Lions, Tigers, and Muslims... oh my!

I'm writing this post as a response to this video my brother Jake sent to me. He is surprisingly a big fan of John Stewart's Daily Show. Despite some crass humor, I think you will get the message quite quickly.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-september-16-2010/rally-to-restore-sanity

After watching the clip, read on.

The so-called 9/11 mosque has, in my opinion, finally turned on a lightbulb inside the heads of many "seventy to eighty percenters," as Stewart puts it, as to the radical nature of political activism in the past 10 years. Sanity is being bullied over by angered mobs, due to real national calamities (like the BP oil spill) as well as really exaggerated national "issues" (such as the mosque). The interesting thing about radicalism throughout history is that it has ALWAYS been the voice to be heard most of the time, due to its nature. The very definition of radicalism requires activism, protest, and outcry. The question, then, that has plagued moderates through history is How Can We Be Heard Above All This Racket?

Taking another lesson from history (which I hope will catch on), I find some solace in the fact that moderates usually win out. After all, everyone eventually prefers a calming of the waters instead of a continuation of the storm. However, this may not always be the case. Radicalism in may forms has led to such devastation and horror as Bartholomew's Day, Robespierre's Guillotione, and the Battle of Stalingrad. It seems to me that a dangerous result of unchecked radicalism is atrocious human behavior.

Furthermore, as we realize that the catalysts of radicalism include calamities and natural tragedies, as well as religious issues, we realize from the scriptures that the amount of reactant in this chemical formula will only increase. Radicals will have more to be radical about. So I ask again: how can we stem the tide?

To me, the only answer is moderate activism. And no, those two words do not form an oxymoron. Personally, I have never felt it necessary to get involved in the political climate. I guess I never have seen the need to do so, nor have I felt like any of my actions would result in any visible consequence.

There must be a way, though.

Your thoughts.

BYU Football... Conspiracy?

Well, it all worked out. BYU's 2 QB situation finally came to a close, with both parties being satisfied. After sacrificing 2 games to the system, Bronco finally has 1 QB in Jake Heaps. He is the QB everyone wanted at the beginning. He is the QB of the future. He is the QB that has the BYU-patented passing arm.

Riley Nelson, on the other hand, also finished his career at BYU on a high note. He injured his throwing shoulder. Surgery required, he will not play for the rest of the season.

Convenient, isn't it? For Nelson to injure his throwing shoulder at this moment? Almost TOO convenient, I would say. Doesn't this scream conspiracy? This just seems too good to be true. I want proof that he actually has surgery. I want to see him in pain. I want to see the play he was injured on.

I argue that he indeed was NOT injured last week. Instead, Bronco approached him and said, "look, we are not going to start you anymore. So you can either way this shoulder sling, or go out as a failure at QB." What option do you think he would have taken?

The Truth About Bronco

It's about time we talk about or beloved coach. Bronco Mendenhall, who has been hailed as the savior of the program (after the dark days of the Crowton era), has risen as BYU's Lavell Edwards reincarnated, to return BYU football to the glory days of old.

Or has he?

In this blog, you will find evidence that or beloved Coach Mendenhall has only returned the Y to known days of mediocrity.

Evidence #1: Bronco's defensive minded sets. Bronco has been a defensive coordinator most of the time before heading over to BYU. So, I ask the question... what happened? Amnesia? Did he forget all his good defensive sets? Sure, you can argue or athletes are inferior due to the pressures of recruiting at an LDS school, but come on. When Utah puts 50 points on you, that's embarassing. When FSU blows you out at home by 30 points and your defensive players are blaming the newly installed turf for the blowout, you have problems. And the problems start at the top. Sure, or offense (usually) looks great. He's done a good job keeping the BYU offense alive (keeping Robert Anai too). But everyone who watched the Air Force game last Saturday knows Bronco is being outcoached by offensive schemes.

