I may have been making an argument to address a point that no one had actually raised :smack: . That being the idea that sports in general aren’t the business of government, and that the concept of Congress getting involved with college football was a waste of time.
Anyways, I do actually think if we accept that congress should regulate sports like any other industry, the BCS system is actually a very logical subject of scrutiny. The BCS system can be seen as an act of collusion among a segment of the division IA schools to the detriment of the 54 or so schools outside of the BCS system (not sure on the exact number as a few schools are in transitory phases between IA and IAA and I can’t remember precisely if there are actually 119 schools counted as IA or not.)
While the BCS system does give some payout to non-BCS conferences, it is exceedingly small. And the BCS system itself is highly prejudicial against all of the teams that are not members of the BCS conferences (excepting Notre Dame, which gets special treatment in general.)
Only the fact that Chairman Ted Stevens (R - Bridge to Nowhere) absolutely refused to place any of the energy executives under oath before they proceeded to lie their pants off about their participation in Big Time Dick’s energy task force.
That’s a problem in execution. The opinion seemed to be that the hearings were a bad concept and I’m curious as to why. AFAIK energy companies are still subject to some level of federal regulation, and if their profits (or other factor) indicates possible wrong-doing I see no problem with Congress holding hearings.
That’s the whole point though. Dealing with real issues takes real effort and could really stub someone’s toes politically. Much better to waste time with bullshit. Really, how different is this from flag burning, the lyrics of popular music and Janet Jackson’s breats? It’s all Wizard of Oz bullshit. Ignore the issues behind the curtain…
I just never saw the potential for wrongdoing. Could they have lowered prices and still made a profit? Sure, but since when have we tried to regulate (for most industries) the amount of profit a company can make or what they can do with that profit? I put the cost of energy on several factors, including high prices in the futures market often caused by jittery buyers/speculators, the industralization of China and India (along with other growth in demand), the normal lack of refining capacity in the United States, and a hurricane season that did a number on domestic refineries and oil rigs. I never understood why Congress was holding a hearing other than to grandstand, which is why I lumped it in with the baseball and this new BCS hearing.
Now, don’t be so hard on the Republicans. Surely they can be forgiven for believing that they can distract the nation’s gullibilati with an obviously lame investigation of college football when they have already proven capable of impeaching a sitting president over a blowjob.
You are correct in one respect: Frist is not under indictment, he is “only” under investigation for financial irregularities in his investments. It’s not an indictment, but it’s definitely the sort of thing your average politician would prefer not to be a focus of public attention. Your point about DeLay’s not being the House Majority leader currently (because he has been indicted) – well, calling it a nitpick would grossly exagerrate its importance.
Your point about guilt and innnocence is just plain misleading. The issue here is not guilt and innocence, that’s irrelevant for the moment – it’s public perceptions, and how they’ll work out at election time. All of this is bad news.
Even worse news is the New York Times report on the Jack “Casino” Abramov bribery scandal, which may well bring charges against a dozen Republican Congressmen, as well as implicating background people like Grover Norquist and Ralph Reed.
I do believe the Republicans have cause to seek to get the cameras focussed elsewhere. They’d be pleased as punch if the BCS investigation sucks up all the headlines from now until, oh, say, December 2006.
Well naturally if you want to get rid of sniping and controversy, you call in the Congressional Republicans. Congressional Republicans never engage in sniping or do anything controversial.