Tuesday, July 17, 2007

College Sport Research Institute

Earlier today, Dr. Richard Southall of the University of Memphis announced the creation of the College Sport Research Institute (CSRI). The CSRI will serve as a national clearinghouse for college sports research, and will encourage and support sustained crossdisciplinary, collaborative college-sport research, serve as a consortium for college-sport researchers from across the United States, and disseminate research results to academics, college-sport practitioners, and the general public. It will also be a strong advocate for college athletes’ rights and education.

I am honored to serve on the CSRI's Executive Board, which includes:
Director: Richard M. Southall of the University of Memphis
Associate Director: Mark S. Nagel of the University of South Carolina
Chief Operating Officer: Deborah J. Southall of the University of Memphis
Assistant Director: Peter Han of State University of New York – Cortland

Board Members:
Dr. Billy Hawkins of the University of Georgia
Mr. Michael McCann of Mississippi College School of Law
Dr. Fritz Polite of the University of Tennessee
Dr. Allen Sack of the University of New Haven
Dr. Ellen Staurowsky of Ithaca College
CSRI will also publish an academic, peer-reviewed journal entitled Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics (JIIA). Dr. Kevin L. Burke, from East Tennessee State University will serve as editor of JIIA. Members of an Editorial Review Board will be announced shortly.

In addition, CSRI will host an annual national conference. The first of these conferences, the Issues in College Sport Conference, will be held April 16-19, 2008 at the FedEx Institute of Technology on the campus of the University of Memphis. Leading researchers, practitioners, and college administrators will be invited to attend. In addition to two prominent keynote speakers, and three invited panels, the conference will include two days of juried academic presentations. In order to encourage undergraduate and graduate student participation, a student research competition will be held in conjunction with the conference. If you are a student writing about college sports issues, we encourage you to submit a paper. Here are the details:
CSRI Call for Papers

To be considered for acceptance, abstracts must reflect college-sport research on the history of intercollegiate athletics, social-cultural college-sport issues, legal theory or the application of law to college-sport issues, business-related issues in college sport, or special topics related to developing college-sport issues. The research should have reached a fairly complete stage of development, and the abstract should provide enough detail about the research, so the reviewers have sufficient information to judge its quality. Abstracts proposing teaching-related sessions on college-sport issues will also be considered, as long as the abstract provides sufficient detail to judge the quality of the proposed session.

Abstracts will undergo a three-person, blind-review process to determine acceptance. Abstracts submitted to CSRI should not be concurrently submitted for consideration to another conference, but may reflect work that has been previously presented at another conference.

All abstracts must be submitted electronically as a Microsoft Word attachment. They must also contain the following information and conform to the following format requirements: Single-spaced, One-inch margins, Times New Roman 12-point font, and 400-word maximum for 25-minute presentations and posters, and 800-word maximum for 75-minute presentations.

Abstract Format

Line 1: length of session desired, choose from the options: (a) 25-minute oral presentation (including questions); (b) 75-minute teaching symposium, roundtable, or workshop; (c) 75-minute forum (2-3 papers with a discussant, including questions); or (d) Poster presentation
Line 2: three to four keywords that will help the program coordinator to schedule similar topics in succession
Line 3: author(s) and institution(s) names (centered on page)
Line 4: presentation title (centered on page)
Line 5: blank
Line 6 to end: text of abstract

In the email message accompanying the attached abstract, include the principal author’s name, postal mailing address, email address, and fax and telephone numbers. Submission of abstract(s) indicates the intent of the presenter(s) to register for the conference at the appropriate registration fee.

Submission Deadline: Abstracts should NOT be submitted prior to October 1, 2007 and MUST be received no later than Monday, December 17, 2007 (11:59p.m. CST). Submissions received after this date and time will not be considered for acceptance. Email all abstracts to Richard M. Southall (Director - CSRI) at southall@memphis.edu

Michael Vick Indicted: Who Let the Dogs Out (of State)?

Atlanta Falcons' quarterback Michael Vick was indicted earlier this afternoon by a federal grand jury in connection with the alleged dogfighting ring at his property in Smithfield, Virginia. According to ESPN and the Associated Press, Vick and several others were indicted for conspiracy to travel in interstate commerce in aid of unlawful activities and to sponsor a dog in an animal fighting venture. Apparently, he faces a maximum of six years in prison and a fine of $300,000. The interstate commerce derives from participants and pit bulls traveling to Virginia from South Carolina, North Carolina, Maryland, New York, Texas and other states, for the express purpose of commercialized pit bull fighting. Had the fighting ring featured local participants and local pit bulls, Vick wouldn't be dealing with this charge.

