlled the world's capital flows.
And then the lights dimmed. It was August, and the party was ending.
In little more than a year, Bear, Lehman and Merrill Lynch would disappear. Morgan would come within days of collapse, and even mighty Goldman could not guarantee a certain future.
Scott Patterson's fascinating new book, The Quants [Crown Business, February 2, 2010], describes the extraordinary paradigm that catapulted Wall Street into the stratosphere, and ushered its sudden descent. "Quant" is Wall Street lingo for a mathematical whiz-kid, the nerd with the PhD from MIT or the University of Chicago.
For years, brokerage firms confined quants to backrooms, building models supporting front-line traders and research analysts. By the early 90s, quants were proving that their skills were much more valuable, though mostly at small hedge funds.
The big firms noticed, but did not commit completely to their labyrinthine models until after the dot-com meltdown. They were feasting just fine, thank you.
For all their size, Wall Street's mighty banks tend to focus their gambling on a handful of market activities, whether technology banking or proprietary trading—an ironic contrast to the mantra of diversification preached as they peddle their different products and services.
The tech bubble boosted profits, and bankers controlled Wall Street. Quantitative investing exploded from the ashes of the stock market collapse. Its breathtakingly complex strategies and their uncanny success lured billions of dollars from pension funds and endowments, not just wealthy individuals.
Wall Street's new titans were traders, wholly confident in the ability of black-box strategies to mint massive profits.
Character sketches
Using vivid character sketches, Mr. Patterson offers his reader a fast-paced narrative focused on quantdom's central figures. The godfather is Ed Thorp, a math genius whose books Beat the Dealer and Beat the Market became must-reads for the legions who followed him. Thorp devised a mathematical formula for card-counting, which he later applied to the markets as the pioneer of covertible bond arbitrage. Perhaps most important, he perfected a business model to sustain his strategy.
Other characters include Ken Griffin, the imperious founder of Citadel, with whom Thorp shared his trading strategy and business model; Cliff Asness, the hot-tempered founder of AQR; Jim Simons, the reclusive founder of Renaissance Capital; and Peter Muller and Boaz Weinstein, who orchestrated in-house hedge funds at Morgan Stanley and Deutsche Bank (DB).
Sometimes friends, sometimes rivals, these kingpins share an obsession for poker, and would live well as professional players, if not for the enticement of Wall Street's billion dollar payoffs.
They work behind glass doors, travel in private jets and pursue the Truth.
The Truth was the universal secret about the way the market worked that could only be discovered through mathematics. Revealed through the study of obscure patterns in the market, the Truth was the key to unlocking billions in profits.
—The Quants
Another one of Mr. Patterson's core characters is Eugene Fama, who, he writes, "connected the dots and put the efficient-market hypothesis on the map as the central feature of modern portfolio theory". Professor Fama's hypothesis presents the notion of market equilibrium, where the market's various participants in hunting for inefficiency collectively create efficiency and balance.
As the market bounces around, its returns fall along a bell-shaped curve. For quants, the Truth occurs in detecting small price variances caused by market participants continuously working towards an equilibrium, and knowing that small moves are more likely than large ones.
Their mainframe computers deploy rapid-fire, complex algorithms that hunt for microscopic price discrepancies. Leverage allows them to expand small gains into massive gains. For years, they sourced (borrowed) cheap (low-interest rate) Yen-denominated capital, paying it back with their outsized returns and keeping the profits, the so-called carry trade.
Mr. Patterson explains how each of the quants was becoming "part of and helping create a massive electronic network, a digitized, computerized money-trading machine that could shift billions around the globe in the blink of an eye, at the click of mouse". He defines this network as the "Money Grid", a machine with "octopuslike tentacles reaching to the farthest corners of civilization, yet it is also practically invisible".
Complex algorithms, the quants would learn, do not account for irrational human behavior, and once-in-every-10,000-years events can occur once every few years—or, even, every few days. The black swan—a term coined by quant-doubter Nassim Nicholas Tabel to describe unexpected events—does not just exist in Australia, it exists in every country on every continent.
Nor do they account for the dangerous concentrations of capital that form when copycat funds plow into similar positions.
New governance
Patterson avoids direct finger pointing, and does not portray quants as nefarious wrong-doers: rather as victims of miscalculated self-confidence. And while it's tempting to blame "hedgies" for collapsing the financial system, it would be wrong to do so.
The system itself allowed hedge funds to emerge and flourish. The irony of Mr. Mack concentrating and leveraging his firm's capital is that he nearly destroyed Morgan Stanley at the behest of his shareholders—or, rather, the core group which brought him back in 2005 to compete with Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns.
Mr. Mack and his CEO cohorts bear a considerable portion of the blame, as they lorded over the system that fed aggressive risk-taking. But they weren't alone. Government contributed directly to the financial collapse, with poorly crafted legislation and insufficient regulation, in particular rules creating and fostering the sub-prime mortgage market and poor oversight of mounting system-wide risks.
Patterson's book reminds us that Wall Street governance needs to change. Financial innovation is too smart and happens too quickly for any government regulatory body to keep pace. The only way for the system to find balance is for its participants to regulate their own risk-taking.
