Mike Goes Down Swinging

A couple of weeks ago the greatest player I've ever seen play basketball was inducted into the basketball Hall of Fame. Michael Jordan was the signature inductee into the 2009 class that also included the likes of David Robinson and John Stockton. Jordan's speech, however, was a little baffling to me.

As I sat and watched an emotional Jordan walk to the podium to a hero's welcome, I was expecting a humble Jordan to acknowledge the people that helped him achieve his monumental success on and off the court. That, I got. What I wasn't expecting was the actual names of the people that he chose to recognize.

Instead of focusing on Dean Smith, Phil Jackson, his dad, Scottie Pippen, Jerry Reinsdorf and others, Jordan, instead chose to drive a few final nails in the coffin of Bryon Russell, Pat Riley, Jeff Van Gundy, Isiah Thomas and others that provided the fuel for his killer instinct. I certainly understand the fact that these people drove Jordan in a particular way. However, I'm not sure a Hall of Fame speech is the sensible place to harp on these back-handed motivators.

As I sat and listened to the speech, it made me a bit uncomfortable for such time to be devoted to this cast of characters. It's not that he mentioned them at all, obviously these guys were a driving force in his efforts to use any and all reasons to fuel his fire. It was the fact that they were the basis of his speech. It seemed like he was using his final opportunity to address his decorated career to step on their heads one final time.

We all know by now how competitive Jordan was. It was certainly worth mentioning that part of what made him so competitive were the doubters and those that tried to stand in his way of success - good or bad. But a brief comment on these people would have been sufficient in this moment. To provide play-by-play examples and details of the ways in which he used these people to motivate him was over the top. It would be like giving a wedding speech and talking about all the girls that you didn't marry to find the one you ultimately chose. Maybe there is some credibility in the fact that there were other women in your life that taught you things about what you ultimately found in your wife. However, I'm not sure going that route on your wedding day is the time to reflect on these moments - and women. Instead, it would seem most appropriate to mention the more sentimental elements of why you were choosing to spend the rest of your life with THIS woman.

It was as if Jordan was saying, I might be done playing basketball, but I'm not quite ready to walk away. Winning was the ultimate high for Jordan. There's no questioning he would take any measure necessary to reach his goal. But in a career that is now over, I would rather have seen Jordan pay homage to those that taught him the game, those that inspired him to develop a love for the game, those that worked along side him to achieve success, those that provided him opportunities to succeed and those that were there to recognize his success. But Jordan took a different route.

I suspect one day he might look back on his speech and wonder why he spent so much time on the pee-ons instead of those that were true cogs in his final destination. Maybe not. But on a night where you only have one chance to get it right, it appeared Jordan fired a brick.

Health Care - My Version

I don't know all the details about the extremely complex nature of what is needed for adequate and acceptable health care reform but I have a few thoughts that seem like reasonable steps to providing a basis for reform. If I were in charge, here is what I would do:

1. Tie health care coverage to employment. If there should be one mandate, it should be that all employed people have to provide proof of health insurance coverage in order to be employed. Period. You want a job? Show proof of coverage before you can receive a paycheck. Much like proof of auto insurance is required to have valid vehicle registration. Now, I understand there is still a good number of people that somehow find a way to drive without auto insurance, so I'm sure this still won't get everyone properly covered - especially those that are self employed or day laborers. However, I suspect it would get more people into the system than there currently are - especially the 20-somethings that don't have health insurance because they think they're invincible and are the biggest segment of uninsureds.

2. Provide a form to be submitted along with tax returns that verifies health insurance. This would be yet another step in making sure people are covered. If the form is not submitted or cannot be verified, then an audit will take place that will either automatically garnish that person's wages for a baseline (catastrophic) policy or have the individual subject to tax evasion.

3. Do away with company provided health care insurance. Leave all insurance policies up to the individual to shop for and choose. Again, much like auto insurance. Have companies, if they choose, provide some sort of subsidy or contribution, by way of a clearinghouse, to the policy of the employee's choice. This creates more competition among insurance providers to reach out to individuals versus corporations - specifcally large corporations. Auto insurance isn't provided through corporations and it seemingly works just fine. Furthermore, costs/premiums are kept in check through healthy competition because there is always another provider that is ready to step in and provide acceptable coverage for an alternative price. You want the Cadillac of coverage? Pay for it. You won't minimal coverage? Pay for it...and accept the consequences when you need it. That's the risk you take and no one is to blame but yourself. As well, employers are still able to help with costs but not control care.

