No Child Left Behind, Race to the Top and Common Core are already illegal. How? First, the Tenth Amendment. If a power is not expressly given to the federal government, then it is reserved to the states and the people. The authority to educate children is not given to the federal government in the Constitution. Therefore, the states and the people should decide. This of course brings into question the legality of the Department of Education in the first place, but I digress. But then there are these:

From the General Education Provisions Act (20USC § 1232a):
“No provision of any applicable program shall be construed to authorize any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States to exercise any direction,supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction,administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system, or over the selection of library resources, textbooks, or other printed or published instructional materials by any educational institution or school system, or to require the assignment or transportation of students or teachers in order to overcome racial imbalance.”

From the Department of Education Organization Act (20 USC § 3403(b)):
“No provision of a program administered by the Secretary or by any other officer of the Department shall be construed to authorize the Secretary or any such officer to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system, over any accrediting agency or association, or over the selection or content of library resources,textbooks, or other instructional materials by any educational institution or school system, except to the extent authorized by law.”

From the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (20 USC 7907(a)):
“Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize an officer or employee of the Federal Government to mandate, direct, or control a State,local educational agency, or school’s curriculum, program of instruction, or allocation of State and local resources, or mandate a State or any subdivision thereof to spend any funds or incur any costs not paid for under this Act.”

Any questions? Common Core, like its predecessors, is illegal. The federal government has no authority to do this. That should be pointed out first and foremost.

So how did we get it? Who created it?

Common Core was introduced in the Stimulus bill. It set aside over $4 billion to states that were willing to adopt it. Not coincidentally, all but five states did. That should raise another red flag. This was not a law created for the sole purpose of education. This was a behemoth law that spent hundreds of billions of dollars, and Common Core was one of those initiatives tucked in with everything else. Makes it easy to pass with no argument or debate.

So where has a lot of funding come from to create this? A grant was awarded in the amount of $169,990,272 (with a subsequent supplemental award of $15,872,560) to the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness of College and Careers (“PARCC”) consortium and a grant of $159,976,843 (with a subsequent supplemental award of $15,872,696) to the SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium (“SBAC”). The remainder of the funding (Over $100 million to date) came from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Yes, the same foundation currently tackling such menacing problems as improving the design of condoms.

Now, Common Core is being passed off as “a set of standards” for students. While this is true on the surface, dig a little deeper. The SBAC directly said they received nearly $32 million to create curriculum and instructional materials. Where did it come from? The federal government. The SBAC further went on to say the federal government has required them to make a data collection system available for ongoing research, validity, and program improvement studies. Sound like a program being run by the states?

So ask yourself, why were private companies consulted to create curriculum? Why were the standards developed behind closed doors by a select and elite few appointed by who knows who? Why was Common Core not tested in a few under performing states before being forced on all of them?

A validation committee was assembled to assess the standards in Common Core. Why were a majority of its members from states NOT excelling in education? And if these standards are so great, why are they lower than 35% of the top states? And why are they in line with less than 17% of international benchmarks? And why is the final English Language Arts and Reading standards at the level of current middle school standards? How is that preparing anyone for college?

And does it bother anyone that sexuality education is part of this? See for yourself. Now teachers will get to tell kids about sexual orientation by eighth grade, not parents. Now if you are not riled up yet, read on.

Trish Anderson is a Utah parent with a child in public education. She reviewed part of the “Voices:Literature and Writing” curriculum teaching manual. It states in the introduction of the Language Arts 1st grade manual that the purpose or theme of this curriculum is to cover “social knowledge, skills and issues”. Yeah, 1st grade. Normally I think learning how to socialize with others is good in first grade. But that’s not what the manual says:

“Students use their voices to advocate solutions to social problems…”

Advocate solutions to social problems? In first grade? As if that isn’t bad enough, in first grade they are taught to write a “call to action using emotional words to get readers to feel strongly about the problem.” Evoke strong feelings? In first grade? Telling people that we use words such as “refuse” instead of “will not” meaning, “I refuse to work with this company” when speaking about companies so that “readers will feel angry and not want to work with them.” Yup, that’s in there. And so is this: “We need to state the worst possible things that can happen so we appeal to the readers’ feelings of anger.” Feelings of anger?!

Here are other examples straight from the workbook that these students use in their every day school work.

1. The little girl ______ wearing her boots. The choices for the answer is“does not like” or “can’t stand”. The correct answer in the teacher’s edition is “can’t stand”.

2. The kids _______ their parents to take them to the zoo. The choices for the answer are “asked” or “begged”. The teacher’s manual shows “begged” as the correct answer.

3. My mom always __________ me to clean my room. The choices for answers are“tells” or “nags”. The correct answer according to the teacher’s manual? That’s right, “nags.”

4. Whenever I go to Max’s house his little sister is very ______. Answer options “curious” and “nosey”. Do I need to tell you what the “correct”answer is or have you figured out the pattern? Just in case, it is “nosey”.

This is the new first grade standard? This is the kind of language education a first grader will receive? Bothered yet? If not, prepare to be.

As part of the Common Core initiative, actually included in the stimulus bill, the federal government funded the P-20W Data System development and pushed it out to the states. The stimulus bill states what information needs to be collected in this database. This database is equipped to collect 400 points of information on each student. That seems like a lot. Well, it is. Let’s go over just a very small handful of the areas that they will be collecting data. Grades/transcripts, test scores, attendance records, Extracurricular activities, Behavioral problems, disciplinary action taken, Hair color, Eye Color, Height, How do they get to school each morning(walk, ride bus – if so, which route, parents drop off, if old enough – do they drive), child’s nicknames, blood type, DNA, retinal scan, voice recognition,religious affiliation, social security number, parents’ income, parents’ political affiliation, does the child work when they become of age, and the list goes on and on. Do you realize I only listed 20 things? These 20 things were intrusive enough. What is on the rest of the list?

And did you know the stimulus bill along with the Gates Foundation approved funding to put MRI machines in schools? Don’t forget the same Gates Foundation gave half a million dollars to Clemson to develop a galvanic skin bracelet to be used in schools: http://www.forbes.com/sites/luisakroll/2012/06/13/gates-foundation-responds-to-gsr-bracelets-controversy/. You can see more about the data collection here.

With more digging I found that without the American public knowing, in January 2013 the current administration through the Uninterrupted Scholars Act changed the wording of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. It now “permits educational agencies and intuitions to disclose education records”. “Education records are broadly defined to mean those records that are directly related to a student and maintained by an educational agency or institution or by a party acting for the agency or institution.”

In Park City, UT, high school students have already participated in a DNA collection activity. Parents notified? Nope, they were sent home with an opt-out notice, meaning, students were automatically in unless you pulled them out. No parent signature required in order to do this. Crazy. Read about it here.

