Tuesday, January 30, 2007

A Philosophical Study of Abortion

The abortion controversy is just that- controversial. For some, lines have been drawn, slogans have been made, labels have been given, and heated arguments, or worse, have ensued. For others, the answer is intuitive and obvious. For still others, there is uncertainty. Arguments from both sides are reasonable, so how does one reconcile them?

In my study of abortion I have chosen two prominent philosophical arguments- one that argues for abortion, and one that argues against.

The first paper was written by John T. Noonan Jr., titled “An Almost Absolute Value in History.” He argues that a fetus is a person and his thesis is that if you are conceived by human parents, you are human. He tests the thesis by analyzing the major arguments against fetal personhood. Without fail, each argument collapses.

Noonan covers what he calls “the most popular” argument first: viability. Here’s how it goes. A fetus is not a person until it is viable; that is until it is no longer dependent upon its mother to survive.

Noonan shows how viability cannot be the criteria for personhood because as medicine progresses, the age that a fetus becomes viable gets lower and lower. Also, Noonan says, “there is considerable elasticity to the idea of viability. Mere length of life is not an exact measure.” Each fetus progresses at different rates. Even the racial group to which the fetus belongs affects when it is viable. According to Noonan, “If viability is the norm, the standard would vary with race and with many individual circumstances.”

However, the most important argument against using a viability test for personhood is based on what viability really means- that the fetus is dependent upon the mother for survival.
“Dependence is not ended by viability. The fetus is still absolutely dependent on someone’s care in order to continue existence; indeed a child of one or three or even five years of age is absolutely dependent on another’s care for existence; uncared for, the older fetus or the younger child will die as surely as the early fetus detached from the mother. The unsubstantial lessening in dependence at viability does not seem to signify any special acquisition of humanity.”
Therefore the “easy” argument of viability does not work. Viability cannot be the standard for the permissibility of abortion. The other common arguments are experience, the sentiments and sensations of parents, and social visibility. As Noonan puts it, “by force of the argument from the consequences,” these personhood distinctions are rejected.

I would like to try and briefly summarize Noonan’s coverage of the social visibility argument. I think it very instructive of the dangerous ground on which pro-abortionists tread as they try to rationalize abortion by denying the fetus personhood.

The argument goes like this: Since the fetus is not perceived socially by others, it is not human. It is not a member of society, and “excluded from the society of men, the fetus is excluded from the humanity of men.” What is the problem with this argument? In Noonan’s words,
“If humanity depends on social recognition, individuals or whole groups may be dehumanized by being denied any status in their society….the failure of society to recognize the prisoner, the alien, the heterodox as human has led to the destruction of human beings…Any attempt to limit humanity to exclude some groups runs the risk of furnishing authority and precedent for excluding other groups in the name of the consciousness or perception of the controlling group in the society.”

After reading Noonan’s arguments, the difficulty pro-abortionists face becomes obvious. By withholding personhood from a fetus, they inadvertently deny personhood to groups that are without a doubt human. Indeed, this dilemma has forced the hand of many abortion apologists, making them deny personhood to the elderly, the handicapped, and the newly born.

One apologist chose another route. This route allowed her to avoid the pitfalls of redefining personhood. In “A Defense of Abortion” Judith Jarvis Thomson allows for a fetus to be a person, even at the moment of conception. Not because she believes it- she obviously does not. No, she does it so that she can argue that it doesn’t matter. She challenges the traditional pro-life argument that since a fetus is a human, abortion is murder and therefore unallowable under any circumstance by using the following thought experiment:

“…..Let me ask you to imagine this. You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist’s circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, “Look, we’re sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you-we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist is now plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it’s only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, ad can safely be unplugged from you.”

This is a quite famous thought experiment, and Thomson is given much credit for abortion’s legalization. Most people would agree that the violinist has no valid claim to be “plugged” into you. Therefore, no crime is committed by unplugging him, even were it to result in his death. Now, astute readers will immediately point out that the violinist was forcibly plugged into you, which is certainly not the case in all pregnancies. Thomson of course knows this, and concedes that this example works best in the case of pregnancy due to rape. But this is just the beginning of her attack on the traditional “abortion is murder” argument. Thomson is arguing against the so called “extreme view” held by many pro-lifers. That is that abortion is murder in every case, even those pregnancies due to rape. This is Thomson’s “foot in the door” maneuver; she believes that proving the extreme view is unreasonable will open the floodgates in her favor.

