Blogcritics Author: Terry Mitchell

Announcement: Short-content feeds

Phillip Winn — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT

Sunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding.

A Workable Alternative to Term Limits

Terry Mitchell — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 00:36:30 EST

Most of us are aware of the fact that Washington politicians start raising money and running for re-election as soon as they get into office. Many citizens and various government-accountability advocacy groups have done little more than complain from time to time. However, some of them, along with many members of the media, have been pushing for term limits as a solution. But is that really the solution we need? Even with term limits, we would still be left with the same old problems, only in smaller doses, i.e., politicians would still be playing the same old campaigning and fund raising games for whatever amount of subsequent terms they are allowed. Also, we would still be stuck with the situation in which sitting senators and House members (even those with no remaining terms for the office they hold) spend their time running for higher office. I say forget about term limits in Washington -- I have a better solution. I call it ''term interruptions.'' Here's how it would work: No president/vice president, senator, or member of the House could serve two consecutive terms in the same office and would have to sit out at least two years before being eligible for a different federal office, although he/she could be elected to an unlimited number of terms in any number of federal offices. For example, a U.S. Representative could not succeed himself/herself in that office and would have to wait until he/she has been out of office for at least two years before being eligible for president/vice president, a Senate seat, or any seat in the House of Representatives. In other words, a sitting president/vice president, senator, or House member could not run for re-election and he/she could not run for any elective seat in the legislative or executive branches of the federal government. That way, they could all focus on serving their constituents rather than getting re-elected. They could use the two off-years for campaigning and raising money. However, this proposal could be problematic for the U.S. House of Representatives, since its members currently serve only two-year terms. Under my plan, the House would see a complete turnover (all 435 members) every two years. Therefore, I would propose four-year terms for U.S. Representatives. Of course, we would still get a complete turnover in the House, only after every four years instead of every two years, so there would still be a problem. To prevent a complete turnover every four years, terms could be staggered so that half the members of the House are up for re-election every two years. However, in the first House election under my plan, half of the House would get four-year terms, with the other half getting two-year terms. A way to determine who gets the four-year terms in the initial election would be as follows: The House member in each state with widest margin of victory in that election would get a four-year term. The 168 remaining members (on an at-large basis) with the next highest victory margins would also get four-year terms, for a total of 218. The remaining 217 members would get only two-year terms for that election only. For the next election only, members who got two-year terms would be allowed to run for re-election, without sitting out two years. Then, beginning with that election, they would all get four-year terms and the term interruptions rules would fully take effect.

Terry Mitchell is a software engineer, freelance writer, amateur political analyst, and blogger from Virginia, USA. He writes and blogs on a variety of subjects such as politics, current events, society and culture, technology, religion, health and well-being, personal finance, and sports. His commentaries offer a unique point of view that is not often found in the mainstream media.

Winning a Nomination Without a Majority?

