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.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Monday, November 17, 2008
I'm Here To Pick Up My Car
Attendant: This ticket's three years old!
Luther: Yeah... I've been BUSY!
So begins the return to the Moose-Blog.
It's a lot of fun being a Precinct Captain, but it's a lot of work, too. And since Election Day, it's been all about the decompressing—and the rallying for close Senate races, and the calling Senators to do the right thing on a host of issues, and the just soaking it all in.
President-Elect Obama.
Sounds nice, heh?
Thanks to everyone who helped in any way to accomplish all that we have done as progressives over these last four years, though I think what the right-wing has done deserves much of the credit, too. For writing this, back in November of 2004, I feel like bragging on myself just a bit; thanks for indulging me.
But there's still plenty of work left to do. California voters ignored this post I put up in November 2004 (the day after the last one I linked). Our Senators think Joe Lieberman is the best person to chair the Homeland Security Committee. Iowa still has the dreaded troll Steve King.
But I have faith in America, and with a couple years' effort, I think we can fix all those issues, and more.
Oh, and another one: Vice-President-Elect Joe Biden.
And, filibuster-proof majority. Well, close enough, and maybe, just maybe, for real.
Luther: Yeah... I've been BUSY!
So begins the return to the Moose-Blog.
It's a lot of fun being a Precinct Captain, but it's a lot of work, too. And since Election Day, it's been all about the decompressing—and the rallying for close Senate races, and the calling Senators to do the right thing on a host of issues, and the just soaking it all in.
President-Elect Obama.
Sounds nice, heh?
Thanks to everyone who helped in any way to accomplish all that we have done as progressives over these last four years, though I think what the right-wing has done deserves much of the credit, too. For writing this, back in November of 2004, I feel like bragging on myself just a bit; thanks for indulging me.
But there's still plenty of work left to do. California voters ignored this post I put up in November 2004 (the day after the last one I linked). Our Senators think Joe Lieberman is the best person to chair the Homeland Security Committee. Iowa still has the dreaded troll Steve King.
But I have faith in America, and with a couple years' effort, I think we can fix all those issues, and more.
Oh, and another one: Vice-President-Elect Joe Biden.
And, filibuster-proof majority. Well, close enough, and maybe, just maybe, for real.
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
The Truth Hurts
Rahm Emanuel made a recent speech to the Brookings Institution. Here is one excerpt (see the full text here):
Heck, my mom could have told you this five years ago.
Last weekend, we learned of an investigation into President Bush’s Reading First program and allegations that officials improperly profited when implementing the program and the case has now been referred to the Justice Department.
Heck, my mom could have told you this five years ago.
Image as Truth, Truth as Image
Maybe they thought the ruse would be appreciated in Germany.
Thanks to The Republican Dictionary for this Goebbellian synopsis of the Bush Administration.
Thanks to The Republican Dictionary for this Goebbellian synopsis of the Bush Administration.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Support the Troops; Acquiesce to Their Wishes
Recently, I heard that three-fourths of troops in Iraq support a timeline for withdrawal; where I heard this I cannot remember exactly. It could have been Frontline, in the America at a Crossroads series; or it could have been on Countdown; or even in the documentary The Ground Truth; I really don't recall, other than I heard it earlier this week.
So I want to support the troops, by advocating for the action that they see as the best option for the future of Iraq.
The link above will take you to VideoVets.org, where vets have videos relating the experience of Iraq through their eyes (hence the name).
I have a son named Garrett, so seeing a guy with the same name struck a chord with me (even if he spells his name strangely). Here is what Garret Reppenhagen has to say:
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
Rumors Of My Demise Are Greatly Exaggerated
There's been a lot going on since I last posted to this blog.
My wife and I found out we are expecting.
We found out it is a girl (or very likely a girl, if ultrasound pictures are indicative).
I found out I have Type II Diabetes. After beginning three medications, I have some control over my blood-sugar.
The Hawkeyes have lost four football games. Usually that takes about 22 months for that to happen, not seven.
A friend was killed instantly when struck by lightning.
Peter Jennings died.
Rosa Parks died.
Three major hurricanes hit the United States.
So you see, there is a lot of life and death in the world. And it was damn near overwhelming for this 38-year-old. I mean, when you do the Math, it is beyond remotely possible that I have already lived out over half my life (how many overweight diabetics see 76?). And it feels like I'm down two TD's at the half, and it could be worse except my boys scored late to make it closer (they get points just for being).
So it has been a lot to ruminate upon, in recent days. So when politics pops up, it isn't the big big deal it once was.
Actually, it's bigger.
See, it's actually more important for me, because it's a process that is shaping not just my future, but the future for my children, and their children, and future generations everywhere. It's the future of humanity.
Now, don't get me wrong here. In many ways, it is much less important. It is not so important because I don't need to get angry about what I see as injustice. I don't need outrage to formulate my opinions and associations. I don't need politics to justify my existence. And I surely don't feel the need to indulge in a little Schottenfruede over the meltdown on the political right.
But it is more important, in that I see now how I can, and must, engage in the public dialogue (is there such a thing as a multi-logue?) for my own future, and for my children. Too much is at stake not to get involved. It is perfectly justifiable to care, and care deeply, about the direction my community and country are going.
So yes, I still care, quite a bit. But I am no longer beholden to politics for my identity.
I'm willing to be a partner with politics. I won't be a co-dependent.
There's too much else to live for, anyway.
My wife and I found out we are expecting.
We found out it is a girl (or very likely a girl, if ultrasound pictures are indicative).
I found out I have Type II Diabetes. After beginning three medications, I have some control over my blood-sugar.
The Hawkeyes have lost four football games. Usually that takes about 22 months for that to happen, not seven.
A friend was killed instantly when struck by lightning.
Peter Jennings died.
Rosa Parks died.
Three major hurricanes hit the United States.
So you see, there is a lot of life and death in the world. And it was damn near overwhelming for this 38-year-old. I mean, when you do the Math, it is beyond remotely possible that I have already lived out over half my life (how many overweight diabetics see 76?). And it feels like I'm down two TD's at the half, and it could be worse except my boys scored late to make it closer (they get points just for being).
So it has been a lot to ruminate upon, in recent days. So when politics pops up, it isn't the big big deal it once was.
Actually, it's bigger.