Clearly, the publicly-traded investment bank model does not work, at least not as scripted. Take basic accounting rules. Even though a firm possesses considerable "intellectual capital"—and, in fact, could not exist without this capital—accounting rules don't force it capitalize this expense and place it on the balance sheet.
Instead bonuses appear as an expense item on the firm's P&L, inflating returns. If firms capitalized employee bonuses, shareholders would view risk-taking much differently.
Ideally, a firm would seek to align itself more closely with shareholders, or government would encourage this. The simplest means for this to happen would be for the firm to scrap its shareholder structure altogether, and return to its original partnership model. Goldman only listed in 1999, and arguably has performed best for having lasted the longest as a private partnership.
Once risk-capital becomes owners' capital the dynamic changes. The dollar you gamble isn't just someone else's dollar, it's mine. So be careful.
For all their perfection, black box models are not perfect. They had survived various currency and debt crises, the spectacular blow-up of Long-Term Capital Management, and numerous other market spasms. The hubris of the narrow cadre of individuals controlling capital flows—investment bankers, central bankers, and government officials—was their belief that the models were indomitable risk-reduction tools.
No doubt, new models will emerge, likely featuring behavioral finance and more "qualitative" elements. Already, many experts are concerned that quant-driven strategies targeting dark pools and flash trading could destabilize the financial system once again.
Until the system itself gets smarter, don't expect smart models to abate volatility anytime soon.
Political crisis, or just a bad dream
While Senator Evan Bayh's announcement this morning prompts this post, I don't regret the withdrawal of Bayh as candidate for the Senate from Indiana, since I felt he had succeeded his father as a very biased supporter of the state of Israel in the senate. But I do refer readers back to my post of a couple months ago, half-heartedly defending President Obama as attempting to be a centrist, and apprehensively quoting the Yeat's line about the widening gyre.
I caution adherents of the extreme right and their corporate sponsors not to celebrate their successes too soon. The disintegration of the political center amd the inefficacy of political institutions eliminate the hope for solutions of critical questions of social and economic justice.
Federal subsidies will be employed at the local level to support police forces and teachers salaries, as bulwarks against social upheaval, but tens of millions of impoverished and disenfranchised will eventually react outside of traditional channels. As I've noted before, the most desperate of our population are comprised of racial and ethnic minorities, and as those minority peoples act out in anger and frustration, the white middle class will tend toward a reactionary response. Some students and intelligentia will allign with the minorities as civil rights are violated. Whether poor whites allign with the frightened middle class, or with the rioting mob will be a significant factor in this breakdown of social order. Conservative theorists may rely on a white backlash in support of social order, but I'm not sure that poor whites, outside the South, won't also join in violent confrontations against the power structure, due to their recent (over the last thirty years) social and economic deprivation. Neither organized labor nor the Democratic Party have identified in the last twenty years with the interests of the traditional working class, leaving the white working class without meaningful representation during this time of economic deterioration, leading to a diminution of hope that now approaches despair.
A couple of years ago, I posted a number of blogs beginning to explain my concerns about the development in our republic of a revolutionary environment. I didn't complete that analysis, hoping that the then growing tendency toward repudiation of the Bush administration would lead to a reappraisal of socio-economic trends, and maybe to a positive denouement. Obama's election was a hopeful sign, but subsequent developments, and Obama's own vaccilation have dissipated the energy of that moment, leaving me not very hopeful.
I do not consider myself a survivalist or a revolutionary, just a concerned observer.
I caution adherents of the extreme right and their corporate sponsors not to celebrate their successes too soon. The disintegration of the political center amd the inefficacy of political institutions eliminate the hope for solutions of critical questions of social and economic justice.
Federal subsidies will be employed at the local level to support police forces and teachers salaries, as bulwarks against social upheaval, but tens of millions of impoverished and disenfranchised will eventually react outside of traditional channels. As I've noted before, the most desperate of our population are comprised of racial and ethnic minorities, and as those minority peoples act out in anger and frustration, the white middle class will tend toward a reactionary response. Some students and intelligentia will allign with the minorities as civil rights are violated. Whether poor whites allign with the frightened middle class, or with the rioting mob will be a significant factor in this breakdown of social order. Conservative theorists may rely on a white backlash in support of social order, but I'm not sure that poor whites, outside the South, won't also join in violent confrontations against the power structure, due to their recent (over the last thirty years) social and economic deprivation. Neither organized labor nor the Democratic Party have identified in the last twenty years with the interests of the traditional working class, leaving the white working class without meaningful representation during this time of economic deterioration, leading to a diminution of hope that now approaches despair.
A couple of years ago, I posted a number of blogs beginning to explain my concerns about the development in our republic of a revolutionary environment. I didn't complete that analysis, hoping that the then growing tendency toward repudiation of the Bush administration would lead to a reappraisal of socio-economic trends, and maybe to a positive denouement. Obama's election was a hopeful sign, but subsequent developments, and Obama's own vaccilation have dissipated the energy of that moment, leaving me not very hopeful.
