Name Change and the NFL

In the NFL there was a Cincinnati player named Chad Johnson. Just prior to the season he changed his name to Chad Ocho Cinco. The NFL has the gall to say that he cannot wear his new name on his jersey since the name change came too late. Reebok had already generated 100,000 Johnson jerseys and the NFL says he can only were his new name if he shells out about $4 million to Reebok for the unsold jerseys.

Set aside that this highly skilled athlete has a huge ego and is one of the most narcissistic athletes in the nation. NFL has needs to get a life for its unjust and hypocritical posture. What if Johnson was traded to a new team two weeks ago? Would the NFL say the trade could not take place until one of the teams buys up the unused jerseys? No. If he died in an automobile accident, would the NFL or Reebok sue the estate for the cost of the unsold jerseys? If they did they would be a laughed out of court and told that lost was the cost of doing business.

Would the NFL say to a team that wants change jersey designs that they cannot do so unless they buy up the old jerseys first? Of course not. There are professional teams that change uniform designs every five to seven years. They know full well that once they change uniform designs that their sportswear sales spike up for two years as fans quickly buy up the new items.

The jerseys which cost 30 to $40 to manufacture retail for three times that cost. Regardless of what name goes on his jersey, who is going to pay $100 for a jersey with the former name knowing that he has changed names and next season there will be jerseys with the new name? If Reebok thought they could sell 100,000 jerseys this season, they would likely sell double that with new name as fans who bought jerseys over the past two or three years snap up ones with the new name. If 220,000 of the new jerseys sold, would Reebok or the NFL give Ohco Cinco the lion share of the profits to him? Of course not! They would gleefully keep all their profits.

The NFL needs to get a life and act more justly. So he has changed his name. So what if Reebok has a useless supply of jerseys? It is part of the cost of doing business. Lets also remember that though Reebok made 100,000 jerseys they were already expecting to eat or deeply discount around a significant portion. That said, are they really out that much money? I doubt it. They could easily discount and sell what they can for $40. Reebok can manufacture and sell a limited supply of jerseys (say 30,000) with the new name at a premium price of 150 to $180. There will be a host of people who will pay the premium price to be one of the few to have the new name. Reebok also needs to keep some (about 10,000) in storage for two decades in case the player goes to the hall of fame. If he goes into the hall, mint official jerseys with is old name will be costly collector’s item.

Where Is Unknown But I Am Leaving For LA or TX

Today I received the official word that on Friday I leave for fourteen days on EDS deployment. There is a large group from VA flying into Jackson Mississippi. At least that is the current plan. Where I end up will be determined in the coming days.

There is a good possibility that I will end in Baton Rouge as the team from Kentucky/Tennessee that is running the Incident Command is departing for home on Saturday and Sunday. Power is still out for a good part of the the Baton Rouge and southwest Louisiana area.

There is also a possibility that we will be driving into Texas in support of the Texas division's response to Ike.

Is the Right to Vote Truly a National Principle?

One of the founding principles of the United States is no taxation without representation. From the moment of independence landholding citizens of age had the right to vote. It was then expanded to all male citizens and later to all citizens, both male and female of age. In the 60s great efforts were taken to expose and rectify laws that made it difficult for African American citizens to vote.

Those who are imprisoned are unable to vote while in prison and for a period after. I can understand that since in the United States a large portion of the judges, Sheriffs and all the DAs are elected. As such these individuals can readily become victims of retaliatory voting by those convicted of a crime.

Today there continues to be a pocket of citizens who are unable to vote in federal elections. Though they live in a 21 square mile area in the heart of the country they are structurally and intentionally denied by Congress and the States from being able to have a voice in Congress or to vote for the President. The refusal of the country to address this injustice is deplorable. For a country that prides itself on the electoral process as a founding principle and tried to bring democracy to foreign lands, the lack of concern within the citizenry to push their elected State and Federal officials to correct the matter is utterly disgraceful.

Who are those who are denied the right to vote in federal elections? They are the citizens who live closest to the Capital Hill, the citizens of the District of Columbia. This issue exists because the Constitution mentions only States. But the Constitution was penned prior to the creation of the District of Columbia out land gifted by Maryland so that no State could lay claim to the capital and lord it over other States. A simple fix is to insert “and the District of Columbia” into the appropriate clauses. Those who resist this by noting that giving the District voting rights would then give it unfairly two seats in the Senate while only one seat in the House should get a life since there are seven other States with small populations who also have one seat in the House and two seats in the Senate.

Not correcting this injustice undermines America claim that voting and democracy is a fundamental principle. I wish that some head of state would have the boldness to privately and publicly put the President in his place when the American President raises the issue of encouraging democracy. I would love to hear a national leader say to the press that he told the President that they will be happy to converse about voting and democracy when the President and Congress put their own house in order by granting voting rights to those living in the District of Columbia.

It is long overdue for the country to cease being hypocritical. It is time for Congress, the President and the States to amend the Constitution. Give the citizens of the District the right to participate in Congress.

Same Facts, Different Interpretation

During our trip to LSU via Indianapolis and back we blew two tires and lost our passenger mirror. When the first tire went we were a short distance from an exit with a big rig tire repair shop. When the inner tire gave way, there was no sway of the vehicle and the other tire held to allow us to get to the tire shop.

When the second tire went on the driver front six days later, I was surprised that there was no strong pull to the left and we were able to slow down onto the shoulder in heavy traffic without incident. We waited four hours for the auto club guy to arrive when the fire department pulled up looking for a grass fire. Within twenty minutes their dispatch had a guy on the way to change the tire, and do it free (he wanted gas money).

We lost the mirror at the half-way point but were able to find a temporary mirror to install. We were also happy that the gas prices decreased by about 17% from what we had anticipated and our gas mileage was stronger than normal by about 8% both of which helps the budget on 3,500 mile trip.

Those are the facts. This past weekend on our trip to Leola Evie and chatted about what happened. An interesting dialogue ensued as to how to interpret those facts. I concluded that one’s faith colors how one interprets the events. Though not an exhaustive list, here are some of the options for interpreting the same facts.

1. Evangelical Christian – Thanks God for his protection and grace.
2. Fundamentalist Baptist/Reformed – Thanks God for His providence and for being part of the elect.
3. Nominal Christian – May not give thought to God unless someone mentions him.
4. Liberal Christian – These things happen to the good and the bad. It is just part of life.
5. A person not having faith – sees it as just part of life. May or may not be frustrated and angry by the events, but such emotional expression is due to their personality type.

I also think that the faith position of those experiencing the events colors how a firm evangelical may well interpret the events. Our perception of the person can color the interpretation of what has happened to another person. Here are some options, again not an exclusive list.

1. An evangelical speaking to Christian experiencing the events – “God has been gracious to you. Give thanks.”
2. An evangelical speaking to a person who he/she sees as not being saved but having some belief in God – “God protected you as His way to remind you that He loves you.”
3. An evangelical speaking to a person who he/she sees as not having any faith or belief that God exists – “God is showing you that He exists.”
4. An evangelical speaking to a person who he/she sees as once having faith but has entered into a backslidden state – “God has warned you and is giving you an opportunity to repent/return.”

I would be interested in your thoughts.

Mississippi Squirrel Revival

Check out this Ray Stevens song and video.... it is a hoot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_067ahbXfg


Here is the Ray Stevens classic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIPv9AtZ2zE&feature=related