The case to justify equality of prize money for men and women in professional sporting events is a deeply flawed one.  What determines value is the marketability of the product not some vague concept of sameness masquerading as equality.

To make the simplistic argument that two athletes, one male the other female, both number one in their sport are otherwise monetarily equal strains common sense.  Putting them in a contest with each other would provide humbling proof of this myth.  Athletes are not commodities; they have unique and very different brand applications, appeal and merchantability.

Because world number one tennis star Novak Djokovic commented that men’s tennis is worth more because of bigger audiences and Indian Wells tennis tournament CEO Raymond followed up with a comment that woman’s tennis success, ..”rides on the coat-tails of the men.” may both be described as indelicate remarks, but that does not make them inaccurate ones.

US federal legislation in 1972, commonly known as Title IX, ushered in women’s athletic opportunities in the nation’s schools by making it law that resources and programs equal to the existing men’s programs be put in place for female athletics.  This is federal legislation that applies to educational institutions that receive any form of federal funding.  There is no Title IX compliance obligation outside of that federally defined parameter, in the real world, markets determine access.

Equality of access to programs and resources is not the same as insuring equality of outcomes as a result of that participation.  That concept is the antithesis of competition; athletes compete in order to defeat their opponents.  Equality of outcomes would make sporting events senseless.

Basketball’s March Madness is the perfect example of this nonsense of “equality.”  Practically the total annual NCAA budget is underwritten by television and sponsorship revenues from the Men’s National Basketball Championship tournament, some $900 million dollars worth.  A team’s appearance, even without a win is still a $1.67 million payday, $8.3 million if they make the Final Four.  TV ads are well over $1.5 million for a 30-second spot.  Nine billion dollars, or more than twice the amount wagered on the Super Bowl, will be wagered on this college basketball tournament.  Almost five times as many TV viewers will watch Men’s versus Women’s tournament basketball.

The NCAA Woman’s Championship involves no money back to teams and not one women’s basketball program in the NCAA is profitable.

The Declaration of Independence states that,  “All men are created equal..”  This does not mean that they stay that way; it simply provides a starting point in a contest we are all participants in, the game of life.

There is a dangerous breed of thought alive in this country that believes that the equality of access to opportunity is the same as the guarantee of an equality of outcomes.  This is not only false, but it undermines success, self-esteem, competition and the rugged individualism that defines this great country and her citizens.

The market defines value through its willingness to pay for the experience, it makes no difference if its men’s sports or women’s, deal with it.

Polarity augmented by the extreme, demonstrated by both political parties in this run-up to the nominations for candidates for the United States presidency is having unintended consequences the likes of which no one would have ever guessed.

The liberal Millennial’s, naively hopeful like dreamy-eyed toddlers on a snowy Christmas Eve, unaware that Santa, in the form of Bernie Sanders doesn’t exist and can’t deliver, will not be happy upon discovering their deceit.  The co-opting of Bernie’s Babies to Hillary is far from a foregone conclusion, with her likeability and credibility both in the toilet and her message, so far out of tune as to be only a stray-dog whistle; it leaves that group up for grabs.

What has passed for “conservatism” and the real guts of the Republican Party now begins to come under surgical examination as the likes of Donald J. Trump muscles his way into the supposed “Big Tent”, only to be unwelcomed and vilified by the ruling class, afraid of an outsider they can’t control.  That level of fear in the hearts of party bosses is apparently a sirens song to the multitudes of the Finally Fed-Up, who are showing up in droves to vote.  A good, hard look at what’s behind the curtain in the politics-as-usual arena shows those with a gathering interest just what it showed Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz; a fat, big-mouthed, fire-breathing omnipresence as fake, faulty and make-believe as the movie set.  The Ruling Class in all of its splendor, finally outed.

Unlike any other candidate ever to run for the presidency, Trump is independent of outside financial support and fully capable of running a campaign that is beholding to no one.  Every other candidate has big money support which buys influence and access.  Quite the contrary for Trump, he is unique in the fact that as a successful businessman, seeking favorable environments and workable regulations, he has been on the giving side of the influence peddling machine, not on the receiving end.  This former position as a supplier to the financial gluttony of politicians makes Trump a man that knows too much.

When Republicans, Democrats, Wall Street, the New York Times, Mitt Romney, Bob Dole and in essence the entirety of the political machine demonstrate seizure-like reaction to a Trump possibility, it invigorates the heretofore uninvolved but now energized Great Unwashed, those Americans sick to death of political correctness, left marginalized by the softening of America, never buying into pop culture, but lacking the platform to say so until now.

