WHY?????

As most of you probably already know, there was yet another shooting at a high school this past Friday (Dec. 13th) at Arapahoe High School in Colorado.  A young lady, Claire Davis (17) is clinging for her life after being shot by a classmate that was upset with one of the high school's staff members for kicking him out of a club.

Without a doubt, this tragedy is going to raise, once again, the debate over gun control and regardless of which side of that argument you may be on, there is another underlying issue that has seemed to go ignored.  Soon after the infamous Columbine massacre research revealed that access to guns amongst youth as actually declined over the years.  In other words, a high school student growing up in the 60s or 70s would more likely have access to gun than a high school student today.  It would go without saying that the further back in time that you'd go, the greater that number would increase (student's having access to guns).  Therefore, there has to be another issue of which needs to be addressed: WHY?  Why are students deciding to use such extreme methods as a solution to their problems?

I could literally go into a deep and philosophical discussion here, for this is an issue that I have a lot of opinions on, but I'll not reveal my viewpoints here.  Yet, I would love to hear your input on this topic.  I honestly do believe that it is a topic that needs to be discussed, locally, on the state level and on the federal level - and that topic isn't about gun control.

BLOG TOPIC: WHY!?  Why are today's youth resorting to such extreme methods as a resolution to their problems? Is society, as a whole, responsible or is this due to a major break down of the American family?  Do you believe that this is simply a "gun control" issue?

Again: please make sure you are respectful of each other's opinions...

This week's blog topic was suggested by the Key Element.

Pay for Play

The quest for greater revenues and T.V exposure to a seismic shift in college football with top programs Texas and Oklahoma possibly on the move to the Pac-10 to create a mega conference and to bring in mega dollars for those institutions have re-opened the discussion of whether students athletes should be provided compensation for competing in sports. The reason why this topic has been re-opened is simple, there are some people who think that with all the money that these schools bring in during the season they should be able to provide the players with some form of spending to pay for things they may need. 

Some would argue that providing athletes with a stipend provide less opportunity for boosters to come in and make an offer for easy money to your player. Coaches wouldn't have to worry about their players getting work-study jobs to make a little money during the off-season, players can give a better effort with incentive and will also be more rested and have more time to be in the weight room.

With every positive, there is a negative. For example, paying a player will create a jealousy factor among students who are not athletes and then you have to figure in what athletes get paid because it would be difficult to pay every athlete because most schools have a multitude of different sports. 

Trust me - there are a LOT of additional pro and con arguments for this topic.  To be quite honest, I had to resist going on a tangent here and presenting a number of them, for as I was typing this up, my head began to swim with pro and con arguments (ya know, those little guys in my head are going to argue this one ALL NIGHT long... I'll never get any sleep!)

Blog Topic Question This Week: Dah!  I think it's pretty obvious!  Should college athletes be paid?  It really does look like a simple question - but looks can be deceiving!!!

Happy Blogging!

SPECIAL NOTE: This week's blog topic was provided by Lady Maya.  If any of you have an interesting topic you'd like for us to discuss, drop me an email!  If it's a good one, I'll post it!