Dawg Sports: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:



Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
New Blog: Backing the Pack for NC State Fans!


spread the word

U.S. Representative Joe Barton Attacks Superficial Problem with Petty, Idiotic Hypocrisy

There has been a changing of the guard in Washington, D.C.

No, I’m not talking about the playoff-supporting president-elect or the dominant Democratic majority in the national legislature. I’m talking about the fact that, finally, Lynn Westmoreland’s claim to the title "Whiniest Loser in Congress" has passed to a new national embarrassment.

Take it away, Representative Joe Barton (R.-Tex.):

Taking aim at a BCS system he said "consistently misfires," a member of Congress planned to introduce legislation Wednesday that would force college football to adopt a playoff to determine the national champion.

Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, the ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, didn't specify what sort of playoff he wants -- only that the BCS should go. . . .

He said the bill -- being co-sponsored by Reps. Bobby Rush, an Illinois Democrat, and Michael McCaul, a Texas Republican -- "will prohibit the marketing, promotion, and advertising of a postseason game as a 'national championship' football game, unless it is the result of a playoff system. Violations of the prohibition will be treated as violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act as an unfair or deceptive act or practice."

Before proceeding, I would like to take a moment to rejoice at this good news. Obviously, such trifling problems as international terrorism, the war in Iraq, the faltering economy, the offshoring of American jobs, our failing education system, energy independence, and the crippling crises in the lending and automotive industries have been solved, or else no Congressman would dare act in such a petty manner regarding such a superficial issue.

What’s that? Those problems still exist? Oh. Well. In that case, I guess Joe Barton is a shameful sack of snot who has no business being in a field that ought to be reserved for serious people who take real issues seriously. (Yes, you know and I know that I don’t really mean "sack of snot," but, then, John Nance Garner didn’t really say the vice presidency of the United States wasn’t worth a pitcher of warm spit, either. I’m trying to keep it clean, even though Joe is testing my patience. I do not suffer fools gladly and I suffer fools with more power than good sense never.)

If Joe thinks this is a legitimate use of his time and the taxpayers’ money, he is a blithering dufus with no conception of the commonweal whose obviously mismatched priorities ought to get him shipped out of the District of Columbia and off to a ranch in Montana with Stewart Mandel’s 100 mythical college football fans.

Let us, however, leave aside the fact that no intellectually credible reading of Article I, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution comes even remotely close to authorizing any action this asinine. (Please, don’t cite me any U.S. Supreme Court decisions broadly reading the commerce clause. The mere fact that five U.S. Supreme Court justices thought it at one point in American history doesn’t make it an intellectually credible reading of the Constitution, as anyone who has ever made his way through the incoherent muddle that is much of Con law knows full well.) It suffices simply to say that anyone with Joe Barton’s infantile understanding of the proper reading of the powers of the national government shouldn’t be sitting in Congress.

What concerns me most, though, is the fact that his approach is not only sweeping and overbearing, it’s also dumb. Joe Barton wants to treat the use of the phrase "national championship game" when applied to a B.C.S. bowl as a deceptive trade practice in violation of federal law . . . even though the name of the contest is "the B.C.S. National Championship Game"? If Representative Barton is not being ironic, he needs to read more Orwell.

Even if such a law were to be passed, it would be so preposterous as to be ineffectual. Some federal laws are so stupid that everyone merely ignores them, which is why the only people in this country who use the metric system are scientists, marathon runners, and drug dealers. This would be such a law. Give the president-elect credit; although I disagree with his position on a playoff, at least he supports a playoff by supporting a playoff. Joe Barton supports a playoff by saying, um, well, we don’t have to have a playoff or anything, we just can’t call the national champion "the national champion" unless we do. It’s like declaring beauty pageants sexist and trying to stamp them out by refusing to let the Miss America pageant use the phrase "Miss America." Was the pageant the problem or the name?