As Thomson parries every conceivable attack on her violinist argument, she delineates three distinct definitions of “right to life”:

1. Right to be given at least the bare minimum one needs for continued life.
2. Right not to be killed by anybody
3. Right not to be killed unjustly.

Thomson fairly handily deflates the first two proposed definitions, and seems to rest her case on the third. Just what constitutes an “unjust killing?” By force of her violinist example, she makes it plain that rape victim abortions do not qualify as unjust. She then jumps on that crack in the pro-life armor by saying,
“this argument would give the unborn person a right to its mother’s body only if her pregnancy resulted from a voluntary act, undertaken in full knowledge of the chance of a pregnancy might result from it.”

To this point in her paper , I find myself warily nodding my head in agreement, a little unsettled by the rationalizations in Thomson’s arguments, and a little unsure of the relevance of some her thought experiments, but overall everything seems quite rational.

However, until now Thomson is playing coy. She has attacked the weakest links in the pro-life “extreme view” argument: Rape and the mother’s own life at risk. But those two very rare circumstances are not the end of her argument. Rather, they are merely a means to an end.

Thomson’s view of abortion is heavily influenced by her perspective of procreation and conception. The flaw in her reasoning is revealed in the following paragraph, written just after Thomson makes her point about unjust killing:

“I suppose we may take it as a datum that in a case of pregnancy due to rape the mother has not given the unborn person a right to the use of her body for food and shelter. Indeed, in what pregnancy could it be supposed that the mother has given the unborn person such a right? It is not as if there were unborn persons drifting about the world, to whom a woman who wants a child says, “I invite you in.”

Hmmm….In what pregnancy? That’s a very good question. In fact, it may well be that Ms. Thomson has stumbled upon the key to the abortion controversy. Interestingly, though she may not have realized it, Thomson has already answered.

Recall that after settling on “the right not to be killed unjustly” as the only acceptable definition for a “right to life,” Thomson explained that unjust killing in the case of abortion occurs if the pregnancy “resulted from a voluntary act, undertaken in full knowledge of the chance a pregnancy might result from it. That would label as “unjust” every abortion for pregnancies not the result of rape, because certainly consensual sex is a voluntary act. But Thomson is not satisfied with her victory over the “extreme view.” She now attempts to show that an “unwanted” pregnancy is grounds for an abortion-that it is not unjust killing to obtain one- because the mother has not expressly given the baby permission to be there. However, she fails to show how killing a person goes from unjust to just simply because the mother of the person doesn’t want her. Thomson argues that if every precaution is taken to prevent conception, but that a baby is formed anyway, it is no longer unjust to kill her. But Thomson’s’ earlier definition still applies. It is still a “voluntary act undertaken in full knowledge of the chance a pregnancy might result from it.”

Thomson’s efforts to bridge the gap between “voluntary” and “unwanted” fall far short. She variously compares the person created, a person brought into very existence by her mother and father, to “people pollen” and burglars circumventing the very best home-security systems. But the fact that the pregnancy may not have been “voluntary” does not negate the fact that the act of conception irrevocably is.

So what are we left with then? A study of two highly influential scholars on opposite sides of the abortion debate has shown the great difficulty facing all who attempt to deny a fetus personhood. For in so doing living, breathing humans are denied their humanity as well. One scholar tried to show that abortion is acceptable despite granting the fetus full personhood, but only partially succeeded. It is clear, then, that abortion amounts to killing a living human being. With very rare exceptions, these killings are unjust, and therefore should be illegal.

And You Thought Politics Were Rough Now...

Jan. 30, 1798:

On the floor of the House of Representatives, Matthew Lyon of Vermont sharply insults Representative Roger Griswold of Connecticut and proceeds to spit in Griswold’s face; two weeks later, Griswold attacks Lyon by beating him over the head and shoulders with a hickory cane.

Saturday, January 27, 2007

This Day In History

Jan. 26, 1998: Denying he had an affair with a White House intern, President Bill Clinton tells reporters: “I want you to listen to me. I’m going to say this again. I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.”

Jan. 27, 1998: First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton appears on NBC’s “Today” show and claims that a “vast right-wing conspiracy” is behind the allegations against her husband.

Thursday, January 25, 2007

"Small Sins"

I now turn to milder ways of not offending the devil. Nephi has given us the pattern or formula by which Satan operates:

“And others will he pacify, and lull them away into carnal security, that they will say: All is well in Zion; yea, Zion prospereth, all is well—and thus the devil cheateth their souls, and leadeth them away carefully down to hell.

