USC GREEK SYSTEM MUST GO

It's safe to say that the University of Southern California's Greek system has generated an above average amount of negative press this past semester.  First it started with a derogatory fraternity email towards women than eventually circulated the whole school.  Then came the infamous sex scandal on top of Waite Phillips Hall this past month that became international news.  All of this on top of a dozen or so sexual assault/ rape charges at numerous fraternity house during parties.  If the Greek system were a publicly traded business, every stockholder would be calling for change.  And that's exactly what I'm proposing.


To start off with I am not ignorant.  I know that USC will never abandon its Greek system.  It's too deep seeded in our traditions as well as the large alumni base that will go up in arms if it happened.  However this needs to be done sooner rather than later.


I was a member of a fraternity for 3 years, and even held one of the highest leadership positions in the house.  I know how these places run,  how the people inside think, and the overall attitude that the members put out.  I can tell you that it's about lifelong friends, about giving back through philanthropy, and all about collectively working to better each other.   However I don't enjoy lying.  While I was in a fraternity we spent more money on a philanthropy party ($5000) than we actually gave to the cause we were raising money for ($2000).  Everyone I know in the house's grades slipped, and to be honest there were numerous clicks within the house and after you graduate you only really care about a select handful in the group.  Fraternities are about drinking too much, banging girls (which most guys in my frat referred to as "sluts"), and having a gang of people to call your own.


Sororities are a whole other story.  I don't have a daughter, but I can imagine that it gets difficult when she turns 13 and you have to parent her through any body image issues she has or anything that makes her fell self conscience.  You work until she's 18 to build a self confidence in her that will carry her through college and beyond.  Then she gets to USC and what happens?  She immediately gets placed into a group of girls completely based on her looks and wealth.  It's the most superficial system I've ever seen.  If your the hottest girl in the world then you will be cherished; if your a bit chunky and aren't appealing, then they can't wait to boot you out their door and pawn you off onto someone else.  They can't let you bring down their "reputation".  This system goes against everything that we are parenting our children to live by.  Then once their in they are brainwashed into thinking that because their in a TOP sorority that they should be treated as such.  It boils down to your creating needy, narcissistic psycho bitches then getting them drunk and sending them into a jungle filled with horny college guys willing to say anything to close the deal.


It's clear to me that this is a flawed system.  There was a psychology experiment in the 1950's called the Robbers Cave experiment.  It "studied the origin of prejudice in social groups".  To paraphrase they took a group of 24 boys to the Robber's cave summer camp.  They let them all get to know each other and watched who in the group separated into groups of friends.  Then they divided the boys into two groups, making sure to separate some of the friends.  They told each group why they were better and encouraged them to remain fractionalized. What happened is that the two groups developed gang like mentalities and hated each other.  It got to the point that the groups couldn't be in the same room because they would fight so much.  This is what has happened at USC. We have these frats and sororities and they all think they are better one another and it breeds problems.  Your told to remain with your group and that everyone else is not as good. That isn't what college is all about.


My solution is unfortunately easier said than done.  I believe USC should get rid of the "Greek System" , but maintain the Row of houses by purchasing all of them.  USC could then turn this into "Preferred student living" and continue the tradition of being the place to party.  This transformation would provide many benefits to USC.  First off USC could charge premium rents to students that wanted to live in the most social housing.  They could also put a GPA floor level that you have to maintain to live there; Nothing too severe, minimum 3.0.  Secondly, USC could monitor and even organize the large parties that happen here.  Now this might be seen as more work for USC officials, but its worth it.  Better security, provides more jobs for the surrounding community, and the peace of mind that if anything goes wrong you can react immediately.


For the students this would create a "Bourbon street effect".   Bourbon street is located in the heart of New Orleans.  It's a Street with bars, restaurants, and other more risky businesses on each side a few hundred yards long.  Imagine that at USC.  Every Friday night each house is going off, with live music, free drinks, and of course security insuring everyone is of age and the peace is kept.  And the best part is that everyone is welcome.   You won't be turned away because your an outsider or just plain different.  Imagine the college community that would spawn.


Yes this idea is radical.  Yes it's unlikely to occur in this decade.  But never ever, say never ever.  
Fraternities are infamous for hazing. Whose to say something couldn't go horribly wrong at a USCStarkley,


"18-year-old Carson Starkey was attending the San Luis Obispo school at California Polytechnic State University. He was also pledging the Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity. During the pledge process, Starkey was required to complete a “brown bag” challenge in which he was forced to drink whatever amount of alcohol he was given in a brown paper bag by an older frat member. He died on December 2, 2008 amongst chants of “puke and rally.” His prospective fraternity brothers didn’t even take him to the hospital."


I only pray that if such a tragedy occurs at USC that the person in charge of fixing it finds this essay.  To him I say good luck sir.

Goodbye 4/20

See you next year.

Public Square: Charl Schwartzel Won The Masters

 Charl Schwartzel Won The Masters.

This is the headline because in a year everyone will forget who won this year.  The South African with the difficult phoenetic name will be forgotton until the 2012 Masters roles around; unless the world ends as forecasted.  Unlikely doomsdays aside the the moment that Americans will remember from the 2011 Masters will be the rebirth of the Tiger Woods of Old.


Tiger roared back into contetion early in the forth and final day of the tournmant.  Shooting a -5 on the opening nine holes Woods pulled within one stroke of the leaders.  He fell behind only to Eagle the 13 hole and gain a tie for the lead.  Then his round ended.

He finished the round tied for the lead, but with 5 golfers tied with him and 4 of them with more holes to play.  The odds were against him as he sat back idle and watched.  He bared witness to multiple lead changes and finally a strong push by the Unheard of Charles Schwartzel to win the masters in his first ever time at the competion.  This main shouldnt have won.  Tiger Woods would have won that tournament he just simply ran out of holes to play.  I would argue that this is the moment Tiget gets his life, and golf game, if the two can even be seperated at this point.  Back together.

(Editing required)
The Masters is a classic American Golf Tournament.

PUBLIC SQUARE: Obama failing as of late.