Terry Mitchell — Sat, 17 Feb 2007 02:01:37 EST

As is the case prior to every primary season, pundits are speculating about the possibility that a candidate could win a major party's presidential nomination in 2008 without getting a majority of the votes in the primaries and caucuses. They believe this could happen if there are more than two candidates who garner strong support during a party's nominating process. In this case, 35-40% of the vote could be enough to win most of the primaries and caucuses. But would it be enough to win the nomination?On the Democratic side, it is highly unlikely because delegates are generally awarded on a percentage-of-the-vote basis during the primaries and caucuses. For example, a candidate winning with 40% of the vote would be awarded 40% of the available delegates. But to win the nomination, a candidate must get at least one more than 50% of the total delegates available. Obviously, constantly winning with 35-40% of the total in each contest will not get a candidate to this required goal. Now, with the Democrats, not all of the delegates are awarded during the primaries and caucuses. Some of delegates are set aside as "super delegates." These delegates are made up of high-ranking party "regulars" and elected officials like members of the Senate, members of House of Representatives, governors, lieutenant governors, members of state legislatures, etc. Their votes are not dependent upon how their respective states voted in the primaries and caucuses. They are officially uncommitted and can vote for whomever they wish at the nominating convention. However, a candidate who only gets 40% of delegates awarded during the primaries and caucuses would be hard pressed to win the nomination, even if he or she were to get the votes of 80% of all the super delegates. On the Republican side, it's a different story because the primary and caucus delegates are generally awarded on a winner-take-all basis. For example, if John McCain won the South Carolina Primary, he would get all of that state's convention delegates, even if he only got 35% of the vote. In addition, the Republican Party does not employ the use of super delegates -- all of its convention delegates are awarded during its nominating contests. Therefore, it's plausible that a GOP presidential candidate could win the nomination without getting a majority of the votes in the primaries and caucuses. However, is this kind of thing probable? Based on the last 35 years of presidential election history, I would say it's not. Since 1972, almost every nomination in both parties has come down to a two-man (and in many cases a one-man) race by the time the primaries and caucuses were halfway completed. The recent trend has been to have a presumed nominee (for all intents and purposes) already selected by mid-March.When the nominating process begins, I hope at least one party will resist the temptation to reach an early consensus and steer clear of the tendency to coalesce around one candidate after only a handful of caucuses and primaries. How much fun is that? Hopefully, they'll preserve a little suspense this time around. But don't count on it.

The Hypocrisy of Insider Trading Laws

Terry Mitchell — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 02:29:48 EST

Perhaps I'm the only person on earth who can see the hypocrisy of insider trading laws. In my opinion, these laws run counter the notion we accept in every other aspect of society, that life is unfair. In every facet of life, there are people who have access to advantages that others do not have. However, we don't attempt to make these advantages illegal except when it comes to insider trading.I've often heard the argument that it is not so much about fairness as it is about trust of the system, i.e., that people will not invest their money knowing that others have advantages they don't have themselves. Baloney! The advantages people have in other things do