Why I Love Central State University

     In addition to my primary job as a research scientist, my second job is as an adjunct professor of mathematics at Central State in Wilberforce Ohio.  I don't like Central State--I love it!  The reason is that I feel that I can make a difference in the lives of young people, many of whom were uncertain about attending college, and who find themselves once they attend Central State.  This is an incredible opportunity, and I hope that Historically Black Colleges and Universities--like Central State--continue to be supported nationwide.

 

     There is an ongoing debate at both the national level as well as the state level about whether there should be such a thing.   

    Central State was once part of Wilberforce College, but they split into two institutions in 1887.  Wilberforce University is supported by the African Methodist Episcopal Church, and Central State University is supported by the State of Ohio.  

     Some educators ask whether it makes sense to use state tax dollars to support a historically black university.  Is that in some way discriminatory?  The short answer is that there are no race factors in the acceptance process for CSU. I think a better question, however, is what the purpose of education is.  Aren't we trying to train people in our state to become better more productive workers, and to get jobs?  And does Central State appeal to enough people who want to go to school there?  Will they be better off if they are involved in higher education at Central State?

     The answer to those questions is definitely, unequivocally yes.  There are many fantastic schools in Ohio, but for a substantial number of people I have no doubt that Central State is the best alternative.  

  

     Although you shouldn't get the idea that everyone at Central State comes from a disadvantaged inner city background, a lot of our students do.  Many are the first in their family to ever attend college.  In many cases we are attempting to break the cycle of disregard for the importance of education.  Thus for many families we are helping to create a culture of higher education for the first time.

     Let me put it this way.  My own kids come from a culture in which Daddy went to college, and so did Grandpa and Grandma and even Great Grandpa and Great Grandma.   They have an excellent chance for academic success and a good job in adulthood.  But it's not necessarily the same for someone that grows up in predominantly African American West Dayton.  

    As  a society, we could just throw up our hands and say, "Well we're sorry, West Dayton kids.  You just don't have the money, the grades or the test scores or other academic achievements. And it's your own fault.  So, we're going to spend all our money on rich kids from the 'burbs, so college is not for you." 

    

    Some people would say that's exactly the right approach.  But to me the right answer is to continue to encourage everyone in our society to maximize their potential and to improve their ability to work and to contribute to our society.  It does make a difference to get people into higher education. Their lives will be more productive with college than they would be without it.  Or, from the State's perspective, you're going to get more tax revenue by having more college educated workers in your state than if you don't reach out.  We're also going to make a difference in the communities and help to develop depressed locations such as West Dayton.  It will make a big difference. 

    In particular a summer program called Upward Bound made a huge impression on me.  In Upward Bound, high school students come to college and are exposed to college, usually for the first time.  The program does not target the best students, but rather focuses on students that have potential but who might not be in a family or economic situation that encourages college.  I was amazed at the change in attitude that occurred with these kids.  Many were indifferent to the educational process when they came in, but by the time they left virtually all of them were determined to study hard and go to college--and not necessarily Central State.  Many hoped to apply to Ohio State or even some private colleges.

 

 

  

    The Upward Bound program makes an incredible difference for this group of students.  Being able to attend classes at an HBCU like Central State was unquestionably the best place for them to be exposed to Upward Bound.  I'm glad to have played a small part in it.  I think a few kids learned a little about math by attending my class.  I hope to see a few of them again in a few years when they sign up for my class at Central State! 

      If anything, I would like to see more programs like Upward Bound that get high school students in touch with the college process.  Too many of our young people are not exposed to college life and never consider entering college at all.  For too many Americans, colleges are little more than athletic clubs to be seen on TV.  But in fact, education is where it's at!  This is our hope for the future.  We're going to have a better future with higher education than without it.
      
        I think it is a great idea to locate a branch campus in West Dayton. It's on Germantown Pike, in one of the neighborhoods that was severely damaged in the riots of the late 1960's and which is only now recovering.  I predict Central State will become a pillar of the West Dayton community in time.  
  
        I might add that I actually went to school not far from there, at United Theological Seminary which at the time was located on Harvard Blvd.  Since that time, the property has been taken over by Omega Baptist Church, with our former Dean, Daryl Ward, as the Senior Pastor.  I might not be the greatest churchperson, but I had the greatest education possible, and I will always be grateful to UTS as well as the community.