As the masks, shields, covers and veneers continue to be peeled, ripped, torn and tossed off of the emperors that have for too long now shared the bounty of The Ruling Class, the sameness of party becomes clear and the need for wholesale change becomes obvious.  No longer do we believe.  Let the sky fall, pray the tents be torn from their moorings and blown into oblivion, along with the old guard of contemptuous sultans that have played us as fools for the last time.

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton share something in common; both have successfully tapped into the emotions of voters.  Trump, by unhinged liberals while energizing everyone else propels Republican voter turnout to record highs.  Clinton; so yesterday, so haggard and flawed, reminds one of that nasty aunt or creepy gym teacher from their childhood, shrill, indignant and just plain unlikable.  She has accomplished the unenviable goal of lessening her own electability, even when the creepier Bernie Sanders, ancient social studies teacher from your past, is hers to easily beat, she struggles.

Never in my lifetime has any candidate aroused emotions and rationality like Trump,  playing the media like a pinball machine, forcing them off script and co-opting them into a gaggle of campaign advertising agencies, ironically freely giving it away to the guy who can afford it the most.  Unlike any politician who has ever lived, Trump is beholden to no one, no organization.  Quite the contrary, as a businessman, he has been on the feeding end of the political gravy train of favoritism and influence peddling.  This fact makes him unimpressed by lobbyists and special interest groups.  Because those same folks own, operate and control the machinery of politics and its titans, he is equally uncontrolled by them as well.

This makes the likes of failed candidate Mitt Romney very afraid, so the old guard trots him out to sully Trump, with the mistaken notion that anyone outside of the beltway cares what they have to say.  Yesterday’s politician is nothing more than a felon on the friendly side of the bars.  People not only don’t care, they see these efforts as proof of the expired shelf life of this old and broken system in American politics.  Old-guard tribalism mistakenly thinks that a blueblood in a blue blazer wearing a four-hundred dollar tie can shame the new thinkers into submission.  Their panic only serves to empower the great unwashed, signaling that they’re really onto something.

Never has the contrast between the salvation of traditional America and liberalism been more distinct, derisive and divisive.  The next president will define the Supreme Court for a generation.  The divide is vast, there shall be no compromise, America, Americans and our proud, rich history must prevail over the failed social experiment that has infected America since the concoction of President Johnson’s failed Great Society experiment in the 1960’s.

Traditional, proud and patriotic Americans have studied themselves in the mirror and they don’t like what they see themselves becoming.  Decades of failed policy, the soft racism of the liberals expectation of low outcomes, government encouraged neediness, the dismissal of the family unit in it’s importance, replaced by a government that encourages entitlement at the expense of dignity, all needs to stop if we are to survive as the great nation we once were.  Today’s reflection is not who we see tomorrow.

Donald Trump is offering voters something no other candidate has; he tells us that we can make America great again.  What better hope is there?

Donald Trump has tapped into a broad cross-section of frustrated American voters that have in common not so much a shared political ideology, but a shared outrage for the political status quo, whatever its persuasion.  For the first time in my lifetime, we are witnessing the coalescence of a protest movement that is more focused on wholesale change than it is on the traditional, incremental and ideological nuances that voters are beginning to recognize as meaningless.

I believe that voters have cracked the code on our traditional political landscape.  Republican or Democrat, all of the mainstream politicians have been homogenized over time, and by a corrupted system, into simply members of the ruling class.  Once the corrupt system forces its ways onto the legislators, it becomes obvious that these lawmakers, even though they claim ideological differences, simply work closely with each other to divide up all of the goodies in such a way that they can still convince their constituents they are “fighting the good fight”, while actually co-opting the entire process for their own benefit.

Trump has none of this baggage and lots of folks find that refreshing and willing to take the chance on wholesale change.

John Perricone’s letter to the editor appearing in the Press & Sun-Bulletin on Friday, March 4, 2016 entitled “Trump lowers the bar for humanity” cannot go unchallenged.

The writer compares Trump to Jerry Springer and castigates him into the ranks of a prejudicial, discriminating, uncivil misogynist while outrageously claiming that his supporters are emboldened because they too are prejudiced, discriminating, uncivil misogynists, just like him.

The dramatic width of the brush by which the writer paints his defamatory claim is diametrically comparative to the narrowness of the mind concocting it.

Libeling Trump and his supporters in such visceral and extreme terms demonstrates not a reasoned, well thought out analysis of political opinion, meant to convince others to change their minds, or reconsider their positions, but simply a panicked hit-piece lacking any credibility or reason.

The writer has done political observers a big favor by demonstrating first-hand, and without the thin veneer of political correctness so often soiling liberals thoughts, the depth and breadth of the impact Trump is having on the traditional political machinery and its sycophantic adherents.

