Upheaval in College Football

Chaos has erupted in the college football world in a number of respects: Auburn has shocked everyone, escalating from being unranked in the preseason to being National Championship participants, Ohio State broke its two-season win streak, directly removing themselves from the BCS Championship picture, and Florida State's star quarterback and Heisman-hopeful, Jameis Winston, was found innocent in the conclusion of his dragged-out and agonizing rape case. However, above all these, ostensibly insurmountable anguish has broken out in college football's unofficial headquarters, Tuscaloosa, AL, as speculation that head coach Nick Saban will leave the Crimson Tide to coach the Texas Longhorns in Austin, TX has arisen.

Coach Saban is informal royalty in the state of Alabama. Under his tutelage, the Crimson Tide has won three of the last four National Champions and has brought in the nation's most highly coveted recruits.

The University of Texas' head coach, Mack Brown, used to be to Texas what Coach Saban is to Alabama. Though his pedigree is not as impressive as King Saban's, having only won one BCS Championship in his fifteen-year tenure with the Longhorns, he had always produced a top-five team that competed in prestigious Bowl Games.

This was, of course, until 2010, when the Longhorns would endure three consecutive losing seasons and fall from an empire to a conference punching bag. Naturally, Texas' athletic boosters are not thrilled about Brown and his Longhorn's descent from greatness, and many have requested for new leadership of the football program.

In response, UT's athletic director, Steve Patterson, saw fit to offer Alabama's Nick Saban a $10M-per-year contract (compared to his current $5.62M annual salary) to come to Austin to coach the Longhorns. There are reports of text messages between Saban and Patterson, along with accounts of Coach Saban's wife, Terry, house shopping in Texas' capital.

While Longhorn fans wait in anticipation for Mack Brown's replacement (with their fingers tightly crossed that it is, indeed, Coach Saban), Crimson Tide loyals are outraged at this prospect, and demand that the Alabama athletic program raise his pay to keep their King in Tuscaloosa.

Because I am an ardent Texas A&M fan, this fiasco directly impacts my fellow Aggies and me, but unfortunately, we face a lose-lose situation. If Coach Saban remains the Crimson Tide's head coach, Alabama will continue to reign supreme over the SEC and likely prevent my Aggies from experiencing any real success, and if he transfers to Austin, UT will likely become Texas' premiere football program again.

I personally prefer the latter, seeing as this would free up the SEC in some regards and would allow Texas A&M to thrive, absent of the Crimson thorn in its side. However, I think Coach Saban will stay in Tuscaloosa. Save being bored with his current empire and seeking to start over (much like how I feel when I beat the NCAA Football video game), he has no real reason to leave--and will have Hell to pay if he does. The man is already a multimillionaire, and is most likely looking at retirement if he plans on going anywhere. Additionally, much like Lebron James' shift from the Cleveland Cavaliers to the Miami Heat, if he moves to Austin for the money, his perceived winning-is-everything mentality will be forever tarnished.

And we all know how coaches feel about their images.

Source: http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2013/12/10/texas-longhorns-football-coach-mack-brown-status/3959029/

Misplaced Disapproval

President Obama has experienced significant nationwide criticism--reflected by a 9% drop in his national approval rating--mainly pertaining to the recent steps taken in implementing his administration's healthcare plan, the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. But is America's discontent with our Commander-in-Chief misplaced? I certainly think so. According to Fox News' article, "How Low Can It Go? ObamaCare Poll Numbers Drop -- Again," much of the public's main misgiving about Obamacare is its recent website malfunctions. I find that there are many other components of the Act that the American people could take issue with than its initial aesthetic problems.

It seems that yet again America's citizens are misinformed by the mass media. Outlets of all political preferences have been reporting on HealthCare.gov's malfunction, but what of Obamacare's effects on doctor's pay, taxation, and overall function within the government? Since mainstream media became widespread and readily available to virtually everyone, it appears that it has essentially determined the public's political opinions by only providing the most basic elements of issues. This is clearly a problem, but I personally see no legitimate alternative to remedy this epidemic of ignorance.

News, Fox. "How Low Can It Go? ObamaCare Poll Numbers Drop -- Again." Fox News. FOX News Network, 20 Nov. 2013. Web. 20 Nov. 2013.

