About two months ago I wrote a post regarding the GOP contenders for the 2012 field. Looking over the landscape, I couldn't find a single Republican who really scared me. Each was either boring, stupid, or too moderate for the GOP base. In that post, I included Donald Trump, and concluded that the Donald always says he's going to run for President, but never does. Well, look who's up on all the potential contenders. I'll take a moment for everyone to throw up. . .done
Now normally, I'd say that Trump is WAY too liberal for the GOP primary voters. Okay, maybe not that liberal, but WAY, WAY too sleazy for the Heartland. He has been divorced three times, has unusual hair, been in and out of bankruptcy court, and can't figure out how to make money in the gambling industry. Seriously. Oh, and he's gone full birther (but its okay because he's always had good relations with "the blacks").
So normally, I'd think this guy was toast. But. . .let's face it, the rest of the field is very weak. Granted, every Presidential field looks weak, and then someone rises to the top. The only exception is 2008, when everyone thought Hillary was going to take it. Still, even compared to other years, this is a weak group. Pathetic, even. Trump has the money and the bluster to blow past a lot of the other contenders. And whether its his policies, his race, his alleged religion, the GOP hate Obama. They hate him as much as Democrats hate Bush (though I do think Bush earned his hatred).
In that environment, the base will go with whomever they think is a winner. 2004 is a good comparison year - that year the Democrats had a choice between Kerry, Edwards and Howard Dean. While Dean was a firebrand, and potentially a stronger match-up against Bush, the Democrats went with John Kerry because he looked like a safe choice. We need to win this one - that was the word passed around. In 2008, GOP voters went with McCain because he was the safe choice against Hillary Clinton. In retrospect, both choices were not good.
So, the question that hangs up there is does the GOP go safe, or does it go for the ideal matchup. Given what happened the last time, I don't see the GOP going safe. Similar to the Democrats in 2008, the GOP base remembers how it went safe and lost - they're going longshot. Donald Trump would fit the bill - he's from the libertarian/Wall Street branch of the GOP, he "creates" jobs (helpful in a downturn) and he's not boring on television. There's also a chance he's not totally crazy - which makes him a stronger candidate than Bachmann.
At the same time, Trump never struck me as brilliant. In a fight, he's going to plunge headlong into the fray, and use his bluster to pummel opponents into submission. Now, normally smarts isn't a huge issue because most not-smart politicians know they're not smart and hire smart people (i.e. Karl Rove). I don't see Trump allowing someone else run the show. If that's the case, then the Obama of 2008, who deftly took every caucus while Clinton killed herself in the primaries, would slaughter Trump. Romney is smart enough to butcher Trump as well. I can imagine the same is true for a fair number of the other candidates.
All in all, Trump may be a player on the national stage, he might win a couple of primaries, but at the end of the day, he won't win the nomination. Rather, he's going to flame out, a la Dean.
Friday, April 15, 2011
Monday, April 11, 2011
The Rotation - Beer Post
As you all know, I am an unrelenting beer snob. Okay, snob may be too strong of a word, because I will happily drink whatever beer given to me at a party. But if I'm going to spend my own money, I'm not going to buy Pabst. Not that there's anything wrong with Pabst. . .okay, there totally is something wrong with Pabst, but that's a topic for another post.
Now, thanks to my days spent at the Green Leafe Tavern, I break down my beers into two categories - beer I drink to explore the world of beer, and beer that I drink because I want to drink beer. Seems odd, but once you get into beer, you find that there are thousands of flavors in beer, from sweet to sour. Belgium has really lead the way in this, though it does seem ironic that a country without a functioning government, and which is constantly on the verge of splitting in two, could lead the world in anything, but its true. I have had my mind blown by the likes of Oerbier by the Mad Brewers of Belgium, Rodenbach (the first sour beer I've ever tasted, and easily the best), Allagash Interlude (from Maine, true, but very Belgium-ish).
