Words Fail Me

William Buckley's definition of a liberal is someone who wants to reach into your shower and adjust the water temperature.

Your words don't fail you, Professor Boudreaux.

The good news, If we could get congress to waste all their time on such matters, they would do less real harm.

Weird, but most schools are state schools... so... I don't know.

Right. And all the others take public money too. We pay the piper, we should call the tune..

Government dictating a playoff is practically like setting a new policy for the post office.

If they value their "freedom" so much, they should get off the government teat.

I too would rather see them waste time on things like this, that only marginally increase their actual power but materially increase their perceived power. It lets people who care about liberty make their case with evidence everyone can understand without actually wrecking society. Fill their schedule with the regulation of college football, antitrust exemptions for pro leagues, steroid investigations (although the perjury trap in those is pernicious), and payoffs to pig stink researchers.

On the topic of not voting, it makes philosophic sense to me, but I don't believe it can have any practical utility in the next 50 years. While I agree that the government would be mostly unable to govern if turnout was 5% due to boycotters, I think the honey pot is big enough that the politicians can buy at least a 30% or 40% turnout in the presidential elections if it really came to that. If I were to stop voting, I'd say my reasons were philosophical disagreements and laziness, with the concepts of protest or advocacy as garnishes.

I couldn't agree more. It feels hopeless.

At least they aren't spending time messing with anything important.

Go Bobby Go! These types of overreaches get peoples' attention. Even most sports fan that agree with a playoff have enough sense to realize Congress is overstepping its bounds. Keep up the good work. Yes you can do a number of things at the same time, you smug S.O.... I love it.

Regarding getting these boneheads out, I'm afraid we're doomed to the pendulum swinging from panderer to panderer until we either do a much better job educating citizens about the Constitution or add an enumerated powers requirement to all legislation.

Does anyone know of a simple Constitution test? I doubt most of our elected officials even have the vaguest idea of why checks and balances were designed. It'd be great to start giving them pop quizzes on camera to see how they do. And, if they actually knew what they were talking about, then ask them why they don't uphold.

Don asks a great question. Do they really mean their oaths? Do they understand their oaths? Why don't journalists hold them accountable for not upholding their oaths? Why don't we? That might be a great blog series - exposing when the actions of elected officials are in direct opposition to the oath they took.

Remember when one asked Pelosi a few weeks ago if the health reform bill was Constitutional? She about when bat crazy on him.

Don,

Congress will make a Spoonerian of you yet.
Or at least a Twainian...
The only native American criminal class.
Dante didn't find a circle in hell deep enough...

Folks...the more Congress wastes time on things like college football, the less time they spend poking around other, more consequential areas. NCAA exploits student athlethes! How about some action on that front?

Only rarely do I disagree with Professor Boudreaux.

But this is a far more useful and achievable thing for Congress to be doing than most. The BCS is a travesty.

And just to square things up with the libertarian view, I'll agree that no college should be forced into a playoff by the government -- so long as they don't take any government money.

The government should have no role in this, but at least they aren't spending there time messing up more important things.

535 clowns.

536. You forgot their leader for one moment.

This is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

There are three wars in three different countries happening, massive record breaking deficits that will lead to further financial ruin, an economy that is stagnant, a galactically huge health care mess of their own creation that will be further exacerbated by current proposed legislation, as well as a hundred other things to be talking about-- And these idiots are going to try legislate college football?

I am both saddened and astounded that Rep John Barrow D-GA is the only person to voice opposition to this complete waste of time.

These obnoxious creeps meddle in our lives because that's precisely what the public wants them to do (otherwise they wouldn't keep electing them).

Thus, it is not surprising that these creeps meddle in all aspects of our lives, to the contrary, it would be surprising if they didn't.

Correction: What the public wants them to do is to meddle in OTHER PEOPLES' lives. I've never met anyone who said, "There oughta be a law to stop ME from misbehaving".
Bearpaw

Votes speak louder than words.

The public wants to be taken care of, which is the exact opposite of freedom.