See, it's actually more important for me, because it's a process that is shaping not just my future, but the future for my children, and their children, and future generations everywhere. It's the future of humanity.
Now, don't get me wrong here. In many ways, it is much less important. It is not so important because I don't need to get angry about what I see as injustice. I don't need outrage to formulate my opinions and associations. I don't need politics to justify my existence. And I surely don't feel the need to indulge in a little Schottenfruede over the meltdown on the political right.
But it is more important, in that I see now how I can, and must, engage in the public dialogue (is there such a thing as a multi-logue?) for my own future, and for my children. Too much is at stake not to get involved. It is perfectly justifiable to care, and care deeply, about the direction my community and country are going.
So yes, I still care, quite a bit. But I am no longer beholden to politics for my identity.
I'm willing to be a partner with politics. I won't be a co-dependent.
There's too much else to live for, anyway.
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
The Grace Of God
Terry Schiavo has died.
It has been a couple weeks now, and it seems there is no longer the fuss about this event than there was when she was still alive. Or at least still breathing.
There's a difference, see. At least I think there is. While the body can still function when the brain and higher-order cognitive abilities have been severely reduced or ended outright, there is no longer a way for a person to really live. You know, stop 'n' smell the roses stuff.
See a good movie, walk barefoot in the park, hold a child's hand as you cross the street. Those things are gone. Throwing Frisbee to the dog, hearing the cat purr, letting a horse gallop. Tasting a good steak, enjoying the smell of fresh-baked bread, feeling the burn at the end of a workout. All this, and many other less clichéd experiences, will no longer be possible for Terry Schiavo. But that's nothing new.
None of this has been possible for her since 1990. In a bad situation, dealing with an eating disorder, she succumbed to a potassium imbalance that left her brain irrevocably damaged from oxygen deprivation. There would be no miracle. She was not getting better.
This issue is about more than physical life and death. Let's be honest, it's really about spiritual life and death. The debate can only exist in the context of human spirituality. Without souls, we are no more than tasty meat for gators and bears. Actually not even that; human meat is not so good, or so I've heard. So we'll assume we're talking about souls here. Souls of people who can swallow their food, and of those who can't. That's why Terry Schiavo has a feeding tube, and why Michael Schiavo wants to remove it.
But is it killing her? When she could be kept "alive" by simply squirting paste through a tube embedded in her abdomen, is it unreasonable to demand that it must be done? It doesn't seem so, simply because her soul is in danger.
Right.
As if God doesn't know what to do with Terry Schiavo's soul. He sent Jesus for redemption of all our sins, but still requires certain religious ritual upon our deaths. The fact is, God will and has already taken care of it. Oh, and he also knows how to deal with the souls of the "unborn," too. This isn't his first day on the job.
If Terry Schiavo's spiritual death was back in 1990, then God has her soul and her body is nothing but an empty mortal shell worth about $1.98 in chemical components.
If her spiritual death can't happen until her last breath, then her soul has been trapped for fourteen years in a unique and total hell. In this case, there is no way to see her physical death as anything but a liberation of her soul.
Either way, it's about trusting God.
That, and preserving the real sanctity of marriage. The sanctity that comes from someone putting all their trust in another human being to take compassionate care of her when she can't do it herself. The sanctity that says, whatever you do, I believe you do it for my best interest, and I love and support and forgive you for all your actions on my part, now and for all time, even when I am gone.
I don't pray that God will welcome Tery Schiavo into his eternal love. I thank and praise him for having done it. And for being patient with those of us who would make Him and Terry wait.
It has been a couple weeks now, and it seems there is no longer the fuss about this event than there was when she was still alive. Or at least still breathing.
There's a difference, see. At least I think there is. While the body can still function when the brain and higher-order cognitive abilities have been severely reduced or ended outright, there is no longer a way for a person to really live. You know, stop 'n' smell the roses stuff.
See a good movie, walk barefoot in the park, hold a child's hand as you cross the street. Those things are gone. Throwing Frisbee to the dog, hearing the cat purr, letting a horse gallop. Tasting a good steak, enjoying the smell of fresh-baked bread, feeling the burn at the end of a workout. All this, and many other less clichéd experiences, will no longer be possible for Terry Schiavo. But that's nothing new.
None of this has been possible for her since 1990. In a bad situation, dealing with an eating disorder, she succumbed to a potassium imbalance that left her brain irrevocably damaged from oxygen deprivation. There would be no miracle. She was not getting better.
This issue is about more than physical life and death. Let's be honest, it's really about spiritual life and death. The debate can only exist in the context of human spirituality. Without souls, we are no more than tasty meat for gators and bears. Actually not even that; human meat is not so good, or so I've heard. So we'll assume we're talking about souls here. Souls of people who can swallow their food, and of those who can't. That's why Terry Schiavo has a feeding tube, and why Michael Schiavo wants to remove it.
But is it killing her? When she could be kept "alive" by simply squirting paste through a tube embedded in her abdomen, is it unreasonable to demand that it must be done? It doesn't seem so, simply because her soul is in danger.
Right.
As if God doesn't know what to do with Terry Schiavo's soul. He sent Jesus for redemption of all our sins, but still requires certain religious ritual upon our deaths. The fact is, God will and has already taken care of it. Oh, and he also knows how to deal with the souls of the "unborn," too. This isn't his first day on the job.
If Terry Schiavo's spiritual death was back in 1990, then God has her soul and her body is nothing but an empty mortal shell worth about $1.98 in chemical components.
If her spiritual death can't happen until her last breath, then her soul has been trapped for fourteen years in a unique and total hell. In this case, there is no way to see her physical death as anything but a liberation of her soul.
Either way, it's about trusting God.
That, and preserving the real sanctity of marriage. The sanctity that comes from someone putting all their trust in another human being to take compassionate care of her when she can't do it herself. The sanctity that says, whatever you do, I believe you do it for my best interest, and I love and support and forgive you for all your actions on my part, now and for all time, even when I am gone.
I don't pray that God will welcome Tery Schiavo into his eternal love. I thank and praise him for having done it. And for being patient with those of us who would make Him and Terry wait.