He's launching a secretive  military strike against Libya.  He's organizing a below average relief effort for rattled Japan.  On top of all that he's running a country full time that is not returning on its investment.  But I'm not here to talk about any of that.

 No this Obama issue has to do with his personal NCAA MARCH MADNESS Tournament Bracket.

About a week ago, President Obama appeared on ESPN networks for an interview.  He filled out his presidential bracket which they deemed "Barack-otology" a play on words of the famous myth science of the tournament; brackettology. 

 At the time Obama caught a lot of slack from critics and the GOP because they wondered if he was sending the right message with all the terror going on in the world.  Personally I think it was the right move.  He has done it every other year that he's been president.  It's a major part of American society to fill out a bracket.  Even if your not a fan you fill out a bracket.  To be honest, Obama definetly appeared to me as if he rushed through it just to finish and get to more pressing issues.  He picked the top 4 teams by ranking to make it to the final four and arguably the best team KANSAS to win.

Now the president can ball. He loves basketball, he renovated the white house to add a full court, he even keeps former Duke Blue Devil and NCAA champion Reggie Love as his assitant.  He's played all his life and is an avid Chicago Bulls Fan.  That is why it is no suprise that his bracket started off on fire.

He picked 29 of 32 games correctly in the first few rounds.  For perspective, "Only 491 of the 5.9 million brackets had more correct picks".  This sucess had the president in the top 99.9 percentile of results.  In short he was balling.  Then it all came crashing down.

He still had four of the remaning eight teams heading into the weekend.  He picked everygame of this round wrong.  He didn't pick one of the final four teams correctly and his national champion Kansas was upset by Cinderella VCU (Virginia Common Wealth).  It's safe to say he's no longer in that top percentiles, but he still did very well.

What I'm wondering is if a paralell can be made between Baracks bracket sucess this year and his entire tenure presedential sucess.  To me they are similar.  He started off well in the bracket just as he started off well as president.  Everyone was excited to see an African American elected to president for the first time ever.  People were ready to see this "Change" that he constantly spoke of and there was just a general buzz of hope around america.  Then we got to where we are now.  We have gone through tough economic times, a weak solution to the healthcare problem, and unemployment at historic highs.  Were seeing everyone around us soar above in education.  Our armor as the worlds most powerful nation is starting to rust.  Of course not everything should be blamed on one main but ultimately it will.


It remains to be seen how President Obama finishes his tenure.  Perhaps he will deliver us out of this mess and point us in the right direction moving forward so we can truly "win the future".  Or maybe it will follow the brakcet pattern and everything will blow up in his face.  If that's the case then we could have our first one term president since 1993.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-president-obamas-ncaa-bracket-2011-3#ixzz1Huka9boE

OP-ED Shaking up LA's plans

Although Japan's devastating earthquake was 5742 miles away, a simple thought must resonate in the mind of every Los Angeleno;  we must prepare for this to happen to us.

While Japan's current situation is a tragedy that in no way should be taken lightly, if the people of LA don't learn from this true horror then everyone lost will be even more in vain.

Every Angeleno knows that the area is prone to earthquakes, but not everyone realizes that Southern California is long overdue for a gargantuan high magnitude earthquake to relieve the pressure on the San Andres fault.Not to fear for two reasons:  California/America is more prepare d to handle the ramifications of a monster quake and the natural factors play to our advantage.

To start with, it should be mentioned that I am no expert on earthquakes.  I did, however, take a class at a Los Angeles college about the science of earthquakes. It's safe to say I know more than the average person.  Either way it doesn't take an expert to see just how horrible the aftermath of an earthquake can be.

Just look at Japan for example.  This site exemplifies just how much damage can be done by providing before and after pictures from the quake.  To be honest, there's was no way to avoid what happened there, but Los Angeles is a different case.

Its not a matter of if an earthquake will happen in Southern California but when.  Through studies of the seismology over the past few centuries scientists found that in LA, "strong earthquakes shook the area every 45-144 years". Finding out that the last major,  "earthquake struck southern California in 1857, or 153 years ago, scientists believe the next "Big One" could happen at any time."   Eventually the built up pressure will have to release.

With this there will be catastrophic damage.  The same scientists predict that, "With 37 million people living in southern California, chiefly in the cities of Los Angeles, San Diego and Anaheim, a major earthquake could kill between 2,000 and 50,000 people and cause billions of dollars in damage."  There's no way to prevent all of this, but knowledge and proper preparation could at least limit the devastation.

First off the natural factors of a quake make California/America more prepared for the earthquake than Japan.  Really there's almost nothing Japan could have done to prepare for what happened.  The 9.0 magnitude quake, which is one of the largest recorded since society started documenting them, isn't what caused the catastrophic damage.

While the quake caused its own issues, the main source of the problems was the killer tsunami that ravaged the country. The danger of a tsunami isn't the Hollywood version of a giant 30 foot wave.  The real danger is it's a small wave only a few feet high, but moving at insanely fast speed and extremely long, gushing hundreds of thousands of gallons of water and destroying anything in its path.  Tsunami's are caused by offshore earthquakes that raise or lower the earth's tectonic plates resulting an the creation of the forceful wave.  Its what caused the damage in 2004 in Indonesia and its what caused the damage in Japan last week.  Luckily for Angelenos, the pending earthquake won't cause a tsunami. The future earthquake will be land based because the tectonic plates of the San Andres fault lie a few hundred miles inland of Los Angeles.  While the damage will undoubtedly be great the lack of tsunami plays into the hands of people that will be affected by the incident.

America/ California's infrastructure is far more prepared to handle the aftermath of a large earthquake than Japan.  First off America is a much larger country.  When the earthquake happens the U.S government will be able to evacuate people to the east towards the center of the country.  Plus the government can import supplies from the rest of the country to help the survivors.  Japan's small size led to the whole country's affect of the earthquake and not just a small region.  Our sheer size will help.  Secondly another fallout from the quake is the nuclear power plant issues that Japan's dealing with.   While this could happen in a socal quake it's not as likely.  Our plants are built to withstand magnitude 7.5 quakes.  Seeing as the larget quake on the San Andres fault was a 7.9, coupled with the low risk of a tsunami, a nuclear power plant failure to rival japan is not likely.

