HOW RANDOM IS RANDOM?

The answer to the question in the title is mosly, well, random.  I have a couple of examples that can make some kind of point.  Watch.  We all think that taxes are a systematic way of life.  That's because we have this idea that the system is fair and that everyone follows the rules if for no other reason than the fear of the IRS.

TAXES

But the fact of the matter is that there are a lot of random, would-be tax payers who do not fear the IRS.  They are the ones who pick and choose where they will spend their money according to the electro-chemical stimuli that they experience along the course of the day without the least care of how much the IRS would want of the money that they have just spent.  It's like throwing the money up in the air [see illustration] and deciding that what comes back down is meant to be kept and what stays up is meant for the IRS. Sounds pretty random, right?  The interesting thing is that the IRS itself is under the impression that it is a very systematic organization.  If it only knew.

Then there is the random act of trying to kill someone with a handgun.  We have all seen innumerable cinematic productions that really give us an idea of what is random and what is systematic.  Now what is sytematic and what is random here?  It appears that the system is not very consistent in its focus, so how could it by a greater positive that the random that actually hit the guy?  The one thing that is systematic is that the movie goer is sure that the good guy is going to win, blood guts and all.  You are saying to yourself that this is just humorous stuff because it happens in the movies.  Ha!  I got news for you.  Look at this picture, high falluting language and all.

Which error would you prefer to have in your life?  Go ahead, take your pick.  Look at that systematic error.  Sure looks good from afar, or if your cockeyed, but that doesn't seem to be something that I would want to be known for. You?  Man, what a great shot I am.  20 hits all in the diameter of a Thomas Jefferson quarter!  Hooo, weee.  I sure would hate to be the guy with the random error.  He ain't worth a pile of cow pie in the south 40.  Really?  I didn't think that there were goods, betters, and bests in errors?  I am rather sure that if Daniel Boone had a great talent  in either one of these errors, he would have been required to depend on someone else for his sustenance.  He would have been rather incapable of killing any supper living with either one of these errors.
So, whatever random means, I can assure you that I don't want any part of it.  Just give me systematic any day, but not erroneous systematic, puleeze!  I need correct, straight on systematic.  Don't you?

"AMATEUR" SPORTS IN COLLEGE & UNIVERSITY

This article got started because of a simple little thought that I once had in my younger years. In fact, I had this thought when I was 18 years old.  I was one year away from college level education while my best friend had already moved on to Holy Cross College in Worcester, Massachusetts. [say that fast 3 times in a row]
He was what I considered to be a good basketball player.  When I saw him during Christmas break I asked him if he had gone out for the basketball team at Holy Cross.  The look of disgust on his face was a surprise to me. He just simply said that it wasn't that easy in college.  The conversation went on to other things and I remained in my state of total, I mean total ignorance about how to get on the team in college.  In fact, truth to tell, I'll bet that most of my ignorance about this subject is what falls into the category of invincible ignorance.  I am in real deep trouble when I find myself thinking about college and sports.  I am sure that most people would call my situation innocence, but I am not innocent, just invincibly ignorant.  I can't figure out why athletes have to lie about the fact that they are in a school with an A-1 law department when all they are being taught is how to play a given sport.  Why does the school lie about it.  Just say, these people are here being taught how to play "xyz" sport on the professional level.  We cover their expenses while they are here as remuneration for their ability to attract big money through their athletic prowess.  Am I wrong in thinking that honesty at this level is more morally acceptable than what we have now?  If we just said that openly, it would explain why people who attended "xyz university" still can't speak grammatical English in an interview.  I'll bet the real reason is that if it were said that way the IRS would get involved. Oh-Oh!
I guess my invincible ignorance revolves around the unshakable conviction that I have that participating in sports is integral to achieving a completely well-rounded education.  You know, the age-old axiom "mens sana in corpore sano." [A healthy mind in a healthy body]  That's what sports in school is intended to do.  I am convinced that better doctors are made if they are given the opportunity to bash heads on the athletic field before boring holes in the crania of trusting patients.  Of course, these people will not support the billion dollar business of Notre Dame Football by cavorting around the athletic field for a couple hours after Mass on a Sunday afternoon.  So, that's my take on this whole thing.   
Right about now, you are saying to yourself, "This old man is not only invincibly ignorant, he is completely MAD, and it isn't even March yet!"
So, get even with me by not crying at my funeral.