This is why I am against Common Core. I am totally for a set of standards that challenge and educate our children on relevant, practical information. I am against additional focus on liberal arts. I am against the new standard for first graders that teaches them to advocated for solutions to social problems.

I am for states, districts and local communities determining their own standards and curriculum. I am for increased focus on math and science. I am for practical education on topics such as business, industry, finance, the economy and our political process. I am for required curriculum in basic computer science and programming.

Common Core is not the answer. It is illegal. It is not helpful to our children. And it only takes power away from parents and gives it to the nebulous federal government and goodness knows who to determine what your kids are learning and how. Say no to Common Core and sign the petition to remove it from your state.

I live in Utah and you can find ours here: http://www.utahnsagainstcommoncore.com/.

What does that mean exactly? It means I am against legalizing gay marriage. And it means I am against legal heterosexual marriage. You see, there shouldn’t be anything legal at all about marriage. Let’s go for a visit back in time for a moment.

The year is 1820. America is almost 50 years old. We have seen different wars, presidents, laws and so forth in our brief history. Meet John and Sally. They live in the rural south and have decided to get married. The day for their marriage arrives and they go with their friends and families to their church where their priest officiates their wedding ceremony and they exchange marriage vows. At the conclusion of the ceremony, the priest announces them husband and wife.

How is that different from today? Now you have to go to your local municipality and obtain a marriage license. Not a legal U.S. citizen? Can’t get married. Already have a spouse? Can’t get married. Not yet 18 years old? Can’t get married. Want to wed a member of the same sex? Can’t get married (in most states anyway). Since when did the government have any right whatsoever to say who can and cannot get married?

Here’s the ironic part. This is a government of the people, by the people and for the people. The gay marriage advocates have one primary point they debate incessantly: why do you have the right to vote on who can and cannot marry? So where does this lead their thinking? Well, to say the government should include their group among those who can get married. Wait a second…didn’t they just say people have no right to determine who can and cannot marry? So the answer is to use the government to say who can and cannot marry? Hypocrisy at it’s finest.

What the left is really advocating here is the removal of the government from marriage. No one should have the right to say I can or cannot marry whomever I choose, just as I should not have the right to tell you you can or cannot marry whomever you choose. The government should have nothing to do with marriage. And until about 100 years ago, the government didn’t have any say so when it came to marriage.

It used to be that when you wanted to get married, you didn’t find someone with the legal power to marry you, you found an ecclesiastical leader. Thomas Jefferson was by no means religious, even thought by many today to have been Atheist. How did he marry? He married his wife at their family estate and the ceremony was presided over by two Anglican priests. This is what marriage has always been. It’s always been a religious ceremony and rite. Isn’t the left big on the separation of church and state? So why are they ok with this encroachment? Seems they don’t mind when the state gets up in the church’s business, but heaven forbid the opposite take place.

And so here is what the Supreme Court needs to do in June. First, recognize that marriage is not a constitutional right. In fact, the government has no right to regulate marriage in any way, shape or form. They must recognize that marriage is and always has been a religious institution. Therefore, as there is a separation of church and state, the state should be separated from marriage and not be allowed to regulate it in any way.

Second, due to the number of legal rights, benefits and privileges attached to marriage, the Supreme Court should rule that the government marriage licenses are now to be replaced by civil union applications. Anyone can get them. Already married? Don’t worry, you are grandfathered into the program. Want to get married? Great, find any church or organization that wants to host and preside over your wedding ceremony. Want access to the government benefits given to families? Great, go get yourself a civil union at your local municipality. Requirements? Just be 18 and a U.S. citizen. This is because of tax laws surrounding families and illegal immigrants don’t pay taxes let alone take advantage of tax benefits.

Third, limit civil unions to one at a time. Sorry polygamists. The problem is that if any two people can get into a civil union, then you would see large groups of people get them with each other for the legal benefits and tax benefits. To avoid gaming the system, until you void a previous civil union, you can’t get another.

How does this help? It gets the government out of the institution of marriage, somewhere it has no business being. If a gay couple wants to get married, great, go find someone who will marry you. Who can marry you? Anyone you want, that’s the best part. If you go to a Mormon church or a Catholic church and request the Bishop or Priest marry you, they don’t have to. If you want to get married in a church, find one that will marry you. Otherwise have your best friend stand next to you and your partner on the beach and do an official exchange of some kind of vows. Don’t want vows? Great, just move in together and say you are married if you want. Since the government is out of the marriage business, anyone can lay claim to that status however they want and under any circumstances they want.

And government benefits, you know, the stuff the left has been saying this is all about all along? Available to all. Anyone can get a civil union. Gay or straight, doesn’t matter, everyone gets the same civil union. Just want the legal benefits and don’t care about the title? Great. Only want the status of marriage but don’t care about the legal benefits? Great. Want both? Great. It doesn’t matter either way.

This way the sanctity of marriage is protected. If in your religion marriage is one man and one woman, then fine, no one will change that or tell you to change it. That’s what it will always be. Don’t think a gay marriage “counts” in your book? Great, look down on gay couples all you want. Most do it already anyway. No ones beliefs have to be changed. No one has to legally accept something they don’t want to. There’s no slippery slope of gay couples storming in to your church to demand you wed them. It all goes away. Marriage is returned to the realm of religion where it belongs. Let each religion teach what it will regarding marriage. Civil unions are available to all couples with no discrimination.

It’s a win-win for everyone. Everyone gets what they have been asking for. The left is right. No one should be able to vote on who can or cannot get married. Marriage is a religious institution and whatever your religion or lack thereof, you determine what marriage is to you and seek it out however you would like from whomever you would like. If someone says no that’s their right. But no one will be able to vote and tell you that you can’t get the same rights, recognition and benefits as someone else.

Will the Supreme Court rule this way? Fat chance. They will undoubtedly stir up some kind of controversy in their ruling or by a lack thereof. They could toss it out completely and the previous ruling would stand. Who knows. I’m not holding my breath. But it sure would be nice to end this ridiculous debate which has been characterized by lies on both sides and move on to things that are actually important and actually affect people’s lives.

1. Western Conference
LA Lakers
LA Clippers
Golden State Warriors
Sacramento Kings
Portland Trailblazers
Phoenix Suns
Utah Jazz
Denver Nuggets

2. Southern Conference
Oklahoma City Thunder
Dallas Mavericks
Houston Rockets
San Antonio Spurs
New Orleans Hornets
Memphis Grizzlies
Atlanta Hawks

3. Northern Conference
Minnesota Timberwolves
Milwaukee Bucks
Chicago Bulls
Indiana Pacers
Detroit Pistons
Cleveland Cavaliers
Toronto Raptors

4. Eastern Conference
Miami Heat
Orlando Magic
Charlotte Bobcats
Boston Celtics
New York Knicks
New Jersey Nets
Philadelphia 76ers
Washington Wizards

There you have it, four conferences based on geography. They look pretty good. So now what? Well, we have an 82 game season. It would be great if everyone played everyone else at home at least once. That means all 29 teams come to your arena once and you go to all 29 arenas once. That’s 58 games right there. The remaining 24? One more home and road game against each team in your conference. For the 8 team conferences that is 14 more games. For the 7 team conferences that is 12 more games. Now the 8 team conferences have 10 games to fill and the 7 team conferences have 12 games to fill.