Even if federal bureaucrats could stop laughing at this law long enough to enforce it, though, who believes the powers that be in college football are not savvy enough to get around it? Does anyone remember when it was made illegal to advertise beer on gas station signs? They starting putting the phrase "cold beverages," accompanied by prices, on signs instead. The letter of the law was obeyed but no one misapprehended the euphemism. The small-minded law’s only accomplishments were to reduce respect for the rule of law as a whole and to reiterate the reality that money-motivated entrepreneurs will always have adequate ingenuity to outsmart paternalistic bureaucrats who get bent out of shape over the citizenry’s insistence upon living freely.

If guys running roadside convenience stores are savvy enough to outwit the civil service lifers tucked away in cubicles in windowless government buildings, how much more overmatched do you suppose the Label Police will be when they run up against the Worldwide Leader in Sports? The B.C.S. can’t call it a national championship game? Fine; get ready for some new slogans. "The Battle for No. 1!" "The Race for the Top Spot!" "Crowning the Best Team in the Land!" "The Final Fight to Finish First!" Brent Musburger could be programmed to recite any of those catch-phrases ad infinitum without missing a beat.

In short, it’s a dumb law, it’s a bad law, it’s a terrifying precedent, it’s beneath the dignity of the U.S. Congress (which is saying something), and we all know it’s disingenuous.

Where was Representative Barton from, again? Oh, yeah . . . Texas. If I’m not mistaken, Texas is the home state of, you know, Texas. Gosh, how’d the Longhorns do this year?

Oh. Right. Well, then. Say, I wonder why Representative Barton didn’t introduce this bill after Vince Young and the Burnt Orange beat U.S.C. in the Rose Bowl? Maybe some national championships are more equal than others.

Joe Barton, who "promised to continue fighting for conservative values," evidently believes an increasingly intrusive national government that enforces speech codes is "conservative." That would have been news to Barry Goldwater. I wonder if Representative Barton will recognize the caricature he has made of conservatism by introducing such a bill the next time he visits his Arlington office on West Ronald Reagan Memorial Highway?

Obviously, he is shamelessly pandering to the Longhorn fans among his constituents. You know what, though? Just as former Georgia State University student Lynn Westmoreland tried to pass himself off as a University of Georgia man by moaning about "his" Bulldogs, Joe Barton is trying to dupe the Texas exes by pretending to be one of them.

Here may be the greatest hypocrisy of them all: Joe Barton attended Texas A&M and Purdue. That’s right . . . an Aggie undergrad and a Big Ten alum is trying to pass for a Longhorn fan. Somewhere, Peter Bean just threw up in his mouth a little.

I know Texas fans. I work with Texas fans at SB Nation. Texas fans are friends of mine. Joe Barton is no Texas fan, and, no matter how mad the Longhorn faithful may be and no matter how much they may hate Oklahoma, surely they won’t get in bed with the Aggies in order to fight this perceived injustice.

I use the word "perceived" because, although Texas had an argument, they lost that argument fairly and they have no particular business feeling slighted. I know there are plenty of Cal fans out there who are delighting in Mack Brown’s misery, but I will offer the same advice to the Longhorns that I did to the Golden Bears four years ago:

Either beat Texas Tech or quit your whining.

In any case, though, Joe Barton needs to sit down, shut up, and quit shaming the Lone Star State, which deserves better than a nimrod like him acting the fool in the nation’s capital.

Go ‘Dawgs!

0 recs | Comment 13 comments | Share on Facebook Digg!

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Oops!

“Started putting,” not “starting putting.”

Sorry; when I get riled up, my proofreading suffers.

Go 'Dawgs!

by T Kyle King on Dec 11, 2008 9:43 AM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Question regarding Art. I, @ 8, U.S. Const.

Excellent post, Kyle. I have lifted my self imposed suspension, and have hidden all the liquor in my house. That said, I agree that the proposed Legislation seems obviously unlawful. However, does the problem lie more with the Constitutional grant of authority under the Commerce Clause, or with the error in trying to apply FTC Deceptive Trade Practices against the business judgment of a private institution working in agreement with over 100 Universities, Major Media Outlets, and Merchandisers.