Without even the slightest hint of self-awareness or irony as to his blatant level of sanctimonious self-righteousness, the writer goes on to lecture the great unwashed who lack the heightened awareness he presumably possesses by telling us that what we all need is what he has: “…what we all know in our hearts to be right: decency, kindness, humility and compassion.”

I challenge the writer to somehow defend his statements about Mr. Trump in the context of his self-described demeanor as a decent, kind, compassionate and humble man.  Someone so morally equipped would not, I think, stoop to that level of sophomoric name-calling, thereby exposing the writer for the disingenuous fraud that he actually is.

As Trumps candidacy takes on the velocity of a movement as opposed to a simple political campaign, those threatened by radical change and the vulnerability of the status quo begin their version of the Chicken Little story and tell us that the sky will fall as a result.  The sentiment in this country that has brought us to this place in time is the status quo, it is the business as usual attitude and the realization that there is no real distinction between political parties or candidates, simply an elite, political ruling class that makes the rest of us believe change is just around the corner.  Power brokers from both parties simply divide up the goodies and then spin stories that satisfy their constituents with the promise that, “we’re working on it.”

Trump has no such political baggage that has tainted the thinking of virtually everyone who has fallen into the political abyss of party politics.  Those of us sick of the same old tricks not only want the sky to fall, we want to pull it down around the heads of those frauds and imposters who have been manipulating us for so long.

Trump is a welcomed change from the devils we already know too well.

The following is a response to the Sunday, 2-28-16 Press and Sun-Bulletin Guest Viewpoint entitled, “Find root problems at East Middle School”

 The author seems confused.  She begins by praising East Middle for being an “open and diverse community,” going on to state that ..”This is a model community for parents and systems…”  She concluded by saying, “ East Middle is the school that will prepare them for this stage of life and high school.”  In the very next paragraph, the author equates kid’s entry into East Middle with “a lions den.”  From the highest praise to a lions den, really?

 In the next paragraph, the author posits that simply sending their kids to school should be lauded as “parents trying to do the right thing.”  And what a mighty effort it must be, are we to applaud?  If the act of simply sending kids to school is laudable, what hope is there in that family for instilling the familial, core values necessary for actually doing the real job of parenting by preparing their child for school?  If the act of simply getting them out the door is seen as tough, there is no hope that the real work of familial, traditional parenting will be attended to.

 The author saves her thinly veiled wrath of accusing class envy and racism by questioning the motives of the teachers, administrators and staff.  Oh yes, the lovely, quiet days enjoyed at East Middle definitely paint the picture of a nice resting spot for those so inclined to bide their time waiting for retirement.  And the race card, are you serious?  That dog just won’t hunt anymore.  The author misses the point because to grasp it creates an inconvenient truth which is this.

 There is a clash of cultures at work in East Middle School.  One culture embraces family, education, discipline, order, respect, personal responsibility and the needs of others while the other culture fails in one or more areas to do so.  When there is no well defined family, little or no structure, discipline, no order, no respect, no personal responsibility, no encouragement, no role-models and no heeding or caring about the needs of others, then no Blue-Ribbon band of super-educators is going to be able to magically fix that.

 There is a solution, but no one has the guts to suggest it.

 When students act out, warn them, sanction them and finally, remove them.  If there is criminal behavior going on, involve the police and press charges.  Create strong and positive environments for those who want to be in school and cater to them, help them maximize their potential.  For those not willing to get with the program, they will not interfere with those who do. 

Those causing all of the turmoil will seek alternatives to the main stream of public education so the majority of kids wishing to go forward aren’t punished for the short-comings of a few.

 It seems that those who complain the loudest are more likely contributors to the problem than champions of solutions.

 It’s truly ironic because in this case, I’m 100% behind the teachers; the issue is the culture outside the school and what it is producing at the school house door, not the teacher’s lack of ability, skills or willingness.  However, in the teaching profession, as a whole, a long history of so called “political correctness” (PC) has defined the profession and its practices in many ways.  It is in large measure PC that has contributed to a system that now disallows the slightest reprimand, discipline or other sanctions within classrooms.  As a result, teachers are now stuck on the horns of their own dilemma, a situation perhaps lacking a cure because of their own actions in the effort to apply PC too far.  This may be an example of what happens when certain PC sponsored and inspired ideas go to the full fruition of the unintended consequences.

Domestic terrorist Syed Rizwan Farook’s iPhone represents the latest symbol for determining the limits of governmental overreach in America.  Made dizzyingly complex with today’s electronics, this issue is necessarily complicated, nuanced and fraught with exceptions, depending very strongly on who owns what and even the definition of where “here” is.