Personally I have nothing to worry about for the future great quake.  No, I'm not invincible and no, I don't have a crystal ball that allows me to predict when the incident will happen, but I just may have lady luck on my side.  You see, I've lived here in Los Angeles for three years and not once have I ever been around during a significant earthquake.  In some fate-based trend I have travelled out of the state each and every time a notable earthquake has occurred.  A few plane rides and one bus to Vegas have allowed me to miss these unpredictable phenomenon.  And where was I when the great Japan quake happened?  That's right, on a plane out of California.  Unfortunately, my luck won't help the 37 million people left behind.  That is why we must prepare now.

OP-ED Taco Bell's not "meating" standards

It's been 27 years and the question on fast food customer's minds is still the same; WHERE'S THE BEEF? Only this time instead of a mock grandma from a Wendy's hamburger commercial the question is formed by a group of Alabama lawyers filing a class action lawsuit against Taco Bell. The claim is that the meat served at Taco Bell is less than 35% beef.  Taco Bell's meat make-up shouldn't be the only issue examined, but broadened to measure the level of quality of all fast food.

To start off this lawsuit should widen it's view to the whole taco.  This typical taco sells for 99 cents.  For Taco Bell to turn a profit that taco has to cost them at most 75 cents to make.  Assuming they spend the most on meat, let's say 50 cents, that leaves them 25 cents to spend on the cheapest surrounding ingredients.  The cornmeal to make the the shell that's slightly more quality than cardboard. A minimal amount of lettuce that's only marginally above what they feed cows on a farm. Finally they shave a few cents by opting for pseudo Velveeta cheese.  To sum it up, there's nothing of healthy high quality substance in that taco, or on the taco bell menu at all for that matter.   

When a salad, which should be the healthiest item on the menu, packs in 900 calories and 57 grams of fat you know the restaurants not a healthy stop.  Guess that's better than getting the volcano nachos, "Weighing in at 1,000 calories, 62 grams of fat and 1,930 milligrams of sodium, this nacho "snack" has all the makings of a nutritional disaster."    Not to mention these nachos cost only $3.49 which one can assume doesn't buy the best ingredients.  Taco Bell may be the only restaurant currently under the public microscope, but don't be fooled in thinking that all fast food restaurants aren't pulling the wool over your eyes.

Taco Bell, McDonald's, Burger king: No matter which character brands the bag the food inside it is all of the same poor quality.  McDonald's issues are well documented in Morgan Spurlock's documentary Super Size Me.  The results are in this video and included: 24.5 pounds gained, a 7% increase in body fat, higher cholesterol, higher risk of heart disease/failure, and massive cravings that were followed by headaches if he didn't eat McDonald's.   This is an experiment in a vacuum, but the results prove that McDonald's food product cannot be high quality and consequently healthy.  Don't tell professional NFL player Chad Ochocinco, who claims his diet consists of Mickey D's daily, but the reason for McDonald's unhealthy tag is that they cut corners in food quality to provide meals at such low cost to consumers.

The list goes on an on.  Burgerking has a line of XXL meals that average 900 calories and sixty grams of fat per sandwich.  Chic-fil-a's chicken is loaded with controversial chemical MSG.  Jack in the box had a salmonella scare that nearly ruined the franchise.  There are continuous examples of fast food restaurants using fillers, preservatives, and simply sacrificing quality in the concern of lowering cost.  However there is a small sample of healthy fast food options.

There's only two restaurants that come to mind that provide fresh high quality ingredients; Subway and In-n-Out.  It's surprising and relieving to learn that Subway has just passed McDonald's for most restaurants worldwide.  Be that as it may it is less hope inspiring when you look at the nutrition facts. Subway provides fresh cheap sandwich's with a barrage of fresh vegetables to pile on free of charge.  However Subway isn't what they appear.  One nutritionist claims,

"Don't be fooled by the Subway "health halo." This sandwich delivers 9 grams of fat, not to mention nearly 800 calories. On top of that, you'll be getting more than 2,000 milligrams of sodium with your sub. Most adults should consume less than 2,300 milligrams per day."

In-n-Out is a different story.  It's their  philosophy to not open a franchise that's more than one day's truck ride from their privately owned farms. They provide the freshest ingredients possible with no freezing and no microwaves.  Yet that doesn't stop the American public from ordering their burgers extra large with extra cheese such as this 100x100 delicious monstrosity.  That raises the final question if the fast food restaurants are really the only one's to blame.

It's clear that Taco Bell, McDonald's and the other fast food restaurants are cutting corners in food quality in order to continue lowering their prices.  This recent lawsuit of Taco Bell only highlights a small part of a massively growing problem that will end in nationwide U.S obesity. However how much of the blame should be placed on the restaurants and how much should be place on consumers themselves?  The consumer is the one that continues to eat at these restaurants on a weekly, and in some cases daily basis.  Americans love fast food so much that in 2006 they spent $142 Billion at fast food restaurants.  That amount has only increased.  With the continued growing knowledge that this food is low quality and bad for us, perhaps the question should be changed from "Where's the beef?"  to "Where's our common sense?"

PUBLIC SQUARE: Urban Pideon Racing: Pilot.