But, like I said, sometimes I don't want my mind blown, I just want to drink beer. For these times, I have the Rotation - beers that I tend to buy that are almost always in my refrigerator. Like any good rotation, I go from one beer to the other depending on mood, but I almost always come back to these beers. So, without further ado, here are the beers that are in my rotation:
Stone Brewing - IPA - Stone is the godfather of San Diego's craft brewing scene. Okay, maybe not the godfather, but definitely the leader, defining San Diego's brewing style for the past 15 years. And for me, the best beer Stone produces is the IPA. Its light, crisp, and bitter as hell - the product of a ridiculous amount of hops added to the beer that gives it its fragrance and spice. Now, I love all of Stone's beers, but I always come back to the IPA. Always.
Grupo Modelo - Pacifico Clara - Here's proof that I'm not a beer snob - I drink Pacifico. Its basically Corona, but with slightly more character. I don't know why I prefer Pacifico to Budweiser or Corona or Coors, but I do. There, I said it. Let's move on.
Ballast Point - Yellowtail Pale Ale - Okay, as a rule, I dislike pale ales because every craft brewer makes a pale ale. It is, after all, the easiest beer for a homebrewer to make, and is usually the first beer that craft brewers learned to make. As a result, most brewers hold onto the pale ale out of nostalgia. That said, Yellowtail Pale Ale is not a true pale ale, but rather, a German style Kolsch ale. As a result, its a sort of a cross between a pilsner and a pale ale. . .definitely a plus for a rotation beer.
Julian Hard Cider - Hard Cider - Okay, here's the curveball. Julian Hard Cider isn't a beer at all, its a cider. At around 7% abv, its alcohol content is pretty much like a beer, but instead of being made of barley, hops and yeast, its simply apples and yeast. Anyway, the cider made it to the Rotation by being so damned good and food friendly. Its completely dry, slightly acidic, smells of apples, light and crisp. The only problem I have with this cider is that my girlfriend likes it as much as I do.
Guinness/Czechvar/Pilsner Urquell - Okay, these are three very different beers, but they fit into my foreign beers category. While Czechvar and Pilsner Urquell are both lagers, they are completely different from Pacifico. Specifically, both are crisp with a good amount of hops. Seriously, try Czechvar and you'll never really want to drink Budweiser (which stole its name from Czechvar, long story) again. Guinness, of course, is the great beer of Ireland. And as much as I hate the conglomerate that owns the brewery (Black lager? Seriously?) I love the beer. Whenever I'm drinking out with friends, and I don't know what to order, I'll order a Guinness. Its my go-to beer.
So, as I said, here are the beers in my rotation. Are they my favorites? Not really. But they are all good beers (or ciders) in their own right. So, if you haven't tried them yet, do so.
Now, thanks to my days spent at the Green Leafe Tavern, I break down my beers into two categories - beer I drink to explore the world of beer, and beer that I drink because I want to drink beer. Seems odd, but once you get into beer, you find that there are thousands of flavors in beer, from sweet to sour. Belgium has really lead the way in this, though it does seem ironic that a country without a functioning government, and which is constantly on the verge of splitting in two, could lead the world in anything, but its true. I have had my mind blown by the likes of Oerbier by the Mad Brewers of Belgium, Rodenbach (the first sour beer I've ever tasted, and easily the best), Allagash Interlude (from Maine, true, but very Belgium-ish).
But, like I said, sometimes I don't want my mind blown, I just want to drink beer. For these times, I have the Rotation - beers that I tend to buy that are almost always in my refrigerator. Like any good rotation, I go from one beer to the other depending on mood, but I almost always come back to these beers. So, without further ado, here are the beers that are in my rotation:
Stone Brewing - IPA - Stone is the godfather of San Diego's craft brewing scene. Okay, maybe not the godfather, but definitely the leader, defining San Diego's brewing style for the past 15 years. And for me, the best beer Stone produces is the IPA. Its light, crisp, and bitter as hell - the product of a ridiculous amount of hops added to the beer that gives it its fragrance and spice. Now, I love all of Stone's beers, but I always come back to the IPA. Always.
Grupo Modelo - Pacifico Clara - Here's proof that I'm not a beer snob - I drink Pacifico. Its basically Corona, but with slightly more character. I don't know why I prefer Pacifico to Budweiser or Corona or Coors, but I do. There, I said it. Let's move on.
