For Indiana, It’s a Tale of Two Fired-Coachesby Bryan Fox“I ain’t never gonna stop praying for him.” Former Indiana head basketball coach Tom Crean on the man who fired him.“I hope they’re all dead.” Former Indiana head basketball coach Bob Knight on the people who fired himFor IU fans, we’ve been down this path before. A path that involves chasing a ghost of glories past. The glory days IU hasn’t seen the likes of for over 20 years. A kind of past the older generation is starting to refer to as the good ole days. The days where IU was a consistent national contender and no even dare bad mouth The General. A man whose name is in Hoosier folklore along with Ernie Pyle and Red Skelton. No one can deny the legend that is Coach Bob Knight.So when Knight was fired 17 years ago, the entire state of Indiana was in an uproar. You CAN’T fire our coach! He wins! His players graduate! He runs a clean program! The fact that during Knight’s last six seasons his teams failed to win a Big 10 championship (while Purdue won three) nor make it past the NCAA’s second round failed to enter people’s minds at that moment.People held animosity for the university and its administrators for years after the firing. When Knight ended up at Texas Tech a couple years later, he still had followers. In fact, people didn’t blame him for having resentment for IU at that time. As time wore on, and he resigned from Texas Tech and he went into television working for ESPN, people started seeing him and hearing his voice more often. He hardly uttered the words Indiana. Instead, he would refer to Indiana as when he “coached in the midwest.” When he would reference a former IU player, he would often only refer to the player’s name without, once again, mentioning Indiana.When Indiana hired Tom Crean to take over the storied program in 2008, he welcomed Knight back with open arms. When there was celebrations during Crean’s tenure for the anniversaries of Knight’s three championship teams, Knight refused to come. When A.J. Guyton, Knight’s last standout at IU was inducted into the Indiana sports hall of fame a few years ago, he sent Knight an open invitation to attend his induction ceremony, Knight refused to make an appearance.Last year, Knight went on the campaign trail with Donald Trump. While in Michigan, Knight taunted the Michigan crowd saying, “We whooped you a** every time we played you.” No, Knight wasn’t referencing his 30 years coaching at Indiana. He was referring to his 4 years as a basketball player at Ohio State.Finally, as a way to take one last swipe at a university that made him a sports icon, Knight goes on The Dan Patrick Show and says he hopes all the people who terminated him are dead. A pretty morbid statement considering two of them are already dead. That would be former president Myles Brand (died of cancer) and former player Neil Reed (heart cancer) who accused Knight of chocking him. Even for the ardent Knight supporters, this was hard to defend.The point of this story: Knight holds grudges. Knight doesn’t forgiv, e. Knight is a cranky old man. Over the years, its been reported that Knight has had falling outs with former players, sports reporters, and opposing coaches. It’s no wonder he hasn’t died of a heart attack with having so much anger against so many people. Indiana fired Knight 17 years ago, the people who fired him are no longer at the university, and he’s still holding a grudge.Contract Knight to Crean. Crean was hired after former coach Kelvin Sampson tarnished the program with NCAA infractions. Crean got fired for being “too inconsistent” in the words of AD Fred Glass. Glass’s point is valid. When a team goes from winning the Big 10 championship to not making the tournament 2 different times in a five-year span, people start pointing fingers at the coach. However, in the past 6 years, one can argue that Crean’s last 6 years at IU was better than Knights. Crean made to 3 sweet 16 appearances and 2 Big 10 championships. I bring this up not to imply Crean’s firing was unjustified, but to compare him to the legend that is Knight and you’ll see there is not a significant difference during the latter part of each coaches tenure.Crean has never shied away from his faith. His teams prayed every game day and has referenced his Christian faith at press conferences. If there was going to be any bitterness for Crean, it was going to be now while the firing is still new. Instead, Crean invoked his faith on a recent radio show. “I ain’t gonna stop praying for him.” says Crean of his former boss AD Glass. Crean obviously is taking the advice of Jesus who, from his Sermon on the Mount, says “pray for you enemies.” Crean also has shown he has a forgiving heart and holds no grudges (unlike Knight) when referring to his firing at IU.At Indiana, there appears to be a tale of two fired-coaches. One who has held a grudge for 17 years after his firing and will surely do so to his grave. Then there’s another coach who was fired within the past two weeks and is praying for the man who fired him and was also seen at an Indiana women’s basketball game after the university fired him. The contrasts are striking. Maybe we should all start praying for Knight to have a softer heart.FOOTNOTE: Todays “Readers Poll” question is: Do feel that the taxpayers of Evansville should cover the financial losses generated by the Thunderbolts?This letter was posted without editing, bias or opinon.FacebookTwitterCopy LinkEmail