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

The Major State(ment) of NBA Economics

Basketball as a sport has been around for a long time.  Officially being recognized as a sport in 1930 by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) led eight basketball-loving countries to form the Fédération Internationale de Basketball Amateur .  Shortly after in 1934 the United States of America was welcomed into the FIBA.  This was the moment that the rest of the world would come to realize that Americans DOMINATE Basketball.  Since Basketball's inclusion in the 1936 Olympic games, Team USA has won 13/17 Tournaments.  America's victory in that first olympic games was a factor in the creation of the National Basketball Association (NBA) in 1946.   The original NBA was made up of eleven teams, four of which folded after one year. Flash forward to 2010 and there are currently thirty NBA teams in twenty-two states. It's safe to say that basketball has long been a part of American society, however, the NBA's economic impact on America has long been an overlooked statistic.  Having an NBA franchise in a city provides a strong business that the city can grow around. An NBA team provides its city with jobs, a venue to hold large events, and a business in which millions of dollars can flow through generating economic growth.  Recently, the NBA has had financial troubles. In 2010, seventeen of the thirty teams operated at a loss.  This could be due to awful CBA agreements the league implores, or it might have something to do with the tough economic times that have recently led the the trend of a disappearing middle class.  With the middle class unable to afford the luxury of attending NBA games, the association has also been met with hard times.  Perhaps the recent failures of the NBA act as a "canary in the mine shaft" with regards to the strength of the U.S economy.  Using economic insight, a relationship can be formed between the financial woes of the National Basketball Association and the disappearance of the middle class in America.  It is a dependent relationship where the NBA requires a strong middle class to be succeed.

The financial success of the NBA can be molded into an economic indicator. The concept of using peculiar consumer goods as indictors of the whole economy is not a new concept.  Believe it or not this idea originated around a theory involving mens socks, and subsequently men's boxer briefs.  "Here's the theory, briefly: Sales of men's underwear typically are stable because they rank as a necessity. But during times of severe financial strain, men will try to stretch the time between buying new pairs, causing underwear sales to dip."  The NBA as the consumer product applies to the same theory: That in strong economic times the NBA will flourish as consumers have more disposable income to spend on attending games/buying merchandise etc..  Oppositely, in rough economic times the NBA will struggle due to fans deciding to forgo funding the league. The NBA is a American consumer product just like underwear or socks.  Sports are a necessity in American culture. Thus the success of the NBA and the strength of the economy are correlated. The NBA is an economic indicator. Given that the NBA is currently  in a grind in a financial grind then it must be true that the American economy is struggling. In recent times, struggling is an understatement.

Lets face it, times are tough in today's economy. On a national level America is importing much more than its exporting while the massive budget deficit continues to plummet.  The unemployment rate is as high as its peak of the 1980's. Also, our stimulus actions to revive the economy have been futile:  “The recovery is so weak that it is not strong enough to generate new jobs for the new entrants in the labour force, let alone to find jobs for the 15 million Americans who would like a job and can’t get one."    The economy has seen a slight increase in growth over the last year, however many believe this to be a type of "false" growth.  "Mohamed A El-Erian, chief executive officer at Pacific Investment Management Co (Pimco), has estimated the possibility of deflation and a double-dip recession in America at 25%."  Deflation, or a currency losing value in terms of other currencies, is a more common concept.   A double dip recession is a more complicated notion.  In layman's terms, "A double-dip recession refers to a recession followed by a short-lived recovery, followed by another recession."   This is a probable future of America's economy.  We faced a recession in 2008 and have seen some returns over the past two years, but a double dip recession would be catastrophic to the already breaching economy.  America's economy is in trouble, and it's likely to get worse before it gets better. Based on the original correlation theory, the NBA must also be going through tough times.

As the American economy has tumbled so has the economy of the NBA. Though NBA commissioner David Stern would like the public to think otherwise, the NBA is feeling the squeeze too. "Despite Stern's assurances, the NBA has not been immune to the financial down turn, slashing eighty jobs from its U.S. work force earlier this month."  In their annual valuations report, Forbes magazine stated that in 2010 17/30 NBA teams operated at a loss.  This means that seventeen owners would have made more money if they had just locked the doors and not played.  That number is up from twelve teams in 2009, and even further from ten teams in 2008.  This trend is worsening because the NBA is doomed by its reliance on ticket sales. "Ticket sales are not sexy--like streaming basketball games on the Internet or opening up offices in China--but they still pay the bills for teams. The NBA remains a gate-driven league." In recent years the revenues from ticket sales are declining annually. In 2009, "Net gate receipts, the money teams make from ticket sales, fell to an average of $828,985 per game, down from $894,823 at the same point last season. Only nine teams were up or flat in average net gate receipts through Nov. 29, while 21 teams saw a decline."   This season they are even worse. For example, one game this year was played in front of less than 1000 fans.  The typical arena holds over 20,000.  This season, a majority of teams don't regularly sell out games, and some never do.  

History proves that 2010 isn't the first time that economic recessions and the NBA struggling were correlated.  The last time the NBA had to lockout do to financial issues was in the 1998-99 season.  Owners complained that they weren't making any money and locked out the players thus canceling half the season.  This was followed by a recession in early 2000. At the beginning of the NBA in the 1950, the association consolidated from seventeen to eleven to eight total teams.  Coincidently, America went through three recessions in 1949, 1953, and 1958. Oppositely, the league expanded in 1970's as the economy took a turn for the better. Again the league struggled in the early 1980's as the economy was hurt by energy and oil crises.  Then, it flourished in the mid to late 1980's and America's economy boomed.  During that time, the NBA became what it is today and really hasn't backtracked much.   The true source of today's the problem lies not with the NBA but with a sector of fans no longer able to afford  attending games.

A consequence of the struggling economy that has taken a tole on the NBA's success is the disappearance of the American middle class. The American middle class is a dying breed. Analysis of the American economic classes post recession highlights that the middle class has been esspicially hurt.  The rich are still rich. The poor are still poor, however, this group is simply growing larger.   The middle class is molding into the poor. MotherJones.com put together a series of graphs detailing just how great the divide is becoming. Eventually, we could have the rich, the poor, and the poorer. Micheal Synder, editor of The Economic Collapse, has detailed this in an article published on Yahoo finance.  In it, he gives "22 statistics detailed here [that] prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the middle class is being systematically wiped out of existence in America."  To highlight a few, 

"•The top 10 percent of Americans now earn around 50 percent of our national income.  
 • 83 percent of all U.S. stocks are in the hands of 1 percent of the people. 
 •The bottom 50 percent of income earners in the United States now collectively own less than 1 percent of the   
  nation’s wealth.
 •Approximately 21 percent of all children in the United States are living below the poverty line in 2010 - the    
   highest rate in 20 years
 • Despite the financial crisis, the number of millionaires in the United States rose a whopping 16 percent to 7.8
    million in 2009."

