University of Spoiled College athletes

He allegedly said "I own the law" after allegedly punching another party-goer twice before fleeing a Halloween party and now freshman linebacker Rey Maualuga appears to have joined the very exclusive club of college athletes who are so valuable as to be above the law as long as their team is winning. He plays for the University of Southern California Trojans, who are ranked #1 in most polls and if they remain undefeated, will play for the National Championship in the Rose Bowl. Nothing wrong with this, except that they have yet to do anything to Maualuga about his having been arrested. Now he was demoted to the scout team or so it was announced, but he said he knew nothing of any punishment and in the Saturday that followed his arrest, he played in the second half of the USC game against Stanford. Why bother announcing that he was demoted if the demotion was only until they needed to bring Maualuga in. Then all of a sudden he wasn't demoted anymore, he was in the game.

Trojan Head Coach Pete Carroll says "He has been punished, he is being punished, there are things he has to do for this program through next year," (from a L.A. Times column by Bill Plaschke, 11/13/05). Oh really? How was he punished, Coach? How is he being punished? His arraignment isn't scheduled until November 22nd, and you've punished him already? Is that punishment for merely having been arrested, or have you already tried, convicted and punished him and whatever happens in the criminal justice system will have no impact on his career on the field for the Trojans?

There is something to be said for privacy and it should be noted that Maualuga is going through a difficult period. That doesn't excuse him from throwing punches if he in fact did so, and the pressure of a winning streak and a #1 ranking and shot at a BCS Bowl bid doesn't excuse letting him off without punishment if he is deserving of it. If this was being handled properly and was capable of withstanding scrutiny, then the punishment would be public and we would know what it is. We don't. Therefore, we can't help but suspect that something is rotten in the scheme of things and the Trojan football program is hiding something. If players are supposed to be role models as Carroll has said, then they should be held to account for their actions.

Symbols and symbolism

Once again, San Francisco has demonstrated that it is out of step with the rest of the nation, by passing Proposition I, a symbolic measure that called for an end to military recruiting in the city's public schools. It passed with the support of 60% of those who voted and that's no surprise, because there is no risk to passing this symbolic measure.

I wonder if the voters of San Francisco would have voted the same way if the langauge of the proposition had been written differently and had taken a real stand by banning military recruiters from having access to those students enrolled in the city's public schools. The city or should I say the school district can do this, but at the risk of losing federal funds. They were willing to vote for a symoblic, fist in the face of recruiters gesture, but when faced with the loss of federal funding, I doubt those voters would have been as eager to take the same stance.

The question is, why the vehement opposition to recruiting and recruiters? It is time to stop opposing the war by protesting the recruiting effort. If someone wants to protest the war, then protest the war itself. Make a sign, march in a demonstration, do whatever. But since the days of the draft ended, and the all volunteer force began, the need for recruiters and recruiting have become critical. The 2002 "No Child Left Behind Act" requires school districts to provide recruiters with the names, addresses and phone numbers of students or risk losing federal funding.

That same act also allows the student or the family of the student to chose to be left alone, that is to "opt out" and if they do so, they will not be contacted by military recruiters. One piece of paper, one form, and no recruiter will phone or make any other attempt to contact the student. It is very easy to opt out. In fact, the same type of opt-out method is currently in use by unions in California to allow those members who don't want their dues payments used for political purposes and the unions used the ease of this method as one of their defenses against a proposition to change that system in the most recent special election. So if it is good enough for union members, it should be (and is) good enough for students who don't want to be bothered by recruiters.

So, San Francisco, either do it right, and ban recruiting altogether and give up the money, or just pass out the opt-out forms and be quiet. Let the recruiters do their jobs and you do yours.

Unhappy Veterans Day

I have finally figured out why I get so agitated on Veterans Day and the root cause surprised me. It isn't that no one says "thanks" for my having served, after all, aside from a few close friends, most of the people who know me don't know that I spent ten years in the military. I'm still angry over having lost my G.I. Bill educational benefits to a loophole in the law that was changed in 1984 and it was an editorial in the L.A. Times on Veterans Day that called for the government not to skimp on G.I. Bill education benefits that finally made me realize what bothers me so.

I stood in line, starting at 4:00 a.m., on December 30, 1976, in order to enlist and gain access to the Vietnam era G.I. Bill educational benefits. My recruiter had explained at length that this meant that upon my leaving the military I would have ten years to use my four years worth of educational benefits. It was one of the primary reasons that I had decided to delay entry into college and go into the military. That, and the fact that I could go to night classes in college once I was permanently assigned to a duty station (if all went well, and it did).

But in 1984, the rules were changed, thanks to then Representative Sunny Montgomery and there was a loophole in his legislation that I got caught in. For people who were eligible for the Vietnam era benefits, they had to remain on active duty beyond a date in 1988 in order for their benefits eligibility to convert to the new program his bill created. I left the service in July 1987. Therefore, I had only from August of 1987 through December 31, 1989 to use my four years worth of educational benefits. 17 months to use 48 months worth of benefits?? Yeah, that just doesn't add up. As a result, I was unable to use any of my educational benefits, as I had to secure work right away and the following year, even if I had applied to college, the benefits would have run out in mid-year.

I wrote to Rep Montgomery asking that he sponsor legislation to amend his bill to provide adequate time for me and others like me caught in the same loophole to use our benefits, but received no reply. Neither of the U.S. Senators from my home state of California nor the Member of the House whose district I lived in at the time responded to letters on the subject either, except to say that there was nothing they could do. Good ole B-1 Bob Dornan did respond saying he would look into the matter, but later responded saying that budgetary constraints prevented anything from being done. At least he looked into the matter.

So now, every Veterans Day, I am reminded that this is how my nation said thanks for my service. It took away my promised educational benefits. No wonder I don't like this holiday.