I do not consider myself a survivalist or a revolutionary, just a concerned observer.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Happy Valentines Day
Most of all to my beautiful wife Janett, in whom, from the first moment I met her has shone grace and dignity and wisdom and charm. How lucky I was she saw something in me worth holding onto. What a tragedy it would have been if either of us had let that coincedental moment slip away instead of resolving at that moment to be together forever.
Also to the other wonderful women in my life, my daughters and sisters, who, if not always keeping me on the straight and narrow, have kept me from sliding down the slippery slopes on either side of the path. And to my mother, who on earth and in heaven has protected me from the consequences of my own silliness.
Stephie emailed me a brief account of my grandmother DKT's earliest years which I'll copy below, which reminds us of how many devoted courageous women have preceded us to bring us to where we are today:
This is the story of Dean Knowlton Traynors parents Cecelia Adelaide Knowlton and Bernard Pitcher Featherly
Bernard Pitcher Featherly, married at Belgiun N.Y. Cecelia Adelaide Knowlton on Nov. 4 1860. Cecelia was 17 when they married and Bernard was 38. Bernard took his young wife to Albion N.Y., where he left her with his sister, Eliza Bailey, and he went at the earrnest solicitation of his brother in law, James H Thorn, who married Catherine Feathers, to Owosso Michigan, where he built a log cabin.
When their first child, Eliza Emily, born in the home of Eliza Bailey was 2 months old, Cecelia Adelaide followed her husband to Owosso taking with her, besides her infant, one son of her husband, Henri (10 years old). The other children had been taken by Bernards relatives and relatives of their mother, Cynthia. Bernard and Cecelia lived in the small log cabin until the summer of 1864. It was there that Bertie and Frank were born.
Bernard walked 20 miles to try and enlist in the Civil War. He was refused because he had 2 handicaps/ When he was a boy he had chopped a toe which had drawn under while healing, and that, he was told would prevent him from going on long marches. Also, he had lost the first finger of his right hand (the trigger finger) in a sawmill.
The parents of Cecelia Adelaide had moved in 1861, to Milwaukee, and Cecelia Adelaide being very lonely , and much afraid of the Indians that roamed the woods around Owosso and longing to be near her parents, early in the summer of 1864 took three babies and crossed the state of Michigan, from Owosso to Grand Haven, and took a boat to Milwaukee. She was only 21 but said that the journey was not difficult because fellow passnagers were kind and had helped her with the children. Henri (or Heri) had remained in Michigan. Lydie (Eliza Emily), then almost 3 years old, had been ill with malaria and was too weak to walk. Bertie, 16 months old, was sickly and could not walk; Frank was 3 months old.
About this time the cousin of James Monroe Knowlton visited Milwaukee and persuaded Bernard that Illinos was a better farming country than Wisconsin. Cecelia Adelaidewith her 3 babies, remained with her parents, and there Bertie died. Bernard built a small house in Crystal Lake Il, or Nunda as it was called then, and sent for his family. In that house was born Lillie, Cora, Charley, and Dean. The family moved from there to a larger home on 20 acres near Paynes Corner, towards McHenry. Four children, Nettie, Bernie (Bernard), Ollie (Olive) and Addie were born in this home.
From there the family moved to Kansas. After 2 years on a government claim in Kansas, during one summer in which there had been in invasion of grasshoppers and the other year a drought, destroying the crops both years, with little Ollie and Addie laid to rest under the sod, and the little blue eyed baby, Daisy, in Cecelia Adelaides arms, a return journey to Crystal Lake was under taken, one team driven by Bernard and the other by his wife
Also to the other wonderful women in my life, my daughters and sisters, who, if not always keeping me on the straight and narrow, have kept me from sliding down the slippery slopes on either side of the path. And to my mother, who on earth and in heaven has protected me from the consequences of my own silliness.
Stephie emailed me a brief account of my grandmother DKT's earliest years which I'll copy below, which reminds us of how many devoted courageous women have preceded us to bring us to where we are today:
This is the story of Dean Knowlton Traynors parents Cecelia Adelaide Knowlton and Bernard Pitcher Featherly
Bernard Pitcher Featherly, married at Belgiun N.Y. Cecelia Adelaide Knowlton on Nov. 4 1860. Cecelia was 17 when they married and Bernard was 38. Bernard took his young wife to Albion N.Y., where he left her with his sister, Eliza Bailey, and he went at the earrnest solicitation of his brother in law, James H Thorn, who married Catherine Feathers, to Owosso Michigan, where he built a log cabin.
When their first child, Eliza Emily, born in the home of Eliza Bailey was 2 months old, Cecelia Adelaide followed her husband to Owosso taking with her, besides her infant, one son of her husband, Henri (10 years old). The other children had been taken by Bernards relatives and relatives of their mother, Cynthia. Bernard and Cecelia lived in the small log cabin until the summer of 1864. It was there that Bertie and Frank were born.
Bernard walked 20 miles to try and enlist in the Civil War. He was refused because he had 2 handicaps/ When he was a boy he had chopped a toe which had drawn under while healing, and that, he was told would prevent him from going on long marches. Also, he had lost the first finger of his right hand (the trigger finger) in a sawmill.