Synder continues his concerns about the destruction of the middle class in a topic specific article. He states, 

"The middle class in America is being ripped to shreds right in front of our eyes and very little is being done to stop it.  Desperation is rising across the nation.  More Americans slip into poverty every single day.  It is almost as if a cloud of gloom and despair has descended upon the U.S. economy and every single month the situation only seems to get darker."

David Autor of MIT, has concluded that the Middle class is becoming extinct because, "America's workforce is splitting into high- and low-paying jobs. The middle-income demographic is disappearing".  The evidence and numbers are there to conclude that indeed the middle class is disappearing from America.  This is a scary thought as the last time this happened on such a broad scale was prior to, and during, the great depression.   Obviously this isn't good for the economy but it also is the reason for the struggle of the NBA.

It must be argued that the NBA needs a strong middle class to survive. The NBA revenue stream relies too heavily on ticket sales. Conversely, to make up for a team's high operating income they make tickets expensive and provide forty-two homes games per team.  The problem is that the percentage of Americans that can afford these season tickets has dwindled.  Even President Obama remarks that "I understand that salaries are high, ticket prices are going to be high, but you know, you hate to think that the only person that can go to a game is somebody who's got a corporate account." If the supply of games is, then it will lead to low demand for the games.  Also, since the NBA must maintain high ticket prices to overcome high operation costs, consumers demand to purchase tickets decreases.  This has led to the NBA's financial problem. To better understand why teams require a middle class an analogy can be drawn.  By comparing the economic classes to the sections of a basketball arena the picture is more clear..  The extremely wealthy will always fill the best seats closest to the court.  The polar opposite poor will always fill the cheap seats at the top of the arena.  It takes a strong middle class to fill out the entire arena.    The disappearance of this class has led to more and more teams unable to sell out their games. As the middle class becomes poorer they are faced with two options for supporting the NBA.  They can move up to the poor seats. Or they just abandon the NBA all together.  Unfortunately for the NBA people are imploring the latter option.

Other major American sports leagues don't require a strong middle class to survive.  They have found a way to work around the issue of a poorer America.  The National Football League (NFL) only has eight home games per team. Based on the NFL's monster popularity there are numerous fans that love to attend games for the sentimental/entertainment value. By limiting the supply of games that local fans can attend, the NFL's fans having a higher demand for tickets to the games.  this allows the NFL to charge a premium for tickets. This, along with incredible TV deals and revenue sharing, caused only one NFL team (out of 32) to operate at a loss in 2009. Major league baseball implores the opposite strategy. They supply a high quantity of games to the local fans.  By giving each team eighty-one home games, it allows the franchises to charge extremely low prices for the tickets.  This strategy allows them to generate ticket sales for two reasons.  One is that all Americans can now afford to attend the games so there is a revolving door of fans filling up the stadium.  Two is that the low prices allows teams to put the most fans in the stadium, which leads to more inside the park revenue of concessions/merchandise purchases. Like the NFL, the MLB only had two (out of thirty) teams operate at a loss in 2009.  These organizations have figured out something that The NBA hasn't. The NBA implores a failing strategy of numerous home games coupled with expensive tickets. 

This argument is based on the dependent relationship of the NBA and a strong middle class, however, there are some that would argue other factors contribute to the NBA failure.  Perhaps it's that the NBA has lost its popularity among sports fans.  Maybe people no longer care for the game of basketball and the product the NBA has to offer.  This is possible but disproven by the fact that, "The N.B.A. All-Star Game on Sunday attracted an average of 9.1 million viewers on TNT, up 33 percent from 6.9 million last year, according to Nielsen. It was the league’s most watched All-Star Game since 2003, when Michael Jordan made his final appearance."  The NBA is as popular, if not more popular, than ever.  Other opponents will contend that although seventeen teams lost money, there were still thirteen teams operated at a profit last year. This kind of inner analytical review would definitely help the NBA fix its more troubled franchises.  However, most of the teams making money are doing so not based on financial strategies, but by other factors.  Six of the thirteen profitable teams are in the biggest U.S markets (New York Knicks, Los Angeles Clippers/Lakers, Golden State Warriors, Chicago Bulls, and the Houston Rockets). These teams are fortunate to be in areas where there are enough rich to sell out the entire arena twice.  Two teams (Detroit Pistons, and Boston Celtics) have a large unbreakable fan base due to their histories of success.  One (Toronto Raptors) are the lone team in an entire country.  There are only a few teams (Phoenix Suns, Portland Trailblazers, and Cleveland Cavaliers) that are succeeding in small markets that the economy has affected.  The majority of the successful teams are a product of their environments.  Their success relies on factors that other teams cannot reproduce on a whim.

The financial success of the NBA and the current state of America's economy have long been correlated.  The reason for this is that the NBA needs a strong middle class to survive.  When the economy is bad, the middle class shrinks, resulting in the NBA failing to sell tickets.  These are the reasons that the NBA is currently defaulting.  The middle class has almost vanished in the current recession, and the NBA will have to change its ways in the future if it wants to survive.  Currently, the player to owners ratio of revenue splits is 57% to 43%.  With the tough times the owners will need more money to keep the league afloat, or they will have to shut down. Consequently, that is what the league will likely do in the future.  The league plans to lock the players out if a new Collective Bargaining Agreement can't be reached.  The NBA doesn't realize that they could solve their problems by restructuring the amount of games played and the price of tickets that could be alternative solutions to their problem. They could adapt the philosophies of the MLB or the NFL in an attempt to open their doors to fans of any economic standing.  However, the NBA is run by millionaires and billionaires that don't feel the squeeze of the economy that the average middle class American is experiencing.  Thus in all likelihood the NBA will lock the players out in 2011 and the league will be hurt.  How it recovers remains to be seen.

PUBLIC SQUARE: BANKING VS THE STOCK MARKET FOR COLLEGE STUDENT.

As far back as I can remember I have always had a savings account at a bank.  I was "Informed" that I should save my money in the bank, and that said money would accumulate interest and thus make me richer.  What the bankers didn't tell me is that the rate of interest would be less than .05%.  