Evidence #2: The Vegas Bowl. Those are 3 words, as an avid fan, that I'm tired of hearing. And I'm even MORE tired of people being excited about going. College Football has evolved into the haves and the have-nots. The only way you become a Have is by going to the BCS. Anything less than this must be considered failure. Despite this, many cheer the Vegas bowl as some sort of excellent option, and yet, is this all we want? Are we satisfied with this mediocrity? No. The bottom line is that Bronco Mendenhall does not know how to win the big games. He does not know what it will take to take us the distance. Wittingham did it. Urban Meyer did it. Chris Peterson did it. Heck, TCU can even make the BCS. Until Bronco proves to me that he can crash the party, he can't sell me on the idea that we should keep him.

Evidence #3: The 2 QB dibacle. In the history of football, you can hold up on 1 hand the number of times a 2 QB system was effective and successful. On one hand! The way Bronco has handled the situation has also clearly displayed how much of the idea was his. Clearly, the 2 QB method is his baby. He will stand or fall with it. Against Washington, we got lucky. Both QB's played well in front of a home crowd. However, AFA revealed how disastrous the system could be. Nelson played almost the entire game (which left many fans, including myself, screaming at the TV for Bronco to put in the passing quarterback, which, for some INEXPLICABLE reason, he chose not to) without success. The BYU offense, which usually looks at AFA the way a boxer looks at a punching bag, mustered 14 points, while or defense got outclassed, outsmarted, and outmuscled. Overall, it was embarrassing.

It's time for this madness to end. It's time to bring in a fresh mind, a coach who isn't afraid to pull out the stops and not fear 1 or 2 losing seasons in order to achieve true greatness. A coach who actually understands defenses. A coach who hates going to the Vegas Bowl. A coach who will start Jake Heaps, for crying out loud, or at least play him when Riley Nelson is clearly doing nothing for us.

And don't you dare criticize my fanhood. I'm as big a fan as BYU football as you will ever meet. Which is why I must proclaim the truth about Bronco. And the truth shall set you free...

Football is King - Noah or Benjamin?

Ah yes. Yesterday was a glorious day. Football is back. Although the Utes won the game, the fact that college football (soon to be followed by the NFL) is back sent joy into my heart once again. I suffered through an agonizing summer (although richly helped by the World Cup) of 2000 baseball games and an occasional world championship basketball game and tennis match. Finally, football is back...

Now on to my topic. BYU recently decided to become an independent in their football program at the sacrifice of every single other sports program. Why? Why shortchange ALL your other sports for one sport? Because football is king. Because football = money.

Is this a good thing? BYU will undoubtedly make more money as an independent than as a conference member in the MWC (consider one example: their new TV contract with ESPN will allow most of their games be televised on ESPN instead of the mountain. The Mountain network gave the school around 1.5 million dollars per SEASON, while ESPN will be paying BYU around that much money to televise a single game.). It is clear, then, that football runs the show at BYU.

In America, BYU is a microcosm of what makes the sporting world go round. It comes to no surprise that the Super Bowl is the most important annual sporting event for the majority of American Sport Fanatics. So this begs the question... is this a good thing? Is the dominance of football healthy for our nation? Is football a king Noah or a king Benjamin?

Let's look at some of the pros. Football can act as a powerful catalyst for economic activity and consumer spending in many cities, especially cities that house an NFL team. The amount of revenue generated, to a large extent, is getting redistributed in the form of entertainment - people pay for football to happen, and in return, football happens, and people (for the most part) are satisfied. Sheer entertainment value is another possible benefit of football. It is (again, for the most part), a fun to watch, clean, enormously entertaining sport that puts talents on display.

But what of the cons? These seem to be easier and easier to list: unbelievable amounts of time and energy are wasted on this sport. The players themselves are payed ridiculous amounts of money. Football encourages rampant gambling, scandal, and the danger of presenting men like Ben Rothlisburger, Plaxico Burress, and Michael Vick as role models for kids to look at. Football cheerleaders wear less and less per year. Colleges spend more and more money on their fooball program instead of giving more money to their students and the academic facilities.

As a lifetime fan of football, I obviously don't want it to go away. But I do see a danger inherent in the presence of football at such a high level. And no, I have no solution for the problem.

As for now, though, I welcome the upcoming season (despite BYU's fatal decision to start 2 quarterbacks). With open arms.