San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Friday, March 20, 2015

Nuclear Proliferation From Iran's Perspective

Republicans are up in arms with the Obama administration's handling of the anti-nuclear proliferation treaty currently being negotiated with Iran by Secretary of State Kerry.  Indeed, the Republicans became so enraged at what they perceive to be give-aways on the part of the Obama administration that they unconstitutionally drafted a letter and sent it to the Iranian government informing them that any treaty signed while King Obama is in power will immediately be overturned when he is unceremoniously tossed out two years from now.  It has been mildly amusing watching the conservative news media as it attempts to justify the actions of the Republicans in Congress.  It is clearly a violation of the Constitution for them to do what they did in sending the letter.  The Constitution empowers the Senate to approve treaties that have been constructed by the Executive branch with a super-majority vote.  Other than voting a treaty up or down the Congress has no right to engage foreign powers directly.  I guess the lesson to learn here is that hypocrisy knows no political boundaries. 
Conservatives in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika are itching to wage war with Iran.  The propaganda is being spewed forth at an alarming rate.  Just like Iraq had weapons of mass destruction that Hussein was about to launch upon our native cities and towns, so the evil Muslim rulers of Iran are within days of having a nuclear arsenal which will make them the most severe threat to the national security of the SDA since the Cold war.  Everything the Iranian leaders say is full of lies and deception as they evilly plan their scheme for total world domination.  Only the SDA can stand against them and we must do it now before it is too late.
As I was listening to Fox News last night it occurred to me that the lovers of war in the Republican camp seem utterly incapable of seeing anything from the perspective of Iran.  Everything is seen from the perspective that the SDA is barley hanging on as a world super-power, with Russia, Syria and Iran all yapping at our heels.  The extreme stupidity of that belief seems lost upon them.  So, without further ado, let's try and consider the situation from Iran's perspective, shall we?
Despite the fact that Iran is being described as an extremely aggressive state that loves to engage in war around the region of the Middle East, the historical truth tells a very different story.  Since 1900 Iran has been involved in a grand total of seven wars. Check my facts for yourself here.  Iran was invaded by a coalition of Russian and British forces during WWII.  The Iranian Crisis of 1946 took place because the Soviets refused to leave Iran after the war ended, as they had promised.  The Dhofar war of 1973-1976 was a minor skirmish involving Saudi Arabia, Oman, the UK and Iran.  The Iran/Iraq war of 1980-1988 started when Iraq invaded Iran.  In addition Iran has been involved in several domestic squabbles involving Kurdish separatists within its borders.  That brings us up to the present time where we find Iran launching offensives against ISIL.  Looking over this list of atrocities it is difficult to see how Iran can be labelled a hostile nation.  For the most part Iran has been on the receiving end of warfare.  The war in which it is presently engaged is against the same foe the SDA is presently engaged.  I conclude that it is impossible to objectively conclude that Iran has ever shown any hostile intentions towards the SDA, despite the occasional outbursts of rhetoric from extremists within the country. 
On the other hand, Iran has had numerous involvements with military super-powers and they have always ended poorly.  They have been invaded numerous times.  In recent years they have witnessed the most powerful military force in the history of the universe wage an undeclared war against an imaginary enemy in neighboring Iraq.  The end result of that war, as can be clearly seen by every Iranian, is the total dissolution of the Iraqi society and complete subjugation to the SDA.  Now if you are an ordinary citizen of Iran watching all of this stuff go down, who do you perceive to be the biggest threat to your personal security?  It does not take a genius to figure out that Iran can easily see the SDA as its biggest external threat.
The SDA has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world.  The SDA spends more money on nuclear weapons research and development than any country in the history of the world.  Go here for the facts.  The SDA is the only country to routinely discuss the possible use of strategic nuclear weapons in the wars that it prosecutes around the world.  The SDA is the only country to ever actually use a nuclear weapon.  Then, to top if all off, the SDA is knocking on the door of the Iranian border after destroying Iraq.  If I am an Iranian what am I thinking about all of this?  That is not hard to figure out.  If I am an Iranian I desperately want my country to develop nuclear weapons. Why? To protect me from the SDA.  The idea of using those weapons against the SDA is absurd and ridiculous beyond belief.  Any confrontation with the SDA would mean certain death.  But having a nuclear weapon at hand is sufficient cause to keep the SDA at bay.  I would look around and note that the SDA has ignored those countries that it hates that actually have nuclear weapons.  Why should I not join that elite group of countries that have some small degree of protection from the depredations of the SDA?