Friday, March 11, 2005
The Social Security Shell Game
At the core, the arguement for Social Security reform goes like this:
See, Right now Social Security runs a surplus. That means, in 2005, more money comes in than goes out. This will be the gradually diminishing case until 2018 or so, when the Baby Boomers begin to retire and collect, and then the program will run deficits until 2052, and will offset the costs using the substantial ($1.7 trillion) surplus built up between 1935 and 2018. The surplus will run out in 2052 (or thereabouts). The money brought in then will only be able to cover about 75% of the level of current benefits. And this is all based on maintaining current benefit and Social Security withholding levels (that's 7.5% of your income up to a $90,000 cap). If benefits were reduced even the slightest bit, or the cap raised by an amount consistent with inflation levels, this would put the program into solvency into the 22nd Century.
As we are seeing an America more prosperous and healthy than at any time in history, it could just be that retired persons will rely less on Social Security income than in the past, and also that they will be living longer, and working longer, and that "retirement age" has already or will eventually reach 68 or 70 years. Remember, Social Security was initially created to alleviate a crisis of poverty among the elderly of America, and has succeeded immensely in that charge. That's why the system is faced with budget issues in the first place. But Social Security is still enormously essential to ensure that the U. S. does not revert to the poverty of the past.
Now, it doesnt take much calculation to figure out that very small changes now will make great advancements in Social Security solvency in 2052 and beyond. See, as currently run, even when the money runs out, Social Security revenues are still able to cover 75% of the costs in 2053, 2060, 2090, and beyond. So changes now only need account for that other 25% that is still well off in the distance. We're talking about benefit reductions or withholding increases of about 2% over current levels. Less than it costs to feed Sally Struthers.
But the folks at the White House, and their right-wing news cronies would have you believe that the sky is falling. They say the government should not be allowed to invest the people's money. But Social Security is not an investment strategy, that's what a 401(k) or a Roth IRA are for. Social Security is a societal safety net, that ensures that old people don't have to scrounge through garbage cans for clothes and food. If it costs me 7.5% of my income (matched by my employer), most of which I get back when I'm old and hungry, I'm okay with that. Besides, it's two relatives I don't have to care for (and soon four more, as my parents and in-laws are all near 60). And all my older relatives have retirement investments in addition to Social Security, because they knew forty years ago that they would need more to live beyond a basic existence in the golden years. And I invest for retirement too, because I know I want more out of retirement, and the chance to leave something for my kids, if I'm gone. And not in lieu of Social Security, but in addition to it. So I've got my alloted piece of the social pie, and my extra slice I planned for before I came to the picnic.
And how unreliable is Social Security as an investment (which, remember, it's actually not)? The surplus $1.7 trillion (that's $1700 billion) is held in the form of specially issued Treasury Bonds. They make a modest return, but are backed by the United States government, so they are as good as gold. But the White House crowd wants people to believe that these are just IOU's that have no real value. Here's the disconnect: if these "IOU's" are as potentially worthless as the administration claims, then Americans should have no faith in the U. S. economy, because the U. S. would have to default on $1.7 trillion in bonds for this to be true. And if that happens, the last place I would want my money is in the stock market.
Which is where they propose the privatized Social Security money goes.
I know, in the title of this post I likened the Bush Social Security plan to a shell game, but I was incorrect. It's really Three-Card Monte.
Social Security is running out of money! It will go broke, and very soon! We must fix the problem! We'll have to privatize the funds! The people know better than government how to invest their money! We'll still have to reduce benefits, but this will help in the long run!The trouble is, it's just not true. Well, the giong broke thing is true, if you consider 2052 to be "very soon." But the rest doesn't play.
See, Right now Social Security runs a surplus. That means, in 2005, more money comes in than goes out. This will be the gradually diminishing case until 2018 or so, when the Baby Boomers begin to retire and collect, and then the program will run deficits until 2052, and will offset the costs using the substantial ($1.7 trillion) surplus built up between 1935 and 2018. The surplus will run out in 2052 (or thereabouts). The money brought in then will only be able to cover about 75% of the level of current benefits. And this is all based on maintaining current benefit and Social Security withholding levels (that's 7.5% of your income up to a $90,000 cap). If benefits were reduced even the slightest bit, or the cap raised by an amount consistent with inflation levels, this would put the program into solvency into the 22nd Century.
As we are seeing an America more prosperous and healthy than at any time in history, it could just be that retired persons will rely less on Social Security income than in the past, and also that they will be living longer, and working longer, and that "retirement age" has already or will eventually reach 68 or 70 years. Remember, Social Security was initially created to alleviate a crisis of poverty among the elderly of America, and has succeeded immensely in that charge. That's why the system is faced with budget issues in the first place. But Social Security is still enormously essential to ensure that the U. S. does not revert to the poverty of the past.
Now, it doesnt take much calculation to figure out that very small changes now will make great advancements in Social Security solvency in 2052 and beyond. See, as currently run, even when the money runs out, Social Security revenues are still able to cover 75% of the costs in 2053, 2060, 2090, and beyond. So changes now only need account for that other 25% that is still well off in the distance. We're talking about benefit reductions or withholding increases of about 2% over current levels. Less than it costs to feed Sally Struthers.
But the folks at the White House, and their right-wing news cronies would have you believe that the sky is falling. They say the government should not be allowed to invest the people's money. But Social Security is not an investment strategy, that's what a 401(k) or a Roth IRA are for. Social Security is a societal safety net, that ensures that old people don't have to scrounge through garbage cans for clothes and food. If it costs me 7.5% of my income (matched by my employer), most of which I get back when I'm old and hungry, I'm okay with that. Besides, it's two relatives I don't have to care for (and soon four more, as my parents and in-laws are all near 60). And all my older relatives have retirement investments in addition to Social Security, because they knew forty years ago that they would need more to live beyond a basic existence in the golden years. And I invest for retirement too, because I know I want more out of retirement, and the chance to leave something for my kids, if I'm gone. And not in lieu of Social Security, but in addition to it. So I've got my alloted piece of the social pie, and my extra slice I planned for before I came to the picnic.
And how unreliable is Social Security as an investment (which, remember, it's actually not)? The surplus $1.7 trillion (that's $1700 billion) is held in the form of specially issued Treasury Bonds. They make a modest return, but are backed by the United States government, so they are as good as gold. But the White House crowd wants people to believe that these are just IOU's that have no real value. Here's the disconnect: if these "IOU's" are as potentially worthless as the administration claims, then Americans should have no faith in the U. S. economy, because the U. S. would have to default on $1.7 trillion in bonds for this to be true. And if that happens, the last place I would want my money is in the stock market.