not cause those without these advantages to not participate. I will cite several examples to show how the lack of similar laws in other aspects of life does not cause any real problems. They will also show how hypocritical it is to create special laws just for the world of investment and not apply the same logic anywhere else.Let's look at fraternities, sororities, and other private clubs and organizations. It's completely legal to join them even though many of them are exclusive in nature and do not allow just anyone to join. Of course, this right is covered by the freedom of association guarantees in the U.S. Constitution. However, being a member often gains a person access to benefits that he or she wouldn't have by not being a member. One of these benefits is access to desirable high-level positions within major corporations. Many of these positions are not available to non-members. That's not fair but I have yet to see a law against it. Despite that, people still apply for good jobs within corporations every day. They don't sit on the sidelines and not apply just because they believe the insiders are getting all the best positions.What about inherited wealth? It's not fair for someone to take advantage of their inherited wealth when most people don't have this kind of access. However, it's perfectly legal. Many people with inherited wealth have a brand new car given to them as soon as they are old enough to drive. They have their college tuition paid for. They usually have a nice cushy job awaiting them when their college days are over, regardless of how well (or poorly) they performed academically. They don't even have to work at all if they don't want to. How can this be fair when many other people have to work for everything they get? Until there are laws against it, everyone else will refuse to go to college, work, or pay for anything they get, right? Wrong! Most people realize that there are people with inherited wealth who don't have to work for anything. People accept that as a fact of life and go on with their lives. They go to college (for which they have to most of the tuition themselves), go to work, and pay their bills every day. Life goes on and no fairness laws are needed here.What about people who are attractive and/or have charming personalities? Having these assets is just fine, but it's unfair for people to use them for personal gain when others like me, who are ugly and blunt, don't have this privilege. However, I've never heard of any attempt (in this country anyway) to make a law against using good looks and positive personality traits to one's advantage. People use these assets to help them land desirable jobs and work their way up the corporate ladder. They use these assets to help them win friends and get favors the rest of us can't get. They use these assets to attract higher quality mates than those of us who are lacking can attract. How does this make the rest of us feel? It makes us feel so discouraged that we never apply for a job, attempt to make friends, or perform any normal daily activity, right? Of course not, that would be silly. We go on with our lives just like the folks with the good looks and charming personalities. We are not going to sit out on life, waiting for laws to be passed to restrain all the pretty and charming people from getting a better deal in life.I could go on and on, of course, but it seems to me that if insider trading is illegal because of the unfairness aspect, we ought to outlaw all other forms of unfairness as well. Sure, insider trading is unfair and very unethical. However, I doubt that the lack of laws against it would cause the markets to collapse. Other areas of our daily lives have not collapsed under the weight of unfairness that legally occurs every day. Also, when we outlaw some forms of unfairness while ignoring or even encouraging other forms of it (some of which are just as unethical), isn't that in itself unfair?