Twitter Mania

Twitter has undeniably become the new king of social media. It allows people to share what they're doing and how they're feeling with the world in real time, and, unlike other outlets, to interact with celebrities on a personal level and be inundated with information from news sources. Twitter is fun, easy, and unique and, as a result, has experienced long-standing and exponentially increasing success.

The executives over at Twitter decided that they could best exploit Twitter's dominance by going public, and, a little over a week ago, did just that. In it's initial days, Twitter's stock values have soared, but many speculate as to whether this boom will continue--perhaps with good reason. After examining that Facebook bubble, some financial experts believe that Twitter will follow suit in Mark Zuckerberg's fall. Social media sites are only worth how many users it has, and declines of ostensible empires like Facebook occur when competitors push them out.

It is undeniable that social media sites' value entirely depends on their popularity, and Facebook's stock plummeted as it gradually became less desirable to the public, but what many do not consider is that Twitter has already battled the storms brought on by rival outlets--including Facebook. For example, when Facebook bought out Instagram, Twitter responded by developing Vine, which, too, continues to become favorable to its users. It appears that Twitter is more robust than many give it credit for, and I, personally, do not see why Twitter's stock will not maintain or even grow.

Dukes of Hazard

The stupidity of humanity never ceases to amaze me. This news report is certainly more benign that the ones we typically discuss, but man’s irrational behavior still led to someone getting hurt and another getting put in jail. I personally don’t know what to make of the situation. Obviously guns were in the hands of untrustworthy men, but was there some ulterior motive or are these guys just idiots? Whether these men got the idea to search for Bigfoot from Animal Planet or beef jerky commercials is irrelevant, the real question is why do humans persistently search for myths and legends when they have been almost conclusively proven to be nonexistent?

There is much speculation as to why we try to discover mythical creatures like the Loch Ness Monster, the Abominable Snowman, and, most recently, Bigfoot. Some claim that it has to do with our insatiable curiosity for the unknown, while others uphold that we are motivated by a pursuit of fame and notoriety. I, however, contend that we, personally, want these storybook characters to exist. We deeply desire to realize the fantastical tales we imagined as children and to wholeheartedly believe that there is more to life than what meets the eye. It is impossible to speak for the men involved in this recent debacle, but I think that our inner child—along with elements of escapism and thrill-of-the-hunt—that motivates us to embark on these senseless and fruitless quests.   

The NSA's At It Again

This past week, an international uproar erupted when it was revealed that the US’s NSA program has been spying on at least 35 world leaders, many being America’s own allies. I, unlike a majority of people who have caught wind of this conflict, do not take issue with the NSA’s recent snooping. Many may see this as betrayal, but I’m of the opinion that the federal government’s primary responsibility is to take every necessary measure to protect the American people from foreign enemies. Whether the NSA’s spying is essential in America’s military strategy is a different argument for others to have—I merely contend that the NSA acted within its rights in this case.

I personally see the snooping as an extension of national security. The American military and intelligence may be involved in foreign affairs such as the anarchy in Iraq and Syria to help benefit society as a whole, but they are also immersed in these conflicts to stay “in the know” regarding intentional issues. In this case, the NSA took a sneakier approach in investigating other country’s internal happenings, but a similar principle was exercised.

I’m not, however, a huge fan of the NSA as a result of its snooping on a number of innocent American citizens. The program claimed it was within its right provided by the Patriot Act (which, again, is a separate argument), but its domestic intrusion was essentially dismissed by the American people in a matter of weeks. I personally find it unreasonable to be more concerned with the NSA’s spying on foreign leaders than on the American people, but perhaps that’s just me.

Trying Times in Russia

It appears that last week’s Moscow migrant conflict is composed of both cultural and religious disagreements—a combination that could prove to be catastrophic for the Russian capital. At the risk of being religiously insensitive, it appears that the Muslim’s acts of insubordination were initially mildly passive, involving no bombings or hostages. However, this conflict came to a head when an advocacy group blamed these new Moscowans for the murder of an ethnic Russia, and a full out civil war broke out.