The 7 team conferences play everyone home and home again in their conference. That’s another 12 games. That wraps it up. For the 8 team conferences, of the 7 other teams you alternate each year which 5 you get home and home again. That’s 10 and wraps it up. Simple enough, there’s 82 games.

So what about determining a champion? Currently there are 16 teams in the playoffs. We keep 16 teams in the playoffs. Take the top two teams from each conference to start. That’s 8 teams already. The remaining 8 spots go out on a wild card basis and are given to the next 8 teams with the best records using head to head matchup as a tiebreaker. We now have 16 teams.

How do they get matched up? All the teams get seeded 1-16 like the NCAA regional brackets. No reseeding after each series. You are where you are. Then just play the tournament. That makes four rounds. The first two rounds should be best of five and the second two rounds should be best of seven. How cool would that be?

This is what would happen this year under this plan.

West: Nuggets and Clippers
South: Thunder and Spurs
North: Pacers and Bulls
East: Heat and Knicks

Wild cards: Grizzlies, Nets, Warriors, Rockets, Hawks, Lakers, Jazz, Celtics

(1) Miami vs. (16) Boston
(8) Indiana vs. (9) Brooklyn

(4) Denver vs. (13) Atlanta
(5) Clippers vs. (12) Chicago

(3) San Antonio vs. (14) Lakers
(6) Memphis vs. (11) Houston

(2) Oklahoma City vs. (15) Utah
(7) New York vs. (10) Golden State

Wouldn’t you love to fill out that bracket? You do best of 5 in each grouping until one team emerges. Then the final four go at it in best of seven series. I love it. Fans would too. It practically guarantees you need a winning record to get in the playoffs this way.

Plus you could even throw in a twist. Have a tournament called the “Best of the Rest.” It is a single elimination tournament played between the other 14 teams. Seed them all 1-14. Have 1 and 2 get a first round bye. 2 plays 14, 3 plays 13, etc. The 6 winners plus 1 and 2 go to a round of 8, then 4, then 2 and then a champion. That’s four rounds. First round on Monday, second round on Tuesday, third round on Thursday and final on Saturday. During this week immediately after the season the playoff teams get to prepare for the playoffs and get some time off while the “best of the rest” tournament is going on. Winner of that tournament gets a few extra entries in the lottery during the offseason for the draft.

How does that sound? Would you be interested?

There is a rule to keep in mind: it is generally more effective to pick your bracket backwards. That means pick your champion first, then pick your runner up, then your Final Four, etc. Why is that? Because according to the formula there is a 96% chance that one of only a handful of teams is winning this thing. If there are six teams that fit the formula, then picking one in six is easier than picking one in sixty four. Likewise there are going to be maybe a dozen teams that fit the description for runner up. As you go back up the bracket, more teams fit the description, meaning there is more opportunity for variance.

My strategy? ESPN gives you 10 brackets. Use them. All of them. Make variations and have each potential winner take it at least once.

Without further ado, here are my tried and true tips that will guarantee you much better odds at winning your group. Will you win? No one knows, but one in a billion is better than one in a trillion. Much better.

1. Pick your champion

• Only pick a 1, 2, or 3 seed
• Only pick a team with a final RPI of 0.642 or better
• Your champion should have a pre-tournament winning percentage of 81% or higher
• Focus on the AP top 7 teams

Will this mean you are going to pick the winner every time? No, of course not. Anything is possible. But guess what? Only 6 of the 27 champions have come from outside the AP top 7. If you expand it to AP top 15 that covers all but one of the champions. Every champion there is data on had an RPI of 0.642 or better. Only 3 of the 27 champions had worse than an 81% winning percentage. And only 2 of the 27 champions were worse than a 3 seed. What am I trying to say? Every champion had one of these criteria. All but two had at least two of the criteria. And all but three had three of the criteria. Lesson? The champion will almost undoubtedly fit three of these criteria. Most fit all four. The best part? This list of criteria will narrow the field from 64 to about 5 or 6 each year. Like I said, better odds, not guaranteed. But better.

2. Pick your runner up

• Pick a 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 seed
• Select from the final AP top 15
• Final RPI of 0.614 or higher
• Same seed or worse than your champion

Again, perfect? No. But only two teams were not a 1-5 seed. Only two teams came outside the AP top 15. No team with data I could find had lower than a 0.614 RPI. And 21 out of 27 times the championship game was played between differing seeds. The better seed won 16 of those 21 matchups. So if you have a 2 or 3 seed winning it all, I wouldn’t make a 1 seed your runner up. Again, not universally applicable, just statistically the best bet you can make.

3. Pick your Final Four

• The sum of the seeds should usually be between 6 and 10
• Seeds worse than 4 rarely make it to the Final Four
• Pick a 1 seed from one of the regions
• Pick a 1 or 2 seed from another region
• Pick the 2, 3, or 4 seed from another region
• Pick the 3, 4, 5 or 6 seed from the last region

Of the 108 teams to play in the Final Four, three were 11 seeds, three were 8 seeds, three were 6 seeds and six were 5 seeds. That’s 15 of the 108 teams. Your best bet is to stick with seeds 1-4. If you take away the four years there were 8 or 11 seeds in the Final Four, the highest sum of the seeds was 13. One time the sum was it’s lowest possible total, 4. And one time it was 5. So a sum of 6-10 is your best bet, maybe as high as 12. There have only been two tournaments where no 1 seed was in the Final Four. Always pick at least one 1 seed. The others are based on statistics.

Think of it broken up into four. Those four are your lowest seed, second lowest seed, highest seed and second highest seed. Every year the lowest seed was 1 except for two tournaments. The second lowest seed has been a 1 or 2 in 23 of 27 tournaments. The third best seed has been a 1 only four times, so don’t go there. It has been 2, 3, or 4 in 20 of 27 tournaments. And the worst seed has been a 1 or 2 only three times. It has been a 3, 4, 5 or 6 for 20 of 27 tournaments. Just follow the trends and you are sticking with the highest probabilities here.