Which is where they propose the privatized Social Security money goes.
I know, in the title of this post I likened the Bush Social Security plan to a shell game, but I was incorrect. It's really Three-Card Monte.
Friday, March 04, 2005
Did You Happen To Catch Page Three?
In your paper, it would likely be even further buried. Maybe next to the comics.
"What could be buried in my local paper?" you ask.
The news that one of the Madrid Subway bombers had sketches of Grand Central Station.
You'd think this would bump the terr-o-meter into the orange. Think again.
It seems that this would have been the big story on all the news outlets, had it happened back in October. You know, before the election.
But this week it gets buried.
Ask yourself why.
For those who did not adhere to that last request, I will go ahead and give you the answer.
Fear provokes re-election. Fear erodes legacy.
Since it's no longer necessary to scare the American public, save the effort.
What a flip-flop.
"What could be buried in my local paper?" you ask.
The news that one of the Madrid Subway bombers had sketches of Grand Central Station.
You'd think this would bump the terr-o-meter into the orange. Think again.
It seems that this would have been the big story on all the news outlets, had it happened back in October. You know, before the election.
But this week it gets buried.
Ask yourself why.
For those who did not adhere to that last request, I will go ahead and give you the answer.
Fear provokes re-election. Fear erodes legacy.
Since it's no longer necessary to scare the American public, save the effort.
What a flip-flop.
Friday, January 14, 2005
Donnie Fowler for DNC Chair
I firmly believe in the Democratic Party. I believe in what it stands for. I believe in the core values of liberalism, with pragmatism added for flavor. I see where the Democratic Party is headed. I see the cliff the GOP would have America run over.
But I also think the Democratic Party is paralyzed by the past-based, static-oriented "old-think" of the party leadership, including the DNC. The failure to articulate the progressive vision the Democratic Party holds for this nation has cost America too much to continue. New leadership must be commissioned.
There has been a big debate about how the Democratic Party must realign to win elections in America. More to the left? To the right? Not at all? This discussion is powerless and irrelevant. None of these things will work for the Dems. Position doesn't matter. Connection matters.
President Bush and the GOP Congressional majority didn't get there by having a better position. They got there by connecting to people. Their ideas didn't sway the electorate, their authenticity (or perception thereof) did. Voters don't care about positions, they want to trust those for whom they vote.
There is a candidate for the Chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) who sees this, and has a plan to return the trust back to the Democratic Party. Donnie Fowler for Chair of the DNC.
If you want to know what he has to say, you can find it here.
But I also think the Democratic Party is paralyzed by the past-based, static-oriented "old-think" of the party leadership, including the DNC. The failure to articulate the progressive vision the Democratic Party holds for this nation has cost America too much to continue. New leadership must be commissioned.
There has been a big debate about how the Democratic Party must realign to win elections in America. More to the left? To the right? Not at all? This discussion is powerless and irrelevant. None of these things will work for the Dems. Position doesn't matter. Connection matters.
President Bush and the GOP Congressional majority didn't get there by having a better position. They got there by connecting to people. Their ideas didn't sway the electorate, their authenticity (or perception thereof) did. Voters don't care about positions, they want to trust those for whom they vote.
There is a candidate for the Chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) who sees this, and has a plan to return the trust back to the Democratic Party. Donnie Fowler for Chair of the DNC.
If you want to know what he has to say, you can find it here.
Monday, January 10, 2005
Checking back in after the holidays
Sorry for neglecting my post over the academic break.
I just want to say something about Equal Protection of the Law. I support and stand by the legal and Constitutional protection provided in the United States Constitution regarding Equal Protection of Law. Here's what it says in the 14th Amendment regarding Equal Protection:
Mental rumination may now begin. Consider these questions:
I just want to say something about Equal Protection of the Law. I support and stand by the legal and Constitutional protection provided in the United States Constitution regarding Equal Protection of Law. Here's what it says in the 14th Amendment regarding Equal Protection:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Mental rumination may now begin. Consider these questions:
What does this mean for Sanctity of Marriage laws?For anyone who needs a refresher, here is the language of the Voting Rights Act of 1965:
What are the implications for detaining Americans based on racial or ethnic profiling?
How can Justice Scalia use this as the basis for ending legally mandated recounts in Florida in 2000?
In concert with the voting rights act of 1965, how does this affect the certification of elections where certain precincts had limited access to voting?
AN ACT To enforce the fifteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and for other purposes.Consider: were standards, practices, or procedures applied in Florida in 2000 or Ohio in 2004 which denied or abridged the right to vote to any person based on race or color? Were standards, practices, or procedures used in Florida or Ohio that did not provide Equal Protection as set in the 14th Amendment, or that denied Equal Protection as it applies in the 15th Amendment?
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act shall be known as the "Voting Rights Act of 1965."
SEC. 2. No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.
Friday, December 17, 2004
The Power Of Prayer
I saw a story on ABC News last night, that triggered my imagination. It seems there are vast networks of prayer agents operating in the United States, sometimes undercover. These groups target prayers, often quite specifically, in hopes that god (our now-common generic name, though in this case it seems God will do) will intercede on their behalf or on the behalf of the prayer target (it's not always clear which).
So I got to thinking about this, and I came to a logical and somewhat startling revelation. Now, I pray frequently (more than Scrooge, less than any devout Muslim), most often with food, and with a real sense of faith (but I admit without any expectation). Most often it's to express thanks (to Jesus and God, those are my peeps), sometimes to provide guidance for myself, and occasionally to protect my wife and sons. In my life I've probably asked God once or twice for something for myself (bargaining, really) or for intercession for a third party. I admit, I never had much faith in the last, and it always seemed a bit distasteful (even icky). My revelation explains why that is.
Here is the logical experiment: first we determine the nature of a god receptive to prayer, and who would intercede in the world; then what that means for that god. This gives us an idea of the value of prayer, in several forms.
First, either there is a god, or there isn't. If there is no god, prayer is useless as a divine communications tool (prayer may still have many other uses, but it won't express thoughts and ideas if the receiver doesn't exist). So prayer is only a communicative tool for intercession if there is a god.