Year later at age 22, I would open my first stock brokering account.  It was hands down easier than opening my first bank account.  It took all of about 20 minutes plus a few days to process, and I had an account up and running on Etrade.   The stock market is a better way to store your money than traditional banking. Seriously get on now while you are young because the sooner you start the greater your future benefits.  Don't believe me?  Check out some info.

Using my personal account as an example.  I started an account with $400.  If that money was left in the bank to accumulate interest, then I would have made about $20 in on year.  In my first week of trading I bought shares of stock IPCI, a pharmaceuticals company, at $4 per share.  It shot up to $4.9 two days later, and I sold it the following week. This netted me a profit of about $18 in one weeks time.  And it wasn't really that hard of work; to be honest it was fun.    Who knows, perhaps one day you could become a stock broker, and "A Wallstreet buff named Warren Arthur calculated the average income of a stockbroker to be around $175,000 a year."

Obviously I'm not saying abandon the banking system and go entirely into stock.  Nor am I promising good positive returns on investment.  What I am promising is you will learn more about economy, stock markets, or assets than you will in any business or economics class in college.  Experience trumps knowledge in this field.  If you still doubt that banking is the faulty system know that Henry Ford, founder of Ford Auto, once said, 

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."

PUBLIC SQUARE: Ding Dong. The Wicked Streak is Dead!!

The Cleveland cavaliers have won a game.   I repeat, the Cavs have won a game.  To the sporting folk, this is huge news.

Only significant in the regular season given that they have lost the previous 26 before it.  That's 26 straight losses.  To put it in perspective that ties/beats the longest losing streak in an major USA sport:  Football (26), Baseball (24 games coincidentally lost by fellow Cleavland-ers Indians), MLS soccer (19).  The Cavs losing steak is truly pitiful.  I personally feel bad for them.

 I've worked for a major NCAA college football program, and one lose was painful enough.  26 straight would be utter punishment.  That means 26 times before this the men on that team have walking into the locker room looked each other in the eye, and had to deal with the worst feeling they now.  Some fresh to the game didn't know how to process it.  The losers of the team accepted it.  It was the rare few that couldn't look anyone in the eye because the of the sick feeling in there stomachs resulting from each individual loss.

It finally became too much that individuals stepped up for the betterment of the team. The Box Score and highlight say it all.  It was the work of a few that helped the whole group break the streak.

Thanks for learning.

PUBLIC SQUARE:Happy About Losing Money

Every frugal person has been upset about spending too much money on disposable items. Something you spend too much on and only get the oppurtunity to use once. We have all bought an expensive meal,  or spent $25 on a trip to the movies, but why does doing something enjoyable also create a subtle sense of "greed guilt".  It's that small feeling of remorse about spending that won't provide capital returns on the investment.  Well if you ever share this feeling, you should read more about Anil Ambani.


Ambani owns six publicly traded Indian companies.  Yesterday on Thursday February 10th Albani watched his stocks and, 

"saw a sharp fall resulting a $2.6 billion loss in the market value of his six publicly traded companies"

In Lay-man's terms, the man went to bed last night having lost $2.6 Billion.  Yes you read that right.  Before you create a "Save Ambani" movement realize that he is still worth approxamitely $17 Billion.  So next time you feel bad about blowing $10 on a drink 1/4 of the size you expect it to be IMAGINE your Anil Ambani; Then realize it could be worse.  

For those interested in the reasons, continue reading, if not thanks for learning.

So Ambani in a press conference proclaimed that,

 "Friday blamed stock brokers for spreading "baseless sensational charges" against the group, as shares of its companies fell sharply for the second day this week. Unlisted-Reliance ADA said it had identified the brokers who circulated charges through emails, text messages and voice calls and sought regulatory investigation against them." 

Basically what he is saying is that a few rival traders spread rumors about his companies and short sold the stocks.  A short sale is betting against a stock hypothysizing that it will fall in value in the future; if the stock loses value you win.  This is the opposite of a long sale, or buying a stock you believe will go up in value. So the rumores spread, causing shareholders to panic, leading into a large fall in price.  They then rebought the stock at a lower price and made $$$$.  Due to the stock market being a "zero balance" game that means that the people who shorted the stock, or sold shares as it fell made approximately $2.6 Billon.  Pretty nice for a day's work.  

For a US exam of this check out this micro example of APPLE on thursday.

PUBLIC SQUARE: Highlight from Below

Just wanted to highlight this paragraph from the essay below about Frank Deford.  With the "Big Game" this sunday it's relevant,

Obviously something is wrong with America’s education system, but there must also be something wrong with Americans.  In this new technological age we accept dumb down simplistic versions of information, instead of using deeper analysis to really understand it. This must be the case for Richard Belfrey, who wanted to spend $3 Million, the average price of a 30 second commercial during the super bowl, to air this Jesus Hates Obama Ad. Right wing Americans may not like the guy personally, but the super bowl is an American tradition, that’s the United States President; their free to speak, but please do so logically and intelligently. And don’t bring Jesus or religion for that matter, into it.

Check out the link too. To top it all of, the commercial is poorly done.

Frank Deford: The Public Intellectual

Every sports fan, and American for that matter, recognizes the names Babe Ruth, Michael Jordan, Brett Favre, Michael Phelps, Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, Tiger Woods, etc.  Fewer can identify Toni Kukoc (Won 3 NBA Championships), Larry Izzo (3x Super bowl champion), or Matt Biondi (8 Olympic Gold Medals for USA). While all great men, no one would refer to them as public intellectuals.  President Barack Obama is the perfect example of the public intellectual. A Public intellectual is someone who is outspoken, well respected in their field, stands out in the crowd, unafraid to tell the hard truth, uncompremiseable, and rarely known for national popularity.  This is the description of Frank Deford. It’s a slim minority of sports fans that when the name Frank Deford is mentioned are aware who your talking about. Even someone who can rattle of batting averages for random baseball players, or the wonderlic scores for upcoming NFL draft prospects, will be puzzled by the question; who is Frank Deford? And yet Frank Deford is the modern day public intellectual.  Given his biography, if you have read Sports Illustrated, listened/ read NPR,  or watched HBO:Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel, in the last 50 years, you have viewed a report by Frank Deford.  Then why is it that he isn’t a household name?  Frank Deford is indeed a modern day public intellectual, highlighted by a individual writing style leading to numerous awards during a lengthy career as a sports journalist/author; however the majority of American’s unfamiliarity with Deford proves that there isn’t a “decline of public intellectuals", but rather a "decline in the intellectuality" of Americans, as showcased by our recent decline in global education.