Thursday, March 19, 2015

Why Do You Doubt Science?

Before I traveled to Phoenix for a vacation a couple of weeks ago I read a series of Letters to the Editor of the Denver Post dealing with the topic of science and why so many people apparently doubt the alleged truths emanating from it.  Three letters were published under the headline, "Why do so many Americans doubt science?"  I was intrigued by that headline.  What does it mean to "doubt" science?  To me doubt is a religious term.  When I say that I have doubts about something it is almost always in the context of some sort of faith proposition.  At the very least it is in the context of a proposition that cannot be scientifically or logically proven.  I doubt that Troy Tulowitzki will play all 162 games for the Rockies this year.  I can't prove that belief logically nor can I prove it scientifically.  It is a faith proposition that I hold based upon my own experience.
The fact that the concept of doubt is so closely associated with science is truly confusing.  The scientific process has no place for doubt.  We all remember our grade school instruction about the scientific method, don't we?  Remember how some person comes along and proposes a hypothesis in order to explain something that he has observed.  He tests his hypothesis, valiantly trying to prove it wrong, and eventually comes to the conclusion that his hypothesis must be correct if he is incapable of proving it wrong.  He publishes his results and invites others to prove him wrong.  Other scientists examine his conclusions and also try to prove him wrong.  With enough time and energy being expended investigating the matter at issue it eventually comes to a point where it is safe to say that some sort of scientific consensus has evolved because nobody has been able to prove the hypothesis wrong. 
Most people believe in gravity even though it is an invisible force and even physicists have no idea how it actually works.  But gravity has been tested so many times, with no examples that I am aware of where it did not operate as predicted, that scientists have come to call the operation of gravity a law.  There are not many laws in science but there are a few.  When the newspaper asks the question as to why so many Americans doubt science I would expect that doubt to be related to things known to science as laws.  It is truly absurd to doubt the law of gravity.  You are certainly free to do so but I would also expect you to live your life as if gravity does not operate the way it does.  You will not be alive for long.  In that case doubting the law of gravity is really stupid.  But that is not what the letters written to the editor were about.
Robert Ferene, of Longmont, writes, "The common element that corrupts clear and truthful scientific process is money.  So much scientific research is bought and paid for by corporate special interests....This has been true especially in the case of GMO research, and now, increasingly with oil industry shills who falsely claim a dearth of substantiated science demonstrating the environmental and human health dangers of fracking chemicals and processes.  The sooner we can get corporate money out of science the better of we will all be."  Well, Robert certainly makes his position clear.  The fact that GMO foods are inherently dangerous for human beings and the fact that fracking is hurting the environment and making human beings sick is a law of science that cannot be denied by anybody except those blinded by corporate bribery.  I must ask Robert a question.  Is it really true that the belief that GMO foods are harmful to humans is a scientific law?  Is there really no place for debate about the role of fracking in our world?  Do you truly believe that I will soon end up dead if I eat GMO foods and allow an oil company to drill a horizontal well on my property, just as I would most certainly end up dead if I denied the law of gravity?  Robert, I have one more question for you.  How can you be so stupid?
Guy Wroble, of Denver, writes, "The logical outgrowth of a nonjudgmental heterogeneous society is that it ultimately leads to people saying, 'Your facts are not my facts.'  This goes a long way to explain why water fluoridation opponents, vaccine avoiders, and deniers of human-caused climate change all flourish.  In the absence of acknowledged authority, there may be no avoiding a return to beliefs based on random occurrences, spurious correlations, ignorance and superstition."  Wow, Guy is certain filled with intellectual pride, isn't he?  Who is to fill the role of this "authority" he so adamantly believes we so desperately need?  Although he does not answer that question I suspect it would be "scientists" who are paid by the government.  We all know that money from government is always free of taint and always guarantees scientifically objective results.  We all know that global warming scientists who are on the government dole are in no way influenced by their paychecks when they make their authoritative pronouncements about man-caused global warming, don't we?  It reminds me of that wonderful period of time in our history when government scientists universally agreed that the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth.  Anyone stupid enough to disagree with those ironclad laws of science was generally captured and left to rot in some horrendous dungeon somewhere.  It also reminds me of a period in my life when there was a total scientific consensus, or at least a consensus among scientists on the government dole, that the earth was getting colder and we were doomed to a future of ice and cold if the government did not spend billions of dollars fighting it. 
Martin Allen, of Centennial, begins by listing the things he believes are scientific laws prior to drawing his dubious conclusion about our doubts.  He writes"...this issue highlights misconceptions such as; 1) climate change does not exist; 2) evolution never happened; 3) the moon landing was fake; 4) vaccinations can lead to autism; and 5) genetically modified food is evil....One of the reasons for the public's doubt originates from right-wing conservatives who constantly berate science to pander to their constituents."  For Martin it all boils down to a vast right-wing conspiracy.  How convenient.  Well, at least Martin gets three out of five correct.  But Martin, please tell me when the theories of global warming and evolution became laws.  I know a lot of credible people who present many credible arguments against the twin theories of anthropogenic global warming and evolution.
Perhaps the religion of evolution is the best way to end today's post.  I began asking why we use the word 'doubt' when discussing scientific issues.  We now have an answer to that question.  What many people present as scientific laws are really nothing more than religious beliefs.  The religion of evolution undoubtedly serves as the best example of this truth.  Since evolution is a religion it is entirely proper to describe those who oppose its tenets as doubters.  Just don't call us unscientific as that is completely untrue.

