Dave Bliss and Allen Academy: Lack of institutional control and....wisdom

/sigh.  Wonder if anyone with a brain did not see this one coming.

In The Eagle today:

District 7-2A athletics directors met last month in Conroe and questioned [Dave] Bliss over issues related to student transfer forms for Allen Academy basketball players. Rather than rule on the players' eligibility, the district committee sent the issue to the state level.

"There was uncertainty among the athletic directors on how those student-athletes ended up at Allen Academy and how they are attending Allen Academy," Brazos Christian athletics director Marko Hahn said. "Because we didn't feel we had the power to investigate the matter properly, we just turned it in to TAPPS at the state level. We were in agreement that if TAPPS said everything was clear, we were OK with it. If TAPPS found something wrong, we trusted that TAPPS would handle it."

I wrote about Dave Bliss in a previous post.  Yeah, I am no fan of a guy who would make up a story about one of his students - especially one that had just been murdered - just to save himself from NCAA rule violations.  A real class act.

But Allen Academy thought otherwise:

"He's a great coach and a great Christian" says Former Allen Trustee Dennis Goehiring.

Lets see what TAPPS - Texas Association of Private and Parochial Schools - had to say about ol' Dave 'throw the kid under the bus' Bliss' actions:

Seems the issue is over two students who transferred to the school after the former Baylor University head men's basketball coach - Dave Bliss - was hired in May of this year.  You know, that's why they have the NCAA, UIL, and TAPPS, to keep students from being recruited to play for one particular high school. 

And what does Allen Academy have to say about Dave Bliss - their athletics director, dean of students and head boys basketball coach - and his "lack of institutional control in establishing the eligibility of student athletes?"

"Some of the students that were attending the boarding school were going to play basketball, and they ruled those kids ineligible," Rouse said. "We challenged that because that's not what we were told when we applied to be a boarding school. It's their organization, and they set the rules. They didn't match what we think is appropriate for a boarding school, so we just pulled out."

So.....what part of TAPPS' 2010-2011 rule did they have trouble with?  Maybe it was over the word ineligible - you know - as in can't play.

Students not Living with Parents who live with someone other than immediate family members (The Host family and the Guardian must be the same person) are ineligible to participate in Varsity athletic competition for one calendar year from the first day of attendance at the TAPPS member high school.

This means - and I am doing complex math here - that if the two kids were convinced by their parents to put them up in a boarding school so they could play for Coach Bliss in May of  2010, they would not be eligible (the opposite of ineligible) to play until May 2011.  Why would anyone think a boarding school is any different than sending them to Uncle Pete who lives in a winning school district?

That's the rule.  Rules are necessary for order and fairness.  Allen Academy was part of TAPPS and them's the rules you play by - just like all the other schools they competed against who did play by the rules.  But ol' Coach Bliss has a thing for ignoring rules, that and smearing the name of a dead kid - so those rules shouldn't apply - not if they can get a good basketball team together!

But dangit all anyways - someone called the "Coach and Great Christian man" on this issue.  Guilty!  Probation! Public Reprimand! Suspension!

And what does Allen Academy do?  They are withdrawing from TAPPS.  "They didn't match what we think is appropriate for a boarding school, so we just pulled out."  That's right, if you can't cheat, lie, steal, deceive, ignore, mislead, or hire a coach that does all those things to get a winning sports team - pick up your ball and go play somewhere else.

Really Allen Academy?  After all you knew about this guy and his past behavior you hire him to teach and mentor high school kids?  And now your participation in athletics is severely jeopardized because of this guy.  And you still support him?  If you see a decrease in enrollment don't blame the economy, blame the idiots who thought Dave Bliss was a good hire.

/sigh.  As if anyone with even half a brain could not have seen this coming.

If it weren't for Jesus....I'd kill you.

/sigh.....I don't make this stuff up.