Second, that god must be able to intercede in our human world. If he's unable to do anything about a prayer target, then communication is still incomplete. Even if there were an answer, it would be, "sorry, I can't help you, you'll need to figure this one out for yourself." So prayer is only a communicative tool for intercession if there is a god who can intercede.
Third, god must be willing to intercede. If he won't touch his creation to divinely alter it, then requests for his intercession won't achieve the desired ends. God just won't do it. So the only opening for successful intercessive prayer is with a powerful, willing creator.
Now, this creator is omnipotent, or he's not. Let's assume he is all-powerful. Then he has the ability to create a perfect world. Given that ability, he either has done that, or he hasn't by choice. If he has done that, then the world is perfect, and there is no reason to intercede. But if he deliberately created an imperfect world, he had a reason. We'll explore this momentarily.
A god who is not omnipotent, might not be able to help in every prayer request. After all, for this god there are impossible tasks. It is also possible that he cannot create an ideal world ever. Plus, this god might not even want to change his creation at the request of a few human beings. So intercessive prayer in this situation is fraught with chance and danger. So while it might help humanity, it also might hurt, and there is arguement to not engage in that type of prayer, or at least make damn sure there's no hubris or arrogance in such a request.
So the only time it is reasonable to believe that intercessive prayer will have a positive divine outcome, is if there is an omnipotent creator, who has created an imperfect existence for humanity, and who is willing to aquiesce to the requests of those very humans he has placed in that existence. But why would such a god do that?
Either he wants us to ask for his help, or he wants us to fix the world ourselves. If he wants us to ask for his help, great, but if he jumps in, he only shows us how ineffective we humans are. I doubt he wants that. Perhaps he wants us to seek his guidance. I think that is a noble request in prayer, but it is also presumptuous to think any of us can ask god to provide that guidance for a third party who may or may not even want it. That's a two-party request; I can ask god to guide me, but it is folly and an insult to god to suggest he give it to someone else (who's to say he hasn't already).
So to even engage in prayers asking for god's intercession on behalf of a third party (beyond protection), is in essence an insult to god. It's mighty pretentious, and dismissive of the power and love embodied in the essence of God (yes, with a "G"). After all, either he's not going to answer anyway; or by answering, he's admitting fault with the universe, and responsibility for fixing it.
So basically asking God to jump in and help "guide" another person, or more boldly take specific divine action to intervene (for reasons other than protection), assumes the person praying has a better grasp of the situation than God, and that that person knows what is right for someone else; basically God's will for that person. That smacks of selfishness and arrogance.
Additionally, how is it that a massive group prayer has any more attention from God than the quietest plea whispered by the smallest child? Such a belief would be a wholly human construct, based on "Might Makes Right," and outside the teachings of Jesus Christ. More likely, any god who would be inclined to intercede for humanity would probably just take offense at such action, and answer the little kid first.
In any case, it defines the phrase, "Holier Than Thou."
To me, that's what makes it so icky.
So I got to thinking about this, and I came to a logical and somewhat startling revelation. Now, I pray frequently (more than Scrooge, less than any devout Muslim), most often with food, and with a real sense of faith (but I admit without any expectation). Most often it's to express thanks (to Jesus and God, those are my peeps), sometimes to provide guidance for myself, and occasionally to protect my wife and sons. In my life I've probably asked God once or twice for something for myself (bargaining, really) or for intercession for a third party. I admit, I never had much faith in the last, and it always seemed a bit distasteful (even icky). My revelation explains why that is.
Here is the logical experiment: first we determine the nature of a god receptive to prayer, and who would intercede in the world; then what that means for that god. This gives us an idea of the value of prayer, in several forms.
First, either there is a god, or there isn't. If there is no god, prayer is useless as a divine communications tool (prayer may still have many other uses, but it won't express thoughts and ideas if the receiver doesn't exist). So prayer is only a communicative tool for intercession if there is a god.
Second, that god must be able to intercede in our human world. If he's unable to do anything about a prayer target, then communication is still incomplete. Even if there were an answer, it would be, "sorry, I can't help you, you'll need to figure this one out for yourself." So prayer is only a communicative tool for intercession if there is a god who can intercede.
Third, god must be willing to intercede. If he won't touch his creation to divinely alter it, then requests for his intercession won't achieve the desired ends. God just won't do it. So the only opening for successful intercessive prayer is with a powerful, willing creator.
Now, this creator is omnipotent, or he's not. Let's assume he is all-powerful. Then he has the ability to create a perfect world. Given that ability, he either has done that, or he hasn't by choice. If he has done that, then the world is perfect, and there is no reason to intercede. But if he deliberately created an imperfect world, he had a reason. We'll explore this momentarily.
A god who is not omnipotent, might not be able to help in every prayer request. After all, for this god there are impossible tasks. It is also possible that he cannot create an ideal world ever. Plus, this god might not even want to change his creation at the request of a few human beings. So intercessive prayer in this situation is fraught with chance and danger. So while it might help humanity, it also might hurt, and there is arguement to not engage in that type of prayer, or at least make damn sure there's no hubris or arrogance in such a request.
So the only time it is reasonable to believe that intercessive prayer will have a positive divine outcome, is if there is an omnipotent creator, who has created an imperfect existence for humanity, and who is willing to aquiesce to the requests of those very humans he has placed in that existence. But why would such a god do that?
Either he wants us to ask for his help, or he wants us to fix the world ourselves. If he wants us to ask for his help, great, but if he jumps in, he only shows us how ineffective we humans are. I doubt he wants that. Perhaps he wants us to seek his guidance. I think that is a noble request in prayer, but it is also presumptuous to think any of us can ask god to provide that guidance for a third party who may or may not even want it. That's a two-party request; I can ask god to guide me, but it is folly and an insult to god to suggest he give it to someone else (who's to say he hasn't already).
So to even engage in prayers asking for god's intercession on behalf of a third party (beyond protection), is in essence an insult to god. It's mighty pretentious, and dismissive of the power and love embodied in the essence of God (yes, with a "G"). After all, either he's not going to answer anyway; or by answering, he's admitting fault with the universe, and responsibility for fixing it.
So basically asking God to jump in and help "guide" another person, or more boldly take specific divine action to intervene (for reasons other than protection), assumes the person praying has a better grasp of the situation than God, and that that person knows what is right for someone else; basically God's will for that person. That smacks of selfishness and arrogance.