Ballast Point - Yellowtail Pale Ale - Okay, as a rule, I dislike pale ales because every craft brewer makes a pale ale. It is, after all, the easiest beer for a homebrewer to make, and is usually the first beer that craft brewers learned to make. As a result, most brewers hold onto the pale ale out of nostalgia. That said, Yellowtail Pale Ale is not a true pale ale, but rather, a German style Kolsch ale. As a result, its a sort of a cross between a pilsner and a pale ale. . .definitely a plus for a rotation beer.
Julian Hard Cider - Hard Cider - Okay, here's the curveball. Julian Hard Cider isn't a beer at all, its a cider. At around 7% abv, its alcohol content is pretty much like a beer, but instead of being made of barley, hops and yeast, its simply apples and yeast. Anyway, the cider made it to the Rotation by being so damned good and food friendly. Its completely dry, slightly acidic, smells of apples, light and crisp. The only problem I have with this cider is that my girlfriend likes it as much as I do.
Guinness/Czechvar/Pilsner Urquell - Okay, these are three very different beers, but they fit into my foreign beers category. While Czechvar and Pilsner Urquell are both lagers, they are completely different from Pacifico. Specifically, both are crisp with a good amount of hops. Seriously, try Czechvar and you'll never really want to drink Budweiser (which stole its name from Czechvar, long story) again. Guinness, of course, is the great beer of Ireland. And as much as I hate the conglomerate that owns the brewery (Black lager? Seriously?) I love the beer. Whenever I'm drinking out with friends, and I don't know what to order, I'll order a Guinness. Its my go-to beer.
So, as I said, here are the beers in my rotation. Are they my favorites? Not really. But they are all good beers (or ciders) in their own right. So, if you haven't tried them yet, do so.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
And Now We Have Something. . .
With Paul Ryan unleashing his budget, which abolishes Medicare within the next ten years, we now, finally, have a real debate. For the past twenty years, debates over the Federal Budget have been confused - most people believing that whatever ails the budget can be solved by cutting waste, inefficiency and foreign aid. But not now.
Now, there is a real question - what should the Federal Government do? Medicare is wildly popular, but here you have the GOP arguing that the Federal Government cannot afford it. Rather than take the easy way out, Democrats should ask the American people if Medicare is worth paying for. In other words, let's have a real debate about what government should and should not fund.
In fact, I'd love to see this spread to other areas of government as well. For instance, education at the state level is the primary function of state government. But there's no way of knowing what education costs because we keep changing the standards. So, instead of dickering, let's figure out how much education costs - with an agreed upon student/teacher ration, textbooks that must be so old, technology, etc. - and then figure out whether or not we want to pay it. Let's have honest discussions about what government costs at all levels of government.
Now, there is a real question - what should the Federal Government do? Medicare is wildly popular, but here you have the GOP arguing that the Federal Government cannot afford it. Rather than take the easy way out, Democrats should ask the American people if Medicare is worth paying for. In other words, let's have a real debate about what government should and should not fund.
In fact, I'd love to see this spread to other areas of government as well. For instance, education at the state level is the primary function of state government. But there's no way of knowing what education costs because we keep changing the standards. So, instead of dickering, let's figure out how much education costs - with an agreed upon student/teacher ration, textbooks that must be so old, technology, etc. - and then figure out whether or not we want to pay it. Let's have honest discussions about what government costs at all levels of government.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
The Dreaded Abortion Post
For the past few months, I've been watching the relatively new legislators on the other side of the aisle discuss abortion in various ways. There is the guy who wanted to criminalize miscarriages, the various snide remarks by McCain during the 2008 Presidential debate about the health of the mother, and the latest was the remarks by an Indiana lawmaker who said that women lie about being raped to get free abortions. All this in the shadow of the Congressional GOP trying to defund Planned Parenthood.
And as you have come to realize by now, all of these news stories get the wheels of my brain turning, until I need to write. Up until this day, I've tried to avoid abortion because it is a touchy subject. But here's the thing: I have some suspicions about the anti-abortion crowd, and I want to see if there's any truth to them. So, let's dive in, shall we.
To be clear, let me state my position upfront - I am pro-choice. Now, that does not mean I am pro-abortion, but rather, I firmly believe in the doctrine of "no uterus, no vote." I was lucky enough to be born male, which in addition to being able to pee standing up (a huge, huge plus when it comes to using public restrooms and restrooms at sea), means I will never know what its like to be pregnant or have a child. While, legally speaking, I am responsible for the children that I father, I'm not the one who has to undergo dramatic changes to my body to give birth. So, why do I get a say?