As usual, the “fine-print” defines the horns of this dilemma.  For example, who actually owns the phone?  Can the customer “own” the phone but only “lease” the software that operates the phone?  This question needs a definitive answer and leads to the next logical inquiry; who owns the data created from the phone?  If that data remains physically in the phone on a data card, is this a different form of ownership than say the same data being stored in “the cloud”, which is a space owned by someone else.  When data is shared via text, do both parties own all of the data or do they retain only their portion of it?  Alternatively, perhaps neither owns any of it because of the wording of the contract that defines the relationship of the subscriber to the phone company.  What expectation of privacy exists when we use public networks, hot-spots, and all other forms of tracking and analyzing data built into devices or in many cases inadvertently downloaded within some application we did not intent to utilize?

Provocation and righteousness must not cloud our eyes to the precious rights protected by our Constitution.  The fact that this issue involves a universally hated “bad-guy”, should in no way distract us from the fundamental questions about the legality of the government forcing a company to perform a service against its will upon the threat of sanction, fine or even imprisonment.  Because the phone belonged to a mass murderer and apparent radical Islam adherent and sympathizer may tempt some to quickly conclude that all of the data is up for grabs but that is wrong.  What if the phone was yours?

Law enforcement officials initially responsible for gathering information from Farook’s phone mistakenly caused that data to be lost or at least made more difficult to retrieve.  Now that same government has found a federal judge that has issued an order to force Apple to perform a service they assert will harm their customers and compromise every user’s privacy.

Governmental agencies all across the US are today gathering massive amounts of cell phone information, indiscriminately and without a warrant, in the total absence of any judicial oversight.  Using IMSI catcher devices or “Sting-Rays”, agencies are drunk with this new power, increasingly utilizing high-tech invasions of our privacy in the name of safety.

Farook was a terrorist but our own government is increasingly ramping up the use of terrorist like tools and threats, behind the veil of making us safer, effectively weaponizing people’s fears.

Benjamin Franklin would be shocked more by cell phone technology than he was from his famous kite, however his words from the 18th century ring true today, “Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither,” and that is where we are headed.

Battle rages over NY’s minimum wage is the title of the article that appeared in the Sunday, February 21, 2016 edition of the Press & Sun-Bulletin.  This article highlights a young woman named Laura Barber as its best example of the need for an increased minimum wage.  We are told that Ms. Barber is 20, lives on her own with an infant and is pregnant.  Ms. Barber uses food stamps to make ends meet on top of her minimum wage job.  The story quotes Ms. Barber saying, ” “It’s still not helping me pay my bills — we need it now,” she said of a proposed $15-an-hour minimum wage in New York.

It seems to me that arbitrarily raising the minimum wage in support of the poor choices Ms. Barber has made in her life incentivises those bad decisions.  Ms. Barber is not even a full-fledged adult and now she is a child raising children.  Where is her family?  That is where this financial obligation should be placed, where it rightly belongs, in the lap of those who helped to create the situation in the first place.  Why isn’t the father or fathers paying child support?  Why is Ms. Barber getting pregnant when she knows full well she can’t afford her own children?

Wages are not defined by the needs of the workers, but by their value to the enterprise paying them.  The more value you add to the employer, the more valuable you are to them and accordingly, the more leverage you have in obtaining increased income as a result.  The notion that people can make really poor choices and then expect others to subsidize their stupidity is yet another example of that entitlement mentality that seems to be breeding as fast Ms. Brown.

Nowhere in any of these pleas for more money for nothing is any mention of more value from the employee.

Now the Ms. Brown’s of the world have painted themselves into a small, story-ending corner of their own design.  She is too busy with work and kids to ever further her education, so she will likely languish in poverty.  Likewise, her kids will too and without a two parent family unit, their social, educational, behavioral and legal issues will be paid for and dealt with by more and more taxpayer dollars in programs and services.  And because mom has set the table by way of example for her kids, it is more likely than not that the cycle of poverty; low expectations and failure are likely to follow them into their adult lives.

Paying Ms. Brown $15/hour won’t address any of the social issues so critical in this equation.  Incentivising delayed parenting, marriage and personal betterment through skill building, a work ethic and taking responsibility for ones own actions and decisions is a much better outlay of taxpayer dollars than our current system of paying for the results of bad decisions.  Let’s plan programs that stop those decisions from being made in the first place.

Donald Trump has done something, (ok many something’s) that no one has done before.  He has turned the GOP presidential nomination process into an unscripted, unrehearsed reality TV series, the real consequences sequel to The Apprentice.  The two main differences between this election season’s candidate winnowing process and the television show are that Trump himself could be fired and that public opinion replaces him as the boss.