“And behold, others he flattereth away, and telleth them there is no hell; and he saith unto them: I am no devil, for there is none—and thus he whispereth in their ears, until he grasps them with his awful chains, from whence there is no deliverance.”

C. S. Lewis gave us a keen insight into devilish tactics. In a fictional letter, the master devil, Screwtape, instructs the apprentice devil Wormwood, who is in training to become a more experienced devil:

“You will say that these are very small sins; and doubtless, like all young tempters, you are anxious to be able to report spectacular wickedness. … It does not matter how small the sins are, provided that their cumulative effect is to edge the man away from the Light and out into the Nothing. … Indeed, the safest road to Hell is the gradual one—the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts.”

Society’s oft-labeled “sin laws” exist to counterattack Satan’s so-called small sins of gambling, alcohol use, and drug consumption. Some who wish to appear broad-minded say, under the guise of not imposing religious belief, “I don’t drink or gamble, but I don’t think we ought to have any laws to control others who wish to.” This completely ignores the health and social costs to society of the vices. They foolishly argue that laws cannot control human behavior. My long legal career has led me to conclude that all criminal laws have a moral basis.

Serving the Lord and Resisting the Devil
President James E. Faust
Second Counselor in the First Presidency

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

The Atonement Can Clean, Reclaim, and Sanctify Our Lives

"Is it possible to reclaim a life that through reckless abandon has become so strewn with garbage that it appears that the person is unforgivable? Or what about the one who is making an honest effort but has fallen back into sin so many times that he feels that there is no possible way to break the seemingly endless pattern? Or what about the person who has changed his life but just can't forgive himself? . . .

"The Atonement of Jesus Christ is available to each of us. His Atonement is infinite. It applies to everyone, even you. It can clean, reclaim, and sanctify even you. That is what infinite means--total, complete, all, forever. President Boyd K. Packer has taught: 'There is no habit, no addiction, no rebellion, no transgression, no apostasy, no crime exempted from the promise of complete forgiveness. That is the promise of the atonement of Christ'.

Shayne M. Bowen,
"The Atonement Can Clean, Reclaim, and Sanctify Our Lives," Ensign, Nov. 2006

Monday, January 22, 2007

The Blogger's Disease

Maybe it's the makeup of bloggers in general. Maybe it's the relative anonymity of blogging that causes it. I'm not really sure, but what I do know is that I am often flabbergasted at what I read on blogs.

For instance, just last week I navigated over to an Idaho left-leaning blog that appears to be pretty widely read in blogger circles: Red State Rebels. It's generally well written, and the author seems sincere. It also has proven to be a good source of Idaho political information. However, even RSR doesn't seem immune from the blogger's disease. Last week she posted about a dairy being proposed in my home county of Jerome. Naturally I was interested. Apparently this dairy is huge, and huge dairy equals huge stink. What makes this an even bigger controversy is that if approved, the dairy will sit too close for comfort from the newly (in 2001) minted Minidoka Internment National Monument. For obvious reasons, alot of groups oppose the dairy. What struck me though from RSR's post was this line,

The group also is protesting that Jerome County Commissioners do not plan to take testimony or even read emails from opponents of the proposed feedlot when they meet February 6 for a long-delayed decision on the application.

That's outrageous, right? Indeed it is. However, it turns out that the source of the opposition's frustration is a county ordinance which stipulates that only comments from those living within a mile of a proposed CAFO (that's code for HUGE dairy) can be heard by county commissioners. Art Brown, the subject of much of RSR and others' ire, is quoted in the Times News,

"I've never had input from outside the one mile before," said Art Brown, administrator for the planning and zoning board. "I've never dealt with this before."

The Times also reported that,

Brown has created two files for the case: one for comments from residents within the one-mile radius and another envelope for comments from parties outside the radius.

The file containing letters from outside the radius will remain sealed at the hearing, essentially muting those parties.

However, the commission will be presented with an index of the comments in the sealed envelope and can choose to examine individual comments if the majority of commissioners chose to do so.

It is clear that parties outside the one-mile radius will not be allowed to testify in person at the hearing, per the ordinance.

Commissioner Diana Obenauer said that's unfair and suggested changing the ordinance to include testimony from anyone willing to offer it - much the same way testimony is heard in neighboring Gooding County.

