So simple a Shmendrick can get it!

I've been thinking a little about all the unrest in Israel between the Jews and the Palestinians. Perhaps I'm nuts (always a very real possibility), but I see a parallel between their problems and one which the United States had as we were hammering out our constitution. We had two groups that were concerned with who should govern and who should have the greater say in politics. In our case it wasn't a split over religion, but one of size. Our smaller states were afraid that the larger more populous states would seize control of the government and that they're voices wouldn't be heard. I think this is somewhat similar to the problem in Israel, though in their case I think both sides are fearful that the other side will dominate. In the case of the United States, we devised a bicameral legislature that provides a forum for both sides. One half of congress favors population and the other favors geography. I think the Jews and the Palestinians could do something similar. They could form a congress where one part favors the Jews and the other favors the Palestinians. Another option would be to base one half on population and the other on religion, guaranteeing a certain percentage of representation to non-Jews. I think the problem can be worked out so that the Jews can maintain a "Jewish" state while allowing for their non-Jewish citizens to be represented in their government.

Let's try this again

Well I think I got a little burned out on posting things pretty quickly. I think my problem was that I tried to write to much. I've been looking at some of my friends blogs, and now I think what I need to do is write lots of little posts with the occasional big one.

I'm watching the mini-series "Tin Man" on the Sci-fi channel. I know it's gotten some negative press, but I like it. There's something about it that I enjoy. I'm not sure exactly what that something is however. Perhaps it's just the story itself. It pays homage to "The Wizard of Oz" without actually trying to be "The Wizard of OZ". I guess I enjoy these little jaunts into the realm of make believe more than I do more realistic TV shows.

I was about to continue writing about the show, but then I thought that this is exactly the sort of thing that caused my burn out in the first place. Keep it short! That's what I've got to do.

Playoffs? Don't talk about playoffs. Are you kidding me? Playoffs? -- Jim Mora (Nov. 25, 2001)

For this post, I think I'll write about a topic that seems to be very much in vogue. The topic is a playoff system for division one-a college football. I know that it is no longer officially called division one-a by the NCAA, but since I don't care, I don't think it matters. I feel it's a rather stupid idea to change the name from one-a to division one subdivision bowl, or whatever it is that they want us to call it now. Quick side note to ponder; the NCAA has a history of doing stupid things, which is interesting considering that it's composed of many of our institutions of higher learning. Back to the name change, the only reasons I can think of for changing the name is to: a) make the former division one-aa folks feel better about themselves b) try to make the former division one-a folks feel worse about themselves in a hopes that they'll decide to adopt a playoff system c) because the academic community loves overbearing bureaucracy and someone felt they needed to do something to justify their position or d) all of the above. None of these seems like a good idea to me, but then I wouldn't have changed the name.

Also, this whole name change has had the unfortunate side effect of overburdening the commentators of college football games who are now at a loss as to how to refer to the two divisions in an efficient and simple manner. I think I can help with this. Simply refer to them has division one-b and division one-c, or if you're really pressed for time call them one-b and one-c. The "b" of course stands for bowl, and the "c" for championship. I think this little bit of shorthand should make commentators lives easier everywhere. This solution also has the added benefit of putting one-a back in front of one-aa, as b comes before c. Funny how life is full of these little pleasures. Take that NCAA bureaucracy.

I seem to have gotten a little off topic, as I intended to discuss a playoff system for division one-a. The first thing that needs to be addressed is why we don't have a playoff system. Once upon a time, I remember hearing an interview on the radio that brought up the only sane reason I've ever heard for not having a playoff. The guest, who's name I can't remember, made the point that the lack of a playoff has to do with how the money would be divided. With the bowl system, the money that's earned goes to the conferences, who divide it among their member schools. In other words, if your team goes to a bowl, the money they earn goes to the school. If it's affiliated with a conference, it shares that money with the other members of its conference. This is because the NCAA doesn't run the bowls. They're independent organizations that invite schools to play with the authorization of the NCAA. However, if we had a playoff and a championship, that would be run by the NCAA, and all of the money would be split, not by the conference, but by all of the member schools of the NCAA. That includes not only the division one schools, but the division two and three schools as well. So instead of splitting the money into eight to twelve equal shares, it would be split into several hundred equal shares. That's why even though the NCAA men's basketball tournament earns more money than the BCS, the individual schools in the major conferences earn less. In essence the BCS is a cash cow for the teams that can get in. It's a medium size pie with a few large slices versus a huge pie with lots of little slices.

