Sports Musings

1. From a "worm's eye" view, one wonders about salaries of the highest paid professional athletes. How can it be justified that such people are paid many, many times the wages of governors, our president, teachers & those of us who sustain the American way of life?? I know. "It is what it is." Whatever the market will bear.

But why does the market bear it? Why are ticket prices to games so outrageously high? (Obviously to pay the entertainers, the athletes people want to see.) But why?? If supply and demand was such a perfect rubrick then we shouldn't need local taxpayer subsidies of the need by professional sports cities to build larger, gaudier temples. But many cities believe they have no choice. If they don't cave in and subsidize, the team will leave and take with it all the peripheral profits.

2. Why won't the BCS bite the bullet and create a workable playoff system for college football?? Can't they figure out how to include the historic bowl games into the tournament structure leading up to the "championship game"? I know. Those bowl cities plus the "big 6" or whatever it is conferences don't want to face the prospect that they might lose something, anything. But the general preference (and yes, I'm guessing that this is true; haven't researched any polls or anything) by the public for a playoff system is trivial in the eyes of those preventing a solution? Apparently.

3. Why doesn't the NFL deal with overtime games the same way college ball does, with a FAIR opportunity by both teams to win? Why the "coin flip" advantage to whoever gets the ball first? I frankly haven't even heard a rational excuse from NFL as to why they've drug their feet this long.

4. What is it we Americans don't "get" with regard to European "football" (what we call SOCCER)? As a TV spectator sport, soccer is boring. Is it that much better live? (I know that that's true of hockey). And I know that soccer for kids is very popular here. The reason for this is obvious to me. Soccer is much more democratic than other "skill" sports. A kid who is relatively slow and uncoordinated can get out on the soccer field, run around, kick the ball (or try to) occasionally, and that kid and his/her spectator relatives can enjoy the experience. The good athlete will still feel challenged going against the good athletes on the other team. None of this is nearly so true with basketball or baseball.

But this affection for kids soccer doesn't translate into any interest in watching adults kick the ball long ways in scoreless ties in professional games. The phenomenal bicycle kick that MAY occur once a game isn't worth the wait.

5. Perhaps more later.

Republican Monday morning quarterbacks

Republicans are self-destructing for the amusement of the general public?? Appears that way.
Republicans nearest to the center of power within the Republican establishment have decided that Americans are not rejecting their worldview. They think both that we just don't properly understand and appreciate what they "know" is right - (even though they had 8+ years to implement their programs). There's also a portion of them that think the only problems that linger from their days in power stem from the fact that they never implemented conservative enough solutions. They never trusted the Bushes. W. talked a good game, but was obviously a light-weight (in their view).

Media & Moderates

It may not be their intention, but the culpable media tend to eliminate all moderates. I guess it's easier to frame the points of a debate for their audience if the options are a stark contrast. And for purposes of sales and ratings, they think they don't need the moderates. They can get all the sales and all the ratings they want from the ideologues they appeal to, the extremes.

And the culpable media

Brief conclusion to two prior posts on HB 1 as it has been cast to include so much "pork" and "wasteful spending".
Much, much more could be added showing that, while there may indeed be unnecessary inclusions in the bill, one shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water.
But I'm determined to move on to the MEDIA. Especially the cable news outlets, FOX, MSNBC, and the CNN channels. (I largely omit C-SPAN from this diatribe since they mostly avoid the "me-too-ism" of the others.)
Why and how have the culprits listed above devoted so many hours of programming to regurgitating the objections to the Stimulus Bill voiced by partisan Republicans whose positions are set in cement? Why the mind-numbing recitation of the supposed evils of the bill? And why do all four (or more) of these different cable stations mimic each other in their approach?
I'm not sure I know. One can surmise that their internal research and analysis leads them to believe their ratings wars with each other demand this "race to the bottom".
Some of the channels mentioned above (CNN is particularly bad about this) show a 2-hour loop of the same drivel over and over. Does this mean their cost/profit margin is so slim that they can't afford to send reporters across this vast, diverse planet and report on all the events we really need to hear about? They must fill airspace with completed pieces, mostly talking heads parroting Republican drivel, over and over because those are cheap to rerun??
The one tiny exception to this I might mention (in the interest of fairness) is MSNBC, which tries at times to stray from the ongoing Republican talking points. Most of their energy devoted to this, though, flows through just two shows, Olbermann and Maddow.
But back to my broader diatribe: When's the last time one of these stations produced a piece worth watching on the worldwide economic meltdown from the perspective of the Europeans, or the Indians, or the Chinese?? How well have these media geniuses attempted to explain to us the ramifications of Chinese monetary policy or intellectual piracy? As a mere consumer, my answer is NEVER, or at least not in memory.