4. While I don't think this is something that can be madatory, I think insurance companies would be wise to be more accessible and user-friendly. Think for a minute about an insurance company having a kiosk or retail-type outlet for customers to come in and shop for coverage - much like how cellular providers do it. You want an iPhone? Where do you go? The Apple store. You can browse the store, ask questions and make an informed decision. You can ask about the details of the service plan and have someone show you how to add different applications to your phone. What if, instead of a phone, you were looking for insurance coverage? You ask a customer service rep about the pluses and minuses of different coverage plans and add different aspects of coverage to that plan. Your single, healthy with no kids and want a low premium? Let me show you this plan with a $1,500 deductible that covers you in case of a car accident or terminal illness. Would you like to add vision or dental to this plan? No? Okay. Our co-pays as part of this plan are 90% of prescription costs. Is that okay? Yes? Good. Sign this policy agreement and we'll start your coverage. You're married with two kids and have a pre-existing condition? Okay, here are a couple of plans that are popular for people like you. Most people choose option B which have a $250 deductible, 15% co-pay of prescription costs, $25 expenses for well visits and preventive care. Vision, dental and pregnancy care are included in this annual coverage. We offer this for $500 per month. Is that okay? Good. Sign here. This is a one-year agreement. At the end of one year you can change your plan to better suit your needs if you find that vision coverage isn't necessary or that you would rather decrease your premium in favor of a higher deductible or alternative co-pay pricing.

5. If the government wants to intervene to "help" control expenses or get more people covered, let them provide subsidies, like food stamps, to qualified individuals who pay taxes. This would hopefully motivate people to file tax returns so there is more money in the system to provide such help. The stamps could be used for mothly premiums, deductible amounts or co-pays. However the individual chooses to use the subsidy, they can depending on the need of the individual. It controls the extent to which those subsidies are used by the people that abuse the system now - i.e. I can't go to the doctor (ER) for every cold because I only have a limited amount of government provided assistance to cover such a visit. I would rather wait until something more "worthy" happens before I spend this subsidy or I would rather use it against my monthly premium.

6. Deny care to those that try and utilize the ER for general care without insurance. There's no other option to alleviate the cost associated with people that abuse the system. If you don't have insurance, we will not see you unless your bleeding, having a seizure, convulsing, been burned, have a compound fracture, a nail sticking out of her head or been brought to the ER by way of ambulance. This sets a guideline for care. If you have insurance, come on in if you think it's truly an emergency. If not, we will not see you unless it's a dire situation. If you're not bleeding, having a seizure, convulsing or been burned, etc., then you'll have to wait - you made the decision to not have insurance, not the hospital. I suspect this reality would cause most uninsureds to take a hard look at getting some sort of coverage. Tax payers don't pay to fix or replace your car when you get in a wreck without insurance, why should they provide health care if you choose not to have insurance? It's simple really. Just get some sort of coverage and you don't have to worry about a thing. For someone with a high deductible, the hospital may not recoup the deductible amount but at least they're covered for anything above and beyond. Better than what they're forced to deal with now.

Again, I don't have all the answers but it seems like these few steps would bring costs down and create a better health care environment. You get what you pay for. Probably way too simplistic. I'm sure there are many holes in my rationale but it seems like a good start.

Gates Gets What He Wants...And Hates It

As we all know by now, Henry Louis Gates Jr., a prominent and renowned Harvard professor, was arrested last week in front of his own home after a neighbor called 911 to report what appeared to be a break-in attempt at the Gates' residence. This story gained national attention for its racially related claims and even had President Barak Obama commenting on it in his national televised press conference.

Here is the official police report:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0723092gates1.html

For some more insight into Gate's take on the situation, here is an article from the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/21/AR2009072101771_pf.html

In my opinion, here is the most telling comment from Gates on the event:

"I'm glad that someone would care enough about my property to report what they thought was some untoward invasion," Gates said. "If she saw someone tomorrow that looked like they were breaking in, I would want her to call 911. I would want the police to come. What I would not want is to be presumed to be guilty. That's what the deal was. It didn't matter how I was dressed. It didn't matter how I talked. It didn't matter how I comported myself. That man was convinced that I was guilty."

I have a few responses to different parts of these comments from Gates':

A.) You WERE guilty of what was being reported! You were the one trying to break into the house - that's a fact! Now, because it was ultimately determined through some questioning and research that it was your own house and, therefore, not a criminal break-in attempt, officer Crowley was the one that determined you were NOT GUILTY of unlawful intrusion.

B.) Please tell me what else officer Crowley, or anyone, accused you of that wasn't fact? What else was officer Crowley convinced you were guilty of?

C.) Everything Gates says that he would want to happen if the situation happened again, in fact, happened the first time the event occured. However, evidently, it wasn't good enough. Be careful what you wish for, I guess. Furthermore, to suggest that only poorly dressed people that aren't well-spoken and don't handle themselves well are capable of crime is about as uneducated of a comment I have ever heard from a highly educated individual.

I would pose these questions to Gates:

Did someone look like they were breaking into the house? Yes.

Did someone call 911 to report it? Yes.

Did the police come to investigate the report? Yes.

Did Gates, in fact, have to break into the house - or at least, attempt to? Yes.

Was it determined that it was Gates' house? Yes.

Did the officer determine and conclude that the report was unjustified based on his findings at the residence? Yes.

Sounds like case closed to me.

Here's how the ordeal should have culminated:

Crowley: "Thanks for your cooperation Mr. Gates. I apologize for any inconvenience."

Gates: "No problem. Thank you for your time officer."

Unfortunately, Gates' behavior surrounding the events that, according to him, he himself would desire, were way off-base.

Officer Crowley was doing his job - plain and simple. Any claim of racism is completely unsubstantiated. Furthermore, Gates' claim of racial profiling is even more unfounded. Officer Crowley was simply responding to a report of a break-in in the area. He was not patroling the area and decide to approach Gates based on the fact that he was black. He did not randomly knock on the door and demand that Gates produce identification or else be arrested. He was doing his job.

To answer Gates' question of, "is this what happens to black men in America?" I would answer: no, this is what happens when the police get a call from a concerned neighbor who has reported a possible break-in attempt at this particular residence. This happens to be the protocol for investigating the situation and making sure the resident of the home, you in this instance Mr. Gates, is safe.

Having only limited facts into what he might be encountering, the officer's job is to survey the situation and act accordingly. By all accounts, that's exactly what was done by officer Crowley. Only Gates' actions lead to his arrest. Had he merely cooperated with the procedure, millions of Americans would still not know who Henry Gates Jr. is.

Consider these few thoughts for a minute: What if the actual set of circumstances were that Gates was being held hostage by the two men that were reported to be breaking into the house? Had this been the case, I doubt Gates would have been so confrontational and eager to claim racism in officer Crowley's procedure.

What if the men that were reported to be breaking into the house had a gun to Gates' wife's head in the basement and had sent Gates to the door?

What if the the two men that were reported to be breaking into the house were in the house, unbeknownst to Gates, waiting to ambush him, but hiding in a closet?

What if Gates and his wife were having a domestic dispute whereby she had locked him out of the house out of fear that he would harm her?

The point is, officer Crowley doesn't know how benign the situation actually is when he shows up. Even upon finding out that the person he is speaking with is the homeowner and was the person, justifiably, trying to break into the house, can officer Crowley be 100% confident that all is well. Only by some questioning and a brief investigation inside the house would officer Crowley be able to leave satisfied that the report was unwarranted.

The fact is, latitude needs to be extended to all police force when investigating a claim...and certainly one of intrusion. Given the endless set of circumstances that might be transpiring, there is a certain amount of due dilligence that must be conducted by the responding officer - I don't care if the homeowner is black, white, well-dressed, well-spoken, rich or poor. As we all should, Gates should recognize and respect this. Unfortunately, his education on race seemingly lead him to jump to illconceived conclusions about the level of the questioning. Instead of cooperating, Gates chose to resist, argue and draw undue attention to the situation. Therefore, he turned a "standard operating procedure" case into a volital national debate and got his mug shot taken in the process. Congrats Skippy!

Considering he's the one demanding an apology, I don't suspect Gates will be offering up any apology of his own for his role in this event. Sad if you ask me.



Just for the record, there was a black officer that arrived at the scene as well and supports officer Crowley's decision to arrest Gates for his actions.

I won't even touch on Obama's idiotic comments on the situation - that might be a whole other blog entry for another day!