Not only is the public willing to give up freedom, they can't wait to get rid of it. They fear it more than anything and they want nothing to do with it.

"Name" hit the nail on the head with this one: everyone trusts themselves with freedom, just not the other guy with it.

Then there's Yasafi's creed, that, "Only government can decide how much liberty a man needs in order to be free."

He doesn't even trust himself with freedom!

"These obnoxious creeps meddle in our lives because that's precisely what the public wants them to do"

It saddens me that I must agree with that sentence.

Do they really mean their oaths to uphold the U.S. Constitution?

This is a rhetorical question, yes?

politicians in the United States are no different from politicians in totalitarian countries. The only difference is our tiny, feeble ability to stop them.

I understand that an individual vote is meaningless by itself. However, without voting, how can we hope arrest the march of the ninnies...I mean nannies? I know you don't vote, Don. You try to influence the opinions of other people, but their opinions are only relevant if they vote. No?

I'm not in the habit of brow-beating non-voters. The beauty of living in a free country is that so much is optional. However, I don't understand how to influence congress without voting and/or lobbying (read: bribing).

I don't know how I feel about voting anymore. I have and will most likely continue to for the foreseeable future. However, I read an interesting piece where the author said (essentially) why give validation to a flawed, reckless system? Why keep up the illusion that there is some vague difference between politician a and politician b?

If enough people felt this way ... and enough people stopped voting ... maybe it would be enough to cripple the system? What if voter turnout was 0.1%? Could we continue the facade that this is a government of the people, by the people, for the people? Or would the illusion whither and die allowing the people of our country to finally see what Washington DC really is. (Cowards, liars, thieves, and cheats of the grandest scale).

I've heard that before. What I don't understand is how not voting subverts the a flawed system. I don't get that logic.

If nobody is paying enough attention to threaten politicians' ability to stay in power, they can do what they want with impunity.

Well, it isn't that you're not paying attention. In fact, some that don't vote (usually anarchists of sorts) are paying very close attention. I don't think voting is necessarily the critical part of participation in the electoral process.

You could write articles, publish on the internet, talk to friends and family, publicly demonstrate for your cause, picket voting locations, etc.

Voter turnout in presidential elections is generally over 50%. What if that number were 5%? Do you think it would make a difference in public perception of the presidency and its validity?

I don't know. Politicians are like animals. All they care about is the ability to stay in power. The only direct threat to their power is voters. If there's no threat of being voted out of power, I don't think the politicians will care at all.

Even in your suggestion, you are picketing voting locations. If voting is unimportant, then why picket? I don't really understand why you say voting is not the critical part of participation in the electoral process. How else are people elected?

In the Soviet Union, none of our politicians were elected and nobody saw the rulers as valid. Yet, we were held under their thumb just the same. We were all pissed off and there was plenty of criticism (in the underground and behind closed doors), but we could do nothing about it. A lot of power is concentrated in the hands of the political class and they can wield it in any way that pleases them....unless wielding it in a particular way results in a loss of that power. I really can't understand how protests will achieve anything. People turned out en masse to protest the healthcare reform efforts and it got them exactly nowhere. They're going to jam it through no matter what and the ones doing the jamming are the ones who feel less threat to their seat in congress.

Fair enough ... I don't feel strongly enough in the anti-voting camp to keep it up. I concede victory. :)

To anwer your question though, I would picket a voting location because I would be trying to convince others to walk away as well -- votes uncast.

Long story short, I'll continue to vote. I'll vote for the candidate whom I feel best represents my ideals. Whether that be a major party candidate, third party candidate, or write-in. I will make my opinion known in a voter's box.

I'll continue to cast my puny vote as well. I do write to politicians now (never before this summer) in some vain hope, I'm sure. I feel I have to do all I can before I completely give up on this country.

I'm really hoping that someday someone will be able to explain to me how not voting will work in practice. I usually get heartfelt broad lofty statements about validity and and standing up to "show them", but I've never seen an answer that includes how any of that will actually change politician's incentives - for that it is what needs changing.