Emancipation from the IRS

Terry Mitchell — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 00:56:56 EST

I was recently talking to a lady who told me she would have to see her financial advisor soon because she and her husband were nearing the "magic" age of 70 1/2, when the IRS requires people to start taking distributions from their 401(k) accounts or face stiff financial penalties. Why does the IRS get to tell us when we have to spend our 401(k) dollars? Yes, I know a 401(k), for most people, is the best vehicle for tax-free growth of their retirement nest egg. However, because of restrictions like the one I mentioned above, I decided several years ago to hedge my bet and start taking a portion of the money that I had been putting into my 401(k) on a pre-tax basis, and put it, on an after-tax basis, into a Roth IRA, which is less restrictive than a 401(k). However, that's a decision I should not have had to make. And why is it that very few people question the requirement by the IRS that we spend time keeping receipts and preparing taxes? In essence, we are being required to perform accounting-type duties by the government -- with no compensation. When someone is required to do work for no pay, he or she is essentially a slave -- in this case, a slave to the IRS. I thought slavery was abolished in this country during the Lincoln presidency. Apparently, someone carved out some kind of government exception to the Emancipation Proclamation as well as the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. A few years back, after having spent some time preparing my taxes, I calculated the market value of that time by multiplying the average hourly rate of an entry-level accountant (information that was readily available on the Internet) times the amount of hours I had spent on my taxes, both the collecting of receipts and other data and the preparation of the forms. I then sent this information to the IRS and requested payment for my time. Needless to say, the IRS worker who responded to my request didn't see the humor in it at all. As long as we have the income tax, we will all continue to be slaves to the IRS. The keys to emancipation can only be found in the replacement of the income tax with a federal sales tax. Under such a system, our only responsibility as taxpayers would be to ante up at the cash register. That's it! No more receipts to keep! No more time or money spent to prepare forms! No tax returns to file! No more unintelligible rules to try to figure out! No more deductions or exemptions! No more penalties or interest on back taxes you may have mistakenly not paid!No more need for special savings accounts for retirement, education, medical bills, etc. -- all savings would be put away and allowed to grow tax-free! No more fear of IRS penalties for spending some of your savings when you need to (or not spending it when you don't want to) -- and no more need to check the rules or ask permission! No more Alternative Minimum Tax! No more double taxation -- money you earn would be taxed only once -- when you spend it! No more worrying about the tax implications of your investment decisions -- thus no need to use financial advisors for that purpose!I don't know about you, but I'm in favor of anything that would make my life easier and result in less responsibility and accountability on my part. That's exactly what the transition from a federal income tax to a federal sales tax would accomplish. But is it too good to be true? Actually, such a plan is quite feasible. Now, many would consider a sales tax to be inherently regressive. However, it wouldn't have to be. To prevent an undue burden on the poor, all food items and medicines could be exempt from sales tax. In addition, certain other low or moderately priced essentials such as clothing could also be exempt. For example, a pair of $20 sneakers might be exempt, whereas a pair with all the bells and whistles selling for $100 would not. Congress could draw up the guidelines and adjust them every year or so to account for increases in the cost of living. Unfortunately, there's a catch -- members of Congress will not act on such a radical overhaul of the tax system unless we the people overwhelmingly demand that they do so. Since Congress consists mainly of lawyers, it's in their interest to maintain a complicated system that's full of loopholes, legal jargon, and vague rules that the average person can't understand. That way, when they cheat us and double tax our money, we're none the wiser for it. Also, many special interest groups and their lobbyists, who have members of Congress by the seat of the pants, have a vested interest in keeping the current system, along with all the goodies they constantly siphon out of it.However, in the interest of the average taxpayer, the system should be so simple that any sixth-grader could easily understand it. Call, write, or email your Senators and U.S. Representative and let them know you will no longer tolerate the federal income tax system and that you want it abolished and replaced with a sales tax. If enough of us will do that, they'll listen.