The court documents also describe grotesque conditions at the property, including a "rape stand," used to hold dogs in place for mating; an electric treadmill modified for dogs; a bloodied piece of carpeting; and evidence of dogs not being fed as a way of making them angrier. Other details are available here, and you can read the indictment in its entirety here. In short, the dogs were badly abused.

Keep in mind, however, Vick's involvement with the dog fighting has been a source of great speculation, and he has denied any knowledge. Nevertheless, the indictment--take it for what it is--paints Vick as a very active participant, including:
9. In or about early 2002, Vick [and another defendant] purchased approximately four pit bulls from Cooperating Witness 1.

10. In or about early 2002, Vick [and other defendants] established a dog fighting business enterprise known as "Bad Newz Kennels."

12. In or about February 2002, Vick [and other defendants] "rolled" or "tested" some of their fighting dogs against other dogs . . . "rolling" or "testing" a fighting dog means placing a dog in a short fighting match to determine how well the animal fights.
One point of caution: an indictment by a federal grand jury is far from a conviction. I distinctly remember my criminal investigations professor, Charles Whitebread, making this point over and over again. Grand jury hearings are typically secret and one-sided in favor of the government. The prosecutor decides which witnesses to call and which witnesses receive immunity. The basic questioning is done by the prosecutor, and the defendant doesn't even have a right to have his or her attorney present. Even worse for the defendant, an indictment only requires "probable cause," meaning more likely than not--a far cry from "beyond a reasonable doubt" for a criminal conviction. There has been much criticism of grand juries as unfair devices for the prosecution, and that they have been misused as tools to shame defendants, especially in high-profile cases.

Still, it will be interesting to see what the NFL does in response to the indictment and how the NFLPA responds to the NFL, if it elects to suspend or otherwise punish Vick.

Monday, July 16, 2007

Should Baseball Stadiums Stop Selling Beer to "Large" People?

A gruesome story from Yankee Stadium likely to lead to a lawsuit. Paul Robinson, visiting the Big Apple from Washington state, was enjoying a game last week when a large unidentified fan sitting a few rows behind him fell onto his head, snapping Robinson's neck:
"It felt like my head had been ripped off," Robinson told the Daily News from his hospital bed. . . . The man who fell was dragged away by his friends and never bothered to apologize or check how badly Robinson was hurt. The family believes he was drunk.

"I found it odd that they didn't even ask if Paul was OK," Robinson's wife, Kathy, told the Daily News. "It's very steep up there, but if it was an innocent trip, they would ask if Paul was OK."
The AP notes the incident is similar to one at Shea stadium last spring, in which "a 58-year-old woman suffered a broken back when a very large drunk crashed into her during a fall."

Obviously, the torts teacher in me asks, "Are the Yankees / Mets liable"? This is more than an academic question, since the Mets fan has filed suit against the stadium and beer vendor and it would be quite un-American for Mr. Robinson not to do so.

While stadium-goers are typically barred from recovering for injuries due to batted balls (see Greg's post here), that's because batted balls are considered an "inherent" part of the game. While some level of rowdiness and contact are to be expected when attending a game, the risk that a "large drunk fan" will fall onto one's neck is hardly integral to the game of baseball. New York also has a "dram shop" law, which provides
Any person who shall be injured in person, property, means of support, or otherwise by any intoxicated person, or by reason of the intoxication of any person, whether resulting in his death or not, shall have a right of action against any person who shall, by unlawful selling to or unlawfully assisting in procuring liquor for such intoxicated person, have caused or contributed to such intoxication.
Assuming the large fans at issue were served after reaching the point of intoxication (something that could probably be demonstrated by witness testimony or video evidence), the stadium and beer vendors seem clearly on the hook. Might this be a case where size matters, in the sense that an intoxicated person of substantial proportions poses a greater risk of causing serious harm to other fans?

NBPA's View of Commissioner Suspensions Opposite of NFLPA's

On Saturday, NBA players Ron Artest and Stephen Jackson were suspended by the league without pay for the first seven games of next season resulting from off-court legal issues. Artest pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor domestic violence charge involving a dispute with his wife, and Jackson pleaded guilty last month to a felony charge of criminal recklessness for firing a gun outside a strip club last fall. Jackson has publicly stated that he accepts his suspension. However, the union is comparing the penalties to other recent suspensions given to players for off-court misconduct and is considering appealing the suspensions. NBPA executive director Billy Hunter says, "Based on prior precedent, we think the suspensions are excessive. We plan to confer with the players and their representatives to consider all of our options for appeal." In 2001, Ruben Patterson received a five-game suspension after he accepted a modified guilty plea to third-degree attempted rape for allegedly forcing his children's nanny to perform a sex act on him, and Eddie Griffin was suspended three games in 2004 after pleading guilty to a misdemeanor assault charge in Texas.