Additionally, how is it that a massive group prayer has any more attention from God than the quietest plea whispered by the smallest child? Such a belief would be a wholly human construct, based on "Might Makes Right," and outside the teachings of Jesus Christ. More likely, any god who would be inclined to intercede for humanity would probably just take offense at such action, and answer the little kid first.
In any case, it defines the phrase, "Holier Than Thou."
To me, that's what makes it so icky.
Wednesday, December 08, 2004
Come One, Come All
The United Church of Christ made an ad. In the Ad, some people going to church are denied entrance at the door. The message of the UCC: everyone is welcome with us.
Now the three major networks are refusing to air the ad. ABC gets let off the hook here; they have a policy that they don’t air any religious advertising. Fair enough. But NBC and CBS have no such policy, and NBC refused to air the ad because it is “too controversial.” CBS has a policy barring advocacy advertisements, and they consider this message to be just that.
Baloney.
“You are welcome in our church, whoever you are,” is not a message of advocacy. It is an invitation to inclusion in god’s love (not capitalized as this is a broader context). Making pageant contestants eat nasty things is more controversial.
So why did the networks refuse to air the ad? Is UCC money no good? Are marginalized people actually not welcome in the house of god? Maybe the networks are afraid of the publicity they will get? Ahh, I think we’re on to something…
I think the networks are running scared. I think they think there’s good reason to be scared. I think they’re right.
See, they could be fined boatloads of money by the FCC if they air the ads (or so they think). They think that the FCC will crack down on broadcast content that it finds offensive or inappropriate. They think this ad is exactly what the FCC is referring to when they label content “offensive or inappropriate.” Again, I think they are right.
But it isn’t the FCC that is making the call. I think the networks know that. They think the real content standard-bearers are the religious right, specifically conservative Christians (I don’t think they deserve a capitalized “Christ,” but I think Christ does). But it’s not just me. Rev. John H. Thomas, president and general minister of the United Church of Christ, quoted in the Washington Post, thinks so too; “Rather than uphold a kind of freedom of the airwaves, they're deciding it's wiser to censor some perspectives than to court reaction from the right.”
Meanwhile, since the controversy began a week ago, the UCC has had 70,000 online inquiries from visitors to locate a nearby UCC congregation.
And every one of them is welcome.
Now the three major networks are refusing to air the ad. ABC gets let off the hook here; they have a policy that they don’t air any religious advertising. Fair enough. But NBC and CBS have no such policy, and NBC refused to air the ad because it is “too controversial.” CBS has a policy barring advocacy advertisements, and they consider this message to be just that.
Baloney.
“You are welcome in our church, whoever you are,” is not a message of advocacy. It is an invitation to inclusion in god’s love (not capitalized as this is a broader context). Making pageant contestants eat nasty things is more controversial.
So why did the networks refuse to air the ad? Is UCC money no good? Are marginalized people actually not welcome in the house of god? Maybe the networks are afraid of the publicity they will get? Ahh, I think we’re on to something…
I think the networks are running scared. I think they think there’s good reason to be scared. I think they’re right.
See, they could be fined boatloads of money by the FCC if they air the ads (or so they think). They think that the FCC will crack down on broadcast content that it finds offensive or inappropriate. They think this ad is exactly what the FCC is referring to when they label content “offensive or inappropriate.” Again, I think they are right.
But it isn’t the FCC that is making the call. I think the networks know that. They think the real content standard-bearers are the religious right, specifically conservative Christians (I don’t think they deserve a capitalized “Christ,” but I think Christ does). But it’s not just me. Rev. John H. Thomas, president and general minister of the United Church of Christ, quoted in the Washington Post, thinks so too; “Rather than uphold a kind of freedom of the airwaves, they're deciding it's wiser to censor some perspectives than to court reaction from the right.”
Meanwhile, since the controversy began a week ago, the UCC has had 70,000 online inquiries from visitors to locate a nearby UCC congregation.
And every one of them is welcome.
Wednesday, December 01, 2004
The Nature Of An Iceberg
Yes, I backdated this post. I mostly composed it last week, just didn't get to put it on the Moose-Blog (Thanksgiving and all). Plus, I wasn't sure it needed to be said.
See, I thought my feelings on the Pacers-Pistons would be a small voice whispering softly in the deep wilderness. One that had to be expressed forthwith, so as not to be lost in the cacophony of innuendo, accusation, and outrage. But that voice was louder than I foresaw. I got a surprise when I heard something I didn't expect, from someone I didn't know to expect it from. On the Best Damn Sports Show, Tom Arnold laid the blame for the incident on the fans.
To be fair, Chris, Tom-Tom (we Iowa boys go way back), Salley and Cox all agreed on this point to varying degrees (not that Chris comments on the issue so much as drops the conversational puck). None of them gave Ron Artest a pass; they all said he should have refrained from entering the stands (I agree). They all said Stephen Jackson was as culpable as Artest (I agree). They all agreed that Artest, Jackson, and Jermaine O'Neal should get long suspensions, in the 25-30 game range (I agree).
But they also pointed out that if not for a cowardly act on the part of a Pistons Season-Ticket holder, this might have all gone for naught. John Green, the cup-thrower, is also the guy who got in the sucker punches on Artest while others were trying to restrain him. Interestingly, Green has the same thing Artest has, in the context of this fight; they both have reputations that precede them. The main difference is, as the video shows, Green started it.
He could have left well enough alone, but he didn't. Bryant Jackson (another reputable fellow) could have not thrown the chair, but he threw it. Charlie Haddad could have not gone on the court, but he did.
Those were my thoughts, too. But I don't blame them (here comes that voice from the wilderness). I really don't think Tom blames them either (at least, not completely). Now, Pappy always said it's better to fix the problem than to fix the blame, but the only one who can fix the problem, well, he's also the one to blame.
I blame David Stern.
You may have just bumped your jaw on the coffee table, maybe the floor, maybe your desk (please don't let it be your steering wheel). Though I cannot correct your mandibular alignment, let me explain my comment.