http://gisborneherald.co.nz/opinion/3909325-135/unborn-kiwis-need-more-protection-not Anna Sinclair lives in Christchurch, is a full-time mum (to one toddler) and is concerned about proposals being considered for abortion law reform. Gisborne Herald 13 January 2019Family First Comment: “Abortion is not just a women’s rights issue; it is a human rights issue. The point is not whether women are capable of making good decisions. It’s that no individual should hold such untrammelled power — the power of life and death — over another human being.”#chooselifeIt’s time to update our abortion law. It’s the 21st century, the law is 40 years old and it needs to be modernised. That’s what we keep hearing, and I couldn’t agree more. Unfortunately, the proposals in the Law Commission’s report last year would be a big step backwards.A truly progressive society protects the rights of all its members, down to the smallest and most vulnerable. The advice the Law Commission has provided would achieve the opposite of that. It would strip unborn Kiwis of any recognition of humanity under the law, placing them at even greater risk. We should be bolstering the rights of unborn children, not stripping them away.There is no longer any excuse for imprecision over what is developing in a pregnant woman’s womb. We know that at the point of conception, a new organism comes into being. This new organism has its own DNA and its own blood type, distinct from the mother and father — in other words, it is a unique human being. An unborn baby isn’t part of the woman’s body; it is a different body.We’ve known this for a while, but with today’s technology we have an unprecedented view into the womb.We know that a baby is formed with astonishing speed: by eight weeks of gestation the baby already has discernible arms and legs, all its organs are present and its heart is beating; by 13 weeks all major development has taken place, tooth buds are developing and the baby has well-defined fingers and toes; by 16 weeks the baby has eyelids, hair, nails and fingerprints. Mothers often feel the baby moving and kicking between 16 and 20 weeks gestation. All this has occurred well before the 22 week threshold in Model C of the Law Commission’s report.By 22 weeks, babies born prematurely have been known to survive. By 24 weeks, the baby is almost completely formed; over the remaining 16 weeks, the baby primarily just gets bigger and heavier.We’ve known all this for some time. Yet Model A of the Law Commission’s report would permit all abortions up to birth.At this point some will protest that this unborn human should not be called a baby — a fetus, instead, or an embryo or zygote for the earliest stages of development. These terms are fine if used for technical accuracy — a human fetus describes a young, unborn human, just as a newborn and toddler describe older, post-birth humans. It becomes problematic, however, when we use the term as a way to dehumanise the unborn child. We have dehumanised unborn children, not in response to, but in defiance of the evidence, because it justifies us in treating them as less than human.Some will then argue that, despite its humanity, the fetus should not be considered a person. Arguing for personhood to be bestowed separately to someone’s humanity is arbitrary and not based on scientific fact. There are, not surprisingly, multiple different stages that people point to as marking personhood — implantation, viability, consciousness, even birth.Shouldn’t the fact that it is human be enough for it to have human rights?Abortion deprives unborn Kiwis of their most fundamental human right — their right to life. The express purpose of an abortion is to kill a human being. It is not akin to simply removing life support. In abortions performed before 22 weeks, the fetus normally dies in the process of being removed from the womb. After 22 weeks, killing the fetus before removal needs to be part of a successful abortion procedure. The Law Commission’s report notes the Abortion Supervisory Committee’s advice that “other than in exceptional circumstances, feticide (the act of causing the death of the fetus) should be part of the abortion process after 22 weeks gestation . . . if a woman does not consent to feticide, the abortion should not go ahead, because there is a possibility of neonatal survival.”In other words, simple termination of the pregnancy is not enough. The fetus needs to be killed, because we all know that if you end up with a live baby, the abortion hasn’t gone as planned.Abortion is not just a women’s rights issue; it is a human rights issue. The point is not whether women are capable of making good decisions. It’s that no individual should hold such untrammelled power — the power of life and death — over another human being.I don’t deny that many women find themselves in extremely tough situations and that those who choose an abortion often feel like it is their only choice. I don’t want to minimise the stress and trauma of women facing a crisis pregnancy. But too often the discussion ends with the woman’s difficult situation. Any balanced conversation on abortion must acknowledge the two lives involved and the two sets of rights to be considered. And any decent law on abortion will seek to protect the rights of both. It’s time our laws reflect the value of humans in the womb.