I have a new venture, just launched this week: GreenSpace™.
Here is the quickest way to donate, or even request a quote on a project:
Wednesday, September 17, 2014
Wednesday, September 03, 2014
Bread and Circus, American Style
I like to read Salon. I find the writing far superior to most online or print journalism, though sometimes the bias leads to articles that serve mainly as fodder for the right-wing sycophants. But here is an article about the NFL that I read, and it gave me some ideas.
See, there are two things about the NFL that make it unique in the professional sports world, although neither is necessarily unique on its own.
First, the NFL has an issue with lifelong debilitating conditions, suffered by its players, as a result of the violent (as in gladiatorial) nature of the sport. Players sacrifice their health, and often a large chunk of their projected lifespan, to participate at the highest professional level. Junior Seau and Dave Duerson are two perfect recent examples. As mentioned in the article,
Second, the NFL generates tens of billions of dollars in profit each year, as a not-for-profit, tax-exempt organization—a 501(c)(6), to be exact. This means that all that money that goes into the pockets of ownership, is courtesy of the American taxpayer, to some extent. To give some idea of the scope of this, even at the lowest recent corporate tax rates, the NFL would pay out three times what the federal government currently allocates to AmeriCorps, should the league pay corporate taxes.
So, let's put all these disparate facts together, and see if a light-bulb goes off overhead. What if, just as a though exercise, Congress or the Executive branch considered introducing a law to remove that exemption, as leverage to get the NFL to do something it should have done already, and certainly would do if pressed by the Big Gubmint? What if the NFL was given a single out from paying billions in taxes, and that would be through putting that money to better use for themselves, by putting it into lavish retirement and health benefits for former players? Imagine what an annual billion-dollar infusion could do to pull the log from the eye, here. Imagine what three billion would do.
Now, I am not arguing for extensive programs to necessarily make the game safer, though that could be well-funded with a fraction of the money we are talking about. I am talking about removing the hypocrisy of pretending football is just another sport, which we happen to love in America, which has former players who have taken a physical beating. It's about acknowledging that football is our modern version of the gladiatorial arena. Let's just be honest about that.
The ancient gladiators didn't have a bunch of retired guys languishing over prohibitively expensive health care and rehabilitation—back then, they were usually dead. But the few who somehow survived to retirement, were treated like gods. They lived lives often as extravagant as emperors; parties, palaces, whatever they wanted.
So, my proposal is that today's modern gladiators get a modern equivalent. Since they don't have to die for glory, there are more of them, and certainly the crass argument can be made that the glory is also diminished as a result. But each can be given the proper seat at the table of honor, that he has earned. And they can all get that, and the health care they need, and the compensation for the years of mobility, quality, and existence they will forfeit, all for less than the taxes not being paid.
See, there are two things about the NFL that make it unique in the professional sports world, although neither is necessarily unique on its own.
First, the NFL has an issue with lifelong debilitating conditions, suffered by its players, as a result of the violent (as in gladiatorial) nature of the sport. Players sacrifice their health, and often a large chunk of their projected lifespan, to participate at the highest professional level. Junior Seau and Dave Duerson are two perfect recent examples. As mentioned in the article,
For the past year, league officials have been working to settle a lawsuit brought by 4,500 former players, who accuse the league of covering up the link between football and brain damage. The NFL will likely wind up paying hundreds of millions of dollars to settle the suit, possibly billions.
Second, the NFL generates tens of billions of dollars in profit each year, as a not-for-profit, tax-exempt organization—a 501(c)(6), to be exact. This means that all that money that goes into the pockets of ownership, is courtesy of the American taxpayer, to some extent. To give some idea of the scope of this, even at the lowest recent corporate tax rates, the NFL would pay out three times what the federal government currently allocates to AmeriCorps, should the league pay corporate taxes.
So, let's put all these disparate facts together, and see if a light-bulb goes off overhead. What if, just as a though exercise, Congress or the Executive branch considered introducing a law to remove that exemption, as leverage to get the NFL to do something it should have done already, and certainly would do if pressed by the Big Gubmint? What if the NFL was given a single out from paying billions in taxes, and that would be through putting that money to better use for themselves, by putting it into lavish retirement and health benefits for former players? Imagine what an annual billion-dollar infusion could do to pull the log from the eye, here. Imagine what three billion would do.
Now, I am not arguing for extensive programs to necessarily make the game safer, though that could be well-funded with a fraction of the money we are talking about. I am talking about removing the hypocrisy of pretending football is just another sport, which we happen to love in America, which has former players who have taken a physical beating. It's about acknowledging that football is our modern version of the gladiatorial arena. Let's just be honest about that.
The ancient gladiators didn't have a bunch of retired guys languishing over prohibitively expensive health care and rehabilitation—back then, they were usually dead. But the few who somehow survived to retirement, were treated like gods. They lived lives often as extravagant as emperors; parties, palaces, whatever they wanted.
So, my proposal is that today's modern gladiators get a modern equivalent. Since they don't have to die for glory, there are more of them, and certainly the crass argument can be made that the glory is also diminished as a result. But each can be given the proper seat at the table of honor, that he has earned. And they can all get that, and the health care they need, and the compensation for the years of mobility, quality, and existence they will forfeit, all for less than the taxes not being paid.
Wednesday, August 20, 2014
In the wake of reports coming from Ferguson, MO the last few days, I thought I would say a few things:
Police action and response cannot be painted with a broad brush.
Each circumstance is unique.
Good and bad police response, will be a reflection of department leadership, and the measures taken to align personnel to the vision of the department for the community it serves.
