There has been a great deal of media attention over the past several months focused on the question of whether Universities should be paying salaries or stipends to student-athletes.  Some, including Jay Paterno (the son of Penn State football icon Joe Paterno) have opined that the players are already getting a great deal that other students around campus “would gladly take”.   Many others argue that top-level college sports is indeed big business, but relatively little money flows down to the athletes.  This question has recently become even more interesting as big-name football programs like USC and Ohio State have been sanctioned for payments to players or profit-seeking activities by the players that are against NCAA regulations.

So, what’s the truth?  A basketball-buddy of mine, who is himself an aficionado of college sports, Flint Harris added his $.02 to this debate recently on his Holy Turf web site (quite a good site — check it out).  Flint’s article sheds useful light on this question by simply providing the data regarding how much money athletes actually receive (or can receive within the existing rule structure) during their college career.  In my view, any discussion is more useful with real data as the foundation.  It turns out, according to Flint, that players can receive approximately $17K each year in living, eating, and clothing expenses (this does not include scholarship money that goes toward the cost of tuition and books and fees).

This information is helpful, but does not by itself settle the question of whether players should be paid additional dollars for their efforts.  But it does allow us to dismiss the exaggerated claims that we simply must pay stipends otherwise these players can’t afford to buy a pizza or go on a date.  This seems not to be the case.  However, it certainly seems reasonable that college athletes, like most college students, may mismanage their funds and at times find themselves out of pocket money.  But this situation, in and of itself, is not a justification for paying players stipends.

……….

To read the entire essay … surf over to:

http://www.holyturf.com/2011/08/ncaaownkids/

Over at the Fayetteville Flyer, they’ve announced that organizers in Fayetteville are planning a local Rally to Restore Sanity.  If you’ve not heard about the rally, it is being held in conjunction with Jon Stewart’s planned event in Washington D.C. later this month.  From the Fayetteville Flyer:

“Tens of thousands of people are expected to show up to the rally on the National Mall, and yesterday, we learned that UA students Roger Haak and Michael Baker Brown are organizing a local version on Friday, Oct. 29 at Wilson Park here in Fayetteville.”

*****

“I disagree with you, but I’m pretty sure you’re not Hitler,” “9-11 was an outside job,” and “I’m not afraid of Muslims, Tea Partiers, Socialists, Immigrants, Gun Owners, Gays, but I am kind of scared of spiders” are some of the signs Stewart suggested for the rally.”

The rally sounds like a good idea to me.  I was reminded how ridiculous things have gotten when I heard the following ad featured on NPR this morning.  After watching it, my only question is:  What else could you ever need to know about Sharron Angle?

Did you ever wonder why the internet is totally awesome?  There are a ton of reasons, but the most important reason that the internet is awesome is because it is a bastion of liberty.  At then end of the day, the internet–a free internet that is–gives us all a reason to believe that freedom will never retreat, it will only advance.

Sure, there are governments in places like China and Iran that are trying to fight it, but I think most people (including myself) believe that the genie is out of the bottle, and there’s no putting it back.

Or at least that’s what I thought.  Now some losers in Washington (who probably don’t even know how to send an email) are trying to clamp down on the internet.  They want the power to tell Internet Service Providers WHICH INTERNET SITES UNITED STATES CITIZENS ARE ALLOWED TO ACCESS.

Look, I know as well as anyone that there are internet sites out there that engage in questionable activity, but creating a heaping mess of government bureaucracy to monitor and fight them is one slippery-slope that simply isn’t worth trying to descend.  The bad would far outweigh the good.  And besides, does anyone in their right mind actually think that government lawmakers and bureaucrats can keep up with the internet?  Please.

As reported by demandprogress.org, here’s a quick synopsis of the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) co-sponsored by Patrick Leahy (VT, age 70) and Orrin Hatch (UT, age 76).

What exactly does it do?

The bill creates two blacklists of Internet domain names. The first can be added to by a court, the second by the Attorney General. Internet service providers (everyone from Comcast to PayPal to Google AdSense) would be required to block any domains on the first list. They would also receive immunity (and presumably the government’s gratitude) for blocking domains on the second list.

What kind of domains can go on the list?

The list is for domains “dedicated to infringing activity,” which is defined very broadly — any site where counterfeit goods or copyrighted material are “central to the activity of the Internet site” would be blocked.

What’s so bad about that?

Well, it means sites like YouTube could get censored in the US. Copyright holders like Viacom argue that copyrighted material is central to activity of YouTube. But under current US law, YouTube is perfectly legal as long as they take down copyrighted material when they’re informed about it — which is why Viacom lost their case in court. If this bill passes, Viacom doesn’t even need to prove YouTube is doing anything illegal — as long as they can persuade a court that enough other people are using it for copyright infringement, that’s enough to get the whole site censored.

And even without a court order, sites can get blacklisted just by order of the Attorney General — and the bill encourages ISPs to block those sites as well. ISPs have plenty of reason to obey a government blacklist even when they’re not legally required.

Isn’t the word censored a little overheated?

Not at all. In the US, the way things work is that if you’re using the Internet to do something illegal, you’re brought to court and the courts can shut you down. This bill would bypass that whole system by forcing Internet service providers to block access to sites that are otherwise up. People in other countries could still get to them, but Internet users in the US would be blocked. This kind of Internet censorship is exactly the sort of thing the US government has been criticizing China and Iran for — just the other day, Obama told the UN that “We will support a free and open Internet.” Now it turns out we’re going to start censoring the Internet ourselves.

But it’s just limited to copyright!

