The Massachusetts Election

Media people scrambled to find new words to describe Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts special election last night. Ted Kennedy had held the seat for 47 years, which made the election of a Republican even more surprising. Democrats tried to downplay the significance, blaming everything from the weather to their candidate, to the old standby, George Bush. Republicans tried not to crow too loudly as they spun this as a referendum on Obama and government health care. Both sides miss the point.

Tuesday’s election provided a rare example of the two biggest drawbacks of a 2-party political system.
1: Conventional Washington thinking says: “If our side got more votes, it means the voters support what our party is doing”. Wrong. Sometimes voters have to choose between a poke in the eye or a punch in the gut. Choosing to avoid a punch in the gut does not mean they want a poke in the eye, it just means they can’t find a better option. And in the Massachusetts election, voters chose an unknown, relatively green candidate not necessarily because they believe in (or even understand) what he represents, but instead because they don’t want another politician who is more interested in the party line than their state’s own economic crisis.

Washington is so immersed in party politics that everything has to be red or blue. There are only 2 sides of the aisle, and if you aren’t on one side you must be on the other. Voters are tired of this. And sometimes we throw our congressmen out on this principle alone.

2: All elections have 2 parties. I don’t mean democrat and republican, but incumbent and challenger. The challenger always has the same message: “Your life sucks and is getting worse”. The economy is in the toilet, you’re going to lose your job (if you haven’t already), your kids will be on welfare, we aren’t safe from our enemies, and the earth will melt. “Can we stand x more years of this?” is a staple phrase in every challenger’s campaign. Challengers don’t have to tell you how they will fix things, or why their plan is better, or even if they have a plan. If they succeed in making you depressed and fearful enough, they will win by default as ‘the other option’. Given our nonstop campaigning and 24x7 news cycles, this constant bombardment of negativism can’t help but demoralize our country and destroy national pride. If voters had three choices, candidates would be forced to differentiate themselves. Simply being ‘the other guy’ would not be enough anymore because there is more than one ‘other guy’ for voter’s to choose from. Challengers would have to come up with a positive agenda rather than simply trashing their opponents and the country.

But these subtleties escape most politicians. They are tone deaf to the American people they claim to represent and try to cast everything into the template of their party politics. The Massachusetts vote was not about rejecting Obama, rejecting healthcare, or even a vote against democrats. The one voice that I’ve heard who seems to get it is Obama himself. “The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office," he said. "People are angry and they're frustrated –“. Yes. The voters are frustrated. They are angry at elected officials who don’t pay attention to their electorate. In 2008, incumbent party voters stayed home in droves, challengers had an easy time convincing people they were miserable, and the mushy middle liked the idea of Hope and Change, which sounded so much better than More of the Same. This week, Massachusetts voters followed a similar score. Incumbent voters either stayed home or voted against a candidate who seemed blind to the unemployment and tax problems in their state. Challengers smelled blood in the water and got worked into a frenzy. Independents voted for something to change.

The Massachusetts election is a bellwether for 2010, not for Democrats or Republicans but for incumbents and challengers. The party who understand this best will find new jobs in D.C this fall.

MLK's Dream

Today is Martin Luther King’s Birthday, which means schools, government employees and bureaucrats get the day off but most of us have to work. And if history serves, it will be a day for Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to race to the nearest camera and remind everyone just how evil and oppressive white slave owners are today. And by white slave owners today, I mean Caucasians.

I believe MLK was a legitimate martyr for civil rights, speaking out even after being threatened. His ‘dream’ was spelled out in the now famous I Have a Dream speech. But his legacy has been perverted by activists like Jackson and Sharpton, who are less interested in an equal society than in whipping up blacks into frenzy for political gain. It’s no coincidence that both men are reverends; after all nobody can dispense guilt like a man of the cloth. Reverends are granted authority to rail about the 'sins of the past' and point a righteous finger at evil, whatever they define it to be.

No doubt, someone today will make a speech that includes the phrase: “We’ve come a long way, but there is still a lot left to do”. How ironic if these words come from a black president.