4. Pick your Elite Eight

• The sum of your seeds should fall between 18 and 32
• Pick two 1 seeds
• Pick one 2 seed and one 3 seed
• Pick one 4 or 6 seed
• Pick one of the 5, 7, 8 or 10 seeds
• Never pick a 9 seed
• Never pick more than one 3 seed

You may have noticed the guidelines only tell you how to pick 6 teams. It’s called the Elite Eight. What gives? Well, those six picks are pretty much locks. There have only been two times that there was only one 1 seed. Every other year there are at least two. And there have only been two years where there were no 2 seeds in the Elite Eight. There’s always one. Weird patterns? There have been nearly twice as many 6 seeds in the Elite Eight as 5 seeds. And there has only been one 9 seed ever. A 12 is the worst seed to ever make an Elite Eight and it happened once. There have been four 10 seeds and five 11 seeds. So word to the wise- probably should stick to 8 or better.

And by the way, since I only gave you guidelines on six of eight, here are the statistics of the remaining two teams: 40% were 1 seeds, 40% were 2 seeds, basically no 3 or 9 seeds and a 20% chance of a 4-11. So pick a 1 and 2. But that’s not better than 50%, so doesn’t make the official guidelines.

5. Pick your Sweet Sixteen

• Sum of your seeds should be between 60 and 80
• Pick three of the 1 seeds
• Pick two of the 2 seeds and two of the 3 seeds
• Pick one 4, 5 and 6 seed
• Pick one 7 OR 8 seed
• Pass on the 9 seeds, they rarely get there
• Of the sixteen 10-13 seeds, pick two of them
• Do not pick more than two 3 seeds

You may notice again that I didn’t give you sixteen teams, only thirteen. The remaining three are pretty volatile. I can tell you this much though- do NOT pick a 3, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, or 16 seed as one of those three. Statistically you’re talking in the range of a 15 seed upsetting a 2 seed. It’s so rare that you just don’t do it.

So of the three teams you still have to pick, the most likely is a 4 seed (25%), a 2 seed (19%) or a 1 seed (16%). A 5 or 6 each has an 11% chance and 10+ is at 8%. But again, it’s really not about which ones are most likely so much as it is about those that are least likely as mentioned above. Just avoid picking those and you will usually be good.

6. Pick your upsets

• Advance all 1 and 2 seeds to the second round
• Of the eight 3 and 4 seeds, pick one to lose in the first round
• Pick one 5, 6 and 7 seed to lose in the first round
• Pick two 8 seeds to lose in the first round
• A 2 seed is much more likely to be upset by a 10 seed than a 7 seed in the second round
• The 3 seeds are about 50% against 6 seeds in the second round

The first round upsets are pretty well documented. Most of this stuff is pretty much out there for anyone looking for it. The important thing to keep in mind is that each year a 6 will almost always upset a 3 and a 10 will almost always upset a 2. Those games go 54% for the 3 seed and 58% for the 2 seed. As far as upsets go, if there are three 3 seeds playing 6 seeds, you can pretty much guarantee one of them will lose.

Now I know what you are thinking. What about this year? Good question. Let’s look at each round.

Upsets

Seven of the eight 1 and 2 seeds advanced. Missed one.
Two of the eight 3 and 4 seeds were upset. Missed one.
Three 5 seeds went down, one 6 seed and one 7 seed. Missed two.
Two 8 seeds lost. Called it.

On my suggestion you would have gone with 6 upsets at least. There were 10. Not too bad.

Sweet Sixteen

There are three 1 seeds. Nailed it.
There are two 2 seeds. Nailed it.
There are two 3 seeds. Nailed it.
There is one 4 and one 6 seed but no 5 seed. Missed one.
There is no 7 or 8 seed. Missed one.
There is one 9 seed. Missed one.
There are two 10-13 seeds. Nailed it.
I said don’t pick a third 3 seed. Missed one.
There is a 15 seed. Missed one.
There is a third 2 seed and a second 4 seed. Called them as likely.
Sum of seeds is 81. I said 60-80. Missed.

With my formula you could have gotten 11 of the 16 correct. Could have. Doesn’t mean you would get the right ones at each seed.

Elite Eight

Obviously it hasn’t happened yet, so what does the formula say? It says a few things:

1. Two 1 seeds will advance. So Louisville, Kansas and Indiana have a great shot at getting to the Elite Eight, especially Louisville as 1 seeds have done well against 12 seeds.
2. One 2 seed and one 3 seed will very likely advance. So if you have Miami, go with Michigan State. If you have Duke, go with Marquette.
3. There is always a 4 or a 6 seed. That could be Arizona, Michigan or Syracuse.
4. There is no 5, 7, 8, or 10 seed remaining, so can’t have one advance.
5. Don’t pick the 9…except that a 9 has never played a 13 seed before, so Wichita State has a great shot at breaking the pattern.
6. Never go with more than one 3 seed. Based on history, Florida has the best shot at being the 3 seed to get in.

So statistically, the most likely scenario looks like it would be:

Louisville vs Duke
Michigan vs Florida
Indiana vs Miami
Ohio State vs Wichita State

The other alternative could be:

Louisville vs Duke
Kansas vs Florida
Indiana vs Miami
Arizona vs Wichita State

So there you have it. This model will accurately get the correct seeds in each round for you with roughly 75% accuracy. But just because I can tell you a 1 seed will be in the Final Four, doesn’t mean anyone knows which of the four will make it. So while there is still an element of luck involved, this formula gives you better luck.

Fads come and go. It’s what they are supposed to do. And the typical catalyst to their demise is another fad. Sure we all have a long list of fads we would like to see go away, and most of them probably will. But there is one in particular at the top of my list that unfortunately shows no sign of dying any time soon. I’m talking about social media marketing.

(image from RVTechSolutions.com)

The buzzword of all buzzwords right now is social. How are you utilizing social channels? What is your social marketing strategy? Do you have a social media plan? Any of this sound familiar?

I have a confession. I fell for the social media marketing scam a while ago. Let me tell you about my experience.

We had just secured a client that was pretty new and quite small but in a large and competitive industry. They had successfully protected an exclusive patent that gave them a really good advantage in the market, and they asked us to help them with their online marketing efforts. We agreed to do search advertising, SEO and social media marketing. Running their search based ads was easy enough. Managing an SEO campaign was something we knew how to do. But the social media marketing we planned to outsource, so we did just that.

At first I was very impressed. This client had two brands of the same product, one for adults and one for babies. The company we hired ran a giveaway on the baby brand Facebook page and took them from 50 to nearly 600 likes in two weeks. They posted one thing there each day as well. The adult brand showed similar growth. There was a Twitter account for both as well that tweeted the same posts from Facebook. Everything looked good so I was excited.

Then something unexpected happened. The client wanted to know their ROI from their social media marketing. I was a little bummed to see posts like this about the difficulty in measuring ROI. But I went to work anyway and did my best to find what I could. But I was shocked by the results.

In spite of a combined 3,000 Facebook likes and 2,000 Twitter followers, in analytics I showed exactly ZERO visitors referred from both Facebook and Twitter to either site. I couldn’t believe it. Not a single visitor? What about the power of social I kept hearing about?