A Viewpoint Not Represented in Mainstream Media

Terry Mitchell — Wed, 7 Feb 2007 11:52:00 EST

Mainstream media regularly presents views from Democratic (liberal), Republican (neo-conservative), and independent (moderate) perspectives. However, I rarely, if ever, see my point of view represented.Let me sum up my politics by saying that I believe our most fundamental right as human beings is the right not to be bothered if we don't want to be. Supreme Justice Louis D. Brandeis got it right when he said, "The makers of the Constitution conferred the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by all civilized men - the right to be left alone." I am somewhere in-between a Goldwater Republican and a libertarian. I do not go along with the agenda of the neo-cons who currently control the Republican Party, nor do I completely adhere to the Libertarian Party line. In fact, people often become exasperated with me because of my stubborn refusal to genuflect to any of today's standard ideologies. I believe in small government whose only functions are to do for us what we cannot logically do for ourselves as individuals. I don't believe in a "nanny state" that tells adults they must wear seat belts or motorcycle helmets. I believe we should fight wars only when our national security is directly threatened and only after all other means of resolution have been exhausted. I believe in pre-emptive strikes in certain cases, but never pre-emptive wars. When we do have to go to war, I believe we should use a take-no-prisoners approach, with the ultimate goal of vaporizing our enemies. I don't believe a military draft should ever be imposed. I do not believe in nation-building. I believe in legal immigration and would increase the quotas for most countries if I could, but I think illegal immigrants should be treated like the criminals they really are - not given special rights or handouts.I do not believe in attempting to legislate morality (or immorality). I believe people should be allowed to do what they want, as long as their actions do not adversely affect or directly threaten someone else. Just because something is vile is not in itself enough to make it illegal. I do not believe in policing thoughts, i.e., if someone is reading, hearing, or watching something that might cause them to think negative thoughts, it's not my concern. At the same time, I believe in accepting personal responsibility for one's own choices and that each individual must bear the natural consequences for his or her actions, e.g., don't say you didn't know smoking causes lung cancer and don't blame the government when you get HIV due to your promiscuous, careless, and/or perverted behavior. I believe tobacco, alcohol, and pot are equally bad for a person's health, but should be equally unrestricted.I believe the rights of speech and expression, no matter how offensive or inciting, should be completely unabridged except for direct, explicit threats or speech that directly endangers others, e.g., yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. I believe implied threats should be protected speech for the simple fact the implication could easily be misunderstood. I don't believe so-called "hate speech" by one person should be blamed for a violent act committed by another. I don't believe pornography, indecency, or violence in the media should be blamed either. If given the chance, most convicts will blame anything, everything, and everyone but themselves for their own actions. That's human nature, so I don't put much credence in studies that say outside forces like that cause people to rob, rape, or murder.I believe that abortion - except in cases of rape, non-consensual incest, or endangerment of the mother's life or health - is murder. I believe it's proper to use the death penalty against those who are beyond any doubt guilty of certain types of murder. However, I believe it should be applied fairly and consistently. If not, then it should not be used at all.I believe that punishment for those who deliberately harm others and/or their property should be swift and sure, but not excessive. Punishment should never include torture or humiliation and should be applied by the penal system, and not by other prisoners. Inmates should not be allowed to set up a "pecking order" or have any control over the conditions at a prison or jail. The prison administration should rule with an iron fist and enforce zero tolerance toward aggressive behavior. No inmate should ever, under any condition, be left unsupervised with one or more other inmates. Any inmate harmed by another inmate should be allowed to sue those responsible for security at the facility in which he or she is detained. No arrestee or inmate should ever be subjected to a strip search unless probable cause can be established that he or she is carrying contraband on their person and is refusing to voluntarily hand it over. I believe in absolute property rights. People should be allowed to do whatever they want on their own property, regardless of zoning laws, as long as they are not creating a hazard for anyone else. Ugly paint colors or structures do not constitute hazards. The government should not be allowed to forcibly take all or part of someone's property.I believe anyone who is mentally sound and has never been convicted of a violent crime should be allowed to own any kind of firearm he or she wants. I believe in capitalism in its purist form. I believe the republican (little 'r') form of government, which the United States has, is a much better form of government than a democracy. Democracy is nothing more than mob rule in which the good of the majority always trumps the rights of the minority. I believe in a color-blind society in which everyone is given equal access and opportunity without discrimination or special favors.I believe in separation of church and state, but I'm not an extremist about it. I see no reason why the government can't play favorites with the majority religion (in our case, Christianity) when it comes to open displays, as long as those who practice other religions are free to do so without encumbrance. If someone is offended by the open display of the majority religion in our country, then they are free to leave anytime they want.I believe no one has the right not to be offended by another person's speech, religion, dress, etc. Being offended once in a while is the price we have to pay for living in a free and open society -- a small price indeed!