Look, I’m not going to say there is no racism in America or that everyone is treated equally everywhere. But I’m also not willing to apologize for being born white, and I believe that we do have people and places in America that really are colorblind when it comes to race relations. I remember when my young son asked me ‘why is it that some people don’t like blacks?” Racism didn’t make any sense to him. He wasn't born with a bias, and he didn't absorb one from his environment. He saw people as people, and skin color had no more meaning than hair color or eye color. But we never seem to get credit for this from the self-appointed African-American rights spokesmen. Instead of seeing racism as a problem to be solved, they foster oppression as an identity to be embraced by blacks who then need strong civil leaders (coincidentally like themselves) to lead them. Thus, an oppressed, angry mob is their power base and they have a vested interest in preserving the status quo. Racial harmony makes activist leaders like Jackson and Sharpton obsolete, which means they would have to get real jobs and do something meaningful to get on TV.

Here’s a segment of the historic MLK “I Have a Dream” speech, given on August 28, 1963 at the Lincoln Memorial.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."
I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.
I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
I have a dream today!
I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of "interposition" and "nullification" -- one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.
I have a dream today!
….
And when this happens, when we allow freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual:
Free at last! Free at last!
Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!


Notice that he didn't dream about a future with black activists injecting racism into every public discussion, he didn't dream of a college fund specifically for negroes, and he didn't dream of a TV station that was just for black entertainment. He dreamed of a day when we stop talking about skin color as an identity trait that prevents us from trusting, serving, living, working and rejoicing together. Thanks to relentless efforts from the Reverends Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, the black community can be assured that MLK’s dream will always remain just that: A dream.

Black, White and Waste of Time

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is under fire for comments revealed in a newly released book “Game Change”. Back in 2008, Reid was quoted as saying candidate Barack Obama in 2008 ‘could benefit from being light-skinned and not having a Negro dialect unless he wants one’.

Assemble the firing squad! Everyone grab a torch and head for the streets! Really? What is it in that sentence that makes one a racist; the word ‘Negro’? Be serious. Look, I’m no fan of Harry Reid, especially after he bribed Ben Nelson of Nebraska to secure his vote on the health care bill, but we average Americans are tired of this feigned outrage every time someone screams racism.

Shelby Steele, one of the most articulate writers of our time, made a provocative observation in the Wall Street Journal in July 2009. Steele, a black man, recalled a day as a boy in a barber shop in the South. A picture was being passed around of a young black man who had been beaten to death by an angry mob who believed him guilty of raping a white girl. There was no trial, no due process, no witnesses or public defenders. All that was needed back then was for a white girl to point at a black male and say “Rape!” and the verdict was in. Steele goes on to draw a parallel using the arrest of Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. by Cambridge police last July to show that in the 21st century, any minority can simply point at a white person and say “Racism!” and they are presumed guilty.

Racism is treated with even more disdain than child molestation or mass murders. Nothing else gives people license to vent all the pent up rage and frustration they accumulate by holding in their prejudices. No poisonous vitriol is too harsh, no punishment too great, and no response too disproportionate for the evil wretch branded a racist. If you doubt this, think for a minute of the most forbidden word in the English language. It’s not the F-bomb, or cursing, or any George Carlin’s 7 Words You Can’t Say on Television. It’s the “N-word”. We can’t even say it when we are talking about how the “N-word” has been used in history or how it appears in dialog today. It’s always just the “N-word”. In the OJ trial, Detective Furman was demonized and discredited by F. Lee Bailey because, at some point in his life, in some unknown context, he dared to utter the “N-Word”. If you say it once, you are a racist for life and can never be redeemed. Racial activists have the right- no the obligation, to hate, disregard, spit on, and ridicule you forever. You should not be allowed to hold a job nor ever appear in public again. We even let murders out on parole occasionally, but not “N-word” violators. They are the worst form of human scum we can imagine. Unless, of course, you are black an then you can use it as a term of endearment, a reference to friends, family, or pretty much any way you wish with impunity.

So, it’s obvious why Harry Reid’s critics are trying so hard to get the racism label to stick to him. It worked against former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott. He mentioned in a 2002 farewell address to Senator Strom Thurmond that the country would have been better off if they had elected Thurmond president back in 1948. Well, any thinking person knows that he could only be talking about the pro-segregation position that was one of dozens of planks on Thurmond’s platform 50+ years earlier. Lott was clearly a racist bastard, and the democrats demanded that he surrender his position as Majority Leader. It worked. Never mind that 9 term Democratic Senator Robert Byrd was the hood-wearing Exalted Cyclops of the Klu-Klux-Klan in his 20s. Somehow he has been granted amnesty by the same lynch mob who demanded Trent Lott’s ouster.