Oh, and I also think the constitutional reasoning - the right to privacy - is a misnomer. Its not the government shouldn't know stuff about you, its that the government doesn't get to fuck with your shit. In other words, we all have the right of personal sovereignty. But that's a topic for another post (which I may have already written).
Anyway, like all pro-choicers, I think there are two types of people who oppose abortion: the pro-lifers, who oppose abortion because they believe that a fetus and/or embryo is a human being, and that killing said fetus and/or embryo is morally wrong; and the anti-choicers, who oppose abortion because they believe that women should not have any control over their reproductive cycles. Exhibit A in the anti-choicer column is Rick Santorum who stated that abortion and birth control have caused the social security crisis (because people aren't having as many babies as before). Now, a lot of pro-choicers suspect that most "pro-lifers" are really anti-choicers.
This is important is because compromise could be found between the pro-choice and pro-life movements. Lowering the number of unwanted pregnancies through education and better distribution of birth control would certainly produce a result that would please both the pro-choicers and the pro-lifers. And certainly a lot of pro-choice politicians move to that direction.
But that said, the existence of the anti-choice group - who believe that an unwanted pregnancy is punishment for risky sexual behavior - complicates things. There does seem to be a more natural alliance between the pro-lifers and the anti-choicers because the slogan "no abortion ever" works for both groups. Thus, pro-lifers are willing to go along on bills requiring a woman to prove her miscarriage was a miscarriage, or requires a rape victim to prove she fought back, or removing health and safety protections or the "abstinence-only" sex education, even if those bills are completely opposed by pro-choicers.
And of course, the more of these sort of bills are proposed, the less likely there will be compromise. Fundamentally, there can be no compromise between the pro-choice and anti-choice positions because they are diametrically opposed.
Additionally, I am left wondering if the abortion debate is hurt by the lack of women who openly discuss abortions they have had in the past. One of the greatest political strategies by a minority group was Harvey Milk's coming out plan (and yes, I am aware that he probably didn't come up with that plan first). As Milk reasoned, the more people who know someone in the LGBT community, the less homophobic they become. And low and behold, he was absolutely right in that. In some ways, abortion, by being hidden, wraps itself in stigma. But then again, I'm probably being an idiot.
And as you have come to realize by now, all of these news stories get the wheels of my brain turning, until I need to write. Up until this day, I've tried to avoid abortion because it is a touchy subject. But here's the thing: I have some suspicions about the anti-abortion crowd, and I want to see if there's any truth to them. So, let's dive in, shall we.
To be clear, let me state my position upfront - I am pro-choice. Now, that does not mean I am pro-abortion, but rather, I firmly believe in the doctrine of "no uterus, no vote." I was lucky enough to be born male, which in addition to being able to pee standing up (a huge, huge plus when it comes to using public restrooms and restrooms at sea), means I will never know what its like to be pregnant or have a child. While, legally speaking, I am responsible for the children that I father, I'm not the one who has to undergo dramatic changes to my body to give birth. So, why do I get a say?
Oh, and I also think the constitutional reasoning - the right to privacy - is a misnomer. Its not the government shouldn't know stuff about you, its that the government doesn't get to fuck with your shit. In other words, we all have the right of personal sovereignty. But that's a topic for another post (which I may have already written).
Anyway, like all pro-choicers, I think there are two types of people who oppose abortion: the pro-lifers, who oppose abortion because they believe that a fetus and/or embryo is a human being, and that killing said fetus and/or embryo is morally wrong; and the anti-choicers, who oppose abortion because they believe that women should not have any control over their reproductive cycles. Exhibit A in the anti-choicer column is Rick Santorum who stated that abortion and birth control have caused the social security crisis (because people aren't having as many babies as before). Now, a lot of pro-choicers suspect that most "pro-lifers" are really anti-choicers.
This is important is because compromise could be found between the pro-choice and pro-life movements. Lowering the number of unwanted pregnancies through education and better distribution of birth control would certainly produce a result that would please both the pro-choicers and the pro-lifers. And certainly a lot of pro-choice politicians move to that direction.