“The Congress shall have Power to. . . egulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among several States, and with the Indian Tribes;”

The BCS operates for profit along interstate lines, which if I understand correctly, means that the Commerce clause gives Congress the authority to regulate the BCS when it engages in activities that implicate federal law, like violating the civil rights laws, etc. This is a broader scope of the section than the founders envisioned when drafting the Constitution, but can still be maintained along strictly textualist theories of interpretation. Looking at the statute on deceptive trade practices, it seems that their is no requirement of an intent to decieve or any actual deception to have taken place. All that is necessary is a showing of a likelihood that the practice creates a misrepresentation that can decieve a class of people.

So this begs the question, in the context of a NCAA Championship how do you decide who the champion is, and therefore whether any misrepresentation occured.

WELL ISN’T THAT WHAT THE ENTIRE DEBATE ABOUT THE BCS IS ALL ABOUT?

And for every pro argument there is a con argument, and thus the decision should be left to those who are in the best position to make it, the University presidents, NCAA committees and BCS directors and officers. Absent a showing of self dealing, I think these guys are held to a standard of business judgement. Anyway Sorry for anyone who didn’t want to read through my method of thinking on the matter, but Kyle what do think, no authority, or no means of enforcing? Either way its an attempt to manipulate our system of representational government into a bludgeon for one small group’s opinion.

by dawgdayafternoon on Dec 11, 2008 11:44 AM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Fair points, dawgdayafternoon

For my part, I’m what the traditional news media would call a strict constructionist. What I think about statutory (and, particularly, Constitutional) interpretation was pretty well summed up in Robert Bork’s The Tempting of America, Antonin Scalia’s A Matter of Interpretation, and “Close But No Cigar: A Response to Professor Graglia,” 25 Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 369 (Fall 2001).

I’m pretty much of the school of thought that says “regulate interstate commerce” means “regulate interstate commerce,” not “regulate any activity that impacts or implicates interstate commerce.” In a society as mobile as ours, there’s almost literally nothing that doesn’t impact or implicate interstate commerce, as evidenced by the fact that the Gun-Free School Zones Act and the Violence Against Women Act were justified as regulations of interstate commerce.

Your argument makes sense, though, and it probably holds more water in the current legal climate than mine. I definitely agree that this decision is best left to those involved.

Welcome back.

Go 'Dawgs!

by T Kyle King on Dec 11, 2008 12:22 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Damn...

That’s a pretty brutally-restrictive view of ICC. Somewhere Rehnquist’s black soul is thinking “let there be but one to Lopez”.

"penis fish"…google that, and the candiru is the first thing that pops up

by Stuck in the Plains on Dec 11, 2008 1:53 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

If the goal is to do away with the BCS, it seems to me that their is a clear, legitimate, and easy legislative path to get there. Rather than relying on the Commerce Clause, why not just rely on the power of the purse? After all, the BCS only works because everyone is involved.

I imagine that there must be some significant amount of money being handed out (especially to public universities) which could be given contingent upon the universities not accepting BCS bowl bids (or maybe any bowl bid) unless an NCAA-sanctioned playoff exists to crown a champion and the university has not received an invitation.

A congressional finding that the BCS treats universities in non-BCS conferences unfairly seems as though it could go a long way toward making a somewhat reasonable case for the legislation.

All it would take is a handful of schools to have to bow out of the BCS before it would become utterly pointless to pursue and the universities themselves would, in very short order, organize a play-off to ensure that they’re still getting both the government and the TV network money coming into their universities..

by PeteHoliday on Dec 11, 2008 12:41 PM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I'm a Texan and a Dawg.....

…..and while I see this matter through shades of burnt orange that I was born with, I see right through it. In fact, I think we’re all looking at this the wrong way. While I feel that Rep. Barton is indeed “pandering to the Longhorn fans among his constituents,” I also see what Horn fans know and what Aggie fans pretend isn’t true. See, I know Aggie fans. Think of them as South Carolina fans, only with a deep tradition that actually includes those things called conference titles. They’re fiercely loyal to College Station, wear their rings like some kind of war medal, and “whoop” like it’s a badge of honor (while similar to the Tennessee “woo” near the end of Rocky Top, it is shorter, more pointed, and infinitely less annoying). Oh, and they always know that “this is their year.”