Hunter's view of the union's role in defending the rights of players disciplined (or to be disciplined in the future) by the commissioner for off-field behavior is radically different from Gene Upshaw's view. A few months ago, I raised a number of questions that should be considered by all NFL players regarding disciplinary action taken by the commissioner under the NFL's new personal conduct policy, which was implemented by the new commissioner after consultation with a small committee of six players and affords the commissioner unfettered discretion in disciplining players without any review by an arbitrator. However, the NBA commissioner's disciplinary action is reviewable by an arbitrator mutually selected by the union and the league (as is the case with MLB and NHL commissioner disciplinary action). The effect of subjecting the commissioner's disciplinary action to outside review by an impartial arbitrator should not be underestimated because it impacts the commissioner's initial decision to take disciplinary action as well as the level of suspension he imposes. An arbitrator reviews the commissioner's action under a just cause standard, ensuring that the imposed discipline is not arbitrary, unduly harsh or contrary to established precedent.

The NBPA is obviously concerned about due process as well as the financial impact that league suspensions without pay will have on its players. The NFLPA, however, seems to take the view that stricter league disciplinary action is warranted in order to "clean up the league". The NBPA views the league in an adversarial position and feels that the commissioner's disciplinary action should be scrutinized, even when it involves suspension of a player for a small fraction of the season. Conversely, the NFLPA views the commissioner more as a partner in a "get tough on crime" policy and puts a great deal of trust in the hands of the commissioner to do whatever he thinks is necessary, even if it means suspending a player for half a season or a full season. So here's my legal question for the week: What is the proper role of a labor union certified under the National Labor Relations Act in representing the best interests of its members accused of off-field misconduct and disciplined by the commissioner?

Sunday, July 15, 2007

How to Be Happy

Everybody wants to be happy. People will differ on how to achieve this happiness, but everyone wishes to be happy. It is the end and purpose for everything we do.

I am happy. When I tell people this, they do not believe me. This is because they believe in a conception of happiness that is incorrect and/or have been frustrated in their attempts to find happiness. So, I'm going to put it down in writing once and for all, so that everyone can be happy just like me. Our first stop is defining happiness.

The Definition of Happiness
Happiness is not a feeling. That is the first thing that needs to be addressed. It is accompanied by good feelings, but happiness itself is not a good feeling. If good feelings were all that happiness was, then crackheads, cokeheads, dopeheads, drunks, and idiots in love should be the happiest people on the planet. Yet, I don't think anyone would consider these people to be happy.

The reason we don't consider these people to be happy despite their good feelings is because they lack an objective foundation of wellbeing. The good feelings we have must also correspond in some way to the reality in which we live.

On the other hand, would we consider rich people to be happy? Clearly, an abundance of material possessions must confer some objective measure of wellbeing. Then again, Howard Hughes was the richest man in the world, but I doubt he was happy in those hotel rooms wearing Kleenex boxes for shoes and urinating in milk bottles.

Happiness is an elusive thing to define. My definition of happiness derives from Aristotle, but I adapt and update it for our modern times. But essentially, my definition and Aristotle's definition of happiness is the same. Happiness is the fulfillment of rational activity.

At this point, you are probably scratching your head. I told you it was an elusive thing to understand. But that's why the essay is not ending here. Continue reading, and you will understand this concept a lot better.

It will help to show what happiness is not and where it cannot be found. Here is a list of where you will not find happiness:

1. Pleasure.
As I have already touched upon, pleasure does not bring happiness. If it did, pharmacists would be our saviors. The pleasures of drugs, sex, or what have you can give you a pleasant life and many people accept this as a subsitute for happiness. But we consider these people to be losers, idiots, or what have you. So, why doesn't it make sense to smoke crack? Because smoking crack is irrational. It takes you out of life. It is a divorce from the real world.

Drug addicts are miserable people. It really makes no sense since drugs are supposed to make you feel good. Yet, these people are not happy at all.

2. The Simple Life
Other people want to follow the flip side of this argument and claim that the key is to possess a life free from pain. These are the people who withdraw from life as much as possible. They want a simple life free from stress and worry maybe out in the country. This seems like a laudable goal until you realize that it is an impossible goal. I've lived such a life of retreat, and it only creates paranoia and irritation. For instance, city dwellers live with a constant stream of noise outside such that they couldn't get to sleep without it. Yet, I have visitors who come over who get pissed about the old man downstairs that plays his TV a little too loud. I never notice it myself.