But that said, the existence of the anti-choice group - who believe that an unwanted pregnancy is punishment for risky sexual behavior - complicates things. There does seem to be a more natural alliance between the pro-lifers and the anti-choicers because the slogan "no abortion ever" works for both groups. Thus, pro-lifers are willing to go along on bills requiring a woman to prove her miscarriage was a miscarriage, or requires a rape victim to prove she fought back, or removing health and safety protections or the "abstinence-only" sex education, even if those bills are completely opposed by pro-choicers.
And of course, the more of these sort of bills are proposed, the less likely there will be compromise. Fundamentally, there can be no compromise between the pro-choice and anti-choice positions because they are diametrically opposed.
Additionally, I am left wondering if the abortion debate is hurt by the lack of women who openly discuss abortions they have had in the past. One of the greatest political strategies by a minority group was Harvey Milk's coming out plan (and yes, I am aware that he probably didn't come up with that plan first). As Milk reasoned, the more people who know someone in the LGBT community, the less homophobic they become. And low and behold, he was absolutely right in that. In some ways, abortion, by being hidden, wraps itself in stigma. But then again, I'm probably being an idiot.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
My Senior Thesis Revisted
As many of you know, I wrote a thesis during my senior year of college. That effort to graduate from William & Mary with honors failed miserably. I cannot emphasize how awful this thesis was. In part, I had bitten off way more than I could chew - senioritis, living off-campus for the first time, working part-time, and having a thesis topic too big for an honors thesis. At the center of the thesis was a simple question: what happens to regimes as information technology progresses?
Now, I wrote this bad boy in 1998 - that's before cellphones were owned by everyone, before texting, facebook, myspace, skype, etc. And as technology progresses, I like to revisit my thesis and see how it all progresses.
I have to say, for such a phenomenally crappy piece of work, my theories were pretty darn close to the truth. As countries develop economically, businesses in those countries require information technology to keep up with the countries from around the globe. This information technology has to be decentralized to work effectively, and that allows new social networks to spring up. And as those new social networks spring up, regimes must learn how to deal with them. Authoritarian regimes, which need to control all social networks to survive, will become unstable.
With that said, here's what I got wrong - I completely missed the boat on mobile internet technology and consumer demand. For the past 10-15 years, the IT world has been driven not by business needs but by a need to provide consumers with the next big thing. Texting, for instance, has some business applications (similar to sending a telegram), but has much broader applications in the consumer market (let's face it, text messaging has been a godsend to nervous teenage boys everywhere).
So, countries are not forced so much by globalization to introduce information technology so much as their own citizenry push for it. And let's face it, what's the fun of owning an iPad if there's no WiFi? Even the leaders of the regime want to play with new toys.
This leads us back to the original problem - social networks. As technology spreads, so does the ability of people to create social networks. For a good number of websites, that's the whole point. These social networks, in turn, exist outside governmental control and when those networks turn on the government, there are periods of instability (good instability = the dictator is overthrown; bad instability = dictator ruthlessly slaughters the opposition).
But what about China? China is, after all, an authoritarian regime that has undergone tremendous economic growth, and has spent billions in upgrading its infrastructure. Why is it more or less stable? The answer, I think, relates to China's size. As such a large market operator, China is able to dictate to companies like Facebook and Google terms that make unauthorized social networking difficult. Look up "Tienanmen Square" on a search engine in China, and you are told about how its a lovely place to visit. There will be no mention of the slaughter of pro-democracy protesters. Egypt and Libya couldn't dream of such controls.
So, to sum up - I once wrote an awful, awful thesis with a pretty good premise. As time goes on, the predictions still hold up.
Now, I wrote this bad boy in 1998 - that's before cellphones were owned by everyone, before texting, facebook, myspace, skype, etc. And as technology progresses, I like to revisit my thesis and see how it all progresses.
I have to say, for such a phenomenally crappy piece of work, my theories were pretty darn close to the truth. As countries develop economically, businesses in those countries require information technology to keep up with the countries from around the globe. This information technology has to be decentralized to work effectively, and that allows new social networks to spring up. And as those new social networks spring up, regimes must learn how to deal with them. Authoritarian regimes, which need to control all social networks to survive, will become unstable.