Anyway, what I see here is an Aggie alum realizing, much like an Auburn fan living in Alabama, that 85% of his state favors the Horns. I think perhaps he thought that by crusading through congress with the banner of “WE got screwed” he could endear himself to Texans who call Austin Mecca instead of that hole down the road. Either way, I think it’s pathetic – and, at a time when Mack is under more fire than ever before (unfounded, mind you) in regards to his own attempts at politicking for his team, the Congressman is easily doing more harm than good. Who knows, perhaps that was the goal all along. Maybe he’s smarter than we all give him credit for…..

Go Dawgs, and Hook ’em!!!

Cale Self

University of Georgia
Brevard Music Center
www.allhailcale.blogspot.com

by allhailcale on Dec 11, 2008 12:45 PM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I'm so sick of this crap

Last year we had some government officials (and for some reason I think Al Gore was involved) hold a meeting to determine whether or not they should push the NFL to air the last regular season game of the Patriots on national television instead of just on the NFL Network.

Sorry but WTF. And they actually succeeded. Again, WTF.

I got no problem with them saying what they think on their off day when they aren’t working, but keep this crap out of politics. It’s completely embarassing to this country.

We need the separation of BCS and state.

by UgaBulldog14 on Dec 11, 2008 12:57 PM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

sorry Kyle.....

I’d like to say differently and I really should be studying for my Federal Jurisdiction exam that takes place in around 8 hours…..

But it’s just straight Raich. With Lopez and Morrison flapping in the breeze….

We’re back to Wickard and the Perez framework…. 1) channels of IC 2) instrumentalities of IC or 3) things having a substantial effect upon IC. Sadly, the FTC probably falls under two of the three.

And as to the “mere fact that five U.S. Supreme Court justices thought it at one point in American history” argument…. remember who concurred in Raich- none other than Nino. And with Alito replacing O’Connor’s federalism vote, given his 3d circuit precedents, its probably more like 7-2 now with only Thomas and Roberts dissenting.

Now, lets use that expansive Article 1 power and pass something helpful – like an injunction forcing Stafford and Moreno to stay for another year.

by DawginMS on Dec 12, 2008 3:13 AM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Incompetent government

I love Barton’s idea. I wish the members of Congress would waste more time on superficial issues instead of serious ones. Look at all the damage our leaders have caused? An active federal government is a headache for Americans. If they’re going to screw something up let it be College Football. I’d rather the idiots mess up something "superficial" instead of bankrupting the nation.

by mdhenshaw on Dec 12, 2008 8:37 AM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

With respects to...
money-motivated entrepreneurs will always have adequate ingenuity to outsmart paternalistic bureaucrats who get bent out of shape over the citizenry’s insistence upon living freely.

1st question: Does this mean that the lobby for the BCS is stronger than the lobby for a playoff? Is there a lobbying body for a playoff system? Didn’t the president of UGA (SEC President desire a 8 team playoff?)

2nd Question: Why did NCAA Div-I change to FBS anyway?

3rd Question: Isn’t a championship game that is determined by computers AND human opinion (voting) doomed to fail in ultimately picking the best teams to represent the championship game? Doesn’t the use of using both computer and human voting cancel itself out? For the good that the stats provide for computer calculations, the opinions of voters are hard pressed to be 100 % objective. The last time I heard, the only thing that was truly objective in the world was math.

" We got "The Rod"...What you got? "

by LOUtheMETandNATSfan on Dec 12, 2008 4:59 PM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Good Post Kyle....

I had many of the same thoughts when i first heard of this story.

by Zandor435 on Dec 13, 2008 11:55 PM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation community devoted to the Georgia Bulldogs.
Start posting about the Bulldogs »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Flowerchucker_small
Quick Question re: Branden Smith
Small
College Football Preview Luncheon
Photo_69_small
Individual/Composite calendars for iCal/Outlook?
Small
College Football Preview Luncheon
Small
muschamp recruits in georgia
Associated_20press_clayliston_1965_l_small
How to Taunt a Georgia Fan
Mtsu_sm_small
Going to UGA
Small
oklahoma state blog
Small
2009 Competition Improves
Small
100 Cocktails

Post_icon New FanPost All FanPosts Carrot-mini


Managers

Beard_47_series_wins_and_42_points_in_2007_small T Kyle King

Official Partner of CBS Sports