I find this civil disagreement to be so interesting because, though it involves an occasionally boisterous religion, no real radical behavior has been realized to date. Sure, someone was killed—not that this should be treated flippantly—but no churches or public transportation mediums have been bombed, and no terrorist threats have been made. This leads me to believe that this struggle is cultural, not unlike what we experience here in America. Both Moscow and the United States are melting pots of ethnicities, and issues like this are experienced every day. Whether it takes form as a gang shooting between the MS-13 and the Bloods in Los Angeles or the Westborough Baptist Church protesting military funerals in Arlington, cultural clashes occur in our homeland—a self-proclaimed peaceful nation—on a daily basis.

After examining this divergence in Moscow, I can’t help but wonder when the U.S. will attempt to make the kinds of immigration reforms Russia is seeking to implement soon. Opponents of American immigration reform make the classic argument that America was discovered and founded by immigrants and that everyone has the right to reside here if they go through the due legal process of nationalization. This is indisputable but misses the point. The exponential influx of illegal immigrants in America has caused, or, at least, perpetuated, a variety of issues in today’s society. Nationwide crime rates and the national debt have skyrocketed and jobs have been occupied by those who evade taxes and contribute little to society. I am all for foreigners legally coming to America for the opportunity for a better life—without this ability, I would not even be a citizen here—but illegal immigration is America’s version of the Moscow conflict. Changes must be made to both societies and only those who are willing to sacrifice the time and effort to migrate should be allowed to do so, and those who have neglected to be nationalized should excommunicated until they legitimately municipalize.

Works Cited

Baczynska, Gabriela, and Igor Belyatski. "Over 1,600 Migrants Rounded up after

Ethnic Riots in Moscow." Reuters. Thomson Reuters, 14 Oct. 2013. Web. 23

Oct. 2013

The Golden Age of Television

When considering the “Golden Age of Television,” shows considered today to be “oldies” initially came to my mind. Television shows such as M*A*S*H, I Love Lucy, and Happy Days—wholesome, family oriented, All-American, shows even—are classic, timeless programs that serve as fundamental building blocks for today’s television shows. However, upon reading the article, I came to realize that this is the reason that these programs are seen as “golden.” Like any pioneers in any industry, they are seen as timeless, but I find that archetypical TV shows are simply generational.

I took the liberty of calling my fourteen-year-old brother to ask him what he considered to be TV’s “Golden” programs. As I expected, he listed shows such as Boy Meets World, Even Stevens, and Lizzie McGuire. These are the shows that he grew up on in the early 2000’s, and, to him, were a key component of his childhood. Those programs, along with the likes of Full House, Spongebob Squarepants, and Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark, are what are most reminiscent of my early years and, consequently, became a part of my developmental years and life as a whole.

People search for escapism when watching TV. Their “Golden Age” likely reflects which shows bring them life’s sweetest memories—for many, their childhoods or other times of simplicity and contentment. Though it is evident there are subliminal messages of racism, sexism, and political propaganda in television of all generations, people typically value TV shows for their surface components—their characters, plot lines, stories, and morals. After examining this subject extensively, I have concluded that the “Golden Age of Television” is, in fact, a number of ages, valued differently by each individual TV fanatics.

The 2013 Government Shutdown

The American government has been under much financial duress for the past decade. Between the Great Recession, irresponsible Federal spending, and a whole host of other deficiencies, the economy has struggled mightily, weighed down by the Federal government’s carelessness. One particular conflict, namely, the full implementation of the Affordable Care Act (also known as Obamacare), came to a head on September 30^th, as the House Republicans shut down funding for the Federal government as a result of President Obama’s perceived lack of cooperation on the law and an attempt to slow down its inception.

As with any significant political issue, there has been a great deal of finger pointing and blame-shifting regarding who is responsible for this whole fiasco. Today’s Americans have some sort of political bias about them, so I think it might be a good idea to consult our friends Adam Smith and Karl Marx about this subject and who is truly to blame. Adam Smith, who was typically a proponent of small government, would disapprove of the Affordable Care Act in general, but in terms of the conflict that has arisen as a result of its inception, he would likely blame the poor planning done by the House Republicans to keep President Obama and his administration from implementing what is essentially socialized medicine. Marx, on the other hand, would blame the American people as a whole for its political polarization, claiming that we ought to live communally and provide for each other.

Though this inevitable government shutdown mess has caught national attention and is something to be reckoned with, I believe the origin of this issue lies a couple of years in the past. When the Supreme Court ruled the Obamacare constitutional is when this fiasco began. Though it is directly unconstitutional to tax a small minority to subsidize a large majority—which, by my evaluation of the program, is what it essentially does—the Supreme Court gave it its stamp of approval. It is foolish to leave such significant financial responsibilities in the hands of a small group of political elites—regardless of allegiances or political orientations—and this issue should have been prevented entirely by killing the Affordable Care Act at its roots.

The Kenyan Hostage Situation

It seems that everyday there is some kind of major act of senseless violence occurring somewhere in the world. Recently, a group of Islamic terrorists held patrons at a Kenyan mall hostage, killing at least 5 of them. It is apparent these men were driven by religious zeal, but is faith, itself, to blame for this atrocity and the plethora of evils like it?

Our friend Karl Marx would likely uphold this opinion. He often found that religion of any kind is unhealthy to man, in that it robs them of personal freedom and glory, and to society by causing unnecessary emotional conflicts. He is of the belief that society ought to work collaboratively for its ultimate good—however, are communalism and religion mutually exclusive? Furthermore, is society to blame for a single group’s wrongdoing, as Marx would perhaps suggest?

As a Christian, I typically disregard the idea that religion is the main cause of these irrational killings. Some find that religion, aside from it being false entirely, is also a cancer to society and should be eradicated entirely. I see the validity of this sentiment, however, I dispute this by pointing out that no religious texts instruct people to do things that are so detrimental to humanity. I’m no theologian, but I’ve never read any manuscripts beseeching anyone to fly planes into buildings or to shoot up movie theatres. Man is simply to blame for the evil in this world. Regardless of one’s motivation to do wrong—misplaced religious fervor, insanity, personal pleasure—people of all religious and ideological stripes commit heinous acts like the Muslim terrorists in the Kenyan hostage situation. Perhaps Marx is right, society’s shortcomings might be partially to blame for outbreaks like these, but I believe in personal responsibility and that these maniacs must be held accountable for their wrongs. Religion itself is not evil, but rather zealots’ misinterpretations that lead to the problems we face today, and, as we have seen for thousands of years, preventing man from doing as they please, on some level, is impossible.

Press, Associated. "3 Islamic Militants Dead, More Hostages Freed in Nairobi Mall

Terror Attack." Fox News. FOX News Network, 23 Sept. 2013. Web. 02 Oct. 2013.

The Navy Yard Shooting

The recent shootings at the Navy shipyard in Washington is unfathomable. What would bring a man to murder innocent people—individuals whose professions are to maintain the liberty of Americans upon the call of duty, at that—is beyond logical understanding. While people around the world attempt to explain the origin of this tragedy and how this madman was allowed to do what he did, I believe it is important to “consult” Adam Smith and Karl Marx on their takes on the situation.

Adam Smith, in both his discourse on morality and economics, made it clear that he believes in personal responsibility. He found that one should fail or succeed on their own merit and should be held responsible for their actions. I believe he would condemn this man for what he did and merely place all blame on him for what he did to innocent Americans. Marx, on the other hand, is a proponent of community and would most likely argue that we are to blame for this catastrophe. He would probably say that the burdens society put on him provoked this and that we should have made more preventative provisions, which would have, in theory, kept this maniac from access weapons and the shipyard itself.

Whether the man who committed this heinous act was truly insane or not is irrelevant. Something like this, at a military base no less, should never happen. I, personally, see this incident from the points of view of both Smith and Marx and agree with components of each. While I, like Smith, believe in personal responsibility and that this man should be held accountable for his actions, I also find that Marx’s sentiments on communal preparedness hold water, as well: the government should have tighter gun regulations (more specifically, more thorough background checks) that would not allow such a madman to have access to powerful weaponry. In the end, though, whose fault it is or what could have been done to prevent this blasphemy is important. We can only hope that measures be taken to stop incidents like this to occur in the future and that the families involved will be consoled.