(image from SocialMaximizer.com)

I was simultaneously surprised and disappointed. When I talked to the company we had hired about their service, they assured us we would get more Facebook likes and Twitter followers. I suddenly realized the absolute worthless nature of what they and so many others do. Because the ROI on social media marketing is so difficult to determine, companies like this show you numbers they can determine, like views of your Facebook page, new likes or new followers. But what does any of it do for you? A whole lot of nothing.

Now don’t get me wrong. There are social media marketing companies out there that do a fantastic job. There are in house people doing wonderful things for their companies (shout out to @EN_Bell). But I happen to personally know of websites and brands who seemingly have great social media marketing campaigns going on but are failing badly. For example, take a brand that got over 450,000 unique visitors in the last 30 days. That’s pretty impressive. Guess how many came from Facebook? 450, and that is in spite of nearly 35,000 likes. And from Twitter? Not a single visitor and that’s with over 2,500 followers. Only 200 visitors came from their blog.

So what gives? Is social media marketing completely ineffective? Don’t hate me for saying this, but for all intents and purposes…yes, yes it is.

There are two things you have to understand about that statement. First, social media marketing can be done correctly and it can be done incorrectly. Second, the cost of doing it correctly as opposed to incorrectly is enormous. For this reason, social media marketing is almost completely worthless to 90% of every brand or company with a website.

How can I make such an outrageous statement? Because look at what goes into doing social media marketing correctly. It’s no small task. So listen up if you own a website: starting a blog, making a Facebook page and creating a Twitter account are fine things to do, but they do not constitute a social media marketing strategy that is going to accomplish anything. Again, I’ve been there. Zero visitors referred. Doing social media marketing correctly requires an enormous investment of time, people and resources. And even then, the vast majority of the people you are going to reach are existing customers. It’s really, really, really hard to get new customers from social media marketing.

Then what is it good for? Social media marketing is a great way to strengthen customer loyalty, improve customer service and enhance your branding efforts. What is it not good for? Finding and converting new customers. I know what you are thinking: “But Dan, Company ABC or Brand XYZ got this many or that many new customers from their social media marketing campaign! You’re just a cotton headed ninny muggins!” Sure, I tell you a general rule, it’s in your nature to immediately find the exceptions to the rule. I get it. And feel free to go on thinking social media is the way to acquire new customers. Good luck with that.

Let’s look at another example. Groupon used to be a really big deal. Google tried to buy them for $6 billion. Yup, billion with a b. I’m not sure which is crazier, Google offering that much or Groupon turning it down. Either way, they had a simple business model. Pay us a fee, give us an offer we can give our users for 24 hours and we’ll get a bunch of people into your business with that offer. It worked just as advertised. But there was a problem. Sales for most of Groupon’s advertisers were going down! It’s because the loyal customers who were going to go already were just waiting for the Groupon offer so they could go at a discount. Turns out they weren’t attracting any new customers for the most part, just discounting their product or service for those who were going to buy it anyway. Oops.

Now I know what you are thinking: “But Dan, Company XYZ got a bunch of new customers from Groupon! You’re just a cotton headed ninny muggins!” First of all, stop calling me that. Second of all, I know, exceptions to every rule. I get it. Just because Rockefeller got rich by getting oil out of the ground, doesn’t mean you should go invest in a pick and a shovel and start excavating your backyard. While something can work, that doesn’t mean it will work for you. Social media marketing can be effective…if you are a big brand and can invest what is necessary to make it effective for you.

But if you are looking to effectively get new customers, please, for the love of all that is sacred in this world, stop the social media marketing. Stop hailing it as the next big thing. Stop acting like someone is nuts for not doing it. Stop paying “experts” for their ebooks, webinars, advice or whatever on how to be successful. You won’t be. Just accept it. The amount of time and money you would have to put into getting just one new customer from your social media marketing efforts could have been used in at least 113 more efficient ways.

Ever see pictures of old movie stars from way back in the day? What did they all have in common? There was almost always a cigarette in their lips. Why? Because it was new, it was hip, it was cool. Everyone had to do it. But after several decades, what did we figure out? Oh, right, cigarettes are incredibly unhealthy and can cause a myriad of health problems. Oddly, this has not deterred millions of Americans who still insist on smoking, but I digress.

Social media marketing is the same way. It’s new, it’s hip, and it’s cool. Everyone wants to do it. Sure it won’t give you lung cancer (that we know of). But there’s a similar letdown of sorts. At some point you will realize it isn’t doing anything for you.

If you are in the insurance business, you probably know that buying leads is a great way to get new customers. You know your conversion rates, cost per acquisition, all that good stuff. It works for you. So would you go tell Starbucks the way to get more people in the door is to buy leads? Amazon makes millions from their affiliate program. Should every online retailer have an affiliate program? Why would anyone think social media marketing is different from everything else? For some it can work, for others it won’t.

This is why the fad needs to die. Yes, social media is very popular. Anyone who uses the Internet has some kind of profile on at least one social site. But traditional advertising wisdom does not apply here. When everyone listened to the radio, it made sense to advertise on the radio. When everyone read the newspaper, it made sense to advertise in the newspaper. When everyone watched TV, it made sense to advertise on TV. And now everyone is on some social medium or another. Doesn’t it make sense to advertise on social media?

No, it doesn’t. Marketing via social media is a lot more involved than creating an ad and showing it to people so they know who you are. And again, social media marketing is one of the least efficient ways to get new customers I know of. If you are going to do it right, you are going to use social media to strengthen customer loyalty, improve customer service and enhance your branding efforts. And that requires dedication, time, talent and resources.

So please, PLEASE, can we let the social media marketing fad die off now? Can we collectively ignore the social media “gurus” online? Can we recognize it doesn’t and can’t work for most companies? That would be just dandy. Now that we got that out of the way, next we need to figure out how to get the cat meme fad to die.

Champions follow some pretty hard and fast rules. Here are the criteria for picking a champion. Since 1985 when the tournament expanded to 64 teams, every champion has met at least one of these criteria and usually more.

• Must be a 1, 2 or 3 seed – you can look up who those are on your bracket
• Has a winning percentage of 81% or better – this year that would be: Gonzaga, Memphis, Kansas, Louisville, New Mexico, Middle Tennessee State, Duke, Saint Louis, Indiana and Miami.
• Final RPI is 0.642 or better – this year that is: Duke, New Mexico, Louisville, Miami, Kansas, Gonzaga
• Usually ranked in the top 7 of final AP poll – this year that is: Gonzaga, Duke, Indiana, Louisville, Georgetown, Michigan, Kansas
• The champion has come from the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Big East, Pac 12 or SEC every year but one

With all of that in mind, the following teams meet two or more of the above criteria and you would be very wise to pick one of them to be your champion:

Gonzaga
Kansas
Louisville
New Mexico
Duke
Indiana
Miami
Georgetown

We’re just talking historically here. Now one time this method was incorrect, tha twas 1988 and Kansas. Every other year simple application of the above method has resulted in a list of a handful of teams one of which has always won the tournament.