And this is the heart of the matter. Republicans want to point out the double standard that is being applied depending on which side of the aisle you’re on. But this is a silly way to do it. Two wrongs don’t make a right, and no good purpose is served by demanding Senator Reid resign in the name of racial harmony. Republicans need to take the high road on this one and point out that although Reid’s remarks could be misapplied by those trying to exacerbate race relations in the US; a more mature society won’t play this ‘gotcha’ game. Congress needs to be occupied with much more serious issues.

Connecting the Dots

President Obama reported last week that US Intelligence agencies “failed to connect the dots” that should have prevented Umar Farouq Abdulmuttalab from boarding a NW Flight and attempting to detonate a bomb on Christmas day.

“The U.S. government had sufficient information to have uncovered this plot and potentially disrupt the Christmas Day attack, but our intelligence community failed to connect those dots, which would have placed the suspect on the no-fly list”
Barack Obama, Jan 5. 2010.

I’m not going to pile on the ‘blame Obama’ bandwagon, as if he should have been at the Northwest Airlines gate himself, frisking each passenger before boarding. The problem is more complex than this. If the “connecting the dots” phrase sounds ominously familiar, it’s because it was the catch-phrase of the year after 9/11. Even as late as 2007, Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell resurrected the claim saying "9/11 should have and could have been prevented" after all; the authorities simply "didn't connect the dots."

Since finger pointing makes good news copy, we hear a lot more about who to blame for failures that how to prevent them. So we never really spend much time thinking about what it means to ‘connect the dots’. As mentioned in a previous post, we seem much more concerned about protecting the sensibilities of terrorist groups than protecting Americans. Former US Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff told National Public Radio:

“Racial profiling in law enforcement is not merely wrong, but also ineffective. Race-based assumptions in law enforcement perpetuate negative racial stereotypes that are harmful to our rich and diverse democracy, and materially impair our efforts to maintain a fair and just society.”

In other words, connect the dots only if it doesn’t inconvenience or offend a specific group. I halfway expect to hear the ACLU protest our prison system because it unfairly discriminates against criminals. Clearly, this isn’t a very realistic way of addressing a very real problem.

One of the key findings of the 9/11 commission is that the US Intelligence community demonstrated a lack of imagination when trying to recognize terrorist threats. President Bush took this advice to heart. In a commencement address to West Point on June 1, 2002, he made this timeless but incredibly under-reported quote:

"If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long…. The work ahead is difficult. The choices we will face are complex. We must uncover terror cells in 60 or more countries, using every tool of finance, intelligence, and law enforcement. Along with our friends and allies, we must oppose proliferation and confront regimes that sponsor terror, as each case requires. Some nations need military training to fight terror, and we’ll provide it. Other nations oppose terror but tolerate the hatred that leads to terror, and that must change. We will send diplomats where they are needed, and we will send you, our soldiers, where you’re needed."

This is how Bush defined ‘connecting the dots’. But Bush’s biggest failure was in public relations. He allowed this critical policy debate to be hijacked by the left, who reduced it to a bumper sticker to make it easier for the mind-numbed public rail against. The Iraq war was not about oil, nor was it about revenge for 9/11, and only partially about WMDs. Although, those are the responses you would hear most often if you surveyed 1000 people about the rationale behind it. The action against Iraq was about connecting the dots. Iraq had a regime that openly sponsored terrorism, that had publicly rejoiced at the American death and destruction of 9/11, that had internationally confirmed supplies of biological and chemical weapons, that had used them against the Kurds and left indisputable evidence of the carnage, that had attempted to assassinate a former US President, and that had defied 17 different UN regulations that required inspections of their weapons facilities. Those are some big dots that can reasonably be connected to define a threat against Americans. And yet we see such vitriol launched against President Bush for doing exactly what President Obama calls for, ‘connecting the dots”.