Therefore, the first thing that needs to happen is to guarantee the payouts to the schools that are making money now, because they're not going to agree to a new system if it means they lose money. They've invested a lot of money to promote and run their teams and they deserve a return on their investment. People generally don't think about how expensive it is to run a football program, especially a good one (sadly many of these people work in the athletics department at Duke). They also don't realize that many athletic departments at the more competitive schools use the funds they raise from football to support their non-revenue generating sports, many of which are mandated by title nine. These schools depend on this football revenue and will fight to the end to keep it. Using the numbers that are available, we can arrive at a BCS school receiving somewhere between one and a half to two and a half million dollars every year for just being affiliated with the conference. This is based on the idea that a BCS bowl pays out seventeen million dollars to the participating teams. Granted a conference could earn more if they get two teams in, but we'll keep it simple for now. There might also be some additional revenues that I'm not aware of, but I can't take these into consideration because I don't know about them. So, in the spirit of keeping things simple, lets just say a BCS school is guaranteed two and a half million dollars a year. I think that's a good starting place for my plan. Of course BCS schools aren't the only ones making money from the BCS, you also have the bowls themselves which are turning a profit, and they'll need to be addressed as well. The problem I've discovered is that a lot of revenue information concerning the BCS is hidden, so it will be difficult to completely solve the problem. However, I hope to lay out a framework that could later be adjusted for those hidden items.

The framework begins with a sixteen team playoff. Currently in division one-a (or one-b if you like) there are eleven conferences and a handful of independents. I feel if you're going to have a true championship it must give every team a chance. Therefore the tournament will be to crown the champion of champions. Each conference will send its champion to the tournament. That will comprise eleven of the sixteen slots. Conferences will be allowed to decide for themselves how to chose their champion, but they need to have the process documented ahead of time. The remaining five slots will be the five highest ranked teams not already in the tournament, this will allow independent teams a chance to get in as well as to reward strong conferences. The teams will be seeded by their rankings in the polls, one to sixteen in a bracket system like that used in the basketball tournament. The tournament would have four rounds. The first two rounds would be home games hosted by the higher seed in the match up. The other games would be played at the four current BCS bowl sites on a rotating basis. The semifinals will be played at two of the bowl sites, and the final and a runners up game would be played at the other two.

Now lets address some of the problems. The first is when will the event be played. I propose that the tournaments first two rounds be played in the middle of December, perhaps the second and third Saturdays. The semifinal games could be played on January first, for sentimental reasons and to give the teams a break for Christmas and to regroup and travel. The title game and the runners up game could then be played a week after the semifinals or later. I think you need to give the teams at least a week, but no more than two.

The next problem is money. I already stated that the BCS schools are making at least two and a half million dollars on the current deal. If we implement a playoff system, they would have to make at least that much. The first step is to limit payouts to only the division one-a schools. If the NCAA has a problem with this, than the school presidents should consider starting a new organization that serves it's members and not the other way around. So let's say that by some miracle the money and regulation of the tournament rests with the conference presidents and not the NCAA, we still have a hundred and nineteen schools that need a guaranteed payout. If we do some quick math, we see that in order to keep the payouts around two and a half million dollars we'll need to earn around three hundred million dollars. We'd also need to raise the additional money that the other non-school organizations, such as the bowls, are making right now. I think a good portion of this can be raised by the fact that we'll be playing sixteen games instead of five. Triple the games, triple the profits, at least that's the hope. A key part of revenue is the television money. With a tournament we'd have triple the ad space, triple the cost to sponsors, etc. Unfortunately, we don't know how much money FOX is paying for the rights to broadcast the games right now, but I'd imagine they would pay a lot more for a tournament with a build up and better story lines. Also, the various rounds could be sold separately or all together, whichever way would earn more money. The hope is that the additional revenue would far exceed the additional operating and travel expenses to the point that everyone could get a slice of this giant money pie that's equal to the one that's being dished out right now.