It doesn't appear that any deep rooted conspiracy is in place, or that the Jerome County Commissioners hate democracy, or any other such nonsense. This is just the way the law was set up and no one has ever complained before. Now that it's an issue, the rule is being looked at.

Also last week I found what to me was an even greater source of blogger disease. We have failed our duty as citizens is based just up the road in Gooding and written by an apparently very vocal and vehement critic of the Iraq War. She posted an argument against the war that included this absurdity,

Who was in charge before the Americans took their country from them? If they hated Sad-Damn so much, why were there never any car bombs, IEDs, suicide bombers, etc., trying to put him out of power?

Year after year, US TV showed his birthday party. He stood on the balcony, waving to the crowd. Vast numbers of men and women stood below, firing automatic rifles in the air, in a Mideastern-style celebration. If they hated him so much, how's come no bullet ever went toward him?

Yep, apparently everything was just peachy keen under Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi people just loved him. Well, except for maybe the ones that he tortured and killed. But if they were really all that upset about the torture, why didn't they do anything about it? I mean, they just let it happen without so much as a single automatic rifle shot his way. Well, if they can't run even one suicide bomber at him, they surely don't deserve our help.

Just stupid.

Thursday, January 18, 2007

The Achilles Heel of a Progressive Income Tax

According to the Treasury Department, by way of the IRS, the top 0.1% of US earners make 9.1% of the country's total income. However, they pay 17.4% of the total taxes. The top 1% earn 19% of the total income, but pay 36.9% of the total tax. In contrast, the bottom 50% earn 13.4% of the income and pay only 3.3% of the total tax.

To highlight the "fairness" of the US tax structure, let's compare a US household consisting of a married couple with two kids, making the average wage, with the same household in other countries. In the US, this family would pay 11.9% in taxes. In Iceland and Ireland this family would pay 11% and 8.1%, respectively. If you're Canadian, you pay 21.5%. Move to Japan and you pay 24.9%. England, Germany, and France? Try 27.1%, 35.7%, and 41.7%. So, according to this data, by the world's standards the US middle class is not overtaxed.

Last July, the NY Times ran a piece which showcases the fact that "tax revenues are increasingly dependent on the fortunes of the very rich." The Times also points out that "the top 10% of taxpayers- those with incomes above $100,000- provide about two thirds of income tax revenue."

When looked at in these terms, "tax cuts for the rich" doesn't have the same sting as a campaign slogan. If anything, the NY Times' data suggests the rich are shouldering too much of the nation's tax burden, making it extremely difficult to create accurate budgets. In effect, the US government is beholden to the success or failure of the stock market. Therefore, because of the progressive nature of the US income tax system, Congress is faced with the same budgeting difficulties that any other commission based household has.

Tuesday, January 16, 2007

Nancy Pelosi on Iraq Withdrawal

Have you ever noticed how politicians seem to talk alot? But that in all that talking not really say anything? Case in point, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was asked by Bob Schieffer on Face the Nation what would happen to Iraq if the US were to follow her plan to withdraw in the next 4-6 months. Her reply used up 443 words by my count, but not one of them answered the question. Mr. Schieffer had to ask and re-ask the same question 4 times, and Speaker Pelosi used 443 words to say absolutely nothing.

Why not, I wonder?

This letter was printed in the Times-News Monday, January 22, 2007

Friday, January 12, 2007

Nancy Pelosi on Taxes: Waste, Fraud and Abuse

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was on Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer last Sunday. They spoke about a few things of importance, and I'd like to address one of them here.

Mr Schieffer asked Speaker Pelosi if it would be possible to balance the budget without raising taxes. I thought her answer was pretty good:

I think you can put many thing--everything on the table and start by saying that there's $300 billion in taxes which are not collected in our country each year. Can you imagine that? You can probably start, also, with cutting waste, fraud and abuse. Congressman--well, no, Chairman Henry Waxman has taken the lead on that issue as chairman of the Government Reform Committee. Waste, fraud and abuse, collect taxes that are not collected, close corporate loopholes--you start there, you can find some money to make investments in education, which brings more money back into the Treasury than any initiative that you can name. If the president's willing to join with us in fighting waste, fraud and abuse, collecting the taxes and closing the loopholes, we can start there.

This is certainly better than the last answer she gave to this particular question. However, Mr. Schieffer didn't rest. He then asked the all important direct question, "Are you promising no new taxes for anybody?"

Speaker Pelosi's answer is...interesting.