To say the least, Frank Deford has long been a lingering figure in the world of sports journalism.  He has written for countless newspapers, sports illustrated, NPR, HBO’s; he’s even authored 16 books.  He has written four completed movies; two adapted from his books, along with two of his original screenplays.  ESPN even aired a TV documentary about his life and work entitled “You Write Better Than You Play”.  This man and his work are out in the public.

Undoubtedly there are only a handful of writers with an extensive catalog of work that matches Deford’s, and even less that can match his awards resume.  According to NPR.org,

“As a journalist, Deford has been elected to the Hall of Fame of the National Association of Sportscasters and Sportswriters. Six times Deford was voted by his peers as U.S. Sportswriter of The Year. The American Journalism Review has likewise cited him as the nation's finest sportswriter, and twice he was voted Magazine Writer of The Year by the Washington Journalism Review. Deford has also been presented with the National Magazine Award for profiles, a Christopher Award, and journalism Honor Awards from the University of Missouri and Northeastern University, and he has received many honorary degrees. The Sporting News has described Deford as "the most influential sports voice among members of the print media," and the magazine GQ has called him, simply, "the world's greatest sportswriter." In broadcast, Deford has won both an Emmy and a George Foster Peabody Award."

This guy knows what he’s talking about when it comes to sports. His resume and awards, along with his graduate degree from Princeton University get the message across, but this is not solely what makes him a public intellectual.  Compare Frank to Lisa Dillman, LA Clippers beat write for the Los Angeles Times.  Lisa is, by all accounts, a fine journalist. She typically writes stories related to the Clippers games and organizational moves such as this.  Frank Deford also writes everyday articles like, "Rex Ryan: The future of coaching” in which he summarizes how Rex Ryan, New York (Football) Jets, is becoming a great coach in the NFL; A common and popular observation of a guy fresh off his second consecutive trip into the final four teams. Only it’s the way that Frank does it that makes him stand out,

“The New York Jets may have lost Sunday, but whoever wins the Super Bowl, in many respects the most memorable character of this NFL season was the Jets' roly-poly coach, Rex Ryan. And, please, I'm not talking about the foot-fetish business. It is Ryan's ebullience, his braggadocio, that make him so unusual. Football coaches tend to be phlegmatic, even distant personalities —There's been a tendency to mock Ryan as a big-mouthed clown — perhaps all the more so that he's fat and garrulous. But I think his critics, who have been most everybody except his players, have missed the point. Football players have changed.

They're not the strong-but-silent little varsity soldiers of gridiron lore. They're brash, narcissistic showoffs. They literally beat their breasts. You may not like that, you may hate the dancing and prancing in the end zone, but it sure is the way of the football world now.    Why do you think these swaggerers wouldn't want someone whose personality matches their own as their boss?"

Deford's words would scroll the pages of a best sports poetry book; if one so existed.  That's why he stands out.  On top of that he also finds time to tackle the important, and not so obvious, stories that bring true light to the subtleties of sports. The way he writes is making a commentary on society itself, taking it much behind the realm of just sports journalism. Take, for example, one of his recent pieces, "For Young Athletes, Knee surgery opens the door to pain" in which he touches on ACL surgery and it's long-term effects on athletes, as well as why surgeons are hesitant to keep performing the surgery. He delivers the news on one of the most common season ending sport surgeries in such a unique light,

“I've spoken to horribly disabled old football players who told me they'd do it all again, whatever life's sacrifice, just to have played the game. How many players have taken   performance-enhancing drugs without any concern about the possible side effects? So many athletes will do almost anything to compete. But now, in an ironic twist, some surgeons have come to feel terribly conflicted about their part in salvaging an athlete's career. Doctors know that because the surgery allows young athletes to continue to compete aggressively and put stress on that damaged knee, a significant number will, in as few as 10 years, suffer degenerative osteoarthritis. That is so much more debilitating and painful — and must be endured for the rest of one's life. Some may even require knee replacement.”

That is what separates the sports writer and the public intellectual.  In a time when the sports writer is typing on about how the star player needs to have ACL surgery so he can return to play ASAP, Frank is bringing more awareness to the risk and side-effects of a fixing serious, life changing, injury.  He is talking about what no one else will, or for all purposes agrees with.  ACL surgery is "Undoubtedly one of the worst sports injuries that someone can have" and yet you don't hear about many pro or college athletes electing not to have the surgery.  After delving into some of his work it's clear, not only how he won all those awards, but that Frank Deford is the Public Intellectual.

Given that Deford is a public intellectual, why aren't the majority of Americans familiar with him? Maybe it’s because some people don't think sports is a major influence to our society. If that’s true explain the multimillion even billion-dollar businesses of NFL, MLB, NHL, NBA, and WNBA.  If that's not enough proof, read this article claiming that twice as many people watched last year’s super bowl as this year's State Of The Union address.  Hell, President Obama even mentioned the Super bowl in his STOU this week. Really shows where America’s priorities are, but nonetheless points out that sports, fan or not, is a major part of American society.  Then how can it be that one of the most documented and celebrated sports writers of the century is not a common name amongst Americans?  Perhaps it's people's perception that sports aren't intellectual and pro athletes are thugs/ snobs.  Solid point, however one spot of mold will always make a loaf of bread appear rotten.  For instance, Myron Rolle, attended FSU on a football scholarship, completed his degree, and then passed on the NFL and his chance at hundreds of thousands of dollars to fulfill his Rhodes scholarship in Cambridge in the hopes of one day becoming a brain surgeon.  Sports figures like Myron aren’t the ones who make headlines.  The sports world is not chalk full of public intellectuals.  Though indeed, some form of public intellectuals exist here such as: Bill Simmons, Muhammad Ali, John Wooden, Lou Gerig, Magic Johnson, Bob Costas, Keith Olbermen.  The question still remains, how do people not recognize Frank Deford?