     Of course, not everyone who is given the opportunity to attend college will run with it.  One of the things that gets me down is the large number of students that basically flunk themselves.  I have almost never had a student fail my class who attended every class and turned in each homework assignment.  Nevertheless, university-wide more than half the college freshmen do not complete college, and many students wipe out in freshman mathematics. I don't believe it's a lack of ability.  More than anything else it is a lack of vision, and a lack of belief in the possibility of academic success and future success as a person.  Sometimes, young people buy into the critics and the people who say they can't do it and that they're no good, instead of listening to those who say that they CAN succeed.    
     
   My biggest task as an educator is not to transmit information about factoring binonial equations, but to help people to believe in themselves.  Maybe it sounds corny, but it is absolutely true.  

    Central State University is making a big difference in the lives of its students  (not to mention its adjunct faculty!).  I believe it occupies an important niche in our educational system, and I hope it continues to be strong force to enrich people's lives, as well as the community it serves. 

Destroying Jobs in America

   
   What should the US do in order to improve its economy and help create jobs?  Suggestions are varied and run the gamut from conservative to liberal.  However, as a public service, the Village Elliot wishes to point out that we actually do the opposite.  Namely, our elected officials, both Republican and Democrat, are busy thinking of ways to destroy jobs.  This may seem odd, but it is actually true, despite the fact that President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney will protest loudly to the contrary in their upcoming debates.  Here are some examples of our national priorities



1.  Stop drilling for oil.  The US has recently found massive sources of oil in North Dakota as well as New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania that will extend the fossil fuel age another 50 years.  Well that is just silly.  Better that we should kiss up to our friends in OPEC.  We can just borrow money to pay for what we want and they will give it to us.  

 America may be afflicted with trillions of dollars of oil in the Bakken formation in North Dakota and Montana, and the Utica in Ohio, New York and Pennsylvania.  This has to be stopped or the gross domestic product will start growing again.  Shouldn't we rely on OPEC instead?  Why risk hurting their feelings?

2.  Stop drilling for natural gas.  Within the past five years, industry has brought shale gas to the market, which is going to buy us another 100 years to figure out how to go nuclear and solar.  That would be terrible.  So let's stop drilling for natural gas now, reduce our standard of living and wait for exciting green technologies to emerge now, rather than 100 years from now. 

Shouldn't we listen to the voice of reason and eliminate a trillion dollars worth of natural gas from our national portfolio?

3.   Stop mining coal.  Coal can be converted to oil, which would buy another 300 years of the fossil fuel age.  Well, we don't want that.  We must stop mining coal now, or the evil corporations will continue to impove the standard of living in America, which we don't want.  


4.  Shut down power plants.  That is definitely good for the economy and helps polar bears.  Don't forget, for every job that is destroyed by the government, two green jobs will certainly emerge to take their place. 

For God's sake, let us shut down power plants NOW, while there is STILL time....in a few more days or even hours, it may be TOO LATE!! 


5.  Shut down steel plants.  Steel is also very icky.  Hence we are muc better off now that  China produces 7 times as much steel as the US.  We can buy it on credit, so there is no need to return to the bad old days when America had to be the world leader in steel production. 

Steelworkers' Unions are difficult to deal with, so why not simply close the plants and move steel production to China?  That's the kind of efficiency American politicians strive for. 


6.  Shut down aluminum plants.  Who needs aluminum anyway, since beer can be contained in glass?  So what if China now produces 9 times the aluminum that we do?  We can buy it on credit.  

America will save a lot of energy by eliminating energy intensive aluminum plants like this one in Ravenswood WV.

7.   Shut down the lighting industry.  Let China figure out how to protect its workers from mercury poison.  We need to buy the light bulbs in order to shut down the filament light bulb industry.  We also hope to save some electicity so we can shut down some more power plants (although Chinese fluroscent lights don't deliver nearly the performance that the government allows them to advertise).  We can buy these on credit, so don't worry.  American politicians can proudly announce that there are now ZERO light bulb plants in the United States!  American politicians are absolutely beaming over their accomplishments

GE closed its last American incandescent light bulb plant in 2009. It is now illegal to manufacture light bulbs in the US!

8.  If you are a Republican, you can advocate shutting down the Big Three Automakers, but if you are a Democrat, you probably will advocate teaching them to manufacture government-designed fuel efficient wonders that run on batteries.  We can buy the batteries from China on credit, so no need to worry about that.  

 

Economic growth is known to be bad for the economy.  With any luck, American leadership will succeed in eliminating manufacturing, a key factor for economic growth.  It's working in Detroit, and it can work in your area as well.  

9.  Shut down electronics manufacturing plants.  It is ridiculous for the US to manufacture antiquated designs for televisions, DVDs, cell phones, etc.  All these are made more inexpensively overseas, and we can buy them on credit.  Hence, we need to make sure that these companies are kept off American soil.  


10.  Shut down chemical plants.  These plants increase the value of petroleum, and thus threaten to continue economic prosperity based on fossil fuels, which we absolutely don't want.  And don't forget, we can import these products using our magnificent credit line.  

Well, these are just a few ideas, but I think you get the idea.  American leadership has taught us that we really don't need drilling, mining,  manufacturing or other industries that result in environmental issues or politically fractious workers.  Let's keep the unemployment level high, borrow money for what we want, and enjoy life, shall we? 

Some of you wimps out there may think that the Village Elliot is exaggerating, but in fact American really has banned light bulbs, slashed production of steel and aluminum and is shutting down power plants as we speak.  

Meanwhile, don't forget to re-elect your leaders this November! 







 anyk

How to Destroy the Global Economy

    World leaders seem determined to destroy the global economy via their idiocy.  Ever helpful, the Village Elliot will elucidate for our leaders some simple steps that are likely to bring the world to the brink of destruction. 
     Actually, the global economy can probably be brought down by the United States (the number one economic superpower in the world), and China (the number two economic superpower).  
     In some ways the economies are built upon opposite principles.  China's amazing economic growth for the past 30 years has been fueled by an export-based economy, rolling up government surpluses (at least until recently) and discouraging consumption.  They few economic success in terms of their production.  Through a variety of laws and political maneuvers, their economy is export-friendly and consumer-unfriendly.  Hence, according to Wikipedia, China is by far the number one producer of commodities such as steel (8 times the US), aluminum (10 times the US), coal (3.5 times the US),  cement, (30 times the US) and many many others. The US produces more natural gas and oil, but otherwise we are nowhere near China.  Their manufacturing technology is also by far better than the US. China produces twice as many cars.  The US no longer even tries to produce its own TV's and VCRs and let's not even talk about cheap-o children's toys.   Overall, the Chinese Industrial Output was valued at about 4.4 trillion dollars versus 3.4 trillion for the US.  

 China produces a bit of steel---eight times the output of the US, which used to be number one in the world.

    The US, on the other hand, bases its economy based on comsumption, not production.  Hence we out-consume the Chinese by two to one even though China out-produces our industrial output. Figure that one out, please.    The US economy is partially financed by its incredible buying power, and strong banking (at least until recently) such that our politicians are gladly sponsoring some 1.5 trillion dollars of national debt per year, and an annual trade deficit of some 500 billion dollars.  Oh some of the congress may pretend to be upset at the deficit, but as long as the standard of living is maintained among likely voters, they have proven that they are willing to tolerate massive debt.  

    The problem is that when things go sour, the politicians try to fix things by doing what they have always done.  In China, there are now warehouses that are completely full of merchandise that they can't sell because overseas demand is completely saturated.  I mean, how many Happy Meals can they expect American kids to eat?   The average Chinese worker works 60 hours a week but doesn't make enough money be able to afford to buy the products that they make.    The solution?  Lower the price and export even more!!

   In the US we have high unemployment and stagnant growth, not to mention an inconceivably large deficit.  It would only make sense if we could modify our system to favor hiring the people who are now unemployed so that they could make some of the products that are currently imported.  However, our politicians simply can't imagine  that.  Our politician's solution?  Borrow more money and import even more to maintain the average standard of living.  If we have additional unemployment, it doesn't matter as long as purchasing power among the employed goes up to compensate.  

    What would happen if these politically imposed economic trends continue?  China will produce more and more stuff at a lower and lower price while it's people all suffer in poverty.  In the US, rich people will have warehouses full of possessions imported from China, while the rest of the American people are unemployed.   Likely this is not going to actually happen however, because at some point the people will wake up and toss these idealogues out of office.

  What's really going on here is that politicians are too rigid in their thinking.  Any economist can tell you that you need different strategies to fit a changing situation.  When the economy is bad, you need tax cuts and increased government spending.  Conversely when the economy is growing you need to increase taxation and cut back on spending.  This is in fact what happened in the Clinton era, but was reversed by Bushanomics in which we cut taxes and increased spending with a growing economy.  Not smart. 


   This whole thing would work if China would find policies that would allow its workers to be paid enough to buy more of the products that are produced, and export less.  On the other hand, the US needs to employ its workers, and one way to do that is to decrease imports and manufacture more products domestically.  That results in more hiring and more jobs and less borrowing.  

   In the case of the US, this is unpalatable, however.  We really don't care that much about the unemployed, and we certainly don't want jobs for involving commodities like energy, or the basic building blocks of economic growth including  iron, steel, cement, non-ferrous metals, chemicals, etc.  Heavy industry is considered environmentally icky, and if we hire a bunch of workers, they just unionize anyway.  So politicians are not comfortable with heavy industry.     Hence our politicians are not adverse to destroying jobs in these fields, and allowing them to go overseas..   Better we should create a new economy based on Americans pushing paper around,  and allow China to produce products and sell them to us at ever lower rates. 

America does not really care about workers in heavy industry, as terrible as that sounds.   Give American politicians the choice between cheap stuff from China versus low unemployment, and they'll take the stuff, thank you very much. 

Bipartisan Dysfunction in the Middle East

     Although the major parties disagree on a number of issues, there seems to be widespread agreement on the policy of intervention in the Middle East.  In particular, both parties have embraced the George W. Bush doctrine of Regime Change, in which America is justified in taking military or other action in the Middle East if governments are immoral or overly oppressive.  This was invoked in the case of Iraq and Afghanistan after failing to find Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).  By providing these countries with constitutions based on the American version, the idea is that these countries will become friendly to the United States and the West.  

     Where do we get such ideas?  I've always thought that American oilmen like Bush and Cheney were overly impressed with their counterparts in the Middle East.  Namely, Middle Eastern countries are places where oil guys go to make millions of dollars, while also being wined and dined, complete with trips to harems and all kinds of wonderful perks.   But this kind of lifestyle is not representative of the country as a whole.  Life in a dictatorship or monarch is terrible for less fortunate subjects.  Average people hate their government and the rich people at the top.  

     This discontent does not mean, however, that they are pro-US or pro Israel just because they hate their own government.  This lesson was learned all too painfully in Iraq, where Saddam's ouster and execution did not lead to solving the long-term discord between Shi'ites and Sunnis.  Just imagine Ron Paul trying to live with Jane Fonda and you can get an idea of the difficulty. 

   Similarly, US politicians would love for the enemy to be defeated in Afghanistan, so that we could lovingly rebuild the country (at much cost to ourselves) and thereby provide a better life for the inhabitants.  Unfortunately, it seems that many Afghanistanis just do not think in those terms.  They have been fighting in those regions for centuries and they don't seem inclined to stop just because it would be convenient for American politicians to do so.  They are not following the script, and for that reason we are continuing the fight in Afghanistan even though bin Ladin is dead.  No one knows what will happen to signal to us that the war is over and that it is time to come home.  Both US major parties are determined to continue to fight for at least a while longer, with Republicans hoping that the war will continue even longer than the Democrats want.  

    Nevertheless, the Obama Administration has embraced the so-called Arab Spring movement(s) which resulted in the outster of Mubarak in Egypt, and more recently Gaddafi in Libya.  In the case of Libya, the United States and NATO provided military support for Gaddafi's overthrow.  At the same time, President Obama has called for the ouster of President Assad in Syria.  The hope is that these actions will lead to stable, progressive governments in those countreis.   

    But in Egypt, this has given rise to the Muslim Brotherhood, a fundamentalist Islamist organization.  Is this likely to lead to a pluralistic government friendlier to the West than the Mubarak regime?  I doubt it. 

   In Libya, for some reason Gaddafi became intolerable to the US, and we had to send the military there to provide air cover for the revolution.  Why is this?   Back in the day, President Reagan had similar problems with Gaddafi.  Although Reagan had the reputation as a warmonger compared to Obama's as a peacenik, the fact is that Reagan never found it necessary to overthrow Gaddafi, whereas Obama found the temptation to be irresistable.  Reagan did blow up Gaddafi's palace one time in order to get his attention.  But Reagan treated Gaddafi like a juvenile delinquent, and he was the Principal.  Throughout that time, Reagan and the US never had any illusion that Libya was a friend of the US, although we did buy their oil. 

 Reagan well undestood Gaddafi was a rouge dictator, and that the country was being misled by radical Islam, but did not feel that the situation would be improved by the US trying to install a new goverment there.  


    The available evidence shows that factions within Libya continue to hate their government.  After all, they have just completed a Civil War.  In America, we are still not over our Civil War after 150 years.  It may take a similar length of time in Libya to recover.  But they hate the US even more.    We are not just a foreign country.  We represent infidelism, or the opposition to the faithful submission to Islam.   Until they evolve away from those beliefs, nobody is going to be our pal in that world.  Particularly if we are so stupid that we think that we can back one faction in a Civil War and then have everyone like us when we are done.  

 

President Obama and Secretary Clinton have embraced the Bush doctrine of regime change.   (AP Photo/Jim Watson, Pool)

   Recent protests, triggered by an anti-Muhammad movie, show just how deep anti-US sentiment really is.  We should not be confused by the assassination of our diplomats in Libya, however.  That was an act of terrorism by a small group of people, and the entire population does not bear respsonsibility for that action.  Both actions may be very anti-US, but the vast majority of people involved in protests did not in fact willfully plot to kill the ambassador.  But the broader expression of anti-US sentiment is prevalent within the Middle East and indicates that the vast majority of the people are in fact against us.  President Obama and Secretary Clinton are quite naive if they expect anything resembling gratitude.  After the assassination, Clinton found herself asking, "“How can this happen in a country we help liberate, in a city (Benghazi) we helped save from destruction?”  Clinton is certainly correct in pointing out that the assasination of diplomats is the action of a few people, and that the vast majority of persons involved in protests against the US were not directly involved in conspiring.  On the other hand, a better question, is whether the anti-US hatred has changed in Libya or elsewhere because of our actions, and the available evidence is that it has not.  That should be obivous to Secretary Clinton and the Administration, but it seems not to be.   By interfering in internal politics in Libya, no matter how well intentioned, we probably can expect to earn fear, mistrust and hatred.  We have chosen to disrespect the principle of National Sovereignty in which foreign powers do not interfere in the internal politics of other nations.  Well, that principle has been thrown overboard.  Welcome to the new millenium, in which the United States expects to support groups aspiriing to rule in the Middle East, even to the point of sending air support and bombers to support the groups of our choice. 
  

    The Village Elliot questions whether the US is realistic to expect popular support in the countries in which it works to overthrow the government, whether by moral support (Egypt, Syria) or economic and military intervention and bombings (Libya, Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran).  And how about the calls in this election season to take military action against Syria and Iran?

     My favorite is Governor Rick Perry from Texas who during the Republican presidential debates, advocated invading Iraq yet again.  

     Yee haw!  Let's invade Iraq again!

      However, both the far right Libertarians and the far left Greens favor a policy of non-intervention.

 Jill Stein of the Green Party.

  Jill Stein is the Green Party candidate.  She says:  " We're going to see it's not over in Libya . You don't solve problems, you don't promote international stability and democracy by bringing in the army and the bombs. That does not create national stability. The humanitarian concerns were legitimate but those humanitarian aims were really cast aside very early. After NATO entered the fray it quickly morphed from protecting civilians to regime change. There was no legitimate international justification for that."   

 Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party. 

   Gary Johnson, Liberatarian presidential candidate, puts it thusly:  "In one corner, we have the U.S. apologists warning that -- after the murders in Libya and the attack on our embassy in Cairo -- we must be careful not to say or do anything that might hurt someone's feelings. In the other corner, we have the chest-thumpers demanding that we find somebody to shoot -- and shoot them.

     I have a better idea: Stop trying to manipulate and manage history on the other side of the globe and then being shocked when things don't turn out the way we wanted. As far as what we do right now in response to the tragic events of this week, it's actually pretty simple. Get our folks out of places they don't need to be -- and out of harm's way -- and cut off every dime of U.S. tax dollars we are sending to clearly ungrateful regimes."