We all know people like this who are disturbed by every little thing. For some reason, human beings adjust either upwards or downwards to the circumstances they find themselves in. An easy life creates softness which increases pain. A hard life creates resilience which increases pleasure. This is why people who exercise report feeling great while non-exercisers like myself feel like crap all the time. The result is that the simple life not only does not deliver happiness, but it also diminishes pleasure.

3. Religion.
Religion is also a dead end. This is because it isn't real. A religious person is someone who lives for a purpose that simply does not exist. To this extent, religious people and drug users are not any different from each other. In fact, the drug user may be a bit more rational than your typical fundamentalist because he still retains some logical faculty even if it is pointed in the wrong direction. I'd rather deal with a drunk than a member of al-Qaeda.

4. A Cause Greater Than Yourself.
This is along the same lines as religion except it is more secular in nature. These people believe that happiness lies in being selfless and sacrificing for the greater good. This is great rhetoric for politicians wanting young soldiers to go die in a fruitless war overseas that will accomplish nothing. We can admire certain aspects of these people, but we all harbor the suspicion that they are unwitting dupes. They do all the right things for the wrong reasons. And to question their purpose is akin to blasphemy. But these people are not happy. Ask a typical soldier in Iraq right now if he is happy, and I think the answer will be that he is not. His morale will be low. Why? Because he fights for no purpose. Yet, many World War II vets report a great deal of happiness during their time in the war despite the bloodshed and hardship. That is because they were individuals fighting for their own good against tyranny.

5. Other People.
Living for other people is also along the same lines as living for a cause greater than yourself. These are mothers, fathers, and lovers who sacrifice themselves for the ones they care about. I've done this, and I can tell you that it is utter misery. There is no happiness in altruism. It only leads to bitterness.

You cannot find happiness in other people. The belief is that if you make other people happy then you will make yourself happy. This is madness. You learn quickly how unsatisfied people are, and how eager they are to be parasites. This doesn't mean that you shouldn't have people in your life. People are essential to happiness but only as a means to happiness.

6. Riches and Fame.
This is the final failed option in finding happiness. Getting rich or finding fame and social status seem like the route to happiness, but for some reason, money doesn't seem to pull it off. It is a cliche in our culture that money can't buy happiness. Of course, it makes misery a little more bearable.

All of these things I have listed are not sufficient in and of themselves for happiness nor in combination. For instance, you can have health, wealth, a loving famly, the house in the suburbs, the white picket fence, or what have you and still not be happy. Some people think this checklist view of happiness is the correct way to go, but it isn't.

So, what is happiness and where does it come from?

HERE IS WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING FOR--> THE BIG "SECRET"
I've already defined happiness as the fulfillment of rational activity. It's not like you didn't already have it. But I'll put it in a different way. I am happy right now as I write this because I enjoy writing. It is what I am good at. And if I have done my job well, you have come to this point with breathless anticipation of the secret I am about to give you. So, here it is. You are already happy.

By now, you feel tricked, but there is no trick. By reading this essay, you engaged in rational activity. Now, that it has ended, you have found happiness. You learned things you did not know before. You grew in knowledge.

Happiness is a process. It never ends. When you engage in rational activity, you experience flourishing in your life. You feel an exhiliration as you do things and complete tasks. The more you do the better you feel. The only breaks come when you have to sleep or eat food.

A more basic answer is to say happiness is workaholism. This isn't exactly correct since you can experience the same thing from playing a videogame. But being a workaholic is more sustainable than playing videogames all day.

When you do something well, you get a rush from it. I don't know why this is, but it is what separates us from the lower animals. Human beings have an insatiable need to build things, discover things, and learn new skills. Money, friends, or what have you are means to doing these things. This is why these things are important but are never a subsitute for happiness.

A happy person is a busy person. He is a productive person. He does things and accomplishes things. He has a wide range of interests. He also possesses the things he needs to achieve his ends which usually were the fruit of some previous end. For instance, this essay is the fruit of years of reading and study on the subject.

You can be happy. The answer lies in those rational activities that you already love doing. Things like goofing off, watching TV, or going on vacation are good for recharging the batteries. But you can't make a lifestyle out of it. This is why Aristotle stressed balance. All things in moderation.