I am grateful that my local citizenry cares enough to elect and support leadership with a positive vision for the future of our community.
What does that mean?
Well, for starters, it encompasses a lot of what's both right and wrong about police tactics and response these days. But let's look at the situation in Ferguson as an example.
When people gathered to protest, they were met with overwhelming force by the local police. In the days since, incidents of violence by individuals associated with the demonstrators has risen significantly. This is unsurprising, as force will usually be met with opposing force. The behavior of bad-faith actors in response to the heavy-handed tactics of the local police, has provided the local police with justification for their heavy-handed tactics.
Demonization of the young man killed in the initial incident, is a disservice to the principles of the Bill of Rights. This attempt at distraction deceptively placates supporters of law and order, and provides for a more dangerous community in the future. If suspicion of Michael Brown for robbery is justification for fatally shooting an unarmed individual, then what is to stop future escalation of the practice, to a police department-wide policy of "shoot first, malign later?" Will there be an outcry for change only when an affluent white teenager is shot, for suspicion of shoplifting, or even jaywalking? This must stop. Even if Mike Brown was the known assailant in the earlier robbery, even if he stated as much to Officer Wilson, even if he stood defiantly stating he'd do it again, there is no justification for shooting Mike Brown, while unarmed, and in an arms-raised position of submission, on a public street with multiple bystanders and witnesses, with no threat to the officer involved. There are proper procedures for receiving robbery suspects into custody.
Are there cases where police tactics similar to those seen in Ferguson are warranted? Certainly. Can police find productive uses for surplus military equipment and vehicles? Sure. But communities need to be involved in the discussion regarding how their local law enforcement plans to use those purchases, why they anticipate the need for that equipment, and how local departments are strategizing to use military-grade items only as a last resort, and in less-than-lethal ways. Procuring vehicles that can save stranded homeowners and motorists after a flood or other natural disaster, is far different than getting multiple assault vehicles equipped with heavy firepower for crowd control, based on a nebulous threat of 'unrest.'
So be involved, be informed, and be aware, that the events in Ferguson could happen in many cities and towns in the United States, and that it is our duty to protect our Bill of Rights, or concede those protections to others. Most of all, vote. That is the lesson of hope from Ferguson; brave, determined people have found voice in this turmoil, to help others in finding their voice as well, primarily through access to the ballot box.
Police action and response cannot be painted with a broad brush.
Each circumstance is unique.
Good and bad police response, will be a reflection of department leadership, and the measures taken to align personnel to the vision of the department for the community it serves.
I am grateful that my local citizenry cares enough to elect and support leadership with a positive vision for the future of our community.
What does that mean?
Well, for starters, it encompasses a lot of what's both right and wrong about police tactics and response these days. But let's look at the situation in Ferguson as an example.
When people gathered to protest, they were met with overwhelming force by the local police. In the days since, incidents of violence by individuals associated with the demonstrators has risen significantly. This is unsurprising, as force will usually be met with opposing force. The behavior of bad-faith actors in response to the heavy-handed tactics of the local police, has provided the local police with justification for their heavy-handed tactics.
Demonization of the young man killed in the initial incident, is a disservice to the principles of the Bill of Rights. This attempt at distraction deceptively placates supporters of law and order, and provides for a more dangerous community in the future. If suspicion of Michael Brown for robbery is justification for fatally shooting an unarmed individual, then what is to stop future escalation of the practice, to a police department-wide policy of "shoot first, malign later?" Will there be an outcry for change only when an affluent white teenager is shot, for suspicion of shoplifting, or even jaywalking? This must stop. Even if Mike Brown was the known assailant in the earlier robbery, even if he stated as much to Officer Wilson, even if he stood defiantly stating he'd do it again, there is no justification for shooting Mike Brown, while unarmed, and in an arms-raised position of submission, on a public street with multiple bystanders and witnesses, with no threat to the officer involved. There are proper procedures for receiving robbery suspects into custody.
Are there cases where police tactics similar to those seen in Ferguson are warranted? Certainly. Can police find productive uses for surplus military equipment and vehicles? Sure. But communities need to be involved in the discussion regarding how their local law enforcement plans to use those purchases, why they anticipate the need for that equipment, and how local departments are strategizing to use military-grade items only as a last resort, and in less-than-lethal ways. Procuring vehicles that can save stranded homeowners and motorists after a flood or other natural disaster, is far different than getting multiple assault vehicles equipped with heavy firepower for crowd control, based on a nebulous threat of 'unrest.'
So be involved, be informed, and be aware, that the events in Ferguson could happen in many cities and towns in the United States, and that it is our duty to protect our Bill of Rights, or concede those protections to others. Most of all, vote. That is the lesson of hope from Ferguson; brave, determined people have found voice in this turmoil, to help others in finding their voice as well, primarily through access to the ballot box.
Saturday, June 21, 2014
Some things I want to post, for copyright reasons:
Capitalism works best when it works for the working man.©
America works best when it works for the working man.©
A union membership is a seal of approval.©
A union membership is a promise of quality.©
If you want to use one of my copyrighted phrases, give me a job on your campaign. If you want me to come up with an all new one, give me a job on your campaign. If you want to win in November, give me a job on your campaign.
I will be posting more.
Capitalism works best when it works for the working man.©
America works best when it works for the working man.©
A union membership is a seal of approval.©
A union membership is a promise of quality.©
If you want to use one of my copyrighted phrases, give me a job on your campaign. If you want me to come up with an all new one, give me a job on your campaign. If you want to win in November, give me a job on your campaign.
I will be posting more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)