2. Pick your runner up

Who is your champion going to beat? This is nearly as predictable as the champion itself. Same methodology applies and you get a list of potential candidates:

• Typically is a 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 seed – you can look up who these are
• Final RPI has been at least 0.614 – this year that is everyone mentioned previously plus: Michigan State, Florida, Ohio State, Indiana, Georgetown, Syracuse, Memphis, Marquette, Arizona, Saint Louis, Kansas State, Colorado State, Michigan, Belmont, North Carolina, Butler
• Ranking in final AP poll is 15 or better – this includes the top 7 previously mentioned plus: Michigan State, Miami, Ohio State, Kansas State, Marquette, Florida, Oklahoma State, New Mexico
• The runner up has come from the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Big East, Pac 12 or SEC every year but four

With all of this in mind, the list for runner up is a bit long, but here are the teams that fit at least two of the criteria:

Gonzaga
Kansas
Louisville
New Mexico
Duke
Indiana
Miami
Georgetown
Michigan State
Ohio State
Kansas State
Marquette
Florida
Oklahoma State
Syracuse
Saint Louis
Michigan

This might not seem like it narrows it down that much, but of the 20 top 5 seeds I only see 17 of them having a shot at the championship game. Of the 12 top 3 seeds, I only see 8 having a shot at the championship. So this should help narrow it down a bit. Once you have your choices made, it’s time to fill in your Final Four.

3. Final Four picks

You already have two of them in your champion and runner up. You just have to pick the two teams they had to beat to get to the final. There is a very surprising pattern in the Final Four that can guide you here. Again, this doesn’t apply every time, but it applies a whole lot of times to the point of statistical significance.

• The sum of the seeds in your Final Four should be 7-13. This accounts for 20 of the 27 Final Fours. It’s been as low as 4 and as high as 26. But the sweet spot is 7-13
• One of the 1 seeds is almost guaranteed to be in the Final Four
• It is almost guaranteed that one of the regions will not send its 1 or 2 seed to the Final Four
• Of the 108 Final Four teams, only 6 have been seeded worse than 6.

Ok, now a little bit more complicated. The four seeds of the Final Four follow a particular pattern. This is how it works:

One of the regions almost always sends its 1 seed
Of the three remaining regions, one of them almost always sends a 1 or 2 seed
Of the two remaining regions, one of them almost always sends a 2, 3, or 4 seed
Of the final region, a 1 or 2 seed almost never emerges. They usually send a 3, 4, 5, or 6 seed.

Outside of the top 6 seeds, three 8 seeds and three 11 seeds have made the Final Four. No 7, 9 or 10 has ever made the Final Four nor has 12 or higher. Now, keeping this in mind, how do you go about filling out your bracket?

Suppose you look at the champions list and decide to go with one of them. That’s four 1 seeds, three 2 seeds and one 3 seed to choose from. Now look at your runner up selection. From that list you have four 1 seeds, four 2 seeds, four 3 seeds, four 4 seeds and one 5 seed. Did you pick two 1 seeds in the championship game? Then from one of the other regions pick a 2, 3, or 4 seed. From the last region pick a 3, 4, 5, or 6 seed. Did you pick a 2 vs 4 in the final? Then pick a 1 seed from one of the remaining regions. In the final region you can go anywhere from 1 to 6. Just follow the guidelines above. Now that you have your Final Four, it’s time to look at the upsets.

4. Pick your upsets

There’s something important to remember here. Upsets increase in probability when the seeds are closer to each other. You might pick an 11 over a 6 in the first round. These happen. But 11 over 3 in the second round is really rare. If you like a high seed, great, go with them, but riding any seed higher than 8 past the Sweet Sixteen is a bad idea. Again it might happen, but the fact that it almost never does means you are much safer to have no seed higher than 8 in your Elite Eight. A few guidelines to help you:

• The 8 vs 9 round is a near split. Almost ever year there will be two 9 seeds that advance and two 8 seeds that advance.
• A 12 seed will beat a 5 seed. It has happened almost every year.
• A 11 seed upsetting a 6 seed is just as likely as a 12 over 5. However, no 11 seeds upset 6 seeds every other tournament. When it happens it is usually twice. Last year two 11 seeds upset 6 seeds.
• A 16 seed has never beat a 1 seed. A 15 seed has only beaten a 2 seed three times. Safe to assume 1 and 2 seeds will not lose their first round game.
• A 10 seed will almost always beat a 7 seed.
• A 4 seed is more likely to be upset in the second round than the first round
• Teams from the big conferences fare well against those from weaker conferences

Let that guide you in your upset picks. I know that is a lot to take in, but you dramatically increase your odds by following the numbers.

But I don’t buy into that. I don’t think it’s possible at all to think 16 seeds would get past the first round. Why? Because not one ever has. Nope, not a single 16 seed has ever beaten a 1 seed since 1985 when the tournament expanded to take in 64 teams. So as much as we all hate to admit it, the tournament responds with the same statistical variance you expect to see in surveys of people’s height for example. Sure someone could be eight feet tall, but since it almost never happens, it’s safe to assume most of us will fall within a certain range.

So it is with my statistical model. While there is some variance, using standard deviation I’ve found a nearly sure fire way to nail it with 96% confidence more or less. This of course does not mean I can pick the winner any better than someone else. It does mean I can use stats and numbers efficiently to predict correct outcomes. Most often you hear something like “well a 2 seed has lost to a 15 seed in 1% of the games played, so a 2 seed has a 99% chance of moving on.”

That’s great, everyone smart always picks 2 seeds to advance past the first round. But what happens if a 2 seed plays a 7 seed in the second round? What if they play a 10 seed? Here’s something else, what if they win the second round and face a 3 seed? What if that 3 seed previously faced a 6 seed as opposed to an 11? How do the odds change of reaching the Final Four for a 1 seed if the 2 seed in their bracket goes out early? These are the things that matter because the whole point of predicting a bracket is picking future matchups, not going on the odds of just current matchups alone.

With all of this in mind, I’ve done some digging and here’s what you need to know to fill out your bracket.

1. Pick a champion

• only pick a 1, 2, or 3 seed
• only pick a team with a winning percentage of 81% or better going in to the tournament
• only pick a team ranked in the top 7 of the final AP poll
• only pick a team ranked in the top 7 of the final RPI rankings
• the AP #1 team wins 30% of the time
• from my data, 0.642 is the lowest RPI of a champion thus far

Right now you only have a few teams you can pick. If you follow this criteria above you are set. Every team to win the championship since 1985 fits at least one of the criteria. 21 of the 27 champions fit two or more. The teams right now this would apply to are Gonzaga, Duke, Indiana and Louisville with Georgetown right on the cusp. I can tell you with over 90% confidence that one of those five teams is winning this tournament.