The parents of Cecelia Adelaide had moved in 1861, to Milwaukee, and Cecelia Adelaide being very lonely , and much afraid of the Indians that roamed the woods around Owosso and longing to be near her parents, early in the summer of 1864 took three babies and crossed the state of Michigan, from Owosso to Grand Haven, and took a boat to Milwaukee. She was only 21 but said that the journey was not difficult because fellow passnagers were kind and had helped her with the children. Henri (or Heri) had remained in Michigan. Lydie (Eliza Emily), then almost 3 years old, had been ill with malaria and was too weak to walk. Bertie, 16 months old, was sickly and could not walk; Frank was 3 months old.
About this time the cousin of James Monroe Knowlton visited Milwaukee and persuaded Bernard that Illinos was a better farming country than Wisconsin. Cecelia Adelaidewith her 3 babies, remained with her parents, and there Bertie died. Bernard built a small house in Crystal Lake Il, or Nunda as it was called then, and sent for his family. In that house was born Lillie, Cora, Charley, and Dean. The family moved from there to a larger home on 20 acres near Paynes Corner, towards McHenry. Four children, Nettie, Bernie (Bernard), Ollie (Olive) and Addie were born in this home.
From there the family moved to Kansas. After 2 years on a government claim in Kansas, during one summer in which there had been in invasion of grasshoppers and the other year a drought, destroying the crops both years, with little Ollie and Addie laid to rest under the sod, and the little blue eyed baby, Daisy, in Cecelia Adelaides arms, a return journey to Crystal Lake was under taken, one team driven by Bernard and the other by his wife
Wednesday, February 03, 2010
A couple of positive thoughts
"When I look back on all of the these worries, I remember the story of the old man who said on his deathbed that he had a lot of troubles in his life, most of which had never happened." Winston Churchhill
"For I know the plans I have for you," declares the LORD, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future." -Jer 29:11 (Courtesy of Kim)
"For I know the plans I have for you," declares the LORD, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future." -Jer 29:11 (Courtesy of Kim)
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Kim facebooked a review of the Road
which she said made her think of me. I must protest, I did not buy a huntihg rifle in anticipation of Y2k, nor did I start wearing a hard hat during Kahotek's run at earth. Someone as disorganised and whimsical as I could never be a survivalist. Too many contingincies to plan upon. I'd get dizzy just thinking about them.
But I am an alarmist, about the economy and the markets. Leaving aside references to ethnicity (excepting this disclaimer) it is incredible to me and should be to you that responsibility for so much of the wealth and well being of our republic has been given over to a small criminal clique euphemistically referred to as "Wall Street bankers". Up to thirty years ago, tycoons made their money on holdings; today they make their money on bonuses, and leave the holding to the suckers.
But I know so many nice and interesting people, if 3 posts in a row are about my market misgivings, something is wrong with me. I decided that I was annoyed about not getting to play in the marketplace. So I bought a put on CAR (Avis car rental). I plan on making or losing a couple hundred bucks. preferrably the former, but will feel better, in any case, because I'm getting to do what I like to do. Besides there are worse ways to spend a couple hundred bucks.
So, now I have five digital recreation options, facebooking, blogging, reading about ND football. playing the market on line - and playing RISK offline. The other four just weren't enough. I was becoming surly and argumentative. Hopefully, my disposition will improve, and I will comment here on other matters more often.
But, all that bad stuff is still true.
But I am an alarmist, about the economy and the markets. Leaving aside references to ethnicity (excepting this disclaimer) it is incredible to me and should be to you that responsibility for so much of the wealth and well being of our republic has been given over to a small criminal clique euphemistically referred to as "Wall Street bankers". Up to thirty years ago, tycoons made their money on holdings; today they make their money on bonuses, and leave the holding to the suckers.
But I know so many nice and interesting people, if 3 posts in a row are about my market misgivings, something is wrong with me. I decided that I was annoyed about not getting to play in the marketplace. So I bought a put on CAR (Avis car rental). I plan on making or losing a couple hundred bucks. preferrably the former, but will feel better, in any case, because I'm getting to do what I like to do. Besides there are worse ways to spend a couple hundred bucks.
So, now I have five digital recreation options, facebooking, blogging, reading about ND football. playing the market on line - and playing RISK offline. The other four just weren't enough. I was becoming surly and argumentative. Hopefully, my disposition will improve, and I will comment here on other matters more often.
But, all that bad stuff is still true.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
I just posted a blog and then deleted it,
I was having trouble deciding which comments and illustrations to carry from an article, so I decided to link the article I recommend you read it.
The author of this article has a great record for being right about the markets, and I would be better off today if I'd been taking his advise over the last ten months.
PS I dont consider this or the previous post as being rants. or even venting. More like comforting for those of us who were sure either we or the market was behaving insanely.
The author of this article has a great record for being right about the markets, and I would be better off today if I'd been taking his advise over the last ten months.
PS I dont consider this or the previous post as being rants. or even venting. More like comforting for those of us who were sure either we or the market was behaving insanely.
A more reasoned tone
Since I posted my diatribe the other day the market hasw fallen a little, but it's hard for me to rrust the market. Here's some insiders' comments.
Is the Government Manipulating Stock Prices?
By Jeff Clark (www.growthstockwire.com)
After a 20-year career trading S&P 500 futures contracts on the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, my friend Charlie suddenly retired last November.
"There was no way to protect yourself," Charlie said to me over lunch a couple weeks ago when I asked him about his unexpected decision. "This guy would walk into the pits and just start buying. It was unconventional. He'd buy at times when it really didn't make any sense – at least not to those of us who'd been around for a while. And he'd buy HUGE."
"It got to the point," Charlie continued, "that we'd have a bunch of our interns just watching the guy when he was off the floor. We'd know if he took a phone call. We'd know if he'd gone outside for a smoke. And we'd know if he started walking in the direction of the pit. That was our cue to start buying futures contracts ourselves – just to get in front of the guy.
"I knew it was time to retire," Charlie sighed, "when I started planning my trading day around this guy's bathroom breaks."
For the past 20 years, conspiracy theorists have engaged in stories about the "Plunge Protection Team" – a group of traders funded by the Fed whose sole purpose is to prop up the stock market. I never really bought into the argument, though. After all, an awful lot of people "in the know" have to stay quiet in order to keep the conspiracy going. And it's unlikely any group of people can maintain that sort of silence for two decades.
But Charlie's story got me thinking.
Then, last week, Charles Biderman, CEO of TrimTabs – one of the most respected and widely read financial research organizations – published a report that raised the possibility that the Fed is actively involved in boosting stock prices.
In the article, Mr. Biderman suggests it would only take $5 billion to $15 billion each month to buy enough S&P 500 futures contracts to boost the market 70%. Surely, with all the hundreds of billions of dollars used to prop up the real estate, auto, and banking industries, it's reasonable to suspect the Fed might use a few bucks to prop up stock prices, too.
At least it's something to think about.
I'm still not sure if I can completely buy into the whole conspiracy theory just yet. There is, however, one thing I do know for sure...
If the Fed has been actively engaged in manipulating stock prices higher, then it can manipulate them lower as well. You won't want to be the one left holding the bag when that happens.
Best regards and good trading,
Jeff Clark
Is the Government Manipulating Stock Prices?
By Jeff Clark (www.growthstockwire.com)
After a 20-year career trading S&P 500 futures contracts on the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, my friend Charlie suddenly retired last November.
"There was no way to protect yourself," Charlie said to me over lunch a couple weeks ago when I asked him about his unexpected decision. "This guy would walk into the pits and just start buying. It was unconventional. He'd buy at times when it really didn't make any sense – at least not to those of us who'd been around for a while. And he'd buy HUGE."
"It got to the point," Charlie continued, "that we'd have a bunch of our interns just watching the guy when he was off the floor. We'd know if he took a phone call. We'd know if he'd gone outside for a smoke. And we'd know if he started walking in the direction of the pit. That was our cue to start buying futures contracts ourselves – just to get in front of the guy.
"I knew it was time to retire," Charlie sighed, "when I started planning my trading day around this guy's bathroom breaks."
For the past 20 years, conspiracy theorists have engaged in stories about the "Plunge Protection Team" – a group of traders funded by the Fed whose sole purpose is to prop up the stock market. I never really bought into the argument, though. After all, an awful lot of people "in the know" have to stay quiet in order to keep the conspiracy going. And it's unlikely any group of people can maintain that sort of silence for two decades.
But Charlie's story got me thinking.
Then, last week, Charles Biderman, CEO of TrimTabs – one of the most respected and widely read financial research organizations – published a report that raised the possibility that the Fed is actively involved in boosting stock prices.
In the article, Mr. Biderman suggests it would only take $5 billion to $15 billion each month to buy enough S&P 500 futures contracts to boost the market 70%. Surely, with all the hundreds of billions of dollars used to prop up the real estate, auto, and banking industries, it's reasonable to suspect the Fed might use a few bucks to prop up stock prices, too.
At least it's something to think about.
I'm still not sure if I can completely buy into the whole conspiracy theory just yet. There is, however, one thing I do know for sure...
If the Fed has been actively engaged in manipulating stock prices higher, then it can manipulate them lower as well. You won't want to be the one left holding the bag when that happens.
Best regards and good trading,
Jeff Clark
Monday, January 18, 2010
I'm not happy
I mean personally I'm pretty happy, but things are getting on my nerves, like the senatorial election in Massachusets and, like Obama's faltering leadership. I am such a skeptic when it comes to politics, why should I care if the Democrats do the impossible and surrender the Kennedy senate seat two months after his passing? Or if Obama fritters away his administration's initiative amd momentum negotiating with Snowe and Lieberman on health care. Maybe because I am still apprehensive about the coming of the REAL economic shit storm, and am impatient and annoyed with Fox News, the Tea-baggers, and Pat Robertson for their self obsessed rants. Don't they know, don't they care? And I guess my disenchantment with Obama has little to do with Iraq, Afghanistan, Gitmo or health care, and everything to do with Geithner, Bernanke and Goldman Sachs,
I haven't been actively trading for a few months, but lost money on almost all my bearish trades in the past year, and finally realized that the Treasury's Plunge Protection Team had given participating memberships to the Fed and the major investment banks, and that securities will not trade downward untill something so cataclysmic happens that the Fed will be unable to paper it over. We'll later learn that Goldman got massively short just before the real crash, and they will pat themselves on the back and award big bomuses all around because at the "critical moment" they recognized the onset of a Black Swan (rare and unpredictable) event and ferociously shorted the markets.