Wednesday, March 18, 2015

The Amazing Case Of Phoenix Drivers And Phoenix Yuppies

I spent a week in Phoenix earlier this month.  My wife and I went down to the Valley of the Sun for a respite from the cold and snow of Denver as well as to get out and climb a few desert mountains.  I have been to Phoenix many times over the years, usually in the Spring and usually to climb desert mountains, but I have never stayed in this particular part of Phoenix in the past.  My usual haunt has been the Scottsdale Motel 6.  The Scottsdale Motel 6 is located directly behind the Scottsdale Fashion Mall and is smack-dab in the middle of one of the most ritzy places in the country, or the world for that matter.  I always mused over the fact that a poor janitor like me could spend $50/night to stay right next to a place where $50 would not even buy an appetizer in a local restaurant.
This time was different however.  Thanks to the amazing generosity of a wealthy benefactor, my wife and I were able to stay in a large private home adjacent to a resort country club.  The 11th hole was right outside the back door.  It was a lovely par 5 and it was also responsible for the fact that a golf ball or two would magically appear in the back yard each day.  I gathered them up to resupply my golf bag when I got home.  I knew something was up as we drove into the neighborhood for the first time.  I was driving our twelve year old Toyota Corolla.  To put it mildly, we didn't fit in.  I do not recall seeing any other car in the entire development that was as old as ours the entire week we were there.  In fact, I don't recall seeing any other Toyotas.  Every car was either a BMW, a Mercedes Benz, a Lexis, an Audi, an Infiniti or a Range Rover.  Every one!  I am not exaggerating. 
Even more interesting was the fact that there were only two types of families in the area.  Everyone was either a Yuppie couple or a wealthy retired couple.  I could tell the difference by the fact that when I looked in my rear view mirror at the car that was always tailgating me as I drove along, the Yuppie drivers would have large, fleshy hands savagely gripping the steering wheel whereas the wealthy retired people would have long bony-fingered hands, also white-knuckled as they grasped the wheel with all their might.  Since the side windows were always blacked out I spent a week looking back at some very nasty looking hands.  It is going to take months to get those images out of my head.
I am accustomed to pulling to the side of two lane roads to allow hard-charging Yuppie drivers to pass me by.  The last thing I want to do is detain a Yuppie.  They are important people with important things to do.  I do it several times a day in the Yuppie neighborhood where I live.  My home experience did not prepare me, however, for what I lived through in Phoenix.  The entrance road to the development where we stayed was about a mile long and posted at 30 mph.  I could not drive that road without immediately having a caravan of cars lined up behind me, all compacted together like a train, just waiting to get to the next traffic light.  I pulled over many times.  On those occasions when I did not not I was the recipient of the ritual of the honking horn and the wild hand waving gesture. 
It was not just the entrance road where I encountered difficulties.  I was driving to a trailhead one morning along a four lane arterial road.  I had my window down and was in the right hand lane, looking out for the parking area and trying to stay out of the way of the many Yuppies who were flying past me in the left lane.  Suddenly an SUV pulled up beside me and the darkened passenger side window came down.  I heard a Yuppie, yelling from the dark recesses of the car.  She said, "Hey, can you go any slower?"  I briefly peered into the darkened interior of the car and assured her that, indeed, I could go slower but saw no need to do so at that time.  The window rose and she sped off.  I noted how friendly the Phoenix Yuppies were in that they would actually take the time to ask questions of me while driving along.
One day we ordered a pizza.  The Pizza Hut was a couple of miles up another four lane road that was posted at 45 mph.  This stretch of road had very few traffic lights so you can imagine how well the speed limit was observed.  Coming back from the store I needed to move to the left lane to make the turn into the development where we were staying.  I knew getting into the left lane would be highly offensive to all the Yuppies on the road and that I would be immediately subjected to road rage for doing so, so I decided to accelerate to the speed of traffic.  I moved left and accelerated to 65 mph.  I had been in the left lane a couple of minutes when cars began shooting past me in the right lane.  Fortunately none of them tried to communicate with me.  I was doing everything I could do to keep from crashing while driving 20 mph over the reasonable speed limit.
I climbed five new mountains over the course of four days of hiking/climbing.  Just like the situation on the roads, the trails, or at least the lower portions of the trails, were crawling with Yuppies and rich retirees.  Being outside of their automobiles reduced their hostility towards me considerably.  It is a funny thing how not being inside a darkened car makes people behave with more civility.  At any rate, the rich retirees would greet me with a friendly hello when we crossed paths.  When I would leave the trails to start up the mountains they would disappear but it was enjoyable to greet them on the lower reaches of the mountains.  The Yuppies, on the other hand, were just like Yuppies in the Colorado mountains.  There were all wearing ear buds and it would have been a total waste of time to greet them because they would not hear me anyway.  I wondered about the wisdom of walking along a desert trail in the springtime, when the rattlesnakes are beginning to stir, without the ability to hear anything other than the current Yuppie hit song.
I did pass a couple of Yuppie women one day who had momentarily taken their ear buds out of their ears and were actually engaging in the ancient art of conversation.  Or at least it was an attempt at conversation.  They did what all Yuppies do.  They talked past each other, never asking each other a question, about their current physical training plan, their current diet and where they planned to go on vacation that summer.  Although the Mexican poppies were out in all their glory, along with a smattering of other beautiful desert flowers, nobody seemed to notice.  I concluded that the Yuppies of Phoenix are pretty much the same species as the Yuppies of Denver.  They are all Type-A obsessive compulsive people with no joy for life and no appreciation for anything that is around them.  They are driven exclusively by materialism and the vain trappings of success.  How sad.