Like all Trump creations and ideas, this one is beautiful in its deviously clever simplicity.  This new show, (we’ll call it The Next President, or TNP) has no producer, the cast members all work for free, there is no single controlling network, no costs of production, and the publicity is unlimited, unpaid for and seemingly non-stop.  TNP exists at the expense of others, seeking breaking news for ratings and fame and accordingly, attracting those who are willing to foot the bill in finding it first.

The greatest reward for the man with the most money is in engineered a plan that lets him ride for free.  The wealthy’s favorite maneuver is not as commonly assumed conspicuous spending, but to find creative ways in which to achieve what they want while spending nothing.  The preservation of wealth allows the Trump’s of the world to sleep better at night.

The Democratic Party has taken a tack that is so completely antithetical to the GOP it is hard to keep from laughing at the contrast.  Never producing a serious choice of more than two, as opposed to the GOP sporting some 18 candidates at the outset, the Hillary/Bernie show is more like the old TV series Hee-Haw, seen on a black and white television, circa 1960.

While the Democrats have constantly accused Republican’s of a lack of inclusiveness and a “small tent” mentality, by contrast, Republican candidates were young, old, men, women, black, white and Hispanic, a broad base of diversity as compared with two 70 something retreads preaching a bigger, heavier and more draconian version of what we have suffered under for the past seven years, really the unfolding of nothing more than Obama 2.0.

While fascinating theatre and ripe with all the materials needed to fuel the news/politic junkie’s need for subject matter to critique, ponder and criticize, it’s important to remember that this is not theatre, this is not some reality TV season finale, something to be watched, laughed over and then forgotten, there are real consequences up for grabs here and if you’re laughing and shaking your head as the events unfold, then you’re allowing others to make decisions that will become your reality.

Trump has single handedly forced all of the candidates, from both parties, to speak more candidly, more earnestly, because he has set the tone, the tempo, and the pace of the race.  By now, even his harshest critics must realize that underneath the caricature, the bombasticness and the bravado, a genius exists that has transformed the politics of the day.  Make of it what you will.

The following is a response to the announcement that a local columnist in our newspaper was retiring.

I was at odds with Mr. Rossie on many occasions and once, I so successfully got under his skin that he came after me by name, in print, in this newspaper.

Mr. Rossie had, (and likely still has,) a deep distain for the National Rifle Association, (NRA) and its members.  I am a life member of the NRA, a financial contributor, and a certified instructor, so I took the distinction of his distain personally, especially when he targeted me directly.

Normally in the newspaper business, a columnist writes a story and supporters and detractors have their comments and the matter is completed.  Not so in this case.  Mr. Rossie’s tirade on the evils of the NRA and the idiocy of their followers prompted my rebuttal in a Guest Viewpoint.  Mr. Rossie then devoted another complete column attacking me personally.  Considering the most unusual nature of allowing such a rebuke to be printed, I sought through the editorial and management staff access to the paper once again in order to defend myself.  This request was denied.  I found it ironic that a newspaper, and its star, senior staff member would take refuge behind their ability to censor a critic.  It bolstered in me a sense of accomplishment in apparently finding and then irritating a nerve so successfully as to be awarded this distinction.

I am an outdoorsman, a hunter and a fly-fisherman and so too does Mr. Rossie share  these pleasures.  We’re both writers, albeit of very differing styles and philosophies, we see the world as differently as two human beings can possibly see it and so, I wonder how a fellow fly-fisherman can be so fatally flawed in philosophy and politic, yet see and understand the moments of perfection and its observation, only possible on a trout stream.

In my observation, Mr. Rossie wrote most of his opinion and political work, not to persuade, but to berate, to punish, to belittle the opposing viewpoint and its adherents.  I always thought this stemmed from the fact that Mr. Rossie was obviously cognizant of the need to sell newspapers, even at the expense of good measure.  As the occasional guest writer, I am not so encumbered, persuading otherwise not by rant and rave, but by lesson and logic.  Mr. Rossie appealed more to the emotion; even I dare say the hysterical, dependent of the gusting winds of outrage, indignation and sometimes fears to make his points.

Mr. Rossi’s famous school bus story is recognized as his best work because he took the rare occasion to use the emotional power to paint in yellow, a familiar story, apolitical and free of vitriol.

Mr. Rossie made his livelihood by writing, an enviable achievement from the viewpoint of this writer who can only beg to be published on occasion, Mr. Rossie was paid for doing what he loved, a grand and enviable achievement.

I wish Mr. Rossie all the best, and I will miss, not his written missives, but my pleasure, now removed, in refuting them.