With that said, here's what I got wrong - I completely missed the boat on mobile internet technology and consumer demand. For the past 10-15 years, the IT world has been driven not by business needs but by a need to provide consumers with the next big thing. Texting, for instance, has some business applications (similar to sending a telegram), but has much broader applications in the consumer market (let's face it, text messaging has been a godsend to nervous teenage boys everywhere).
So, countries are not forced so much by globalization to introduce information technology so much as their own citizenry push for it. And let's face it, what's the fun of owning an iPad if there's no WiFi? Even the leaders of the regime want to play with new toys.
This leads us back to the original problem - social networks. As technology spreads, so does the ability of people to create social networks. For a good number of websites, that's the whole point. These social networks, in turn, exist outside governmental control and when those networks turn on the government, there are periods of instability (good instability = the dictator is overthrown; bad instability = dictator ruthlessly slaughters the opposition).
But what about China? China is, after all, an authoritarian regime that has undergone tremendous economic growth, and has spent billions in upgrading its infrastructure. Why is it more or less stable? The answer, I think, relates to China's size. As such a large market operator, China is able to dictate to companies like Facebook and Google terms that make unauthorized social networking difficult. Look up "Tienanmen Square" on a search engine in China, and you are told about how its a lovely place to visit. There will be no mention of the slaughter of pro-democracy protesters. Egypt and Libya couldn't dream of such controls.
So, to sum up - I once wrote an awful, awful thesis with a pretty good premise. As time goes on, the predictions still hold up.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Random Thoughts Blogging. . .
Once again, we're in for an installment of my random thoughts blogging, wherein I discuss issues briefly, rather than write a full post on each one.
The Bachelor: Once again, I was roped into watching "The Bachelor" - and not just the two hour finale, but the extra hour "after the rose." Ugh. As usual, I found actual finale rather dull - as I said before, Brad Womack is not an especially interesting person on television - but I will say that my prediction as to who Brad would pick was spot-on (here's a hint - Brad's family liked Chantal, but his Mom literally CRIED TEARS OF JOY at the thought of Brad settling down with Emily, it was OVAH), and I predicted Ashley as the next Bachelorette (the makeover in the last episode was a dead giveaway). The accuracy of these predictions came much to the chagrin of my girlfriend, and I did manage to get a great deal of dishes done.
What was more interesting was the "after the rose" deal after the ritual humiliation of Chantal when Emily and Brad were being interviewed. And here's what's interesting to me - Emily was P-I-S-S-E-D at Brad and they broke up just about every Monday evening/Tuesday morning because Emily was watching her "man" romance other women. And that lead me to an interesting train of thought - what if, utter failure of the Bachelor to produce married couples (3 relationships out of 15 seasons) comes as a result of "Bachelor" couples watching the show? Even more interesting, does the fact that more Bachelorette couples stay together after the show ends indicate a difference between the sexes with regard to jealousy? Certainly, the format of the Bachelorette, where men compete for a woman's affection, fits more within traditional social norms. Can we get Malcolm Gladwell to look into this?
Devastation in Japan: When I first saw the news, my reaction was, as with everyone, "Holy Fucking Shit!" From my experience as a Californian, an 8.9 earthquake is ENORMOUS. The Easter earthquake that did a lot of damage to the Imperial Valley, and was the first earthquake that actually scared me, was a 6.9-7.0 quake. Given that the Richter scale is exponential, an 8.9 quake is around TWENTY TIMES stronger than the Easter quake. Yikes. But, if there was ever a country who could withstand such a quake, I thought that Japan would be that country. And from what I can tell, it wasn't the quake so much as the tsunami that caused the damage. Anyway, my heart goes out to them, and I sincerely hope I don't get any radiation sickness from the reactor meltdowns.
Buyer's Remorse in the Midwest: The newly elected governors of Wisconsin, Ohio and Michigan are all engaging in various degrees of union-busting, and find themselves with lower and lower approval ratings. And ultimately, that's the rub that we face in America. On one hand, we have the Democrats who generally have beliefs that are popular - like gun control, abortion choice, social safety nets, regulation to keep products safe, etc. - but are either incapable of expressing those beliefs, or incapable of enacting legislation to bolster those beliefs, and on the other hand, we have Republicans, who favor policies that are not popular - union busting, dismantling the social safety net, etc. - but are very capable at governing. The whole thing is maddening, and until one party (*cough*Democrats*cough*) figures out how to govern, we're going to be stuck in this quagmire.