The Eagle - July 12, 2010.  Letter to the Editor

Religious beliefs offer a measure of protection

I find it amusing and ironic that the very people who try to question, judge, restrict or forbid my religious beliefs don't understand that my religious beliefs are the only thing protecting them from people like me.

ALBERT GONTER, Bryan

So I thought it fitting to write the Gonter version of "The Lord Is My Shepherd."


The Lord is my governor,
I shall not kill you;
He makes me take the bullets out of my gun.
He leads me away from knives, poisons, and bombs
He empties my magazine.
He provides me with proportional control
for your sake.

Even though I walk through the streets
of the city in plain view,
They cannot fathom my evil;
for You protect them from me;
Your rod and Your staff would make awesome weapons Lord.

Surely badness and mayhem will never leave me
all the days of my life;
and I shall dwell with the other swine in the house of the
Lord forever.

Warning: Doublethink in Play

Don Beavers, a retired Army Intelligence officer, writes at the beginning of his essay (The Eagle 6/12/09):

“The United States of America does not torture prisoners or detainees”

This statement, as well as every statement that contends torture did not take place appears to be predicated on two things:

• There was no intent to kill
• They would not suffer lasting harm

Because these two things were not present during the wateboarding or any other “enhanced interrogation” procedure torture did not take place. There is no debate here on what is and what is not torture. It has been clearly articulated by both the UN as well as under the Geneva Convention.

UN: torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

Geneva Conventions: "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."

When I hear these arguments - these bold statements of assertion that what did go on did not go on - I immediately think of George Orwell’s “1984”. There is a certain irony at play here, just like by calling it the Ministry of Love, and understanding, while you called it that, what the word “love” meant, and also knowing that torture took place within the Ministry of Love, required simultaneously accepting as correct two mutually contradictory beliefs - or - what Orwell called “doublethink.”

It is doublethink when Mr. Beavers, Donald Rumsfeld, Eric Holder, Dick Cheney, and Alberto Gonzales declare that torture did not take place when they know full well how it is defined. To believe we are a moral nation, to believe we are a nation of laws, to believe we do not torture, and yet knowing we did is a textbook example of doublethink.

…to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies.

Mr. Beaver’s ends his essay:

“I did not consider anything I was subjected to [in training] or anything we did to question prisoners to be torture.”

So if waterboarding, which he rates as a “7 or 8” out of 10, is not “severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental” or is not a “form of coercion” then what is? To call it anything else ignores the lawful definition and most importantly, ignores the reality of what took place. Mr. Beavers and his ilk know this but will steadfastly adhere to their assertion that torture did not take place.

How could something so despicable and unlawful as torture take place by the US? It could not. So they call it something else - enhanced interrogation, a name that does not mean torture in the same way the windowless Ministry of Love became the place where there is no darkness

A strange kind of common sense

Don McLeory, our local dentist, evolution debunker, and ex-State School Board head, wrote a pretty nice article in our local paper, The Eagle (Sunday, June 7, 2009), on the virtues of keeping ideology out of the science classroom. On the surface, his argument appears very sound and echoes what the scientific community has been stating all along, that “science is the use of evidence to construct testable explanations and predictions of natural phenomenon as well as the knowledge generated through this process”. Where Dr. McLeroy and his followers find comfort is in the term “testable.”

“If it is not testable, it is not science” Dr. McLeory notes. The understanding here is that one cannot test in the laboratory or field the different hypothesis used to support the theory. This Dr. McLeory contends allows a student on “scientific grounds to challenge any untestable ideology being taught as dogma.”

The theory of evolution is not dogma, nor, for a scientist, is it an ideology. A scientific theory is:

“A plausible or scientifically acceptable, well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena and predict the characteristics of as yet unobserved phenomena.”

It is based on the use of a Hypothesis:

“A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation. Scientific hypotheses must be posed in a form that allows them to be rejected.”