Being happy is an art and a skill. It takes practice to pull it off, but it can be done because I do it everyday. There are setbacks but overcoming setbacks is also part of the activity. In fact, all work boils down to overcoming resistance. This is why I am able to shake off so much shit that happens to me.

Most of these ideas come directly from Aristotle, but I don't think he had it all worked out. There have been many advances in knowledge since his time, and I don't think Aristotle gave much thought to the role that freedom plays in happiness. But he had the kernel of truth way back then. This isn't to say that people haven't been happy. Most people experience happiness accidentally. What Aristotle did is take the haphazardness out of it.

PRACTICAL APPLICATION
To be happy, I recommend this approach. Go to Wal-Mart or Office Depot and buy yourself a notebook that is fairly rugged. It has to last a long time because you're going to carry it the rest of your life. In this book, write down every damn thing you would like to read, learn, do, or what have you with the rest of your life. Don't plan it out. This isn't a gameplan. It is merely a book of lists. It should be as expansive as it can possibly be. Don't think about whether you will live long enough to do it all. Pretend you have 1000 years to live and do everything you'd like to do. The result is a book of options that will give you a limitless supply of goals to tackle. This is what Leonardo da Vinci did with his notebooks, and he never got it all done. But I think he was pretty happy during his life. You will be, too.

Remember that happiness is a process. You won't find happiness when you get something done. Most projects follow a pattern of a beginning, a middle, and an end just like a good movie or fantastic sex. When it is really good, you don't want it to end. This is how I felt when I was in college. But I realized after I graduated that I never had to stop learning.

Another thing to remember about happiness is that it leads to a lot of busyness and can get messy sometimes. This is directly opposed to people who propose living the simple life. The simple life is boring. It may be attractive initially, but you will grow tired of it soon.

If you do everything right, you will sense a feeling of exhiliration. You will hate going to bed, and you will love getting up everyday. You will skip sleep to do extra work on your projects. I know because I do this. You may even start drinking coffee in the afternoon for that extra kick.

You can take it too far. This results in unnecessary adversity like being unable to find something on an uncluttered desk because you were too busy to clean up behind yourself. This happens to me a lot.

What does a happy person look like? From history, I think the happiest people were folks like Aristotle himself who pursued various fields of study, geniuses of the Renaissance like Leonardo, folks like Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, and inventors like Thomas Edison and entrepreneurs like Steve Jobs.

Aristotle said that you couldn't call a person happy until the end of his life. I disagree on this. I think you can be happy at any point in your life. On the other hand, you can't say a person lived a full life until the end of their lives. It may be a minor distinction, but I think it matters. I don't worry about living a full life. I just spend my time doing shit now.

Personal Reflections
There have been two periods in my life when I was happy. The first period was an accident. My old man fired me from the family business after I graduated from high school, and I took a job stacking hay for a feed merchant here in Camden. I had fallen away from my religion, and I worked my ass off. I lost a lot of weight and was in the best shape of my life as a result. The labor was brutal, but it was seven months of bliss for me. I couldn't explain why during that time, but I realize now why I was happy. I was free to do my own thing. I labored under neither guilt nor oppression. I had no intentions of going to college, but I changed my mind. My boss was surprised because he didn't think I could even read. He was a real cocksucker.

I lost my happiness when I returned to working for my dad and my Christian faith. I knew I had been happy, but it was gone. I couldn't explain why this was. I still had my moments of bliss studying and working, but I was always dissatisfied. The primary reason is because I became religious again.

I also dated some chicks, and I couldn't help but notice how my happiness vanished because of them. I have found pleasure with women but not happiness. I can confidently say today that love and happiness do not intersect at any point.

My present period of happiness began much the same way my first period of happiness began. I became estranged from my mother and father, embraced atheism and libertarian politics, and threw myself into my work and projects. I have been happy ever since. The only real threat to my wellbeing has come from romance. Women are misery.

To me, the ideal man is the Renaissance Man. I aspire to be a man of wide learning, various skills, and multiple endeavors. History shows us that Aristotle's influence always leads to flourishing. Aristotle influenced Shakespeare. Aristotle was the imeptus for the Renaissance. And I think Aristotle and his pupils are the reason we have the scientific, cultural, and technical progress we see today.

This is happiness. Be rational. Work. Enjoy pleasures in moderation. Learn that virtue is the midpoint between excess and deficiency. Learn to laugh. Don't take yourself too seriously. Pursue the things you love with selfishness, but respect others along the way. This is what I do. I am not perfect at all of these things, and I get into scrapes. But I also get out of them. I have a great life. I hope you have a great life, too.


SORAYAMA, unknown

Random Thoughts on Various Subjects

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.