   In the opinion of the Village Elliot, the so-called extremists are--in this case--making more sense than the supposedly centrist Democrats and Republicans.  I want America to quit trying to be everyone's friend in the Middle East.  Be willing to deal with an adversay as Reagan did.  Buy their oil if it's for sale, but do so without deciding to take over their country and spend billions "rehabilitating" them.  What we are doing in Libya and other parts of the unstable Middle East is nonsense and we need to stop it.

Cycling is Corrupt and Hypocritical

 

     Pardon me for being cynical, but the Lance Armstrong story can not possibly be so simple.  Organized cycling would like you and me to believe that there was just one bad guy in the sport, namely Lance Armstrong, and now that we have proof that he used performance enhancing drugs, the rightful winners will be recognized.

     The fact of the matter is, however, that despite hundreds if not thousands of tests, there was no test result indicating that he used PED.  The same with Marion Jones, the jailed  olympic sprinter.  She never failed a drug test, but instead was convicted by testimony.  The conclusion is obvious:  the athletes know how to defeat the test.  Evidently  they have masking agents or some other way to completely defeat these tests.  THE TESTS DO NOT WORK.   

    People who get caught do something stupid, like forgetting to use the stuff that removes traces from urine.  The evidence says that if you are careful, you can enjoy at least a decade with frequent testing and not get caught.  

    Since that is true, it is very hard to believe that the second place finisher is any more clean than Lance Amrstrong.  Or the third place finisher, or the fourth or fifth.  Why not take PEDs, if the chances of getting caught are very very small?

    Do you believe that ten of Lance Armstrong's teammates decided to turn him simply because they are brave and honest?  No, it makes more sense to believe that they were threatened with going to jail if they didn't out him, because THEY WERE DOING IT TOO.  

    However, organized cycling does not want to admit that it is 100% corrupt.  Instead, they are trying to promote the fiction that there was only one person  of significance who ever cheated with performance enhancing drugs, namely Lance Armstrong, and the rest are all innocent and play by the rules.  

    I'm inclined to believe that virtually all of the top 1000 cyclists, and probably most of the high school kids who raced, used PEDs of one form or another.  Why wouldn't they use them, if there is a way to avoid detection, and you can't win without doing it because everyone else is?

   That is the reason why they are going on this witch hunt.  They would like to blame the entire doping scandal on Lance Armstrong, rather than admitting that all of the athletes are doing the same stuff.   Well, the whole thing is disgusting and a farce.  If you're going to throw the book at Lance Armstrong, fine.  Let him go to jail.  But let's also put the next top 1000 cyclists in jail because they did they same stuff.  And let's put the officials in charge of cycling in jail for a much longer time because they are willfully lying about the extent of the problem and in effect protecting the huge number of people who dope in order to blame the whole scandal on one person.  

Positive Cleveland Browns Analysis!

    Some of my fellow Browns fans say I have been too harsh on the Browns.  That is not true.  I do think that the team has been at a disadvantage because of financial problems in the ownership, and now that they have a new owner, things are going to get better.  For 2012, they are definitely in the top 5 of football teams in Ohio, right behind the Bengals, Ohio State Buckeyes, UC Bearcats and Miami Redhawks.  

   Some of you object to my prediction that the Browns will draft a quarterback in the first round next year in order to replace the aging Brandon Weeden, who will be stuck as the number two quarterback, while Seneca Wallace finishes the year as the number one quarterback.

   Well, we seem on course for that to happen, as we now understand the Browns strategy of drafting offensive position players this year in order to pump up the value of the franchise and prepare it for sale.  When they have to play games, however, it will become all too apparent the Browns just don't have enough talent.  

  

   Nevertheless, I've decided to be a good sport and issue some story lines to make my faithful readers (and there are probably about ten of you out there) happy.  Here we go:

   Number One:  The Browns can easily afford to give up a 4th, 5th and 7th round pick to move up one spot in the first round for Trent Richardson, and they won't miss a number 2 in 2013 for a  wide recieiver with a drug history, because the Browns are so deep that only future Hall of Famers have a chance to make their roster.  

This Cleveland Browns fan is literally crying with joy at the news that the Browns were able to trade four draft picks for Trent Richardson.

   Number Two:  AFC Central Quarterbacks Roethlisberger, Flacco and Dalton  have combined for 21 playoff games, including 6 AFC Championship Games and 3 Super Bowls.  But we think that being a minor league baseball pitcher like Brandon Weeden was actually better preparation!