In hindsight, our spy information was faulty. Saddam Hussein did not have huge stores of WMDs, even though his generals and the rest of the international community believed he did. It was a bluff Saddam staged to scare Iran from picking a fight. Congress (who had confirmed the threat when voting for US Military intervention) later tried to dodge responsibility by creating new bumper stickers: “Bush Lied People Died”, “End This War”, “No Blood for Oil”. They and the media were so eager to stir up a lynch mob that they completely drowned out the public debate that we should have had, and still need to have: How should we respond to the next threat to America? Only the hopelessly naïve would think that 9/11 is the last terrorist act that would ever be planned against the United States. And we can't just dismiss intelligence information that identifies a threat in Iran, Yemen, Afghanistan or elsewhere. But we clearly can't start wars everywhere we suspect something might be happening. What should we be doing? How can we trust our intelligence information? How should we be connecting the dots?

Most political figures argue one extreme or the other, either screaming that the US will become another Nazi regime using the ‘threat of terrorist activity’ as a justification for going to war against anyone we didn’t like, or warning against a naive, pacifist complacency that would embolden our enemies to conceive, train, and carry out attacks of even greater carnage against us. We clearly need something in between. And the real tragedy is that we are so caught up in partisan politics that we only allow ourselves to see what is good for our side, not what is good for America. None of us want to be the next generation of Nazis. And none of us wants to bury friends and family killed by the next terrorist attack that could be prevented if we weren’t so worried about being politically correct. There is a balance to be struck in connecting the dots and our elected officials have lost sight of the real goal. It’s time we reined them in and reminded them why they were elected. Let’s end this childish demagogy agree on doing what is right for America. This issue is too important to be obscured by party politics.

Sombody Has to Say It

The American Civil Liberties Union is upset that in light of the recent NW Airlines bombing attempt, the Obama administration has issued guidelines that suggest airport personnel be suspicious of young, unmarried muslim men from nations that openly sponsor terrorism.

"Using national origin or religion as proxies for suspicion is nothing less than racial profiling," the organization said in a statement.

“Yep. What’s your point?” I respond. Racial profiling is exactly what we need to do. Why is that a forbidden term? Here's another statement we should make: "We torture terrorists. We interrogate, incarcerate, isolate, water-board, deprive, humiliate, injure, maim, disembowel, horrify, and torment anyone found trying to terrorize Americans. So think about that before you volunteer for another mission to kill us." When did we become so politically correct that we would rather see thousands of our fellow countrymen murdered than violate the sensibilities of the people who want to murder them? Have we abandoned all common sense (he asked rhetorically)?

If I squint hard enough, I can almost understand the argument that we unfairly discriminate against a certain group of people if we categorize them by traits like racial background, religious beliefs, weight, shoe size, choice of preferred music genre, etc. But when, oh.. say, about 100% of the terrorists in the last decade share a common characteristic, maybe we should treat it as a clue. And if people were going around trying to mass murder Americans in the name of Christianity I would be the first to stand up and shout:

“This group is falsely claiming to represent my religion but instead perverts it. They do not represent my beliefs. I condemn their actions and would gladly surrender some of my civil liberties in support of stopping them, defending my faith, and protecting my fellow countrymen ”.

I don’t hear this kind of outrage coming from mulslims. All I hear is whining that our efforts to protect ourselves are offensive. Here’s an insight for them: Killing my fellow citizens in the name of Allah is offensive to me! What are you doing about it?

It’s amazing how we Americans allow ourselves to be manipulated by guilt. It’s time we declared war on political correctness and started standing up for logic and common sense.

The Underwear Bomber

On Christmas day, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab boarded a plane in Amsterdam headed for Detroit. He had no luggage, but that doesn’t mean he wasn’t packin’. Stashed in his underwear – that’s right: HIS UNDERWEAR – was a six-inch pack of highly-explosive powder called PETN. After sitting on the plane for 8 hours, with 80 grams of explosives IN HIS UNDERWEAR, he went to the lavatory, prepped some liquid in a small container and returned to his seat to mix them in an attempt to cause an explosion large enough to crash the airliner.