Syria, America, and Morality

Over the past few years, Syria has known little other than upheaval, chaos and anarchy, only further perpetuated by dictator Basshar al-Assad. As a result, population has diminished due to Syria citizens fleeing in search for a better life, while crime has sky rocketed because of short-handed law enforcement. Likewise, Syria’s been reduced to 45% its original economy, as its agricultural, construction, oil, and tourism industries plummeted drastically. It appears that until peace is restored in this unsettled nation is restored, any chances of growth are minimal.

America, being the superpower that it is, has chosen to step into the civil war. The government aims to behead the current Syrian regime and to provide its citizens with a chance to operate under democracy, not unlike it did in Iraq and other Middle Eastern nations. There has been extensive speculation as to what the American government’s motives are in intervening—whether President Obama is attempting to distract the American people from the NSA, IRS, Benghazi, etc. or if we are simply trying to not look weak in this situation.

Though I generally side with Smith, Hume and company on the morality argument—that people generally do good selflessly for the sake of others—I believe that America’s involvement with the Syria conflicts is mainly done through self-interest, as our man Bernard Mandeville would likely suggest. Perhaps the government is seeking to resolve this in an attempt to minutely work towards world peace; regardless, America benefits from being involved in foreign affairs. Syria has a number of desirable commodities (which is presumably the reason we pledged an alliance with the Middle Eastern nation in the first place), and protecting the nation from itself will economically promote us domestically. Conversely, the alternative—to stay out of the Syria conflicts—would also be done out of self-interest by these standards, as the United States would save money and avoid casualties, while Syria burns. It is difficult to identify the government’s true motives, but regardless, assisting another country in need is America’s humanitarian duty, and the world will be better off with a more peaceful Syria.

Week Two Post

            The debate over morality—its function, its origin, its purpose, even its very existence—is timeless and has been held by a variety people and cultures. Oddly enough, some of history’s leading Economists have held such a discussion. Those like Bernard Mandeville find that good morals such as selflessness are upheld for selfish motives themselves, meaning that “morality” not truly “moral” itself. However, those like Adam Smith, David Hume, and Terrence Hutcheson dispute this viewpoint, claiming that morality is something given to us by God and serves to further the greater good of humanity.

            So far in Blogging with Adam Smith and Karl Marx, the most interesting readings I’ve undertaken were those of Mandeville and Hutcheson. Mandeville, as it pertains to human morality, describes it as little more than an instinctive impulse, comparing humans, in this sense, to animals, consumed by “self-conquest.” Though there is a degree of reason and sentiment put into human morality, man’s main motivation for being “good” is simply for personal gratification; as a result, there is no set ethical code among humans, but rather a holier-than-thou competition held among all people. Hutcheson, on the other hand, argues that humans, who share a number of commonalities (that cannot be explained by rationality or necessity) such as appreciation for beauty and yearning for a greater good, act righteously to advance the social community and honor their God. As a result of this observation, from Hutcheson’s point of view, good-doing is more a cooperative effort to further mankind for its sake as a whole, rather than a self-interested contest (and ultimately points to the existence of a greater overseeing being, though that is food for another discussion).

            Morality is a concept that no human truly understands. A universal, metaphysical ethical code undeniably exists among man, and many viewpoints have been brought to the intellectual table. Both Mandeville and Hutcheson bring up interesting perspectives on morality (as do Smith, Hume, and a variety of others, for that matter), and I aim to take their opinions into consideration and form a more concise and educated estimation of my own.

I am excited to continue learning about this ongoing debate and how it ties into the economic realm. Morality and those who study it, much like economics and economists, deal with ambiguity in their research and discourse, and I believe that understanding both will give me the comprehensive understanding of human tendencies I am seeking in taking this course.

Cullen Cosco

Mandeville, Bernard, and F. B. Kaye. "An Enquiry Into the Origin of Moral Virtue." The Fable

of the Bees: Or, Private Vices, Publick Benefits. Oxford: Clarendon, 1924. N. pag. The Online Library of Liberty. Web.

Hutcheson, Francis. "Concerning Our Reasonings about Design and Wisdom in the Cause,

from the Beauty or Regularity of Effects." An Inquiry Into the Original of Our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue. New York: Garland Pub., 1971. N. pag. The Online Library of Liberty. Web.