I don't think any of these guys had a choice. They were willingly sold on the image of spirited fans loudly driving their team to victory. They were sold on the idea that the fans make a difference; after all, it's not called neutral-field advantage. They were told that alcohol is part and parcel of the game experience (OK, that's bigger than Stern), and at the Palace, this means all four quarters (now that's something Stern could do something about). They did their civic duty (is there such a thing as "uncivic duty?"). Heck, Chris Ballard in the Nov. 29 Sports Illustrated points out that Artest is one of those guys who can go into a white rage, where he doesn't even recall what happened, sort of a Jeckyll & Hyde syndrome. They all just did what any behavioral expert could predict they would do. They don't chart their direction, they just go with the flow. Like an iceberg.
But the NBA, that course can be set, and Stern did so many years ago. When the league could have charted a course for quality product, Stern instead chose hype. Basketball is ultimately about scoring more points than your opponent. But NBA fans don't come for the scoring. They come for the dunking. The in-your-face, I-am-better-than-you pissing contest that is fueled by testosterone. Basketball is a team sport. But the NBA markets its individuals. It is all about Kobe, Shaq, Artest, T-Mac (there aren't as many one-namers in any other sport, or in the entertainment industry, for that matter). If it was about team, Jamaal Tinsley would be the #1 star in Indy, LeBron highlights would all be passes, John Stockton would be the guy with his own Nike clothing line and cologne. Like Captain Smith on the Titanic, Stern long ago boldly set the course for this "unsinkable" ship.
Want more evidence? Take early entry. Sure, LeBron is ready for the NBA at 18. But for every LeBron, there are a dozen guys who blow off a college education and a chance to develop in the college ranks because they were going straight to the pros (I can't think of any of their names, but that's the point; they're ghosts). Why are headcases so rare in the NFL, where testosterone and physicality are deliberately ramped up for performance? Because degree or not, every NFL player has demonstrated that he can at least enroll in college and pass 12 credit hours per semester, no matter how easy (it still takes discipline). Early entry allows boys into the NBA, not-yet-men emotionally and mentally.
Also, who is the market for Stern's NBA? Take a look at who is wearing the jerseys of their favorite players. Look at the sizes on the tags. If you're older than twelve, chances are you won't fit in them. The NBA wants you to buy the jersey for your kid, then take the kid to the game, and buy the $8 beers while you're there. They also want all of this activity instigated by the kid.
Sure, there are unruly fans in every professional sport, but those leagues have somehow realized that they are seating adults at the park, and that there need to be some proximity limits for the fans and the athletes. At NBA venues, it's like they expect 20,000 kids in the seats.
Not an iceberg.
And why is it that icebergs sink "unsinkable" ships? Funny you should ask. See, icebergs wreck ships below the waterline. Where they are invisible. Where 90% of an iceberg exists.
So, if the Detroit Scuffle is the iceberg we do see, what is the iceberg we don't see?
Captain Stern, to the lifeboats!
See, I thought my feelings on the Pacers-Pistons would be a small voice whispering softly in the deep wilderness. One that had to be expressed forthwith, so as not to be lost in the cacophony of innuendo, accusation, and outrage. But that voice was louder than I foresaw. I got a surprise when I heard something I didn't expect, from someone I didn't know to expect it from. On the Best Damn Sports Show, Tom Arnold laid the blame for the incident on the fans.
To be fair, Chris, Tom-Tom (we Iowa boys go way back), Salley and Cox all agreed on this point to varying degrees (not that Chris comments on the issue so much as drops the conversational puck). None of them gave Ron Artest a pass; they all said he should have refrained from entering the stands (I agree). They all said Stephen Jackson was as culpable as Artest (I agree). They all agreed that Artest, Jackson, and Jermaine O'Neal should get long suspensions, in the 25-30 game range (I agree).
But they also pointed out that if not for a cowardly act on the part of a Pistons Season-Ticket holder, this might have all gone for naught. John Green, the cup-thrower, is also the guy who got in the sucker punches on Artest while others were trying to restrain him. Interestingly, Green has the same thing Artest has, in the context of this fight; they both have reputations that precede them. The main difference is, as the video shows, Green started it.
He could have left well enough alone, but he didn't. Bryant Jackson (another reputable fellow) could have not thrown the chair, but he threw it. Charlie Haddad could have not gone on the court, but he did.
Those were my thoughts, too. But I don't blame them (here comes that voice from the wilderness). I really don't think Tom blames them either (at least, not completely). Now, Pappy always said it's better to fix the problem than to fix the blame, but the only one who can fix the problem, well, he's also the one to blame.
I blame David Stern.
You may have just bumped your jaw on the coffee table, maybe the floor, maybe your desk (please don't let it be your steering wheel). Though I cannot correct your mandibular alignment, let me explain my comment.
I don't think any of these guys had a choice. They were willingly sold on the image of spirited fans loudly driving their team to victory. They were sold on the idea that the fans make a difference; after all, it's not called neutral-field advantage. They were told that alcohol is part and parcel of the game experience (OK, that's bigger than Stern), and at the Palace, this means all four quarters (now that's something Stern could do something about). They did their civic duty (is there such a thing as "uncivic duty?"). Heck, Chris Ballard in the Nov. 29 Sports Illustrated points out that Artest is one of those guys who can go into a white rage, where he doesn't even recall what happened, sort of a Jeckyll & Hyde syndrome. They all just did what any behavioral expert could predict they would do. They don't chart their direction, they just go with the flow. Like an iceberg.
But the NBA, that course can be set, and Stern did so many years ago. When the league could have charted a course for quality product, Stern instead chose hype. Basketball is ultimately about scoring more points than your opponent. But NBA fans don't come for the scoring. They come for the dunking. The in-your-face, I-am-better-than-you pissing contest that is fueled by testosterone. Basketball is a team sport. But the NBA markets its individuals. It is all about Kobe, Shaq, Artest, T-Mac (there aren't as many one-namers in any other sport, or in the entertainment industry, for that matter). If it was about team, Jamaal Tinsley would be the #1 star in Indy, LeBron highlights would all be passes, John Stockton would be the guy with his own Nike clothing line and cologne. Like Captain Smith on the Titanic, Stern long ago boldly set the course for this "unsinkable" ship.
Want more evidence? Take early entry. Sure, LeBron is ready for the NBA at 18. But for every LeBron, there are a dozen guys who blow off a college education and a chance to develop in the college ranks because they were going straight to the pros (I can't think of any of their names, but that's the point; they're ghosts). Why are headcases so rare in the NFL, where testosterone and physicality are deliberately ramped up for performance? Because degree or not, every NFL player has demonstrated that he can at least enroll in college and pass 12 credit hours per semester, no matter how easy (it still takes discipline). Early entry allows boys into the NBA, not-yet-men emotionally and mentally.