Traffic School = Sucks

I had to attend traffic school today and it was as uncerimonious as I remembered it to be. I think next time I'll just choose to either do it from home by ordering the video or just blow it off altogether and take the hit on my insurance. But, I take pride in the fact that I "graduated" with honors (Cum Laude, thank you very much).

Nothing makes you feel like a dirty rotten scoundrel quite like traffic school. I suppose alcohol class might suck worse but I haven't had that privledge and I hope I never do. I only know that the only time I felt like such a societal bottom feeder was when I had to go to city hall to actually pay my ticket. I had to shower just get the stink off of that place. The people that populate city hall on a daily basis looking to resolve their debt to society are a rather scandilous bunch to say the least - certainly not people I'd want to rub shoulders with frequently - ever really.

But back to traffic school...

I suspect the majority of people that were in attendence (39 of us) where there as a result of speeding. However, the directive is no doubt to subject attendees to a program seemingly more fit for a felon. I understand the reasoning, the concept and the scare tactics - it just sucks.

The videos that you have to watch are very graphic and unsettling. They are graphic re-enactments of wrecks that have to do with not wearing a seatbelt, speeding or driving under the influence. It basically made me want to (a.) get a Hans device and a helmet (b.) drive 15 miles per hour and (c.) never have a drink and get behind the wheel in the same week, let alone day - not a bad thing actually.

If the government made 16-year olds take this course BEFORE going to get their permit, I would venture to say that a number of kids would say, "you know what, I'm gonna sit this year out and reapply at a later date." Hell, it almost me made turn in my license afterward. It makes me cringe to think that one day I will have to entrust my kids with the responsibility of driving. I think I'm going to get them a bus.

Nonetheless, I think for the foreseeable future I'm going to take a more conservative approach to driving. Not that I was ever wreckless necessarily but being that the consequences of taking certain chances are rather fresh in my mind after sitting through several hours of traffic school is a genuinely scary reality. I guess me walking away with that mentality makes the program effective and a good reality check for my otherwise invincible self (joking).

One other thing that it was good for is that it made me realize that my license has been expired for the past 10 days. Since I was already at the government licensing division it made it very easy for me to walk down the hall and get it renewed - my old license didn't look much like me anymore anyway - less hair now!

So, now that I have paid my debt to society, renewed my license and adopted a more responsible approach to driving, I can say that I'm back in good standing with the state and, theoretically, a better person. Self-esteem needs a little repair but that should come back in due time.

Now, I just need to go hop in the shower and wash off the "dirt-ball" label I left traffic school with.

Ian Baker-Douchebag

Ian Baker-Finch is my new nemesis. Why he is so prevelent in CBS' golf coverage, I don't know. Supposedly he's assigned to a certain hole but for some reason he takes over the telecast at times.

His accent is, at best, tough to bare. It's more annoying the more he talks and he says things that lack true golf insight - it's more of a rambling contradiction in most cases.

I don't think I'm alone in my sentiment.

Here is one recent exchange between CBS color analyst David Feherety and Baker-Finch after a replay of Tiger Woods holed a pitch shot behind the 11th green at The Memorial golf tournament that featured a one-handed finish by Woods:

Baker-Finch: That's how you play a soft shot. Keep the left hand going. Keep the club face open. Take the right hand off so you don't get too much effort.

Feherey: That's fundamentally not right.

Baker-Finch: Remember the shot that he holed from similar rough at the back of 14 a fews years ago in his three victories in a row.

Feherety: Who doesn't.

Really? That's how you play a shot? One-handed?

First of all, only the follow-through was one-handed. But Baker-Finch wasn't going to let that formality stand in the way of his sensationalism of the analysis. And to suggest that's how you, Joe Weekend Hacker, are supposed to play the shot is ludacrious.

The truth of the matter was that Tiger happend to take his right hand off of the club which was, in my opinion, probably to add a little drama to the shot as opposed to, as Baker-Finch suggests, how it's done correctly.

If you read between the lines, Feherety's two responses were essentially: "No it's not" and "You're an idiot"

Here is another comment from Baker-Finch after Jim Furyk hit a good shot out of a green-side bunker:

"It's so hard from these bunkers isn't it David because there's not a lot of play in that sand. It's very thick and heavy - almost a wet crusty feel."

Is it wet and crusty or thick and heavy? Thick and heavy? Maybe so. Wet and crusty? Well, since the course hadn't received any rain during the four days of play - probably not. As well, if a bunker is thick and heavy, it's most likely dry and there's a lot of "play" in it. If it's wet and crusty, not so much. What a moron.