How long do you think that will last? Once the Attorney General has a system set up for censoring the Internet, everyone who has a problem with a website will want to get in on it. How long before it’s expanded to block Wikileaks, pornography, gambling, anarchists, supposed terrorists, and anybody else the Attorney General doesn’t like that day? If people are doing something illegal, the government should take them to court and shut them down — not try to bypass due process by blocking their domain name.

Won’t Internet users just work around the blacklist?

Yes — at the cost of a major blow to the United States. Currently the United States is the global hub of Internet traffic, but if this law passes Internet traffic will be reconfigured to route around it. Companies will move their US servers and domain names overseas, Internet users will route their traffic through other countries (just like Chinese citizens have to do now!), and software will have to be reconfigured to no longer trust answers from American servers.

What can I do to stop this?

The first step is signing our petition then we’ll give you the tools to share it with your friends and call your senator.

Last week, we were fortunate in the UA College of Education to host a lecture from Glenn Loury, the Merton P. Stoltz Professor of the Social Sciences in the Department of Economics at Brown University. While he gave an interesting talk on the Economics of Affirmative Action Policy, he also made a quick reference to education policy when he alluded to his former student, Roland Fryer.

Dr. Fryer is now a Harvard Professor who is creating quite a buzz by evaluating an innovative educational program that pays kids for good grades in cities across the US. He is one of the very rare academics who both understands the academic lingo and can also translate it to the regular person, as is made clear by this interview on the Colbert Report …. this (along with his complete candor) is why he is such a joy to watch.

For a longer speech by Professor Fryer from 2009 advocating R&D in education, click below:

On Saturday night, Little Rock’s Robinson Auditorium was filled with supporters of the so-called West Memphis Three  (if you are unfamiliar with their cause, see my previous posts here or here).  Attendees at the fundraiser were entertained by celebrity supporters, including Eddie Vedder, Natalie Maines, Patti Smith, Johnny Depp, Fistful of Mercy (which includes Ben Harper, Joseph Arthur, and Dhani Harrison (George’s son)).  John Brummett was there and has a good write-up of the evening here.

I was pretty dissapointed that I was travelling elsewhere and had to miss this event.  Luckily, some in attendance captured some great footage.  I posted a few clips below.  

The State Supreme Court will decide on September 30 whether or not Damien Echols will receive a new trial.

John McWhorter has a nice review of my book in The New Republic. A highlight:

Buck’s terrific book is longer on analysis than prescription; but its analysis comprises such invaluable history, and so deftly counters any fears underlying the pretense that the “acting white” charge is fictitious, that I cannot imagine we will soon see another book so utterly necessary on what used to be called the Race Question. Buck has cleared the ground of many illusions and innuendos, and this can only help us to get closer to a solution for the vast problem that still remains.

Some of you may have heard that there was a small earthquake in Northwest Arkansas last week.  What you may not know is the reason.  Well, it turns out that earthquakes actually have nothing to do with shifting tectonic plates.  According to an Iranian government official and cleric, earthquakes are women’s fault, specifically women who do not dress modestly (think burqa).

Iranian cleric Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi was quoted as saying “Many women who do not dress modestly … lead young men astray, corrupt their chastity and spread adultery in society, which increases earthquakes.”

If you’re keeping up with current science, then you already know that Pat Robertson discovered that gays and lesbians were responsible for hurricane Katrina, and that the earthquake in Haiti was a result of their pact with the devil.  Of course, a major difference is that here in the US we are free to make fun of Pat Robertson-types.  In Iran, these types of lunatics run the government.

Here in the U.S., many women tested Sedighi’s theory by conducting a massive “Boobquake.” News reports claimed that the Boobquake failed to trigger an earthquake.  I guess they failed to notice the small one that hit NWA.

Then again, the local quake could have been our own fault.

This skit is a pretty good follow-up to Stuart’s report on State Teacher Pension Funds.

Courtney Fortson is officially no longer a Razorback. It was announced today that he has signed with an agent and is entering the NBA draft.

That means that out of coach(?) Pelphrey’s 2006-07 recruiting class of six players, only Rotnei Clarke remains (and he was recruited by Stan Heath).  Gone are Fortson, Andre Clark, Brandon Moore, Jason Henry, and Montrell McDonald.  As I’ve said previously, with this many failures, it is hard to have any faith in Pelphrey’s ability to recruit and develop quality players.  The future of Razorback basketball is alarmingly bleak.

I’ve also criticized Frank Broyles for running off Mike Anderson when we had the chance to make him Nolan’s successor.  After another successful season this year coaching at Missouri, Anderson was courted by Oregon.  He ultimately turned them down.  In a semi-related note, Arkansas’ top prospect for next season, 6-foot-8, 240-pound forward Ricardo Ratliffe, recently bailed on Arkansas and will join Anderson at Mizzou.

However, while the speculation about Anderson’s decision concerning Oregon was ongoing, ESPN reported this little tidbit:

“Sources close to Anderson say that if he were to leave Missouri, the job at Arkansas–if open–is one he’d have strong interest in.”

What are we waiting for?

Welcome to Spring .. Some Interesting News is Hitting the Wire Today.  Read on ….

Progressive School District in Mississippi Planning “Straight-Free” Prom

• Ricky Martin and Toby Keith will headline the afterparty

Teacher Union Leader Comes Clean: “We don’t really care about children!”

• NEA general counsel Bob Chanin admits surprise — “Frankly, I can’t believe we had people going this long … I just had to tell!”

Texas Removes All References to Arkansas in State Textbooks

• State’s lead educator argues that “like evolution, the claim that there are fifty states is merely a theory.”

Max Brantley of the Arkansas Times - Caught Shopping at Wal-Mart

• Sources close to the Arkansas Times admit that Brantley is also an avid Glenn Beck listener.

Nation’s 4th Graders Continue to Trail Nation’s 5th Graders

• Experts fear this will continue into grade 6