2. Pick a Final Four

• your champion is already there obviously
• Make sure you have one 1 seed from one of the brackets, a 1 or 2 seed from another bracket, a 2, 3 or 4 seed from the third bracket and a 3, 4, 5, or 6 seed from the final bracket. Statistically this gives you the best chance of nailing the Final Four
• only four times have there been more than two 1 seeds in the Final Four
• the best seed in your Final Four will almost undoubtedly advance to the championship where they win 83% of the time
• if you add up the seeds (1 + 1 + 2 + 4 = 8) then you should get between 6 and 10

3. Pick a runner up

• the runner up is almost always ranked in the top 15 of the final AP poll
• the runner up will be a 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 seed almost every time, especially top 3
• the average sum of the seeds in the championship game is 4. If you have a #1 seed winning it all, chances are highest it is against a #3 seed.
• the AP #1 or #2 team plays for the championship 40% of the time
• from my data, 0.614 is the lowest RPI of a runner up
• one of the top two RPI teams has played in the championship nearly every year

Sorry if this is all confusing, but it will make more sense when the bracket comes out Sunday and you can see the teams I am talking about. At that point we will have seeds and final rankings and all of that. But take it from me, if you follow those guidelines when making your bracket, you give yourself the best chance statistically at winning your pool.

2. “Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.”

3. “Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.”

These are all simply part of the new standards for background checks. Basically if you are going to sell a gun you have to do a background check on the buyer. Obamacare and other laws will not get in the way of this. Nothing controversial here really, most Americans are for this kind of thing.

4. “Direct the attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.”

This can be very, very, very, very dangerous. Which categories of individuals are currently prohibited? Which categories of individuals are considered “dangerous?” Well, that’s apparently the discretion of the Attorney General, a man who has shown contempt for the law as it is (think Fast and Furious). This one is definitely the most scary of the bunch. Listen to talk radio? You might be dangerous. Have long term food storage? You might be dangerous. Own a bomb shelter or have a bunker in your backyard? Must be dangerous. Vote Republicans? Dangerous. See where this could go? Any number of people can be arbitrarily classified as dangerous and then be disarmed. This order is one that can have the largest impact for sure.

5. “Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.”

6. “Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.”

More on the background checks. Again, nothing really controversial here. Background checks are good. We don’t want known mass murderers waltzing around wherever they please buying guns at will.

7. “Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.”

8. “Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).”

These two are literally meaningless. In business we would call them buzzwords. In politics they are just trying to sound responsible. It says they will launch a campaign but not sustain one. It says they will review safety standards but not change them. So basically nothing is happening here. There might be some PSA’s about safe gun ownership like you see for wearing your seatbelt. That’s about it.

9. “Issue a presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.”

10. “Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.”

More fluff. Just means law enforcement is going to keep better track of guns used in crimes or stolen.

11. “Nominate an ATF director.”

Typically this would be something you would just do, not sure why it’s listed here or needed signing.

12. “Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.”

This means every police station, hospital and school district will have a new employee whose job it is to train people on what to do if there is an armed intruder. Nothing new for law enforcement. Probably nothing new for first responders. Probably much needed for school officials though.

13. “Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.”

He might as well have said blah, blah, blah. Are we not trying to prevent gun violence already? Are we not prosecuting gun crime already? We do these things, and maximizing them is nothing more than reassuring the sheeple of the public that we are doing it.

14. “Issue a presidential memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.”

This is a fantastic one. Although to be fair we already know. Universities have been doing studies on Catharsis Theory for quite a long time. Violence in media engenders violence in attitudes and behaviors of children. So the CDC is going to spend millions of dollars and several years to research this and find the same thing. Maybe throw in bullying or something. At least once there is an official government report on it someone might do something about it which makes this a good one.

15. “Direct the attorney general to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.”

Not sure what they hope to accomplish here. There are a lot of gun safety technologies out there. All are available to gun manufacturers and private citizens. There you go Eric Holder, I just issues your report for you. Now, let’s “challenge” the private sector to develop more of them. Pointless.

16. “Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.”

17. “Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.”

More pointless garbage. Just going to let everyone know that no laws exist to prohibit them from saying or doing certain things. This just in. I can now clarify that no federal law prohibits you from mowing your lawn. Thank goodness for me.

18. “Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.”

Again, vague. What are the incentives? What do these resource officers do? This can be anything really. Maybe Obama is following through with the NRA’s proposal to have armed guards at schools.

19. “Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.”

It’s quite sad that it takes executive order to have an emergency response plan.

20. “Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.”

21. “Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.”

Holy crap, how much clarity do we need? Apparently the law is so unclear that we need executive orders to clear them up! This is beyond stupid. Clarifying the law is a waste of time. Write the laws in such a way that they are clear! How about that?!

22. “Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.”

Not bad. Mental health is a growing concern. And it takes a mentally ill person to shoot others, so the more resources we have to identifying and diagnosing mentally ill people the better. Although there had better be some strict oversight on this. Is voting Republican a sign of mental illness? You laugh, but it can get there.

23. “Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.”

What a waste of paper. The Secretary of Health and Secretary of Education are going to talk about mental health. La-dee-frickin-dah!

Now, those are the actual actions signed today by the President. He went on to ask Congress to pass stricter gun laws which include four things:

1. Require a background check on all gun sales.
2. Restore the ban on military style assault weapons.
3. Ban gun magazines with capacities of more than 10 rounds.
4. Toughen penalties on people who sell guns to those who can’t have them.

I’m sure 1 and 4 there will get passed soon enough. Don’t hold your breath on 2 or 3. Remember, these are not actions passed by the President. He only asked Congress to make these four things laws. Many people are confused about that right now. Hopefully this clears it up for you. So what did Obama do today? Not much really. If you live in NY then your state legislature and governor just passed some pretty strict gun laws, but at the federal level there’s still nothing substantial.

Mathis Park: 9 baskets
1820 W Mathis Park Place

Bloomington Park: 3 baskets
650 W Man O War Road

St. James Trailhead: 3 baskets
600 E St. James Lane

The scouts are planning to add more baskets to the smaller courses and the city is planning to improve what is already there. But that’s ok, at least these are a start. So grab some discs and go check them out when you have some free time. Disc golf is a ton of fun and now it’s here!

I recently came across your blog post after seeing a friend share it on Facebook. I contemplated leaving a comment, but there were already hundreds, and I felt I had more than one line to say in reply to you. Hence, this blog post and open letter to you and any other interested parties.

I completely agree with your assessment of the news. It can be extremely overwhelming. There is more death, more suffering, more disease, more hardships and more disasters every day it seems. I agree that today, more than ever, we need prophetic voices. I believe there are prophetic voices on earth today. As I can only gather you are a Mormon as well, I assume you believe this as well. However, we seem to have some disagreements here.