Libya, Bahrain and the Middle East: Like a lot of people, I am both heartened and dismayed by the democracy movements in the Arab World. In countries like Egypt, this movement may well bring real progress. But in Libya, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, I am genuinely concerned that the governments will put down these movements in a horrifically violent way. Given that our military is already stretched (thanks, Dubya), another military intervention, or two, is unlikely.
The Bachelor: Once again, I was roped into watching "The Bachelor" - and not just the two hour finale, but the extra hour "after the rose." Ugh. As usual, I found actual finale rather dull - as I said before, Brad Womack is not an especially interesting person on television - but I will say that my prediction as to who Brad would pick was spot-on (here's a hint - Brad's family liked Chantal, but his Mom literally CRIED TEARS OF JOY at the thought of Brad settling down with Emily, it was OVAH), and I predicted Ashley as the next Bachelorette (the makeover in the last episode was a dead giveaway). The accuracy of these predictions came much to the chagrin of my girlfriend, and I did manage to get a great deal of dishes done.
What was more interesting was the "after the rose" deal after the ritual humiliation of Chantal when Emily and Brad were being interviewed. And here's what's interesting to me - Emily was P-I-S-S-E-D at Brad and they broke up just about every Monday evening/Tuesday morning because Emily was watching her "man" romance other women. And that lead me to an interesting train of thought - what if, utter failure of the Bachelor to produce married couples (3 relationships out of 15 seasons) comes as a result of "Bachelor" couples watching the show? Even more interesting, does the fact that more Bachelorette couples stay together after the show ends indicate a difference between the sexes with regard to jealousy? Certainly, the format of the Bachelorette, where men compete for a woman's affection, fits more within traditional social norms. Can we get Malcolm Gladwell to look into this?
Devastation in Japan: When I first saw the news, my reaction was, as with everyone, "Holy Fucking Shit!" From my experience as a Californian, an 8.9 earthquake is ENORMOUS. The Easter earthquake that did a lot of damage to the Imperial Valley, and was the first earthquake that actually scared me, was a 6.9-7.0 quake. Given that the Richter scale is exponential, an 8.9 quake is around TWENTY TIMES stronger than the Easter quake. Yikes. But, if there was ever a country who could withstand such a quake, I thought that Japan would be that country. And from what I can tell, it wasn't the quake so much as the tsunami that caused the damage. Anyway, my heart goes out to them, and I sincerely hope I don't get any radiation sickness from the reactor meltdowns.
Buyer's Remorse in the Midwest: The newly elected governors of Wisconsin, Ohio and Michigan are all engaging in various degrees of union-busting, and find themselves with lower and lower approval ratings. And ultimately, that's the rub that we face in America. On one hand, we have the Democrats who generally have beliefs that are popular - like gun control, abortion choice, social safety nets, regulation to keep products safe, etc. - but are either incapable of expressing those beliefs, or incapable of enacting legislation to bolster those beliefs, and on the other hand, we have Republicans, who favor policies that are not popular - union busting, dismantling the social safety net, etc. - but are very capable at governing. The whole thing is maddening, and until one party (*cough*Democrats*cough*) figures out how to govern, we're going to be stuck in this quagmire.
Libya, Bahrain and the Middle East: Like a lot of people, I am both heartened and dismayed by the democracy movements in the Arab World. In countries like Egypt, this movement may well bring real progress. But in Libya, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, I am genuinely concerned that the governments will put down these movements in a horrifically violent way. Given that our military is already stretched (thanks, Dubya), another military intervention, or two, is unlikely.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
The NFL Has Issues. . .
As a football fan, I have been watching stories about the NFL's potential lockout with particular interest. While I may be wrong about this, I have noticed a fair number of articles about the NFL owners and greed. For instance, the most recent columns of Rick Reilly and Bill Simmons - the only columnists regularly found on ESPN.com's opening page - harshly criticize NFL owners for their greed. Peter King, who is typically a cheerleader for the NFL has been slightly critical of the owners lately.