Twelve Frustrating Ways to Lose a Football Game

Terry Mitchell — Sun, 4 Feb 2007 11:02:19 EST

Super Bowl weekend signals the end of another football season. Even if your favorite high school, college, or pro team is top-notch, chances are they suffered several frustrating losses before the season was over. Some ways of losing are just more frustrating than others. Therefore, I have compiled a list of twelve of the more frustrating ways that games can be lost. Many of these are actual ways in which my favorite team, the Washington Redskins, have lost games in the past. So, here we go:1) Your team collapses and blows the game after having built a seemingly insurmountable lead.2) Your team is down by 20 or more points and almost completely closes the gap, except for the last field goal or touchdown they need but just can't quite get. 3) Your team maintains a small lead for most of the game, while failing to cash in on multiple easy opportunities the other team gives them to extend the lead and/or put the game away. Instead, they let the other team continue to hang around. The other team, meanwhile, gets very few scoring opportunities, except for the one near the end of the game, when they score and take the lead for good. 4) The other team maintains a lead for the entire game. Every time your team scores to get within a touchdown or field goal, the other team also scores to extend the lead again. This scenario is repeated over and over again throughout most of the game. In the last few minutes of the game, your team finally stops the other team from extending the lead and gets the ball back with a chance to win, but then the other team finally stops your team. 5) Your team dominates almost every aspect of the game - rushing yards, passing yards, total offense, and total defense - but too many turnovers prevent them from winning. 6) Your team's offense is an irresistible force, pounding the other team's defense into submission - until they get inside the red zone, that is. Then they freeze up like a block of ice, unable to score touchdowns and missing many of their field goal attempts. Of course, the other team scores every time they get inside your team's 40-yard line. 7) After nothing has gone right the entire day, it looks as if your team is going to win in spite of everything, as they score a touchdown to move ahead with little or no time left on the clock. But wait - what's that yellow thing lying in the end zone? Oh no, a penalty flag! The touchdown is being called back because of a penalty. Your team loses.8) Your team, starting from inside their own 10-yard line with under two minutes left, miraculously is able to march more than 90 yards down the field and score a touchdown to capture (or re-capture) the lead. Pandemonium erupts on the sideline as your team begins to celebrate. But the celebration goes a bit too far and your team is penalized 15 years for unsportsmanlike conduct, assessed on the ensuing kickoff. But that shouldn't be a problem though, as there are only 20 seconds left on the clock and besides, the other team has no timeouts left. However, they return the short-field kickoff inside your team's 40-yard line with eight seconds left. Then, with a quick sideline pass, they get inside your team's 30 and out of bounds with one second left. On the final play of the game, they kick a long field goal to win.9) With your team down late in the game, it looks as if they are finally going to get the ball back for one last chance to win. It's fourth down for the other team and they are about to punt from the 50-yard line. In an attempt to come away with better field position, your team goes for the block and it works! However, someone on the other team picks up the ball behind the line of scrimmage and runs for a first down. The other team then proceeds to run out the clock. 10) Due to the fact that your team wasted all of their second-half timeouts in the third quarter, the clock runs out just before they can set up to kick what probably would have been a game-winning field goal. Instead, they lose by two points. To add insult to injury, you recall that they also lost a chance to kick a field goal at the end of the first half due to poor clock management. 11) As your team sadly walks off the field following a 24-23 loss, your mind returns to early in the fourth quarter when your team had briefly taken a 26-10 lead. But 26-10? How could someone have taken three points away from them? They didn't - your team gave them back voluntarily. On a play when your team's place-kicker had nailed a perfect 45-yard field goal, one of the other team's linemen was flagged for being offside. Since it was fourth down and four from other team's 28-yard line, taking the points off the board and accepting the penalty would give your team a first down. It seemed like a good idea at the time, so that's exactly what your team's coach decided to do. After all, it was a chance to run some more time off the clock and possibly score a touchdown. Besides, your team would likely have another shot at the field goal later, if the drive stalled again. Of course, who would have guessed that the other team would intercept a pass three plays later and take it all the way back for a touchdown? Another touchdown with time running out would seal your team's fate. 12) With your team leading by one point late in the third quarter, the other team's quarterback uncorks a pass from his own 40-yard line toward your team's goal line. Instead of knocking the ball down, one of your team's cornerbacks decides to intercept it before stepping out of bounds at the one-foot line. On the next play, your team's fullback is tackled in the end zone for a safety. That puts the other team up by one, which is the final margin of your team's loss.

When the NFL Jumped the Shark

Terry Mitchell — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 00:24:50 EST

As we near Super Bowl Sunday, it’s as good a time as any to ask the following questions: Has the NFL jumped the shark? If so, when did this happen?For those who are not familiar with the term, “jumped the shark” originated from the TV sitcom Happy Days. It references an episode in which the character Fonzie attempts to jump over a shark while water skiing. Many fans of that show agreed that, beyond this point, the show was never the same, i.e., never as good as it was before. The term “jump the shark” has now come to mean any point in the life of a TV show, organization, sports league, etc. beyond which it is never the same -- a kind of turning point for the worst. Jumping the shark can occur all at once or slowly, over a period of time. I believe the NFL has indeed jumped the shark and it occurred during the 10-year period from 1993 through 2002. During that time, several changes took place, which I believe had an irreversibly negative impact on the league. The downtrend began in 1993, when the New England Patriots switched away from their red, white, and blue uniforms featuring a logo of minuteman “Pat the Patriot” on white helmets. The new, mainly blue (first royal blue and now navy), uniforms with a “Flying Elvis” logo on silver helmets are a disgrace. The old uniforms were classy and distinctive. The new ones can easily be confused with those of several other teams. This was the beginning of the trend toward ugly uniforms in the league. In 1997, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and Denver Broncos took ugly uniforms to new heights. Tampa Bay replaced their red-orange, yellow, and white uniforms, featuring the “Bucco Bruce” logo on white helmets, with dark red, black, and pewter uniforms, featuring a “Skull and Swords” logo on pewter helmets. They succeeded in trading ugly uniforms for some that were even uglier.But the Broncos took the cake. They replaced their attractive bright orange, bright blue, and white uniforms, featuring a white horse inside an orange “D” logo on bright blue helmets, with mainly navy blue and white (with some orange) uniforms, featuring a white horse’s head with an orange mane logo on navy blue helmets. Denver’s “Orange Crush” nickname had come from both the soda of the same name and the bright orange home jerseys they wore. Now the Broncos wear boring navy blue jerseys at home, with very little orange left in them. In addition, the new uniforms have an ugly streak that runs down the side of the jerseys and the pants. Curiously enough, several other pro and college teams have since tried to duplicate this feature.However, ugly uniforms aside, the meat of the NFL’s shark-jumping came in the form of a spate of ill-conceived expansion and relocation, which also began in 1993. That year, the NFL granted expansion franchises to Charlotte, North Carolina and Jacksonville, Florida. They would become the NFL’s 29th and 30th franchises and would begin play in 1995. Even though attendance has been good for both the Carolina Panthers and the Jacksonville Jaguars, I never believed that either of these locations are NFL timber. I also believe this was the beginning of the NFL’s over-expansion and unnecessary dilution of the league’s talent. In 1995, the degradation continued with Los Angeles losing both of its NFL franchises, as the Rams moved to St. Louis and the Raiders moved back to Oakland. Losing the Los Angeles market, the second largest in the U.S., could not have been a positive thing for the league. To add insult to injury, both teams left for markets that are now among the smallest in the NFL. In 1996, the Cleveland Browns were allowed to move to Baltimore to become the Ravens. At that same time, Cleveland was promised a new expansion Browns franchise to begin play in 1999. It would be the league’s 31st franchise. I never understood why this was done. Attendance was good in Cleveland. And did the Baltimore-Washington area really need another team? Since losing the Colts 12 years earlier, Baltimore was getting along just fine without a team. In 1997, the Houston Oilers moved to Tennessee, playing the first two seasons in Memphis as the Tennessee Oilers, before settling into their permanent home in Nashville as the Tennessee Titans. As is the case with Charlotte and Jacksonville, I do not believe Nashville, Tennessee belongs in the NFL. In addition, the name Titans was one that was discarded in the 1960s by the New York Jets, who were originally called the New York Titans. Couldn’t they have selected a name that no previous NFL team had used? It’s not like there was a shortage of names available. In short, the Houston Oilers, a team with one of the most nifty and original names in all of sports, moved to place known more for music than football, and traded in that name for one that someone else had thrown into the NFL’s trash bin. What a shame. In 2002, the expansion Houston Texans began play as the NFL’s 32nd franchise. Los Angeles was originally conditionally awarded this franchise, but its city leaders botched their stadium plans, prompting the NFL to revoke it and award it to Houston instead. As was the case with the Tennessee Titans, this team selected a name that had previously been discarded by another NFL team. The Kansas City Chiefs started out in Dallas and were known as the Dallas Texans before moving to Kansas City. Not only did the Texans opt for a second-hand name, they chose uniforms that, from a distance, were almost indistinguishable from the new uniforms of the New England Patriots. One other questionable thing the NFL did during this era was to tweak the starting times of wildcard, divisional playoff, and conference championship games. Before this time, all of these "early" games, regardless of whether they were played on Saturday or Sunday, started at 12:30 p.m. eastern, and the "late" games started at 4:00 p.m. Now, early and late Saturday wildcard and divisional playoff games begin at 4:30 and 8:00 p.m., respectively. The Sunday starting times for these games are now 1:00 and 4:30 p.m. The early and late conference championship games (both still played on Sunday) have been shifted to 3:00 and 6:30 Eastern time, respectively. I know they're trying to get more games into primetime to boost the advertising revenue, but I liked the earlier starting times better. The NFL now has at least four more franchises than it should have, with many of its current teams in places that have no business hosting NFL teams, and using names previously tossed aside by other teams. In addition, more teams than ever had opted for ugly and/or copycat uniforms. Attractiveness and originality are out; ugliness and conformity are in. And to top it all off, more postseason games have been shifted away from their optimal afternoon starting times. I’m still a big NFL fan, but I know it’ll never be the same as it was prior to 1993.