Tuesday, March 17, 2015

Career Politicians + Bureaucrats = Blithering Idiots

Career politicians are some of the dumbest people in the history of mankind.  To rise to the position of career politician requires only one skill.....the ability to lie convincingly every single time the mouth is opened.  Intellectual skills seriously hinder those people who might be crazy enough to seek political office.  The ability to think about things, other than what lie you are going to tell next, makes it impossible to operate with a clear conscience.  So career politicians never think about anything.  That is extremely easy for them to do because they have risen to their position as our rulers precisely because they are extraordinarily dumb.
Bureaucrats are probably as dumb as career politicians.  They difference between the two is that bureaucrats are not accomplished liars.  What distinguishes bureaucrats from career politicians is their incredible laziness.  Bureaucrats are empowered to write the rules to carry out the laws passed by career politicians.  Those laws are written in such a way as to give the bureaucrats as much control over the population as possible.  The goal of every bureaucrat is to write the perfect law that will stifle the free market and, at the same time, require them to do nothing but sit behind a desk and eat doughnuts.  Although both career politicians and bureaucrats love to describe themselves as servants of the public the truth of the matter is that they see the public as a large body of imbeciles which is is generally best to avoid at all costs.  Those of us in the body politic do not hesitate to exclaim that the feeling is mutual.
I was reading my Denver Post this morning when I came across an article that dramatically illustrates the mathematical equation in the subject line of this blog post.  It was entitled "State officials aim for zero traffic deaths" and the article went on to describe how the combination of actions by Colorado career politicians and bureaucrats was going to bring about the utopian goal of eliminating all death in the state.  Well maybe not all death.  But they do believe they are capable of eliminating all deaths related to automobile accidents.  I was amazed at the stupidity of our rulers and felt compelled to share it with you here today.
Over the last two years Colorado has averaged 40 traffic fatalities per month.  That is almost 1000 deaths via automobile accidents in the past two years.  I think most people are intelligent enough to realize that taking vehicles that weigh thousands of pounds and propelling them down roads at 70 miles per hour accompanied by hundreds of other vehicles on those roads is likely going to result in collisions.  Add in the combination of people talking on the phone, texting and driving drunk and accidents become even more likely.  With enough accidents it is impossible to avoid the occasional death.  Career politicians and bureaucrats, however, are not intelligent.  Here is what they believe, "State officials said Monday that getting through a year with no traffic fatalities is doable in Colorado but its going to take an unprecedented effort from a variety of agencies."  Did you get that?  Despite the fact that 40 people per month have been dying in accidents on Colorado roads, these fools believe it is possible to eliminate all traffic fatalities, provided the bureaucrats and lawmakers produce something called an "unprecedented effort."  I don't like the sound of that, and neither should you.
The Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Transportation explained what this unprecedented effort would look like.  She said, "This is a bold mission, no doubt, but its something we must take on.  We can't reach zero deaths without the strategic involvement of our community partners and state agencies."  Well there you have it.  A strategic involvement of community partners and state agencies will create an unprecedented effort that will make traffic fatalities a thing of the past in Colorado.  Does anybody have any idea what any of this stuff really means?  I sure don't.
The article goes on to inform me that "organizers will use innovative and data-driven approaches toward improving highway safety."  Once again I ask, does anyone have a clue what any of this drivel really means?  All I can gather from what my rulers are telling me is that some bureaucratic bozos are going to be sitting at computer terminals crunching numbers about traffic fatalities.  Somehow that effort will result in no future traffic fatalities.  I wonder how much the people who are implementing this program are going to be paid?  Why should my tax dollars be spent on such an elusive dream?  Why should the taxpayers be fleeced to pay for this utopian fantasy?  How can any reasonable human being believe that it is possible for government to prevent all automobile accident fatalities?
The article went on to tell me that 142 of the deaths in 2014 were alcohol related.  An additional 36 were marijuana related.  Another 61 deaths were related to "distracted driving."  The realization that distracted driving, whatever that is, resulted in 61 preventable deaths last year was used as an example of how our career politicians are helping stop all traffic fatalities in the future.  The article proudly exclaimed that, "In 2009, Colorado passed a law that makes it a crime -- punishable by a $100 fine -- to send text messages, tweets and emails while driving."  Praise the government!  We are guaranteed never to have another accident because our career politicians have passed a law.  This is truly an unprecedented effort.  What an amazing example of strategic involvement has taken place here.  How stupid I have been not to see how easy it is.  This clearly illustrates how those who rule over me are so much smarter and wiser than I will ever be.  They realize that passing laws stops automobile deaths.  I never would have dreamed it could be true, but it is.  I can't wait to get in my car and go for a drive through the mountains since I know that getting killed in a car crash is now against the law and will never happen again.