Thank you for allowing me to express myself. I feel a little better now. But not because anything has gotten better in the real world, only because I'm not stumbling around muttering misgivings under my breath, but actually saying what I think right out loud.
What will the event be? Could be the popping of the China bubble, causing commodity prices to plummet and dashing hopes that China would spend the world out of recession. Could be Iceland, Greece, Portugal, Italy and Ireland sequentially defaulting on debt, wrecking the Euro and plunging Europe to the depths. Could be that someone will force an audit on the Fed revealing that the US central bank has been bankrupted by purchasing all the crappy bank loans they had to buy to fund the banks' stock market spree.
In any event, who holds a senate seat from Massachusets isn't going to make a lot of difference, and who pays your doctor bill or whether it gets paid at all won't matter much.
i know I'm a downer, but just want you all to know that when the bad things happen, it's not your fault.
I haven't been actively trading for a few months, but lost money on almost all my bearish trades in the past year, and finally realized that the Treasury's Plunge Protection Team had given participating memberships to the Fed and the major investment banks, and that securities will not trade downward untill something so cataclysmic happens that the Fed will be unable to paper it over. We'll later learn that Goldman got massively short just before the real crash, and they will pat themselves on the back and award big bomuses all around because at the "critical moment" they recognized the onset of a Black Swan (rare and unpredictable) event and ferociously shorted the markets.
Thank you for allowing me to express myself. I feel a little better now. But not because anything has gotten better in the real world, only because I'm not stumbling around muttering misgivings under my breath, but actually saying what I think right out loud.
What will the event be? Could be the popping of the China bubble, causing commodity prices to plummet and dashing hopes that China would spend the world out of recession. Could be Iceland, Greece, Portugal, Italy and Ireland sequentially defaulting on debt, wrecking the Euro and plunging Europe to the depths. Could be that someone will force an audit on the Fed revealing that the US central bank has been bankrupted by purchasing all the crappy bank loans they had to buy to fund the banks' stock market spree.
In any event, who holds a senate seat from Massachusets isn't going to make a lot of difference, and who pays your doctor bill or whether it gets paid at all won't matter much.
i know I'm a downer, but just want you all to know that when the bad things happen, it's not your fault.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Just a quick note on spelling
Homonyms are the worst, they're, their, and there for instance. Pretty smart people mix these words up and I think any such error should be considered a typographical error rather than a mispelling. With this in mind I googled "it's" and was sent to smartgeek to see whether it was a possesive or a contraction. Here's what I found out:
"A common mistake, and one that drives teachers of all levels crazy, is the mix-up between the words "its" and "it's." While the difference may not seem significant to the average writer, using the words correctly can help you appear more intelligent and educated. Many people form first impressions simply by reading someone's writing, so you want your writing to be as accurate as possible.
"Its" is a possessive pronoun, meaning "belonging to it." The confusion arises because if you don't substitute the pronoun "it" for the noun, an apostrophe is used. For example, the bone belonging to the dog is "the dog's bone." The eraser on the pencil is "the pencil's eraser." Both examples use an apostrophe plus an "s" in order to attribute ownership.
However, when a noun is changed to a pronoun, an apostrophe is no longer used. Instead of "a rabbit's cage," you might say "its cage." Instead of "the house's window," you would say "its window." This tends to confuse people who are used to apostrophes denoting possessives. Other examples of the possessive "its" could include the dog burying its bone in its backyard and the table which has its leg broken off and its tablecloth in need of ironing.
"It's" is a contraction. A contraction is when a new word is formed from two or more separate words. In English, an apostrophe is used to acknowledge the missing letters. "Don't" is a contraction of "do not," and "shouldn't" is a contraction of "should not." "It's" is short for "it is," or less frequently, for "it has."
Any time "it's" includes an apostrophe, the writer should be able to substitute "it is" or "it has" and have the sentence still make sense. "It's going to be my birthday tomorrow," is correct because it can be changed to "It is going to be my birthday tomorrow." "It's been two hours since I've eaten," can be verified since changing it to "It has been two hours since I've eaten," is still correct.
Therefore, it's easy to get the two words mixed up, because English does not always follow its own rules!"
My other spelling shortcoming? Putting an "h" in week, or leaving the "h" out of wheek, whichever one is wrong.
"A common mistake, and one that drives teachers of all levels crazy, is the mix-up between the words "its" and "it's." While the difference may not seem significant to the average writer, using the words correctly can help you appear more intelligent and educated. Many people form first impressions simply by reading someone's writing, so you want your writing to be as accurate as possible.