A lot of golf announcers are guilty of over-dramatizing the circustances or the difficulty of certain shots but, for the most part, that comes with the territory. I mean, it's golf, which is to most people very boring to watch. Therefore, the analysts have to spice it up a litte bit but IBF has recently gotten to be a real bur in my saddle with his brutal input.

Moving onward...

Given the fact that a golf telecast takes on the same persnickity nature of the game itself, I would love to see a casual fan in the booth to give a little more of a hacker's point-of-view. Preferably someone that's not necessarily a Tiger fan and doesn't look to stroke him off at turn - God knows there's plenty of that going on already. I know Ferehety plays that role to some extent for CBS but I'm looking for someone a little more raw. Johnny Miller (NBC) is more of a realist in the way I like to hear golf commentated but I'd like to hear someone a little less educated in certain circumstances and more critical in others. CBS' crew just has way too much of a PGA love-fest going on. I feel like CBS' crew is a group of jovial tight-wads that need a no-nonsence critic that isn't afraid to always paint such a rosy picture.

New Tax Structure - Makes Sense To Me!

I heard an idea recently on the radio that made a lot of sense that I have yet to find much of a flaw with. The concept is to do away with the personal income tax and switch to a uniform increase in sales tax that will accomplish the same principle, yet to a greater and more all-encompassing magnitude. The main advantage to this concept is that it incorporates 100% of the US population versus the, roughly (and conservatively), 50% that currently report and pay personal income taxes.

As I see it, this structure would be a uniform, proportionate and non-discriminating structure that would alleviate the painful, time-consuming and expensive process by which most law-abiding citizens currently go through come April of each year. It almost seems way too simple. This probably explains why I'm either way off-base or the government is evidently resistant to the idea.

To simply do away with the personal income tax filing method in favor of a increased sales tax, no one is exempt. The rich can't search for loopholes or other tactics by which to avoid paying the piper. The middle-class chips in in the same blue-collar way they most likely currently do. The poor aren't exempt because of failing to file personal income taxes altogether or other entitlements that might be extended by the government. The illegal immigrants pay into the system regardless of their green card status. Men, women, children alike share in the responsibilty. No dependents. Your kid buys a pack of baseball cards, they're in - just like everyone else.

The basis is simple: You live here, you pay your share. You buy something, you contribute - whether you like it or not. If you can afford it (or should I say, even if you can't), you are carrying your weight with society. Want a cell phone? Pay the price - plus, say, 15% - 20%. Want to get your nails done? It's no longer $30.00 - it's $36.00. Seems nominal doesn't it?

What we would lose in the revenue generated from 50% of people paying their personal income tax would be more than made up for by 100% of the people paying an increased sales tax. No? I think so.

Now, we currently have a sales tax structure in place (6%) that serves this purpose to some extent. However, it's hardly enough to cover our national spending budget. In these times, when we're bailing out GM, Citi, AIG and the like, 6% is not only not enough but it still doesn't alleviate the need for the government to collect from responsible citizens. And even THAT still isn't enough. Seems like change is needed in this battle.

The fact is, the current system is set up for the rich to contribute the most (I think the stat is something like 1% of the population contributes 80% of the revenue generated by the personal income tax) and as the income level decreases, so does the obligation - the more you make, the more they take! Hardly reasonable or motivation to go knock it out of the park. As well, this won't necessarily go away by increasing the sales tax in lieu of ridding ourselves of the personal income tax. After all, the rich can afford more "stuff" and they buy more "stuff." Therefore, they will continue to pay in more to the system than anyone else. However, the playing field is level for everyone and your contribution is only determined by what you can afford - or choose to spend. No more of the guy that has a cell phone, a kick-ass stereo, 24" rims, low-profile tires and an iPod but evidently doesn't make enough to pay income taxes.

Corporations would adhere to the same policy. Buy inventory, pay as you go. Buy a machine, pay as you go. Buy a building, pay as you go. No loopholes. No need to pay quarterly or speculate and save for the end of the year only to find out that you're short. Pay as you go. Simple math that applies across the board.

Where is this unfair?