Monday, March 16, 2015

NCAA "Big Dance" Is A Flop

College basketball fans gathered around their big-screen televisions yesterday for the announcement of which 68 teams are to be invited to the 2015 NCAA college basketball tournament.  There are 32 Division 1 conferences, with the champion of each being awarded a slot in the tournament, and a total of 346 Division 1 basketball teams.  To make up the 68 team field an additional 36 at large invitations are issued.  This means that roughly 20% of all teams that play Division 1 college basketball receive an invitation to the event.  An invitation to the event is a big deal that garners cash and prestige to any school that gets an invitation.  As you would expect, the invitations are earnestly sought after and the creation of the final field creates lots of controversy from those teams that thought they were tournament worthy but were passed over by the selection committee. 
Now please allow me to grouse for a while.  No, I am not going to write about a medium sized gallinaceous bird, although I do find them to be quite tasty.  I am going to write about gross injustices involved in the selection of teams invited to the Big Dance.  But first, please allow me to reminisce.  In the old days, when I was in college, the NCAA tournament consisted of just 32 teams.  That seemed reasonable to me.  There was another tournament for teams with good records that did not make the Big Dance.  It was called the National Invitational Tournament, or NIT, and it was held in New York.  Although not as prestigious as the Big Dance, the NIT was a big deal for those teams that were invited and the winner of the NIT earned the right to strut about claiming they should have been invited to the Big Dance. 
The Big Dance was doubled to 64 teams after I graduated from college.  I do not believe there is any causal connection between those two events but I could be wrong about that.  Regardless, once the field expanded to 64, and to 68 today, the event lost much of its significance.  The problem is simple.  The more teams invited to the Dance, the more inferior quality teams will show up.  It has become a ritual for many teams to win just enough games to get an invitation only to be eliminated in the first round.  Schools will set up their early season schedules and fill them with patsies so they can build an impressive win-loss record in an attempt to catch the attention of the selection committee.   My alma mater is a perfect example of that phenomenon.  New Mexico State University is a good college basketball school, but not a great one.  NMSU almost always receives an invitation to the Big Dance.  While I was enrolled at NMSU we had a very good basketball team that came within seconds of defeating the Larry Bird led, and undefeated at the time, Indiana State University.  We both ended up in the Big Dance.  You may recall that Indiana State went undefeated until the final game of the Dance, eventually losing to Magic Johnson's Michigan State team.  As I recall, NMSU was eliminated in the first round. 
I checked the brackets for this year's tournament this morning.  There is NMSU, soundly ensconced as the 15th seed in the Midwest bracket.  They play Kansas on Friday morning and will be back home in Las Cruces in time for happy-hour on Friday night.  I believe they were eliminated in the first round last year as well.  It has become an annual tradition. 