Television money, however, is not the only money. A key point I'd like to bring up is what happens to the money earned in the first two rounds. I think the host teams should be allowed to keep the gate money. They should have to give a certain percentage of their tickets to their opponent who would then be allowed to keep any money earned from the sale of those tickets. This is a reward to the schools that actually get into the games. The home teams can generate extra revenue from the sale of tickets, concessions, parking, etc.; and the visiting teams will get a little extra from the sale of their share of the tickets. This could work as an incentive for teams to get one of the top four bids. The final two rounds, played at the bowl sites, would work just like they do now. They could even continue to be administrated the same way.

A problem that is often brought up is what about the fans. How can they be expected to do all that travelling? I find it interesting that this doesn't seem to be a problem when dealing with basketball, but seems to be a huge problem when it comes to football. However, it's worth discussing. The problem is somewhat solved in the first two rounds by the fact that they're played in home stadiums. Most of the fans are already there and excited to be a part of a tournament. The other two rounds are where you might have some problems. Part of this could be solved by the spacing of the games, allowing people enough time to make their arrangements, the rest of it can probably be solved by observing what fans of basketball final four teams do. I don't think we should worry to much about this. I find that people are fairly intelligent and creative. Enough of them will find a way to make it to the games and fill the stadiums. Somehow I think empty seats will be the least of out problems.

The final thing I'd like to discuss is what to do with all the other bowl games. I say continue to play them as is. I know a lot of people think they're a waste of time, but I for one really enjoy the bowl games. I think they have a lot to offer to the teams that get in, and it sure beats watching a lot of other stuff on television. I think the bowls offer us an opportunity to gauge the relative strength of the various conferences. I would like to see a better system for matching teams up. Often teams are poorly matched, resulting in uncompetitive and therefore boring games. Of course this is a topic for another time.

Immigration Idea, part 2

In my last post I began discussing immigration reform. I think I did a decent job of laying out the need for granting amnesty and providing legal status and identification to the millions of foreign workers already in this country and that may yet come to this country. I also mentioned that I had an idea for protecting Americans from losing their jobs to foreign workers. This is what I'd like to discuss in this post.

To begin with, the very act of legalizing and documenting the foreign workers will help with protecting jobs. One of the reasons why foreign workers can accept lower wages is that they are being paid under the table. Since the payments are undocumented, these salaries aren't taxed, which allows the foreign worker to net more than an American worker, even though they gross less. Here, of course, is an argument for documenting. The country will raise more money in tax revenue and foreign workers will have to demand higher wages. This is a start, but I don't feel that this alone will protect American workers.

In order to protect American workers, I think we need to take a lesson from our past and use a time-honored American political tradition. I feel the answer to the problem lies in ratios. I was convinced of this idea as I came to the realization that, on the one hand we need foreign workers, but on the other hand a lot of lower class Americans need these jobs too. A classic case of can't live with them, can't live without them. My solution is that we establish a set or sets of ratios to govern the employment of foreign workers. The ratio would be foreign workers per American worker. Different areas of the economy could have different ratios set up. For instance, in agriculture, where we are heavily dependent on foreign labor, the ratio may be something like a hundred foreign workers for every American worker, or perhaps higher, or even uncapped. In a more competitive industry the ratio would be much tighter. An example might be landscaping, where the ratio might be ten foreigners to every American. I feel these ratios could be set to govern foreign workers from the lowliest field laborer to highest company executives, scientists and engineers.

The obvious problem or difficulty to this system is how to set the ratios, and by whom will they be set. I think there will have to be collaboration between the Government, business leaders, unions, guilds and workers rights organizations. This is the area where the compromises will be made. I think we'll need to be flexible in this area and allow for changes to be made over time. Needs may change and so ratios should be adjustable. My thinking is that the government, perhaps the department of labor, will set and govern the ratios. This might be the simplest way of doing it, but I'm sure Congress will want and should have some say and/or oversight in the matter.