No, I'm talking about tax cuts for many in the middle class. We've had tax cuts for small businesses to provide health insurance to their workers, R&D, making permanent and modernizing research and development tax credit for small business. We are talking about helping families with the higher education of their children. We're talking about tax credit...

SCHIEFFER: So you're talking about more tax cuts?

Rep. PELOSI: We're talking about tax cuts for the middle class. And as we review what we get from, again, collecting our taxes and reducing waste, fraud and abuse, investing in education and in initiatives which will bring money into the Treasury, it may be that tax cuts for those making over a certain amount of money--$500,000 a year--might be more important to the American people than ignoring the educational and health needs of America's children.

SCHIEFFER: So what you're talking about is you may have to raise taxes for some people in the upper income levels in order to cut taxes for some below them?

Rep PELOSI: What we're saying is Democrats propose tax cuts for middle income families.

Let's be clear that "repealing a tax cut" is the same as a tax increase. So Speaker Pelosi is advocating higher taxes for those that make over $500,000 in order to lower taxes on those that make less than $500,000. I fortunately fall into that "below" category, so that'll be nice. But what does that mean? Isn't that sort of a wealth redistribution scheme? A Robin Hood, steal from the rich to give to the poor kinda deal?

But let's be honest here. All of you other "below" category people out there, take a look at your paycheck for a minute. Look at your withholdings. You'll see state taxes, federal taxes, and then you'll see withholdings for Medicare and Social Security. I'm a poor, single-income father of three, so those first few boxes don't amount to very much. It's the last two that really hit my wallet the hardest, and I can't do anything about it. Speaker Pelosi's plan won't do anything about it either, because those things aren't included when politicians talk about "taxes". That's because in theory you and I will get all that money back when we retire. We'll get our own Social Security income and get to use Medicare for all our health needs. Or at least 80% of our health needs. The rest we'll have to cover ourselves. With our Social Security money. That is, if either one of those programs still exist by then.

My other question is is there enough "waste, fraud and abuse" to not only balance the budget, but to then invest more into education as she proposes? Of course there is! But is anyone in Congress really going to do it? I hope so, and I applaud Ms. Pelosi for at least talking about it.

Thursday, January 11, 2007

Boise St Got Hosed

You knew it was coming, and now that I've had a day or two to think it over, here are the final college football rankings:

AP Top 25

1. Florida (64) 13-1 1,624
2. Ohio State 12-1 1,492
3. LSU 11-2 1,452
4. USC 11-2 1,389
5. Boise State (1) 13-0 1,383
6. Louisville 12-1 1,338
7. Wisconsin 12-1 1,288
8. Michigan 11-2 1,145
9. Auburn 11-2 1,112
10. West Virginia 11-2 1,035
11. Oklahoma 11-3 933

USA Today Poll

1. Florida (63) 13-1 1,575
2. Ohio State 12-1 1,435
3. LSU 11-2 1,418
4. USC 11-2 1,345
5. Wisconsin 12-1 1,328
6. Boise State 13-0 1,275
7. Louisville 12-1 1,270
8. Auburn 11-2 1,119
9. Michigan 11-2 1,092
10. West Virginia 11-2 1,012
11. Oklahoma 11-3 849

BCS Standings

1. Ohio State
2. Florida
3. Michigan
4. LSU
5. USC
6. Louisville
7. Wisconsin
8. Boise State
9. Auburn
10. Oklahoma

You'll notice that every team on this list but one has at least one loss. Two top 5 teams have two losses. One team has none.

Florida won the "national championship" game, so I understand a vote for them. The rest of the top 5 is a mystery.

Who did Florida lose to? Auburn. Auburn is ranked in the top ten, so it appears to not be that bad of a loss. However, Auburn has two losses, but even more telling is that they played in the Cotton Bowl against an unranked Nebraska team with a 9-5 record and barely won 17-14. Not such a "good" loss anymore.

Ohio St at #2? After Michigan's spanking at the hands of USC I wondered if everyone hadn't overrated the Big Ten just a bit this year, and Ohio St's flop in the championship game proved it. On Ohio St's schedule this year: Northern Illinois, Cincinatti, Bowling Green, and the dregs of the now obviously overrated Big Ten: Iowa, Indiana, Illinois, Northwestern, Michigan St, and Minnesota. Their "big win" this year was Michigan. Woopee.

LSU? 2 losses. Didn't even win their own conference. Now, the SEC is probably the best conference in the country, but LSU didn't even win their own division of the conference. They lost to Florida and Auburn. Auburn we've already discussed.