You make $45,000 and buy $30,000 worth of goods, you pay in $6,000. You make $2,500,00 and buy $1,000,000 worth of goods, you pay in $200,000. Seems perfectly proportionate to me. As well, unless you steal in order to avoid the consequences of paying the increased sales tax, it's a self-monitoring system. No longer would the IRS have to perform countless hours auditing individuals and companies to get to the bottom of how they might be sheltering income through shell corporations, LLC's or off-shore accounts.

There is a minor downfall with adopting this system as it would seemingly come at the expense of a number of jobs. The IRS wouldn't need the same number of employees to process the paperwork. Accountants and CPA's would, by-and-large, be put out of business. However, the people that hold these positions are bright-minded people. They're resourcesful. They have options. It's not like they are specially trained to weld or hang drywall with no other tools. Their knowledge and business accumen would surely be in demand in some other area of business commerce. Hell, now that the government is collecting from 100% of the population, they could even afford to give these people a severence package to cover them for a certain period of their pending unemployment while they seek alternative employment.

The positives sure seem to outweigh the negatives as I see it. You?

Try it for a year, see what happens. I have to think we would like the result.

But what do I know?

John Calipari either has a great knack for timing or knows when to get the hell out of dodge.

Back in 1996, after leading UMass to the Final Four and a 35-2 record, he accepted a job offer to coach the New Jersey Nets. Soon thereafter, it was determined that Marcus Camby, UMass' star player, accepted $28,000 from an agent and UMass was therefore forced to vacate their Final Four and all 35 of their wins from the '96 season. Now, it is being reported that a key player from Memphis' national semi-final team from 2008 never passed his SAT. If this is true, Memphis will surely be forced to vacate all 38 wins from their '08 season and be stripped of their Final Four accomplishment. Calipari will then hold an interesting record - the only coach to have ever lead two teams to illegal Final Four appearances. Hmmmm! Not sure that one goes on your resume.

The player in question from the Memphis allegations is surely Derrick Rose although that has yet to be reported as fact. What other freshman would qualify as being an intergral part of that team? Rose was Memphis' key recruit so to think that Calipari was oblivious to the fact that there were issues surrounding his eligibility is ludicrous. However, I'm sure that will be his claim. Not his department right? Riiiiiiiiiiiiight!

Calipari is now the coach at UK so, interestingly enough, allegations that surround his former program, his former star player and his most recent success are once again left to be sorted out by his former employer. Ironic? I think not.

The allegations surrounding Memphis were brought about back in January so Calipari was aware of this situation when he capitalized on an opportunity to take the Kentucky job. I have to think this made Calipari's decision to accept the Kentucky position a little easier than he let on. Nonetheless, I have to wonder if Mitch Barnhart and Kentucky were equally aware of this situation. The last person that can afford to have egg on his face is Barnhart. If he's not there already, Barnhart is becoming notorious for botching the due dilligence aspect that is required of his position. Therefore, I'm sure he will have yet another fool-proof defense to his decision to pursue Calipari in the face of these allegations - especially considering he claims to hold compliance in such high regard. However, if he did in fact know about these allegations and proceeded with the hire anyway it appears as though satisfying the faithful is more of a priority than compliance. If he did not know about these allegations then he's once again proven himself a fool when it comes to the background check that goes with analyzing viable candidates for one of his athletic progams. Regardless, rest assured that whatever he says will not be met with much understanding from the media hounds that make it their job to question his authority, process and motives.

Since taking the job Kentucky fans have been caught up with the Calipari love affair that currently surrounds their program. After all, in just a couple of weeks, Calipari's snake oil has landed them the top recruiting class in the nation and once again has the Bluenecks thinking about banner number 8. Therefore, don't expect Cats fans to do anything but justify Calipari's Memphis discretions as nothing more than something out of his control.

Out of his control? Doubtful. On his watch? Definately!

When Kentucky hired Calipari they were handed a double-edged sword. The Big Blue Nation figured the good edge would soon take them to great heights and that the bad edge would be holstered without consequence. However, in just a matter of weeks it appears that the bad edge is not only apparent, but could soon be wielded upon themselves. If the NCAA comes down on Calipari in addition Memphis (see Simpson, Kelvin), Kentucky could once again be doing business with one hand tied behind their back.

Maybe the consequences of these allegations never find their way to Lexington and Cats fans will get the next banner that they so covet. However, you might want to keep the ladder handy in case that banner needs to be taken down in the future. After all, that seems to be the modus operandi of the Music Man known as coach Cal.

In the meantime, Mitch Barnhart - call your office.