Stimulus Thoughts Continued

I kinda quit midthought. Pickin' it up w/o too much rehashing:

The bridge in MN over the Mississippi River needed to be repaired/replaced. In its own way, it demanded, yea required attention. It ultimately didn't matter if the decision-makers who write the checks or let the contracts for the repair had yet decided they could squeeze it into their budget. Once its time was up, that was it.

Years ago there was a great commercial slogan by Fram Oil Filter where the announcer or repair mechanic explained that, "You can pay me now, or pay me later." If one chooses not to perform preventive maintenance, then the repair costs will inexorably follow. What amazes me, though, is how such expenditures included in the Stimulus Bill are labeled as optional or wasteful. The timing of them may be optional. The ultimate payment is NOT. In fact, what's wasteful often is the myopic decision to deny "paying me now".

One could go down the list of projects included and nitpick individual ones as to how inevitable it is that they be done or the original investment/service forfeited. And we all understand how my pothole is urgent and yours is discretionary. Those debates, though, would just represent different perspective.

My next installment I may go back and tackle the issue of the self-serving, narrow minded media.

Preliminary Thoughts on the Stimulus Bill

The pundits and the Republicans just don’t get it. I know they think they get it. I know they sincerely think they are being level-headed looking out for the long-range concerns for the nation. I know that they suspect that secret, hidden supporters of those who have been “have nots” are trying to slip inappropriate items into the monolithic economic “recovery plan”. And they are sure that these items would never get approved independently. The Republicans believe and have convinced the pundits that what has happened is both myopic and insidious to the economic health of the nation, yea even the world.
This comes as no revelation that Republicans would take this tack. Much of what is involved in the stimulus plan and the bank recovery plan amounts to a repudiation of what Republicanism has wrought over the last decade, and perhaps even dating back to the Reagan era. What? The “free markets”, left unencumbered by “stifling” overregulation, could produce a meltdown of the overall economy? They would hide true costs and “leverage” the danger of national bankruptcy to the notion that profits can be made to rise steadily and without pause?? Say it ain’t so, Joe.
But how and why do the 24-hour cable TV experts climb aboard this train without asking where it’s going or what the fare is? What is going on with the news analysts who society tolerates in hopes they’ll help us analyze complicated issues?
The motivations and actions by both Republicans and media analysts are worthy of a full in-depth discussion. But at the moment I’m more intrigued by an aspect of the overall debate which is generating no intelligent discussion or consideration. It involves pondering what turns given expenditures or categories of expenditures into “pork” or “wasteful spending”. For this is what all of the anecdotal remarks and examples offered by Republicans and picked up by the media focus on. Millions for this or billions for that have been “slipped into” the bills or “rammed through” over the objections of suddenly thoughtful, prudent conservatives. But how do we know these projects are porky or wasteful? The implied answer is that they must be wasteful. Otherwise the previous administrations would have already championed them. These projects must not be vital and urgent. Otherwise the ruling body politic would have stepped up and addressed them.
They must be optional. We haven’t bothered to fund them, and we’re still here, aren’t we?
So, fixing a huge pothole on a heavily traveled road is considered “wasteful spending” if peoples or governments that could have funded its repair have demurred. It remains relegated to the status of “wasteful spending” until it becomes responsible for a fatal accident. Then we all of a sudden have “crumbling infrastructure”.
President Obama proposed spending billions rebuilding crumbling public schools. (Would these be schools in lower income inner cities and poor rural areas as opposed to wealthy suburbs?) WASTEFUL! But wait. We needed the president to tell us that many school buildings constructed 60+ years ago and not lovingly maintained are a worthy infrastructure expenditure?? Had local constituents of school districts voted repeatedly over the years to maintain low tax rates rather than support those buildings and their maintenance? And if so, do these collective local decisions translate into a fair declaration that the expenditure is “wasteful”?