Also, who is the market for Stern's NBA? Take a look at who is wearing the jerseys of their favorite players. Look at the sizes on the tags. If you're older than twelve, chances are you won't fit in them. The NBA wants you to buy the jersey for your kid, then take the kid to the game, and buy the $8 beers while you're there. They also want all of this activity instigated by the kid.
Sure, there are unruly fans in every professional sport, but those leagues have somehow realized that they are seating adults at the park, and that there need to be some proximity limits for the fans and the athletes. At NBA venues, it's like they expect 20,000 kids in the seats.
Not an iceberg.
And why is it that icebergs sink "unsinkable" ships? Funny you should ask. See, icebergs wreck ships below the waterline. Where they are invisible. Where 90% of an iceberg exists.
So, if the Detroit Scuffle is the iceberg we do see, what is the iceberg we don't see?
Captain Stern, to the lifeboats!
Thursday, November 18, 2004
Changing The Damn Channel
The FCC is looking into complaints that the opening to last Monday's MNF (Monday Night Football) was somehow not suitable for network television.
Last week 66 ABC affiliates refused to air Saving Private Ryan for fear that the FCC would impose historically large fines for profanity unedited from the theatrical version of the film which ABC broadcast.
That's why I admire Larry Flynt.
See, Flynt stands at the forefront of the battle for free speech. He fights for the right to say what is unpopular, inelegant, and downright nasty. And without him, we wouldn't have that right. Or the right to say what others may call offensive. Or maybe the right to say anything at all, except maybe to shout praises to god during soccer games.
For 224 years, America stood for the right of her citizens to express their beliefs, opinions, agreement, dissent, and whimsy. Since 2001, it seems that has changed. The Uneasy Queasy Call It Sleazy Crowd has been taking over the conversation about Conversation. They claim to support the right of anyone to express an opinion, but quietly demand that the opinion be in line with their own. They seek to wrest control of decency standards from the local communities to create a national policy. They use decency standards not to protect those who are unable to properly process harsh or frightful images, but to quash debate for political gain. They have co-opted the vocabulary of victimization to accomplish this task. They claim it is their free speech which is impeded, until such claims saturate our society (hardly legitimizing said complaint).
Trouble is, their demonstrated goal for America is profoundly more dangerous than the forms of speech from which they seek to protect us. While the expression of "unwholesome" speech of any kind can lead to all the societal ills to which the Don't Say Boobies Contingent says they will, it is also entirely possible, perhaps even probable, that they won't. Sure, society could crumble under the weight of such weighty ideas, but it hasn't so far—and trust me, these "indecent" ideas have been around almost as long as the media used to communicate them, including cave paint. So I doubt society is in any real danger from indecency.
But the control of ideas, the bottlenecking of thought, will break society. At least democratic society. That's because democracy, like any form of government, relies upon an informed sovereign, that can make decisions based on facts, logic, and open communication. And in a democracy, the people are the sovereign. So the people need to be informed. That means fully informed; all the ideological marketplace available to all the electorate. Warts and all.
I suspect the 66 ABC affiliates are actually voicing dissent on the recent FCC escalation for decency violations. I think they are saying, "Hey, people of our media market, if you sit back and complacently allow extremist thought police to dictate the rules for broadcast communication, you may lose something very important to America, and to a particular valiant group of Americans. You may lose everything the men of Omaha Beach fought and died for. And you may lose it to folks whose ideology is so very much akin to that which they fought against. Just remember that it is your fight. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." At least I hope so.
As for the MNF thing, well, if that offends you, I have one piece of advice; Change The Damn Channel. Or turn off the *@#&^% TV.
Last week 66 ABC affiliates refused to air Saving Private Ryan for fear that the FCC would impose historically large fines for profanity unedited from the theatrical version of the film which ABC broadcast.
That's why I admire Larry Flynt.
See, Flynt stands at the forefront of the battle for free speech. He fights for the right to say what is unpopular, inelegant, and downright nasty. And without him, we wouldn't have that right. Or the right to say what others may call offensive. Or maybe the right to say anything at all, except maybe to shout praises to god during soccer games.
For 224 years, America stood for the right of her citizens to express their beliefs, opinions, agreement, dissent, and whimsy. Since 2001, it seems that has changed. The Uneasy Queasy Call It Sleazy Crowd has been taking over the conversation about Conversation. They claim to support the right of anyone to express an opinion, but quietly demand that the opinion be in line with their own. They seek to wrest control of decency standards from the local communities to create a national policy. They use decency standards not to protect those who are unable to properly process harsh or frightful images, but to quash debate for political gain. They have co-opted the vocabulary of victimization to accomplish this task. They claim it is their free speech which is impeded, until such claims saturate our society (hardly legitimizing said complaint).
Trouble is, their demonstrated goal for America is profoundly more dangerous than the forms of speech from which they seek to protect us. While the expression of "unwholesome" speech of any kind can lead to all the societal ills to which the Don't Say Boobies Contingent says they will, it is also entirely possible, perhaps even probable, that they won't. Sure, society could crumble under the weight of such weighty ideas, but it hasn't so far—and trust me, these "indecent" ideas have been around almost as long as the media used to communicate them, including cave paint. So I doubt society is in any real danger from indecency.
But the control of ideas, the bottlenecking of thought, will break society. At least democratic society. That's because democracy, like any form of government, relies upon an informed sovereign, that can make decisions based on facts, logic, and open communication. And in a democracy, the people are the sovereign. So the people need to be informed. That means fully informed; all the ideological marketplace available to all the electorate. Warts and all.
I suspect the 66 ABC affiliates are actually voicing dissent on the recent FCC escalation for decency violations. I think they are saying, "Hey, people of our media market, if you sit back and complacently allow extremist thought police to dictate the rules for broadcast communication, you may lose something very important to America, and to a particular valiant group of Americans. You may lose everything the men of Omaha Beach fought and died for. And you may lose it to folks whose ideology is so very much akin to that which they fought against. Just remember that it is your fight. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." At least I hope so.
As for the MNF thing, well, if that offends you, I have one piece of advice; Change The Damn Channel. Or turn off the *@#&^% TV.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)