USC? 2 losses. I'm inclined to grant them a mulligan for the regular season ending loss to arch rival UCLA. Even though UCLA wasn't any good this year, funny things can happen in those rivalry games. But still, it's a loss. Now for the fun part. USC lost to Oregon St 33-31. Oregon St finished third in the Pac 10 with a 10-4 record and ranked 21/22 in the polls. They beat Missouri by one point in the Sun Bowl. OSU's four losses? UCLA, Washington St, California, and you guessed it Boise St. They lost 42-14. That Ian Johnson kid? Rushed for 240 yards and 5 touchdowns.

Boise St? Had wins against 3 ranked teams: Hawaii, Oregon St, and Oklahoma. Other quality wins include Utah (creamed them on the road), Wyoming, and Nevada (who lost by 1 point to Miami).

What does all this mean? Boise got hosed.

Wednesday, January 10, 2007

100 Days- Rep Pelosi Bans Smoking

This is probably a minor thing, but CNN reports that Speaker of the House Pelosi has banned smoking in the Speakers Lobby. I say hurray for Ms. Pelosi. Here is how she justifies the move:

"Medical science has unquestionably established the dangerous effects of secondhand smoke, including an increased risk of cancer and respiratory diseases. I am a firm believer that Congress should lead by example."

Monday, January 08, 2007

I Am Superman...or maybe Spiderman

You are Superman

Green Lantern
The Flash
Iron Man
Wonder Woman
You are mild-mannered, good,
strong and you love to help others.

Click here to take the "Which Superhero are you?" quiz...

Just FYI, I answered no to "do you like to wear a cape?"....

Friday, January 05, 2007

The Transformers Are Coming!

Another reason to love youtube:

Dear Sooner Nation

The following was in my inbox this morning...

Dear Commissioner Weiberg:

To describe the lapses in ordinary playcalling in the Fiesta Bowl
football game on Monday night as constituting an outrageous injustice is
an understatement. Since defensive preparation is a conference
responsibility as opposed to an individual institutional responsibility,
we must look to you to launch a vigorous effort to correct the

On behalf of the University of Oklahoma, I ask that you as Big 12
Commissioner take the following actions:

- First, seek an apology from Boise State's coaches for running grossly
unusual offensive plays without telling us what they were doing

- Second, since institutions, players, and coaches are held responsible
by conferences and the NCAA for their actions, those who executed the
plays should also be held responsible. At the very least, those found
responsible for lateraling the ball on the hook-and-ladder play and the
guy who hid the ball behind his back on the Statue of Liberty play in
the closing minutes of the game should be suspended from the NFL draft.

- Third, it is my understanding that Boise State has a rule that they
will only use legal plays in games with other teams in bowl games. In
light of what happened Monday, Oklahoma should request that Boise State
change its rule to assure they will only use plays that we know they are
going to use.

- Fourth, the Big 12 should request that the game should not go into the
record books as a win or loss by either team in light of the level of
sneakiness in Boise State's playbook.

- Fifth, the Big 12 should place on the appropriate agendas of NCAA
meetings and meetings of the conference commissioners a discussion of
how such "trick plays" should be executed.

Since the University of Oklahoma is required by conference sportsmanship
rules to limit their comments in situations like this, we must look to
you as the commissioner of the Big 12 Conference to vigorously demand
that our teams not be subjected to such underhanded tomfoolery and
creative chicanery on the gridiron.

It is truly sad and deeply disappointing that members of our football
team should be deprived of the outcome of the game that they deserved
because of an inexcusable breakdown in the Sooners' ability to stop
opponents from such uncalled-for nonsense as lateraling to another
player and hiding the ball behind their backs.

In closing, waaaaaaaaaaaah!

David L. Boren
President, The University of Oklahoma

Tuesday, January 02, 2007

The Greatest Game Ever

Did you see it? Here you go:

Sports Illustrated

It was a great year for football. I thought we had already seen the best finish to a football game, but BSU's Fiesta Bowl is the most amazing game I have ever witnessed. There were so many ups and downs, I thought the game was over with the interception to put Oklahoma up with a minute to go. Then comes 4th and 18. Hook and ladder. Oklahoma's one possession TD in overtime. BSU's botched trick play. Then 4th and 2 from the 5 yard line, wide reciever direct snap thrown for a touchdown. Go for two instead of the safe conversion kick. The fake throw to the 3 bunched receiver set on the right sideline. Where did the ball go?! Ian Johnson off the left side untouched for the game winner.