"Its" is a possessive pronoun, meaning "belonging to it." The confusion arises because if you don't substitute the pronoun "it" for the noun, an apostrophe is used. For example, the bone belonging to the dog is "the dog's bone." The eraser on the pencil is "the pencil's eraser." Both examples use an apostrophe plus an "s" in order to attribute ownership.
However, when a noun is changed to a pronoun, an apostrophe is no longer used. Instead of "a rabbit's cage," you might say "its cage." Instead of "the house's window," you would say "its window." This tends to confuse people who are used to apostrophes denoting possessives. Other examples of the possessive "its" could include the dog burying its bone in its backyard and the table which has its leg broken off and its tablecloth in need of ironing.
"It's" is a contraction. A contraction is when a new word is formed from two or more separate words. In English, an apostrophe is used to acknowledge the missing letters. "Don't" is a contraction of "do not," and "shouldn't" is a contraction of "should not." "It's" is short for "it is," or less frequently, for "it has."
Any time "it's" includes an apostrophe, the writer should be able to substitute "it is" or "it has" and have the sentence still make sense. "It's going to be my birthday tomorrow," is correct because it can be changed to "It is going to be my birthday tomorrow." "It's been two hours since I've eaten," can be verified since changing it to "It has been two hours since I've eaten," is still correct.
Therefore, it's easy to get the two words mixed up, because English does not always follow its own rules!"
My other spelling shortcoming? Putting an "h" in week, or leaving the "h" out of wheek, whichever one is wrong.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Just a quick PS re coaching conundrum
A couple of weeks ago I was writing about Notre Dame's quest for a new football coach. There was much pulling of hair and gnashing of teeth on Irish fans' boards, but aside from those sites, I think the concensus was generally that Notre Dame hired a better than good coach, and that the process was carried out in an orderly way, and that the school was not embarassed by events.
Subsequent events have made ND look even better. Urban Meyer's Greta Garbo impersonation down in Talahassee made everybody involved look foolish, and while Meyer and the U of Fl admin have tried to pour oil on the water down there, things remain unresolved. Strangely, Meyer's "I'm gone, I'm back" two step doesn't appear to have cost the school significantly in the recruiting area. Also, assistant coaches and coordinators with successful programs are usually ready to acccept promotions to positions of greater responsibility at other schools, but Urban has kind of a no-name staff and we haven't heard of a lot of poaching efforts directed their way. Still the situation remains unsettled, and coaches, players, fans and sports writers will be keeping a nervous eye on Urban Meyer in the next year.
Mike Leach being fired at Texas Tech was the next goofy story, The coach told a player who showed up for practice in a baseball cap and shades and claimed to be recovering from a concussion to get off the practice field and spend the practice time in the equipment shed. Apparently the player was a long time annoyance to the coach, performing indifferently and behaving too casually to suit the coach who likes to see a lot of intensity and desire in his players. Unfortunately for the coach, the players dad is a commentator for ESPN. Also unfortunately for the coach, the school admin felt he had secured a better contract last year than they were able or wanted to pay. By firing the coach a week before their bowl game they probably hoped to save the $800,000 bonus they were due to pay him on January 1st. Something tells me Leach's attorney will get a lot bigger settlement than that before this is over. Oh, by the way, for Friday Night Lights fans Mike Leach was the dark haired fellow who ran into Coach Taylor at a gas station and told the coach to keep swinging his sword and that the recent adversity might turn out to be the best thing that ever happened to him. Also for those who care, Coach Leach's players were achieving graduation at the highest rate of any state school in the country.
The third story getting a lot of attention is Pete Carroll's leaving USC. A very successful coach who ran a pretty thuggish program and turned a blind eye on agents and boosters throwing a lot of cash at his playwers (and probably other violations, eg academics), the coach is hitting the trail before the NCAA announces findings in its investigations at USC. Equally amusing is the fact that the school was turned down by the first four candidates it approached to replace Coach Carroll, and finally gave job to a twenty-something coach with a very bad record on as well as off the field. They apparently expected this non-entity to assemle a star studded cast of assistants who would maintain the school's high standards, um I mean for wins vs losses. So far he has enlisted one respected assistant, who also happened to be his dad.
Two other fairly big-tine coaches come to mind who were terminated in the last month, one for choking a player, another for making allegedly racist comments to black players.
All in all, looking back now ND seems to have handled the transition pretty well.
Subsequent events have made ND look even better. Urban Meyer's Greta Garbo impersonation down in Talahassee made everybody involved look foolish, and while Meyer and the U of Fl admin have tried to pour oil on the water down there, things remain unresolved. Strangely, Meyer's "I'm gone, I'm back" two step doesn't appear to have cost the school significantly in the recruiting area. Also, assistant coaches and coordinators with successful programs are usually ready to acccept promotions to positions of greater responsibility at other schools, but Urban has kind of a no-name staff and we haven't heard of a lot of poaching efforts directed their way. Still the situation remains unsettled, and coaches, players, fans and sports writers will be keeping a nervous eye on Urban Meyer in the next year.