I would not attempt to diminish the seriousness of either Umar’s intentions or the security lapse that let him get on the plane. But you have to admit, there is a humorous side to this. It’s too bad this happened when Letterman and Leno were on Christmas break, otherwise I’m sure we would have seen the top 10 things overhead from Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s row in on NW flight 253:

10: “Is that a bomb in your pants or are you just happy to be here?”
9: “Dang this explosive power is itchy!”.
8: “Bomber? I don’t even know her! Hahahahaha!”
7: “Northwest? I thought this was Virgin Atlantic! Actually, 70 Virgins Atlantic!”
6: “Here's a hypothetical question: If a bomb went off in Detroit, would anyone know?”
5: “Stop me if you’ve heard this one: A priest, a rabbi and a muslim all get on a plane…”
4: “…and here’s a picture of me and Bin Laden snow boarding…”
3: “I’m trying a new brand of underwear: Fruit of the BOOM!”
2: “No, I don’t need a ride downtown. Come to think of it, neither will you”

And the #1 conversation overhead on NW Flight 253:

1: “You thought yours was silent but deadly? Check this out!”

And how, exactly, did they recruit Umar for this job? He was an engineering student in London, so he was not uneducated. I’m sure he believed in the Jihad and the need for taking down the Great Satan. But how do you get an educated guy to stuff explosives down his pants and sit on it for 8 hours? At some point there had to be a conversation:

Recruiter: “Well Umar, it’s time to share with you the details of your mission.”
Abdulmutallab: “I am ready to die for the cause and receive the awards that await me on the other side”
Recruiter: “Uh,, yeah. About those rewards: I’ve got good news and bad news. The good news is that you will get 70 virgins. The bad news is that the bomb is going to blow up your crotch”

The only reason we can joke at all is because nobody was hurt in Umar's failed attempt. When he tried to mix the chemicals to cause an explosion, he created enough of a reaction to set his pants on fire and burn his leg. Thankfully, an alert passenger deduced what was happening and pounced on the terrorist, preventing him from doing any further damage. All kidding aside, Obama had better take this attempt seriously and take the right measures to step up security. The next attempt might not leave us anything to joke about.

Avitar Decoded

Watched Avatar tonight. It’s an entertaining production with dazzling special effects and decent acting, well, for ‘creatures’ from another world. Rated PG, so the violence had to be toned down from the Lord of the Rings variety, but it was still gripping. The PG rating was probably a good idea since it seems to be setting new box office records in its first 2 weeks. A mildly interesting storyline, Avatar is a thinly veiled metaphor for US raping and looting of Native American happy hunting grounds. Or, if you like, US colonization of other lands through its merciless war machines. Please. Hand me a Kleenex and a flower.

The Avatarians (or whatever they are called) are clearly the victims in this story. They are the perfect beings, in harmony with nature and the life force of all things, ‘seeing’ all that is around them in a perfect yoga-like commune of oneness. One can imagine birds and crickets who sound like Enya.

The evil marines, by contrast, are murdering thugs bent on the destruction of all that is good and pure. They are sponsored by even more evil money grubbing capitalists who care only about the planet’s natural supply of unobtanium (a term stolen from The Core with Hillary Swank). The main character is Jake Scully, an evil marine who turns good guy and fights for truth, beauty and John Lennon songs after a 3 month indoctrination with the Indians, er, Avatarians. The marines are so blatantly evil that it’s easy to get caught up in the wave of vengeful indignation, especially when Jake gives his Braveheart speech to the troops to defend their land. It’s a classic liberal minded black-versus-white script: life, harmony and goodness are pitted against death, greed and evil. Golly, who should we cheer for?

But a more pertinent question for the Avatarians would be “Why can’t you find a way to cooperate with these people”? We don’t know what unobtainum is used for, but we’re sure it’s for pure greedy capitalistic purposes, nothing worth while like curing cancer, cold fusion, eliminating world hunger, neutralizing nuclear weapons, etc. We do know that the Avatarians are incredibly technology challenged compared to their nemesis, which is evidenced by the ass-kicking they get from the bulldozers and light firepower that moves in halfway through the story. We also know that Avatarians die, so we have to think there might be some medical advances they might learn from the “evil invaders” that might improve their quality and length of life. They could also analyze their climate and atmosphere; maybe even learn to domesticate the animals that devour a good portion of them each year. They could learn communication methods that will let them share information with the other clans, which will help them develop better as a community. Maybe they could even exchange ambassadors to trade knowledge and culture with other civilizations, making them better world citizens instead of being possessive hermits in their own little rock in the galaxy.