Now, sure in every labor strife there are winners and losers, but the last few labor stoppages in sports have consistently been blamed on the players. The MLB in 1994, the NBA in 1997 or 1998, both ended with the players getting more or less crushed by the owners. That might be the case here, but I don't think so. No, instead, I think the owners will take the brunt of criticism if there is a labor stoppage.
Here's why - for the past twenty years or so, NFL fans have become more and more savvy when it comes to player contracts and the life of NFL players. We all know that a $100 million contract isn't worth $100 million in the NFL (unlike in baseball or basketball), that most players' careers last 3-4 years, and football players suffer horrific injuries. Indeed, we have all be so educated by the NFL through the video games it sponsors. More than a few of us have read articles on the lasting effects of concussions in football and are legitimately scared. And we have all seen the devastating effects of greed by large corporations upon our communities.
All of this conspires against the owners. Worst of all, any labor stoppage will be the result of a lockout - the owners, not the players, want this stoppage. The status quo, which the players advocate, already sucks for the players, but the owners want to make it worse by reducing the salaries paid to players and increasing the number of games in a season. In other words, the owners want more work for less money. Did I mention that NFL players have significantly shorter lifespans than everyone else, and that they suffer traumatic brain injuries on a regular basis? Dave Duerson, who played safety for the Bears, was so damaged by years of trauma, that he committed suicide by shooting himself in the chest, as opposed to the head, so that his brain could be studied. Oh, and its not as if the trauma is limited to the brain - watching football is now practically a lesson in physiology.
No, I think a labor stoppage will not go well for the owners, even if they get every concession possible from the players. From a public relations perspective, this is a nightmare. And given that the NFL completely and utterly depends on public relations - the public builds its stadiums, watches its games, buys its merchandise - any nightmare could affect the NFL's bottom line. The worst case scenario for football is the long slow death of boxing (another sport I love. . .sigh).
So, what should be done? First, I think the 18 game schedule idea is dumb and needs to be scrapped completely. The amount of money going to the players should either remain the same or increase, but with an adjustment - there should be a rookie payscale, with every high draft pick getting a 2 or 3 year contract. Anti-concussion helmets should be mandatory. And more money should go to player pensions.
Now, sure in every labor strife there are winners and losers, but the last few labor stoppages in sports have consistently been blamed on the players. The MLB in 1994, the NBA in 1997 or 1998, both ended with the players getting more or less crushed by the owners. That might be the case here, but I don't think so. No, instead, I think the owners will take the brunt of criticism if there is a labor stoppage.
Here's why - for the past twenty years or so, NFL fans have become more and more savvy when it comes to player contracts and the life of NFL players. We all know that a $100 million contract isn't worth $100 million in the NFL (unlike in baseball or basketball), that most players' careers last 3-4 years, and football players suffer horrific injuries. Indeed, we have all be so educated by the NFL through the video games it sponsors. More than a few of us have read articles on the lasting effects of concussions in football and are legitimately scared. And we have all seen the devastating effects of greed by large corporations upon our communities.
All of this conspires against the owners. Worst of all, any labor stoppage will be the result of a lockout - the owners, not the players, want this stoppage. The status quo, which the players advocate, already sucks for the players, but the owners want to make it worse by reducing the salaries paid to players and increasing the number of games in a season. In other words, the owners want more work for less money. Did I mention that NFL players have significantly shorter lifespans than everyone else, and that they suffer traumatic brain injuries on a regular basis? Dave Duerson, who played safety for the Bears, was so damaged by years of trauma, that he committed suicide by shooting himself in the chest, as opposed to the head, so that his brain could be studied. Oh, and its not as if the trauma is limited to the brain - watching football is now practically a lesson in physiology.
No, I think a labor stoppage will not go well for the owners, even if they get every concession possible from the players. From a public relations perspective, this is a nightmare. And given that the NFL completely and utterly depends on public relations - the public builds its stadiums, watches its games, buys its merchandise - any nightmare could affect the NFL's bottom line. The worst case scenario for football is the long slow death of boxing (another sport I love. . .sigh).
So, what should be done? First, I think the 18 game schedule idea is dumb and needs to be scrapped completely. The amount of money going to the players should either remain the same or increase, but with an adjustment - there should be a rookie payscale, with every high draft pick getting a 2 or 3 year contract. Anti-concussion helmets should be mandatory. And more money should go to player pensions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)