Mike Leach being fired at Texas Tech was the next goofy story, The coach told a player who showed up for practice in a baseball cap and shades and claimed to be recovering from a concussion to get off the practice field and spend the practice time in the equipment shed. Apparently the player was a long time annoyance to the coach, performing indifferently and behaving too casually to suit the coach who likes to see a lot of intensity and desire in his players. Unfortunately for the coach, the players dad is a commentator for ESPN. Also unfortunately for the coach, the school admin felt he had secured a better contract last year than they were able or wanted to pay. By firing the coach a week before their bowl game they probably hoped to save the $800,000 bonus they were due to pay him on January 1st. Something tells me Leach's attorney will get a lot bigger settlement than that before this is over. Oh, by the way, for Friday Night Lights fans Mike Leach was the dark haired fellow who ran into Coach Taylor at a gas station and told the coach to keep swinging his sword and that the recent adversity might turn out to be the best thing that ever happened to him. Also for those who care, Coach Leach's players were achieving graduation at the highest rate of any state school in the country.
The third story getting a lot of attention is Pete Carroll's leaving USC. A very successful coach who ran a pretty thuggish program and turned a blind eye on agents and boosters throwing a lot of cash at his playwers (and probably other violations, eg academics), the coach is hitting the trail before the NCAA announces findings in its investigations at USC. Equally amusing is the fact that the school was turned down by the first four candidates it approached to replace Coach Carroll, and finally gave job to a twenty-something coach with a very bad record on as well as off the field. They apparently expected this non-entity to assemle a star studded cast of assistants who would maintain the school's high standards, um I mean for wins vs losses. So far he has enlisted one respected assistant, who also happened to be his dad.
Two other fairly big-tine coaches come to mind who were terminated in the last month, one for choking a player, another for making allegedly racist comments to black players.
All in all, looking back now ND seems to have handled the transition pretty well.
Thursday, January 07, 2010
OK, this is serious, even though it starts with -
I was watching the Opra Winfrey show today, and she was visiting with ladies in different countries via skype. There were probably others but I saw conversation with the women from Denmark, Kuwait City, and Rio de Janeiro. As you might expect, I was most impressed with the Danes, and not based too much on their appearance, although they were pretty, and looked slender and healthy. They lived with husbands and 2 or 3 children in modern smallish apartments or townhouses and space was well utilized, and decor was minimal. Everything was immaculate but looked comfortable. They acknowledged paying income taxes of 50% to 60% but all three interviewees agreed it was well worth the price in living in a society where medical care, education, and economic security were assured. Apparently if you lose your job the state pays you 90% of your wages for up to 4 years. Professionals presumably earn more than bus boys, but not at the multiples we observe in the US. Generally, the free education and equitable income levels encourages people to do what they value doing and they value creativity and job satisfaction more than incrementally higher income levels. When Oprah asked how they felt about living in a socialized state they seemed perplexed for a moment before responding they would call it a civilized state.
The ladies in Kuwait and Brazil appeared upper middle class and very comfortable. They disclaimed any awareness of poverty in their societies. The Kuwaiti lady mentioned having an abundance of domestic help and introduced her Philippine cook. Apparently they don't bring in desperately poor Palestinians to their enclave because of potential political dissonance, but bring in Indians and Philippinos.
The Brazilian lady seemed surprised to hear that Oprah's film crew had had to pay the local street gang hundreds of dollars to be permitted to enter the favella (slum)where the lady's servants live.
I attribute the egalitarian nature of the Danish society largely to the ethnic homogeneity; when everyone else is just like you it's probably easier to implement the golden rule. I'm sure the sense of fairness is cultivated by educational, social, and political infrastructures, but the interviewees bore no resemblance to the east bloc workers who used to extol the virtues of the glorious workers republics.
This program provided a jumping off point for a discussion of my concern that ethnic diversity in the United States impedes progress toward social justice. More on that another time. One caveat, the Danish ladies said the churches were empty and none expressed any inclination toward religion.
The ladies in Kuwait and Brazil appeared upper middle class and very comfortable. They disclaimed any awareness of poverty in their societies. The Kuwaiti lady mentioned having an abundance of domestic help and introduced her Philippine cook. Apparently they don't bring in desperately poor Palestinians to their enclave because of potential political dissonance, but bring in Indians and Philippinos.
The Brazilian lady seemed surprised to hear that Oprah's film crew had had to pay the local street gang hundreds of dollars to be permitted to enter the favella (slum)where the lady's servants live.
I attribute the egalitarian nature of the Danish society largely to the ethnic homogeneity; when everyone else is just like you it's probably easier to implement the golden rule. I'm sure the sense of fairness is cultivated by educational, social, and political infrastructures, but the interviewees bore no resemblance to the east bloc workers who used to extol the virtues of the glorious workers republics.
This program provided a jumping off point for a discussion of my concern that ethnic diversity in the United States impedes progress toward social justice. More on that another time. One caveat, the Danish ladies said the churches were empty and none expressed any inclination toward religion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