And how much ‘oneness’ the Avatarians have if their whole culture and society can be destroyed by one tree getting bulldozed? If we have learned anything about cultures and societies, it’s that the good ones are resilient; they find a way to adapt and survive. A society is not a place or thing, but a philosophy, a collection of values that transcends circumstances and surroundings. Tragedies come and go: hurricanes, world wars, economic depressions, plagues, bad leaders… but the strong persevere.

And who is to say that the unobtanium ‘belongs to Avatar” anyway? Aren’t we all citizens of the same universe? How do we know the Avatarians didn’t take the planet over from somebody else 2 centuries earlier? Shouldn’t they own the stuff?

Liberal logic is so half-baked. It would be funny if not so tragic.

Mike Leach and Texas Tech

What is it about Texas Tech coaches being class A narcissists? Bobby Knight’s antics are well documented, now we add to it the Mike Leach legacy. Maybe it’s something about the red sweaters that causes them to lose their minds.

The recent drama, framed by the hype of the Alamo Bowl, involves a wide receiver, Adam James, on the Texas Tech football team who happens to be the son of a former NFL player and ESPN College Football commentator, Craig James. Adam incurred a concussion in Wednesday’s practice and was ordered by the team doctor to avoid practice, running and contact. He showed up to practice wearing sun glasses. This apparently irritated the coach, who demanded to know why a player on his team (who just got a concussion) would be wearing sunglasses in practice. When told, apparently for the first time, that concussion victims are sensitive to light, Leach ordered James to be put in a dark place. Here’s where the story varies. James claims he was ordered to stand in an electrical closet for 2 hours and had a guard posted outside. He was told that if he left he would be kicked off the team. James produced a cell phone video of the electrical closet where he claims he was held. James further claimed that he was similarly confined for a second day during practice. He reported his behavior to his parents, who filed a complaint against coach Leach. Texas Tech suspended coach Leach pending an investigation.

I don’t know what Mike Leach studied in school, but it’s a safe bet it wasn’t public relations. In a 37 minute interview with ESPN, Leach defended himself by claiming that that Craig James, Adam’s father, was constantly hovering around the program, lobbying the staff for more playing time for his son and trying to influence the coaching decisions. He also claimed Adam .James was lazy and did not have a good work ethic; essentially a spoiled brat who thought he was entitled. He used the position coaches as character witnesses, claiming they also discredited the player as a lazy prima donna. Leach read a statement from the team doctor that said none of James treatment worsened his condition, as if that somehow cleared the coach of misconduct. Really? That’s a defense for locking a kid in an electrical closet for 2 hours?

As more national scrutiny was applied to the case, all the ‘witnesses’ went into full CYA mode. The doctor issued a new affidavit saying James "may not have been harmed," but he "considered this practice inappropriate, and a deviation from the medical standard of care." Likewise, the trainer changed his story to say he was ordered by the coach, in an expletive-laced tirade to put James in the darkest tightest space he could find and not let him out.

Our bipolar society would treat this as a ‘good-guy, bad-guy’ situation in which we have to choose sides. But alas, life is not as simple as we wish. I believe the kid was probably lazy and had a sense of entitlement. I believe his dad tried to use his position to interfere with the coaching staff and get his son more playing time. Above all, I believe that if this kid’s dad wasn’t in a position to shine a national media spotlight on this incident that nobody would have done anything, and that this kind of thing happens regularly in college athletics without consequence. But I also believe that locking the kid in an electrical closet is a stupid, immature, irresponsible way to deal with the situation. What is the arrogance that infests some coaches to think they are exempt from the laws of civilized behavior? Ban the kid from practice. Make him pick up the dirty socks and jocks from the locker room. Make him wear a safety helmet so he looks like a dork. But don’t lock him in an electrical closet, and don’t pretend your ridiculous actions were justified by the kid’s spoiled behavior.

Texas Tech made a good decision to fire Leach, not just to save their reputation but to save $800K that can be better spent on the next coaching staff. This is what happens to spoiled-brat coaches who think their entitled.