Jay GreesonMissouri state Rep. Rick Brattin proposed a bill this week that would revoke scholarships of athletes at state schools if they participate in strikes or boycotts.
Brattin pulled the bill Wednesday, saying he proposed it only as a way to start a dialogue on what he called "an extremely important" topic.
I'll say it again. Oh, brother.
How many different ways is this off-the-charts ludicrous? Let's try to count.
Well, first, that he created national headlines - and wasted taxpayers' money - to start a faux conversation is his attempt to hide an awful idea with a smoke show of waste and governmental distraction.
At the base, Brattin's hairbrained scheme is almost certainly illegal. Limiting personal decisions that are not against state law is a dicey proposition in the land of the free and the brave. Way to know the law, lawmaker.
Now add to that the knowledge that Missouri athletes are not state employees. Wait, unless Rick wants to make them employees, and then he has to consider all that comes with that - including the certain exploration of unionization.
Then there's the practical matter of what should be Brattin's actual job as a state legislator, working night and day to balance the Show Me State's budget, which according to www.usdebtclock.com is right at $47 billion (and growing) in the hole.
There's also the lost fundamental simplicity that should lead us to focus on good leadership in all areas of business - be they public or private - rather than trying to add another dozen layers of legalese to address every issue or situation. The University of Missouri powers that be who handled the strike and boycott terribly, well, that's on them.
In case you forgot, several Missouri students protested what they believed to be a racially intolerant college environment. It was a matter of a small group of protesters doing their civil disobedience until the football players got involved and then it led the nightly news.
Why? Because football pays the bills - and garners the big-time attention - across college sports.
Plus, there's not a bigger punching bag than the NCAA because, well, it is the NCAA.
Along those lines, why would a state law apply to a national entity that applies to all of college sports under the NCAA umbrella? And if it actually could be enforced legally in his state, whether Brattin realizes it or not, he just severely hurt Missouri athletics.
For this Spoiled Brattin to believe this needs more governmental involvement points to one of two serious shortcomings: First, it's about his ability to legislate; secondly, it speaks volumes about the state of government in general.
Maybe Brattin is grandstanding, waving his jazz hands at hot-button issues to try to steal the spotlight or garner support in his district. Think of it this way: If the government is going to get into the NCAA cesspool and college sports in general, dear Lord, there would be a litany of issues that would be above this one, in terms of practicality and policy.
Or possibly he simply believes the biggest problem in his state is whether college kids protest and come across as spoiled brats.
This has happened once - and yes, if we had to guess, it will happen again - but that's the responsibility of the schools specifically and the NCAA in general. (And while this is certainly not an endorsement of the NCAA being able to handle its business, we are certainly not for any government to start meddling in - and spending more to meddle there - other enterprises.)
As for the governmental process, well, this screams to why a growing number of folks are looking at Donald Trump as an option.
Brattin and the rest of his colleagues who are more worried about sidetrack scenes like this and keeping their jobs rather than doing their jobs are more of the problem than the solution.
Contact Jay Greeson at jgreeson@timesfreepress.com. His "Right to the Point" column runs on A2 on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays.