I love talking politics. Absolutely love it. I don't know that I'm a wonk, but I'd be willing to bet that if presented with a list of Congresscritters' names, I could identify the states for 75% of them, and could probably get the districts for 10%.
I love talking policy, too. Climate change, health care, you name it.
But I won't do it with my father-in-law. You see, he's pretty far to the right--so far so that he thinks Limbaugh is soft of liberals, that Beck doesn't go far enough, and that Ann Coulter ought to be on Mt. Rushmore.
So to keep the peace of the family, I refuse to talk politics with, or around him.
But this past weekend we got into it, and not about politics. But it was really about politics. And man was I seething.
The conversation started innocuously enough. He saw that my local paper had run a story about the university hiring a new Athletic Director. We talked for a minute or two about that, and the new AD's bonus structure. Like most it gives him a bonus for getting to bowl games, etc.
OK, no problem. But I noted that it seemed ridiculous for the guy to get a bonus for balancing his budget. After all, every other department on campus has to balance its budget, or lose money. If the budget isn't balanced, there are severe consequences.
But not in athletics. Balancing a budget gets you $10,000 in bonus. I said "that's crazy, especially since the university kicks in millions of dollars to the athletics budget."
He claimed that no, athletics generates revenue, and is largely self-supporting.
And so it started. I've sat on a number of university committees that have examined athletics budgets. I chaired our faculty senate when my own university discussed going from I-AA football to I-A (pre-FBS) football. I've seen the numbers from many schools, and the NCAA's own numbers.
There are very few schools where athletics generates enough money to cover its own expenses without financial support from the university budget. And generally it also takes millions of dollars in student fees.
He disagreed. "No way." We went back and forth for a while on it, and then I offered to produce data.
I showed him some rudimentary data from USA Today's handy database.
We went school by school to see which ones break even without financial support. As it became clear, his argument shifted:
"Well, it's womens' fault. If it wasn't for that damn Title IX, this wouldn't be an issue."
I brushed that aside for a later time, and pressed on with the numbers.
The he raised the so-called "Flutie effect"--that after winning a national championship a successful college football season, applications go up. Not true, and I showed him that data. But pressed on with the original argument.
In the face of overwhelming evidence that athletics doesn't support itself, he finally fell back on:
"Well, I don't care what those numbers say, common sense and gut instinct tell me that they do support themselves."
I was so mad I could have spit.
The thing was, I couldn't figure out why I was so angry. then it hit me:
This is the exact same way that we got into Iraq. The exact same way that we get "tax cuts for the rich benefit the poor." Climate change denial. Death panels. You name it.
It's the exact same way we get virtually every modern Republican talking point: I don't care what reality says, it's what I feel.
Arrrrgggggggh!!!!!!