You seem to believe that the role of a prophet is to speak out on matters of social consequence, such as the exploitation of workers and the existence of classes, greed and materialism, the examples you give. Ironically, your scriptural examples don’t explicitly support your claim. Your link to Isaiah 58:2-3 is conveniently the NIV translation which specifically says “exploit all your workers.” This language is not used in the King James version, the one used by our church, and this section does not even overtly take aim at the evil practice of worker exploitation. It is a diatribe against those who sought communion with God and his holiness through fasting but did not fast properly. The section is all about their improper fast, not a direct condemnation of exploiting workers. Although it is indirectly condemned I suppose, but no one should think Isaiah 58 is about the evils of exploiting workers.

In 4 Nephi Mormon is simply pointing out that pride was the source of the trouble of the Nephites. Because of pride they worn fine apparel, no longer had all things in common, established false churches, etc. Oh, it also led to greed and materialism, you are correct. But the assessment that “inequality, materialism, and greed would spell doom for the Kingdom of God” is at all what Mormon said is, well, just incorrect.

Your next claim is simply a matter of selective hearing which is largely demonstrated among those who go online to vent their frustrations with the church. You name three things specifically: General Conference, the Ensign and Sunday School curriculum. You then make the false assertion that these three avenues for learning from a prophet consist of “coffee, sleeve length, inappropriate entertainment and miles upon miles of words about who you can and cannot have sex with.” You then go on to say:

“There is no talk of sexual violence. The causes of global poverty. Wage theft. Hate crimes. The United States, birthplace of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is resorting to torture in its quest to build empire. Torture. Our prophets’ response? Radio silence. We are supposed to have God’s true and living prophet to help our human hearts navigate global suffering.”

So you want prophets to stand up and condemn rape and domestic abuse? Quentin L. Cook did just that in “Can You Feel So Now?” in October conference. You want prophets to stand up and challenge us to end global poverty? The Perpetual Education Fund was set up to give thousands and millions of people an opportunity to get an education and thus get out of poverty.

Do you in all honesty believe wage theft is something prophets should be discussing from the pulpit or in Sunday School? No, it’s not, instead we discuss the virtues of honesty. That covers theft of any kind along with all dishonest dealings. And hate crimes? Perhaps you have tuned out every talk, article or lesson about charity? As to torture, is Sunday School in the Book of Mormon this year? I’m in Gospel Principles and don’t know, but if you are, wait until you get to Moroni 9. Mormon wasn’t too big on the torture thing. But to the larger point, should the Mormon church be speaking out on the use of torture? It’s a global church, and people all over the world are tortured. Again, charity? Kindness? Anti-torture messages flow from the pulpit to us. They won’t speak out against one form or another, one country or another because it’s a global church. However, you are correct, it may be time the topic was addressed so that the church’s already clear position is even clearer to those who might not take the time to research it.

You then rattle off an impressive list of prophets and some of their accomplishments. You then compare their accomplishments to those of the modern church: a mall. Really? That’s how you view the church? Everything we have done, everything we have accomplished, and the only thing that comes to mind for you is that the church built a mall? It’s true what they say, those who want to find fault sure are going to.

Again you go on about more faults with the church and try to sum up their teachings:

“Our leaders obsess over modesty, and gender roles, and doing their utmost to keep those gays from loving each other. They’ll spend millions of dollars keeping the wrong kind of couple from marriage, but never find space in all their preaching about sex to mention the word rape. It is so hard to find my place in this church when the chief concerns are so empty and insignificant.”

Again, really? That’s what you are going with? You can find how the church feels about abuse and rape here, here and here. Just try some simple Google searches or search on LDS.org. And obsess over modesty and gender roles? Nope, sorry Nat, that’s you. Because the only thing you seem to pay attention to is when the church discusses these topics so you can find a reason to criticize them for always discussing these topics. Let’s look at the most reason conference and Ensign.

You can find every talk from conference right here. I invite you to go through the list. Please, tell me, how many of the speakers obsessed over modesty and gender roles? Now tell me how many talked about how we treat each other. Surprised?

You can find the Ensign from October (non-conference issue) right here. I invite you to go through the list of articles. Please, tell me, how many of the articles obsess over modesty and gender roles? Two? Three?

You see, you have completely misunderstood the church. Worse, you have utterly mischaracterized “the chief concerns” as being “empty and insignificant.” What are the chief concerns of the church? Who gets married? How we dress? Yeah, the church used its influence to pass Prop 8 in California to restrict gay marriage. How much does the church spend on building and maintaining temples and chapels? More or less than what was spent on Prop 8″ How much do they spend on printing scriptures, funding education projects (BYU), missionary work, etc.? More or less?

The chief concerns of the church aren’t even anywhere close to what you think they are. I honestly have no idea how you could arrive at such a conclusion. I mean, I’ve sat in Mormon congregations every Sunday for 30 years. I’ve listened to conference every 6 months. I admittedly don’t thumb through the Ensign as often as I should. But wow, the chief concerns are modesty and gender roles? Have we been members of the same church?

I hear A LOT more about Jesus Christ, his atonement, the plan of salvation, the restoration, faith, repentance, baptism…all of these things are discussed infinitely more than the topics you chose to classify as our church’s “chief concerns.”

You seem to have a misunderstanding of political issues and moral issues. The prophet is silent and will remain silent on political issues. There is a genocide in any given country at any given time. The prophet does not condemn every genocide directly. But he does talk an awful lot about loving one another, serving each other and being kind to those around us. He won’t get involved in politics because our church isn’t trying to dictate the foreign policy of the United States. Again, wage theft, hate crimes…these will never be directly addressed, but they are condemned along with every other unholy and impure practice even if they aren’t explicitly named.

Finally you close with this:

“Moses didn’t tell the children of Israel who to sleep with or what to wear. He led his people out of slavery. That’s the kind of prophetic leadership our world is dying for today.”

You obviously never read the Old Testament. Give Leviticus 18 a quick perusal. In it you will find in the law given by Moses that sexual relations were prohibited with parents, stepparents, siblings, grandchildren, half siblings, paternal aunts, maternal aunts, uncle’s wife, daughter in law, sister in law, animals…should I go on? There were also laws about their clothing. Numbers talks about tassels on the corners of clothing. Another verse in Leviticus forbids the wearing of clothing woven with two materials. Yeah, wow, I’m surprised about this part you include about Moses. You really need to read Numbers, Leviticus and Deuteronomy. If you think you have it rough with no coffee or sleeveless shirts you ain’t seen nothing.

So Nat, I just wanted you to know these few details about our religion. I’m sure life as a Mormon must be miserable when you only pay attention to certain things, but try to be more open minded and see the church for more than just a mall builder and its doctrines and teachings as more than just empty and insignificant rules.

Regards,
Dan Deceuster