But, what is the alternative?

The alternative? Would it be effective?

Imagine you throw a party and no one came?

What if you throw an election and no one comes, does that not speak eloquently to the contempt of the people for the hosts?

If you throw an election and no one comes, do the incumbents remain in office? Do the candidates flip a coin and impose themselves illegally into a position for which they weren't selected? At what point does it become obvious that the hosts of the election no longer enjoy legitimacy?

I suspect this would be an excellent alternative to inspire some real attention being paid to the public.

Vidyohs, few people come now. There will always be some that show up and those few would determine the outcome.

Of course, these days, the dead show up to vote. Politicians will not be deterred from grabbing power.

I agree, even one registered voter out of some 95 million still would give them a claim of legitimacy, but he would be a worn out sucker trying to make all those elections in 57 (Obama count) States, unless of course he is, as you say, dead.

Let's find him now and kill him before he can give his stamp of approval to elections, unless of course he is indeed already dead which would complicate our mission.

I spoke to principle not any hope of it happening in reality.

Strike. Boycott. Walkout. Ignore. Slander. Subvert. In short, a campaign of disrespect. Non-violent, but effective. Make the politicians feel like outcasts. Either they will quit, or they will find themselves forced into measures that even they will find repulsive.

Randy, that takes a lot of effort. Effort most people don't have the time and energy for. You want something non-violent but effective. That is far easier said than done. Far far far.

One can only pray for more legislation like this.

Better they spend time on bills that have no chance of passing than bills they care deeply about that will further retard our prosperity by eroding our liberty.

Ahhh yes Bryan,

Right on Bro!
This quote simply tells us that God is in his heaven and it is business as usual in Congress.

"Yet Barrow wasn't alone in criticizing his colleagues' priorities; Reps. Zach Space, D-Ohio, and Bart Stupak, D-Mich., made similar arguments. Space said that with people facing tough times, the decision to focus on college football sends the "wrong message."

Good point.

Now that's what I call "looking at the bright side of things!" I'd rather they socialize collegiate sports than Health Care. Now if we can just get them to work on a law that says that Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, and Tom Brady have to play on a different team each season, I think they'd drop all that nonsense about a "2nd stimulus."

Should we laugh or cry?

This and the head injuries thing. What's the deal? I second Matt's point that "with all due respect" is a little excessive.

"I think it's the right thing to do."

Statements like this one just infuriate me.

The only good thing about this is that maybe the NCAA will feel the wrath of a big, arbitrary bully.

They got what they wanted: an article with their names spelled correctly, promising to "do something" about a perceived injustice.

Believe me, if Texas were playing Texas Christian in the BCS National Championship Game, Rep. Barton would share nary a peep.

That said...

ROLL TIDE!

My poor Gators were beaten fair and square by a classy team. I'll be rooting for your boys, Ike. The SEC has to stick together; so, begrudgingly, I'll echo your chant: roll tide!

We don't HAVE to stick together.

Signed,

Auburn Fan/Grad

The SEC has to stick together...

I've never felt that way. In D-1, I'm a CU Buffalo fan, and I'd no sooner root for the Sooners, or the Nebraska Bugeaters than I would Notre Dame (OK, maybe I wouldn't go quite that far. If Nebraska was playing Notre Dame, I'd probably root for the Bugeaters).

I don't put Texas down there with those other two, but still... Roll Tide!

What strikes me when studying politicians is the difference between their mannerisms and their actions - between their tone and their meaning. While they are seem to be mostly genteel and skilled rhetoricians, they are also liars, hypocrites, thieves, and scoundrels. My experience in the business world is that those who behave calmly, clearly, and reasonably, can be counted on to be calm, clear, and reasonable people. It would be better for us all, I think, if politicians would drop the pretense and behave like the raving lunatics that their actions reveal them to be.

I don't know anyhting about Rep John Barrow D-GA but I would like to nominate him for Hero of the Day. My only problem with what he said is he started with, "With all due respect..."

Clearly, none is due.