Closer to home, the Colorado State University Rams were so convinced they had earned a bid to the Dance that the head coach for the team benched his star player during the final game of the season in order to allow him to rest up for the first round of the Big Dance.  They lost that game and finished the season with a 27-6 record.  The team gathered in their locker room yesterday to watch their selection to the Dance.  Here is how the Denver Post reported the event, "Obviously stunned, upset and angry, Colorado State men's basketball coach Larry Eustachy emerged from the locker room to speak with the media Sunday, almost an hour after the NCAA Tournament bracket was revealed without including the Rams....'This is going to be brief', Eustachy said. 'I'm  not going to take any questions because I don't want to say the wrong thing...something that I am going to regret.  The disappointment is that you have 12 players in the locker room crying.  We're certainly one of the best 68 teams in the country.  Obviously the committee didn't feel that way.'"
My first reaction to the story was one of disgust.  I could just imagine 12 adult players sitting around the locker room crying like a bunch of sissy girls.  Man up!  Get over it.  Life isn't fair.  Learn that lesson now. And, above everything else, quit your silly crying you bunch of wimps!  What a pathetic scene that must of been.  I am sure glad I didn't have to witness it. 
After my initial disgust I found myself considering another issue. Why was CSU not invited?  In particular, why was CSU not invited and UCLA was?  CSU finished the season 27-6.  UCLA finished 20-13.  CSU finished the season with a RPI rating of 29 (lower is better).  UCLA had a 49.  In fact, CSU is now the first team to finished the season with an RPI rating below 30 that did not earn an invitation to the Big Dance.  CSU had a "strength of schedule" rating of 118.  UCLA's was 29.  CSU was 5-5 against top 100 teams.  UCLA was 5-10.  By all objective measures CSU should be in the place now occupied by UCLA.  So what happened?
The answer to that question is easy.  The Big Dance is all about money and demographics.  The tournament has doubled in size over my lifetime because doing so allows the NCAA to earn gazillions more dollars.  I like that.  I think the public should be served.  As long as profits can be realized the public is being served.  In fact, if the NCAA wanted to expand the tournament to 284 teams I would be good with that provided the games could realize a profit.  I think the tournament could be expanded to include every team in Division 1.  No doubt the boosters from each school would be willing to have an additional game and garner some additional income for the program.  If the fans are willing to pay to see it, put it on!  So, no, I am not against adding more teams, even though I stopped watching the Big Dance years ago because of the dilution of talent.  No, what bothers me is the demographics of the issue.
With the tournament limited to "only" 68 teams, the selection committee is going to emphasize teams that can fill the stadiums with fans.  In addition, with the games being televised around the country, the selection committee is also going to fill the brackets with recognizable schools that other fans from other schools might be willing to watch.  What does that mean for people living in the Mountain time zone?  You guessed it.  It means your teams will not make the tournament while other teams in the Atlantic and Pacific time zones will be in.  It does not matter that UCLA is grossly inferior to CSU.  UCLA is big and well known. CSU is from the Mountain time zone.  It is essentially unknown.  Guess who wins?