I think this plan offers some nice benefits. The first is that it allows for foreign workers while guaranteeing jobs for Americans. A construction company may want to hire fifty foreign workers, but to do so they may also be forced to hire ten Americans. Therefore the value of a U.S. citizen grows because he allows an employer to hire a set number of foreign employees. You may have to pay the American more, but that's off set by the value he brings in potential foreign labor. I think I should point out here a caveat to this plan. The ratios should apply to similar or near similar job levels. That means that if you have ten Americans in the corporate office, you can't apply them to the ratio. It's a laborer for a laborer, not an executive for a laborer. This is very important. Otherwise we really don't change anything. The reason I said "near similar" job levels is that perhaps we'd want to count supervisors at the lower level. For instance, a foreman over a small group of workers. This might work out so that the American is given the better job, over the foreign workers he allows the company to hire, though not necessarily. The main point is that you don't want a company of American executives and foreign laborers. You want a company that's hiring American and foreign workers to get the job done at the production level.

Another benefit of this program is that it helps to keep businesses in America. By lowering the cost of doing business here, it will be easier to keep businesses from outsourcing to other countries. That keeps Americans employed, which helps the overall economy. It also helps the tax base for local governments. If businesses are located here, they pay property taxes here (supposedly), which will help fund improvements in infrastructure. Along this same line, the foreign workers will also be paying taxes here, instead of in their home countries. They may send a portion of their earnings home, but they'll now be subjected to income taxes, as well as the sales taxes that they already pay for purchases made in the U.S. We may decide to exempt some workers from income tax, such as field laborers, but construction and tradesmen will have to pay the same as their American counterparts.

Another aspect of this plan is that with the legalization and inclusion of these laborers, they'll be able to join and be part of labor unions and work for improvements in working conditions and workers rights. At this time, there is some animosity between American and foreign laborers. With the implementation of this plan, they'll be able to work together. Instead of "stealing" jobs from Americans, the foreigner can work with the American for improvements and growth.

One last point I would like to make is that if we legalize these foreign workers we would have a theoretical cap on immigration, in the sense that American business would only be able to hire a finite number of foreign workers. Granted that number should be pretty large. We would need to decide whether the foreigners need to find a job before coming to America, or if they only need their identification card before crossing into the country in search of work. We may need to apply some limiting factors in this regard so that our social services aren't overrun. For instance, if we do allow anyone to come, with or without a job, we may let them use the social services, but then charge their home country for their use. Another idea would be to set up recruiting offices in the foreign countries. Businesses could match foreign workers with employers. The problem with this is what happens if they get here, work two weeks and then quit? Do we give them a certain amount of time to find a new job before kicking them out or can they sit here doing nothing indefinitely? Either way, who's going to enforce that? That's why I tend to lean more to allowing freer movement for workers. Once they're registered, using biometrics, they can come and go as they please. If they lose their job, let them go home for a couple of months to see their family, before coming back and getting a new job. I think something that we might want to do in order to limit the number of workers and for safety reasons is to make applicants for documentation pass a test. I don't think it should be a difficult test. Just something to make sure they can get around in America. It could be something like a basic English test covering things like the names of basic foods and colors. We may also want to include safety and warning words that commonly appear at work sights. The basic numbers and perhaps traffic signals and signs might also be important. I think the main point of the test is to make sure they won't be a hazard to the people around them once they get here and that they'll be able to function in a predominantly English speaking society.

I know this plan has a lot of holes in it, but I think it's a start. Once implemented it would definitely evolve over time. Part of this would be with our ratios and there governance and part of it would be with our relations with the foreign countries that supply these workers. The main point of this plan is that it protects Americans while offering a legal solution that is acceptable to foreign workers while supplying them with a voice our country. I think in the long run this plan offers a fair compromise to all the parties involved and creates a framework for future discussion and compromise.

I hope I've been clear in the outline of my plan, but I probably forgot to add in many points and ideas. I've probably overlooked many objections as well. I never intended this to be a finalized plan. I see this more as a starting place. Hopefully these ideas will grow into a workable solution and the gaps and objections can be worked out.

The beginnings of my thoughts on immigration reform.

Since yesterday, I've been thinking about which of my ideas I should start this blog with. Now, I'm aware that I previously stated that this would be a blog of random ideas, but since I've only just begun, I have a serious backlog of unused, uncooked, and unappreciated ideas (by "serious backlog", I mean, of course, five), all of which are clamoring for their moment to bask in the glow of the presence of the immortal Internet. After a period of short consideration, I decided that I would start off on the topic of U.S. immigration reform. I figure this is as good a place to start as any other, but since I really deplore writing about "any other" it was therefore quite easy for me to choose immigration reform from between the two. I enter upon this topic with some trepidation, it being a topic much discussed and bandied about by some of the worlds greatest thinkers, though for some reason, they're often ignored and we're left to hear much of the discussion from T.V. news anchors, who are intelligent, but alas decided to get their degrees in journalism and not in political science, sociology, or anthropology. Therefore, while I'm somewhat concerned that my ideas won't live up to the high standards of our nations great thinkers, I think I've got a fairly good chance of meeting the somewhat lower standards of a cable news channel anchor. With that self reassurance in mind I think I'll begin, though I may not be able to get through the entire idea in one post. Granted, since I've never actually taken the time to read other blogs, I'm not entirely sure how long a post should be or even if there is some sort of excepted norm, so like usual I'll just do my own thing and pray you'll forgive me if I offend your delicate sensibilities.

To begin with, I think the first thing that needs to be done with immigration is for everyone involved to come to the realization that it's here to stay and must be dealt with. This would seem to be a rather simple step, yet there are many people who don't want to recognize that there's a problem, or who think that if we ignore the problem it will eventually go away. As usual these people are deluding themselves and living in a fantasy world, namely Disney Land, which is a nice place to visit, but not a nice place to live as the Disney Land security personnel will be quick to inform you of if you try and live there. There seems to be a long standing tradition in this land of ignoring the problems of immigration, dating back to the fifteen hundreds when many of the tribes of people long established here didn't think it necessary to implement a plan for receiving and dealing with immigrants. A quick perusal through our history books will teach us of the disastrous results of such poor planning on the part of the natives. Indeed the very fact that these said history books are written in English should be a lesson of some sort, though I'm not entirely sure what said lesson should be. That being said, I think we should learn from their mistakes and, now that we're the natives, try and implement a better way of receiving new folks from distant lands.

At this point some of the deluded people will ask the question, "Do we really need immigrants?" I could just as easily ask them if they need their high definition TV. In truth we don't need immigrants in the severest sense of the word. Just like we don't need a car, or running shoes, or silverware, or cable, or chocolate. The point is that we want all of these things, with perhaps the notable exception of the running shoes, and when you think about it we should want immigrants too. Immigrants preform a lot of jobs that need to be done to improve our lives and at times lower prices. Here now is a sticking point. Immigrants can lower prices, but often this comes about because they've also lowered wages. Some people argue that immigrants are taking jobs away from Americans, while others argue that Americans don't want these jobs anyway. Often the reason why Americans don't want these jobs is not because of the nature of the work, but because the salaries have been depressed by immigrant labor. I think I have a solution to this problem, or at least perhaps the beginnings of a solution, which I'll get to latter, as I'm getting ahead of myself, which I must admit is physically a little uncomfortable.

The first thing that I believe needs to be done is for everyone to be identified and given legal identification. Everyone who's already in the U.S. should be granted amnesty and be allowed to stay, assuming they adhere to the new standards. In the identification process, when an immigrant registers, we must include biometrics, such as fingerprints, to solidify the identity of the person. I've heard of immigrants constantly changing their name or using different parts of their name to escape from law enforcement. This way, their fingerprints or eye scan or whatever will be their signature, no matter what they want to call themselves. This database would have to be accessible nationwide to agencies such as police departments and those that issue government licenses. This system probably won't be cheap, but it is necessary if we want to make a difference.

At this point I'd like to address the idea of granting amnesty. A lot of people are against this as they see it as a sign of rewarding people for breaking the law. Now, I can't really argue that point. In a sense we would be rewarding them, but in another sense it's merely a recognition that the previous laws were flawed. Eventually we have to come to our senses and realize that those laws are impotent and ignored and no longer apply. Times change and we need to change with them, that's why the forefathers of this country made provision to change the constitution as our situations changed. Imagine for a moment if we actually enforced those laws. In the short term there would be a lot of pain as the country adjusted to losing millions of people. In the long run we'd adjust, but would it be for the better? Would we have fixed the problems that caused this mess in the first place. Also, looking beyond our own pain, what would happen to the millions of outcasts? Would their homelands take them back, and how would they be received? That's just a part of why I believe amnesty is necessary. The other part is that we're trying to solve a problem. In order to solve it we need participation by all parties involved. If we don't grant amnesty, then the illegal immigrants in the country won't register and the problems will persist. We need them to register if we're to have any hope of changing things for the better. We can't properly run a country with millions of undocumented people living within our boarders.