There are many factors to consider into not the "Decline of public intellectuals", but rather a public "Decline of intellectuality". A strong correlation to the lack of awareness of Frank Deford's work, or any other public intellectuals, can be caused by the decline in America's education standards.   This decline in interest may, by definition, be just that, or maybe it’s something deeper.   It’s not that there is a “lack of interest", but there is transitionally a “lack of desire to be intellectual".  This could stem from the fact, simply put, that Americans are getting dumber.  According to studies,

          

“USA scores the lowest in national average IQ among the developed countries of the world, at a national average score of 98… the national average IQ score of Americans at 98 is below 22 countries (including Switzerland, United Kingdom, Germany, Japan, North Korea and China). The low Intelligence Quotient (IQ) score of United States puts the Americans at a lower intelligence level on an average as compared to the other industrialized nations.

American high school students scored 483 in the test Program for International Student Assessment.[Math Test] The average scores of American students were way below those of top scoring countries like South Korea, Japan, Switzerland, Germany, Ireland, etc. all of whom scored between 503 and 544 (significantly higher than US scores).

American adults in general do not understand what molecules are (other than that they are really small). Fewer than a third can identify DNA as a key to heredity. Only about 10 percent know what radiation is. One adult American in five thinks the Sun revolves around the Earth, an idea science had abandoned by the 17th century.”

Obviously something is wrong with America’s education system, but there must also be something wrong with Americans.  In this new technological age we accept dumb down simplistic versions of information, instead of using deeper analysis to really understand it. This must be the case for Richard Belfrey, who wanted to spend $3 Million, the average price of a 30 second commercial during the super bowl, to air this Jesus Hates Obama Ad. Right wing Americans may not like the guy personally, but the super bowl is an American tradition, that’s the United States President; their free to speak, but please do so logically and intelligently. And don’t bring Jesus or religion for that matter, into it. 

Anyway this simplistic view has taken a toll on the existance of the public intellectual.  The fact is that there hasn’t been a “decline” in public intellectuals.  For example look at all these people.  However in the shortened attention span age of Facebook, Google, Wikipedia, and twitter, Americans must truly believe that that they shouldn’t concern themselves with public intellectuals. Worst off we aren't even aware of what/who public intellectuals are,

"The Russian masses (such a crude and ugly word) of a century ago were no more attentive to their intellectuals, public or otherwise, than we are today. And to hear American intellectuals tell it, that’s setting the bar pretty low."

If Frank Deford cared what twitter was, he would be lucky to have a hundred thousand followers. In comparison Chad Ochocinco has 1.6 million. Shaquille "Shaq" O Neal has 3.5 million. Luckily Barack Obama trumps any sports figure (6.4 Million), only barely holding off Asthon Kutcher, but still getting smoked by Lady Gaga (7.9 Million) and Justin Beiber. If Americans are more concerned with the daily public messages of an estranged music artist or an annoying teen heart throb, rather than the most well-known and publicized current public intellectual, then it’s obvious why the work of Frank Deford goes unnoticed. Most Americans aren't even aware of what/who is the public intellectual so how can we be expected to pay attention to them.  John Donatich, also agrees with these view that, 

"It seems to me that there is a central conflict regarding American intellectual work. How does it reconcile itself with the venerable tradition of American anti-intellectualism? What does a country built on headstrong individualism and the myth of self-reliance do with its people convinced that they know best?"

Americans knowledge of the public intellectual is quite similar to their knowledge of how their water heater works.  If you asked an average American how they take hot showers, they will say that they pay their water/gas bill.   If those people turned on their shower one day and only cold water came out, with some diligent searching they would eventually discover that it’s a miniscule flame at the base of their water heater, called a pilot light, that's essentially responsible for heating the whole tank.  Most though will simply give up searching and call a plumber.  In this case the public intellectual is like that small pilot light in that people can’t find or worse don't even attempt searching for them.  In contrast it has been said that, 

"The fiction of America’s anti-intellectualism has been debated adnauseam since Richard Hofstadter popularized the phrase a half-century ago. Without replaying the whole debate, two points will suffice: One, the fact that academic institutions wield enormous financial, technological, and cultural power—and the fact that, more             generally, education continues to be the centerpiece of some of our             most cherished social myths (i.e., “the “American Dream”)—are both powerful reasons to doubt that Americans suffer from some instinctive hostility to intellectuals. Two, what is sometimes identified as anti-intellectualism is in fact intellectual—that is, a well articulated family of ideas and arguments that privilege the practical, active side of life (e.g., work) over the passive and purely reflective operations of the mind in a vacuum."

This is a sound and logical argument; only it also provides some evidence that those unaffected by the newer less intelligent America are a small minority. It's the majority of Americans who don't care for intellectualism and prefer simplicity.  These are the people who aren’t going to college, they are affected by America’s poor education system, and they are the ones who have given up on the public intellectual.

If you ask the typical American how he/she analyzes sports, most will just say they watch Sportscenter, or they read sites like Rotoworld.  People only want to see scores, highlights, stats, or injury news and fail to search for the analysis; Such as the analysis of Frank Deford.  Americans either don’t care enough, or just aren’t well enough informed to know that sports, like everything, are so much deeper than the box score.  Clearly it does because there is an intellectual side to sports; as evidenced by the work of people such as Deford. They fail to search for those like Frank Deford or even know who he is.  This is what has happened to the public intellectual, it’s not that they aren’t out there, but more that Americans are no longer looking for them.  They simply accept the easy way of learning and have no desire to become truly informed. The Average American gets their sports opinions from famous athletes like LeBron or Kobe.  They hear the news from Sportscenter anchors like Stan Verrett. To them these are the public intellectuals.  And that is a troubling reality for the future of the public intellectual in sports.