So the new argument that the Intelligent Design folks are using is to try to use the definition against itself, as if it will get caught in an endless loop of if-then-else logic and completely self-destruct. They use the logic that because you can’t test what took place millions of years ago, then the hypothesis is not valid, which means you can’t use it to support the theory. This logic is also used to support the inclusion of a supernatural cause. Because the supernatural causation can’t be tested either, it is just as plausible a theory as the scientific one.

The constant battle over evolution by the ID folks have hurt science in the name of trying to hold onto their own dogma and ideology. Allowing guys like Dr. McLeory to dictate what our children should or should not be taught in a public setting does nothing but muddy the waters of logical thinking. We end up confusing kids who then grow up to be confused and ignorant adults, all in the name of perpetuating the belief that their holy book is somehow the absolute, accurate, and definitive explanation as to how their God works.

In their paper “The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition A theoretical framework and implications for Science Instruction” Chinn & Brewer (1993) noted:

“The 3-week instructional unit on evolution [given to a class consisting of 50% creationists] included a section on fossil evidence for evolution. Before instruction, only 1% of the students agreed with the statement “Fossils were intentionally put on earth to confuse humans.” After instruction, however, 7% of the students agreed with the same statement.”

“For the supernaturalist” Dr. McLeory argues, “the phrase “natural explanations” does not just undermine his view of science but actually excludes it by definition. If science is limited to only natural explanations but some natural phenomena are actually the result of supernatural causes then science would never be able to discover that truth—not a very good position for science. Defining science to allow for this possibility is just common sense.”In Science you cannot allow for the possibility of something that cannot be tested. Common sense should lead you to that conclusion, which is why Dr. McLeory will use whatever method he can to keep our kids in the dark.

Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves (Matt. 7:15)

No one has given me a thing.

In the March 16 Letters to the Editor, Jim Bryant, in response to Bob Koestier’s March 11 letter makes the following statement:

I know I have been working extremely hard for the past 23 years and have been increasing my worth each year. No one has given me a thing.

Nancy, my assistant made 1/3 of the salary I do. I make 1/2 the salary of our Division head. Which one of us is working harder for what we are paid? I will contend that I have personally and professionally benefited from the low salary we paid her. And now that she is gone, and has not been replaced, I really know her value. Earnings have little to do with how hard one works and more to do with how your work is valued.

What I take issue with is Mr. Bryant’s belief that “no one has given me a thing,” or, in other words, his increase in wealth is completely the result of his own doing. I beg to differ with you Mr. Bryant. First of all, you are where you are at because of the community in which you live.
Lots of people gave you the things you needed to make the life you are living now possible.

Assuming that you make over $250k a year as you indicate, do you realize that the teachers that taught you, that prepared you and encouraged along the way make 1/5 of that amount? What about the firefighters that put their lives at risk to save your property, thereby allowing you to keep your wealth, did you know they also make about 1/5 of that amount. This also goes for the surgical nurse and anesthesiologist technician that made sure you made it through surgery make less than ¼ of that amount. And let’s not forget all the volunteers that helped you along the way. Those that gave up their free time to coach you, supervise you, or mentor you in an effort to help you succeed later on in life.

No one has given you a thing?

One of the things about material wealth that a lot of folks forget is that it occupies a fixed total amount - a pie so to speak. That is, as one gets wealthier someone else becomes less wealthy. It is simple economics at play. Goods and services are priced at what the market will bear, not at what they are really worth. This means that the hotel maid, taxi driver, cook, waiter, hair stylist, secretary, line worker, or janitor you depend on must have an income substantially less then you in order for you to increase yours. Technically, your wealth increase either directly or indirectly off the backs of others.

No one has given you a thing?

The next time you fly Mr. Bryant, ask yourself when you are at 30,000 feet how much you value that pilot’s skill, knowledge, and experience. We as a society value it at less than half of $250k, this is good because it means you keep more of your money when you travel which increases your wealth. And when you land safely and jaunt off to further increase your wealth in some other endeavor repeat to yourself one more time:

No one has given you a thing.


Source: http://www.theeagle.com/letters/Letters-for-March-162009-03-14T16-01-56