I believe that there are several benefits to legalizing these immigrants. I'd like to point out here that by legalizing I don't mean granting citizenship. I merely mean allowing people to live and work within out boarders. The first benefit I'd like to comment on is that businesses, schools and governments could openly cater to them and form policies allowing for an easier transition into our culture. For example, it would be easier for private schools to advertise and offer services that would help the newcomers learn English or adapt to life here. Such operations are hampered at the present as people are afraid that if they go to such a school they may be discovered and deported. Businesses might also be more inclined to offer safety information or training in foreign languages, or offer training to help foreign workers learn terminology in English. They may not want to offer such things at this time, because they don't want the government to know that they're hiring undocumented workers. Another benefit is that it would help cut down on crime and labor abuses. If immigrants are given legal status and identification, they won't need to use stolen social security numbers or identities to get a job or financial credit. Also, workers may be more willing to report work place abuses if the fear of deportation is removed. They would be more likely to work with OSHA and if necessary the police. I think this also brings up another point. How often are crimes committed and the immigrant community refuses to talk to the police because they're afraid of deportation? I think most of these people are good people and would like to help the police. By documenting and legalizing them, we'd be helping to remove a hiding place for criminals. This leads me to another benefit, which is that immigrants will be able to take ownership or pride in their new land. I think they'll be more willing to make a positive impact in the community and become responsible members of society once we've adopted them into our society. This means they may be more willing to help with social activities and service projects. One other benefit that I see is that by documenting them we'll be able to determine who we want to allow to become a citizen. I don't think everyone that comes here wants to become a citizen of our country, but some do. If we document them, then we can put them on a sort of trial. If they behave themselves for a set number of years, then they can apply for citizenship. This might help us keep from allowing undesirables from gaining citizenship. This country as always wanted to receive the best that other lands have to offer, this just gives us a chance to test them beforehand, a type of initiation process. One last benefit is that once these people are using legal documentation and identification we can collect income tax on them. It seems to be somewhat difficult to collect taxes on salaries paid under the table. Once these people are legalized, their salaries will be placed on the books and the government can collect taxes on them. This will help pay for the programs and infrastructure needed to support them.

Well, I think I've written quite enough for today. I'm only halfway through my idea, but I think I'll finish it later. I hope you'll reserve judgement on the whole until then.

To begin with, an introduction of sorts.

To whom it may concern,
I've decided to start a blog at the behest of my friends and the displeasure of my family. I've never written a blog before or posted things to the World Wide Web, so pardon my missteps and faux pas has I attempt to create something of minor importance. I'd like to point out at this early date that I would have never thought of "blogging" had my friends not wearied me with there teasings to have me write about absolutely nothing of any real importance. You may ask the question, "Why would your friends enjoy reading a blog about nothing of any real importance, written by someone they could easily speak with in person?" If that is the case, then good for you. I'll leave you to discover the answer to that question on your own as you are apparently much more intelligent then I. My only request is that once you've discovered the answer, please share it with me and the rest of the world, as I'm sure such a momentous scientific break through will be of great use to the all of Western Civilization and perhaps even the entire world and parts of Mars and Saturn.

Quick side note. I really hate this interface that I'm using to type in. It's extremely slow, to the point that I'm three thoughts ahead of where I'm typing and I'm having a hard time catching my typos.

Anyway, back to me and my blog creation. As I pointed out in my header, this will be a blog of random thoughts that come my way. As such I won't tie myself down to any sort of posting schedule, as schedules and random events don't tend to get along, except on leap days, though I have to admit that's never actually been proven accurate and must be taken with a grain of salt. I'm planning, however, on trying to post something at least once a week. If I enjoy it or even just like it, then I'll probably post more often, however, should I come to despise this format, I'll probably post less often, and who could blame me for it? I will admit, that on some weeks I've been know to have a fairly large number of random thoughts, I may try and save them and spread them out over various weeks, or perhaps try and post them all at once.

I think this has made for a fairly adequate introduction. Perhaps I'll elaborate on myself as this blog progresses, but I'll let this do for now.