   Number Three:  After the Browns' Peyton Hillis totalled 1654 yards from scrimmage in 2010, we think the Browns are vastly improved by getting rid of him!

A jubilant Browns fan celebrates the departure of Peyton Hillis.

   Number Four:  After finishing 4-12, the Browns were smart not to sign any free agents, because their roster is just LOADED with TALENT!

   Number Five:  The Browns rebuilding program is going so well, it is not necessary to add payroll.  Spending way under the salary cap is the logical move for a team in this position!

  Number Six:  The Browns have an excellent training program, and losing two regulars during training should not be a concern, especially since their spectacular depth will cover the loss of Phil Taylor and Chris Gocong.  

   A Cleveland Browns fan, intimidating James Harrison of the Steelers!  Take that!

     Number 7:  Goldman Sachs will place bets on the Browns with Las Vegas rather than investing in their usual stocks and bonds, because it is so certain that the Browns will win this year. 

     Number 8:  The Browns are developing a more sophisticated offense than any other team in the league, thanks to he ingenious Brad Childress, who was Brett Favre's favorite coach.   

 Brad Childress explains how his new offensive schemes are certain to eclipse his achievements with Brett Favre and the Vikings.  

     Number 9:  Then there's Pat Shurmur, who helped the St Louis Rams score the 26th most points in the NFL in 2010 as their offensive coordinator.  With this kind of brilliant record, he is just the guy to lead the Browns on their Super Bowl charge in 2012!    

 

Browns fans are giddy, anticipating a return to the playoffs in 2012.

     Number 10:  The Browns biggest advantage is stability, with Mike Holmgren, Tom Heckert and Pat Shurmur all expected to stay for long careers in Cleveland.  
 ***
    So there you have it, faithful fans.  Ten positive story lines about the Cleveland Browns.  There is no reason to be anything but optimistic for the upcoming season.  
   

Born to Run

     I think Born to Run (the Emmylou Harris version, not be be confused with the song of the same name by Bruce Springstein) could be a really good song for someone. 


     

Some 30 years ago, Emmylou Harris cut a version that crested at number 3 in the Country Western Charts.  

There's nothing wrong with Number 3, but I always thought that it could be a much better song.  

First of all, I wish that they had had a fiddle player for this song, preferably the lead singer.  Instead, they kind of use the electric bass player to carry the song as a rockabilly lead, which is an odd choice.  To me it just doesn't work. 

Another problem is that the "Hot Band" isn't really all that hot, at least not for this song.  To me they look like they are bored, and just playing to collect a paycheck.  They just don't look like they are having fun. They seem to be looking at the floor, and they rarely smile or show any emotion at all.  I think if I were playing with Emmylou Harris I would go absolutely nuts (in fact, after 30 years Emmylou is still a babe, and yes I am ready to quit my day job and tour with her at any time!), but you just don't see any reaction from this band despite their obvious talent.

That said, it is a great song with a fantastic melody, and interesting lyrics that  tell the story of an untamed "bad girl." This is pretty much announced in the second line "No man is master to me, I ain't that kind."  Yikes! 

I think I know someone from the Morgantown musical scene who could really take this song to the next level.   Not that I am any kind of expert, but I think it could be a hit.

Born to Run

Well I never did crawl and I never did toe that line
No man is a master to me I ain't that kind
I just put on my traveling shoes
If you wanna win you just can't lose 
the time
Or stay behind
Well I was born to run
To get ahead of the rest
And all that I wanted was to be the best
Just to feel free and be someone
I was born to be fast I was born to run

Well I take the chances sometimes I've made mistakes
But you don't get nothing unless you take the breaks
Living as dangerous as dynamite
Sure makes you feel nervous but it makes you feel alright
Makes you feel alright
Well I was born to run
To get ahead of the rest
And all that I wanted was to be the best
Just to feel free and be someone
I was born to be fast I was born to run

Nobody's gonna make me do things their way
By the time you figure it out it's yesterday
Well it comes to he who waits I'm told
But I don't need it when I'm old and gray
Yea I want it today
Well I was born to run
To get ahead of the rest
And all that I wanted was to be the best
Just to feel free and be someone
I was born to be fast I was born to run