WOW!!! If last night has taught us anything, it is that drama in Seattle is not limited to Seattle Grace-Mercy Hospital and Kurt Cobain's garage. Rare indeed is the occasion when I am left speechless, but last night's debacle in Seattle left me mute for at least fifteen minutes following the conclusion of the Green Bay - Seattle Monday Night Football free-for-all. Vince McMahon himself could not have scripted a better ending to Monday Night Raw and is now furiously scribbling notes for storylines involving replacement wrestling referees and a John Cena - C.M. Punk endzone no-holds barred cage match. I have seen plenty of bad officiating in my lifetime - actually a lot of bad officiating ... I think I am the Sisyphus of bad officiating and it starts all over on November 30th this year!! - but this level of absurdity is an entirely different spectrum. It's not just the end of the MNF game, there are literally dozens of examples (Detroit-Tennessee & Cincinnati-Washington come immediately to mind) where the striped zombies made errors which either did or could have impacted the outcome of the game. No coach, player or rule is safe when the striped zombies set their sights on you, as Matt Schaub, Bill Belichick, Darius Heyward-Bey, Kyle Shanahan and the Cheesehead Nation can attest.
Maybe you are naturally inquisitive like me and you ask why are the regular NFL officials sitting at home right now instead of watching the striped zombies. According to multiple sources, the league and its officials are haggling over about $3million - which is an enormous sum of money until you learn the NFL profits approximately $1.5billion per season. Those three million disputed greenbacks represent about .2% of the NFL's profits ... pocket change. It's like me spending $150 over the course of a year ... $2 bucks a week. End the shenanigans - and Shanahans! - Roger!!! Pay the officials!!!
In the meantime, the latest AP poll has Roger Goodell 2nd in the Worst Sports Commissioner Poll out this week. Gary Bettman has locked this position up for years - think Tiger Woods in his prime dominant - and lead his league
Interesting discussion in class today about the role of news and media in shaping public opinion. Since our media in the United States is commercially driven, what news are we really getting? What type of news generates the best ratings - which generates advertising dollars - which pays for most broadcast news? Hmmmm .... I'll take "Bad News Sells" for $300 Alex. Compare that answer to the points Gregg Easterbrook brings up in Tuesday Morning Quarterback:
Good News Ignored No. 1: Conditions in the United States are much better than anyone's election rhetoric would suggest -- international tensions and world military deaths at historic lows, all forms of pollution except greenhouse gases in decline, most disease rates declining, education levels rising, middle-class income stalled but middle-class purchasing power (considering falling real-dollar prices and smaller households) at a historic peak. Unemployment is the clear worst problem, trailed closely by poverty. Poverty, in history's richest nation, is an outrage.
This commentary contends that while all politicians talk about unemployment, most don't really care -- most of the poor don't take the time to vote, and those without college degrees don't make political donations. So why care?
The smart commentary by Stephen Carter shows that poverty is a far more serious problem than the rising opulence of the 1 percent. Aside: Carter's new novel, "The Impeachment of Abraham Lincoln," is a fascinating read. In this "what if" fiction, Lincoln survives the assassination attempt, then is faced with an impeachment coalition of bitter Confederates and Radical Republicans who are furious that he won't do more to punish the South.
Lately the poverty rate has been in the news with the national average at 15.9 percent; the rate is higher in many states. But poverty statistics do not take into account benefits such as food stamps and the Earned Income Tax Credit, which mails checks to many who pay no taxes. Federal benefits have increased dramatically in the last generation. This new Brookings Institution study shows that when rising government benefits are taken into account, the poverty rate drops to only about a third what it was in 1980 -- meaning tremendous progress.
If poverty is easing and federal benefits are a main reason, why don't liberals generally, and Barack Obama specifically, roll the drums for this? Reduction of poverty is among the leading government accomplishments of the postwar era. But because liberals generally, and Barack Obama specifically, like to cry doomsday about inequality, they don't seem to want to highlight evidence that federal programs are working. After all, if federal programs are already working, why have more federal programs?
Any poor person would rather have cash income from work than increased government benefits. But as this commentary shows, claims about runaway inequality become much less worrisome when increased federal benefits are taken into account.
Now think about what happens when the Affordable Care Act goes into full force in 2014. It is not universal health insurance, which the United States needs. It is, rather, an income transfer program -- taxes on the well-off will rise so average people who currently pay for their health insurance instead will receive it free or very cheaply. That's income transfer. But because the transfer will be noncash -- average people no longer having to pay for something they now must pay for, rather than receiving higher wages -- the ObamaCare benefits will not show up in arguments about inequality.
Under the Affordable Care Act, many families will be better off by thousands of dollars annually. But leftists will make the same claims about rising inequality. Will Obama acknowledge that his own plan reduces inequality?
The answer to Easterbrook's last question is no, Obama won't acknowledge a reduction in inequality. If there is less inequality, there is a lessened need for government programs to address inequality. There is a reason Washington, D.C. has been immune to the job losses of the Great Recession. Why? Hmmmmm ... I'll take "The Government can create new government jobs at will" for $100 Alex. If there is less inequality, how will Obama rally the electorate to actually show up at the polls? Lessened inequality is good news for people in poverty and for the economy in general ... why would Fox News talk about something good? Feel good strories generate no controversy, controversy generates buzz, buzz draws viewers and viewers attract sponsorship/advertising dollars. Compare the American model of news reporting to the British/Canadian model of news reporting - the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation are the most viewed news reports in both countries. Both are publicly funded and do not need to attract corporate sponsorship. Both present a much more balanced view (good and bad, not always left and right!) of the current climate in each country. In Britain and Canada, the difference between tabloid reporting and journalism is easy to spot ... In American not so much.
Enough for today ... tomorrow I'll talk the Reds and Bengals and Dusty's irregular heartbeat. Ciao!!
