He wasn't refering to the former VP...

A commentator on MSNBC described President Obama’s demeanor in a press conference yesterday as “dick”. Several apologies later said commentator found himself suspended indefinitely. Uninteresting is the chatter regarding appropriateness and whatnot. The commentator happens to be a liberal political analyst and many MSNBC “personalities” have said much worse in regard to conservative politicians without any consequence, but whatever. MSNBC is exactly what it is and displaying a quick trigger in protecting the thin skin of a President they support isn’t surprising and neither is the idea that a liberal commentator might actually make a comment like that, who knows, he may even have thought he was complimenting the President. What’s more interesting is the question of whether or not the President can be accurately described by that term.

Dictionary.com provides the following definition listed third and sourced from the “Collins English Dictionary”:

dick (dɪk) — n …

2. ( Brit ) clever dick a person who is obnoxiously opinionated or self-satisfied; know-all …

Along with a helpful usage note:

The third sense of this word was formerly considered to be taboo and it was labelled as such in previous editions of Collins English Dictionary. However, it has now become acceptable in speech, although some older or more conservative people may object to its use.

Very interesting, so it would seem that conservative people may object to using the word to describe a self-satisfied know-it-all. But from the strict definition could a press conference in which the President used his daughter’s homework habits as a cudgel to beat up congress, decried private jet owners and described people’s earnings as tax giveaways to them that should be redistributed as scholarships be considered self-satisfied and know-it-all? Perhaps it depends on one’s political persuasion meaning that there is an argument to considering the argument in the affirmative.

The President’s most distinguishable characteristic is an almost inhuman confidence in knowing the exact cause of and the solution to every problem in our country. This confidence doesn’t even dissipate when he’s proven wrong (in those rare instances he actual utters something that isn’t a strawman argument and can be measured somehow). When nothing promised from the stimulus happened, resulting in more than $800 billion added to the national debt for no discernable benefit to the economy, the President stated that the economy was worse than he thought and that the stimulus actually saved the economy from being even worse. Never once acknowledging that none of what he claimed could be proven. When millions of jobs failed to materialize as a result of the stimulus the reply was the invention of a statistic as laughable as it is impossible to measure, jobs “saved”.

The President has derided Republicans for driving the economic “car” into a “ditch” conveniently ignoring that the greatest deficits by far accumulated during the Bush administration occurred after 2006 when democrats controlled both houses of congress and therefore budgets. The President has called out dirty oil companies, every auto maker not owned by his administration, profit hungry limb taking doctors and countless other entities for being evil caricatures of the type typically seen only in cartoons.

English is a tediously complicated language and perhaps there are other definitions to be considered for the phrase ‘obnoxiously opinionated, self-satisfied know-it-all’ but a basic understanding of those words together happens to precisely describe the President. It seems unfortunate that a person could lose their job for making an accurate statement that is typically considered verboten only by conservative people. Perhaps MSNBC is undergoing a format change.

Again, with the “Fat Cats”

The President of the United States believes that our country has a revenue problem, that all of the fiscal problems that now exist are the result of government not making enough money. The solution, of course, is to raise revenue and the way to do so is easy according to the great seer Obama, by going after greedy oil companies, private jet owners and “millionaires and billionaires” who are not paying their fair share. Only then when those who pay up from their ill-gotten gains will the country be healed by way of college scholarships for whomever wants them and construction jobs for those tackling the nation’s decrepit (according to the President) infrastructure.

How much sophomoric class warfare nonsense is enough? How many people actually believe the President’s constant demagoguery and simplistic view of the world? Has the country already forgotten the stimulus from 2009? The more than $800 billion in spending that the President told us would limit unemployment and fix our crumbled infrastructure? With the rash of waivers given to political allies does anyone believe that Obamacare will actually deliver better health care for less and allow everyone to keep their current coverage if desired as promised by the President?

Politically there is no consequence to the President’s irresponsible rhetoric. The top ten percent of earners in this country pay 70% of taxes and average $114,000 in income per year. This demographic is hardly made up of millionaires and billionaires and for those that happen to earn more than the President’s arbitrary $200,000 per year ($250,000 for couples) limit defining “the rich” there simply aren’t enough of them as a voting block for the President to care. The thinking goes something like this, if you can convince 90% of the country that the 10% of top earners are their enemies you will earn the majority of the vote of the 90% therefore controlling the 70% of taxes paid by that 10%.

And what of the idea that “evil” corporations don’t pay enough in taxes? On its face this argument is inane because it’s simply an emotional ploy. Taxing certain industries may seem cathartic to the soul but what will be the real effect? Increased taxes are really an increased cost on the offering of a product and will only result in higher prices for the consumer. For necessities, such as those related to transportation, these increased costs will actually hurt those with lower incomes as they must divert savings and disposable income as a result. What about “millionaires and billionaires”? We already have what is called a “progressive” tax system where a higher rate is paid on higher levels of income. How much more should high earners pay? Not to ignore the fact that many “millionaires and billionaires” did not get there in one year but as the result of years of hard work and much of that worth is not in cash so not even subject to taxes.

One of the President’s most reliable talking points is blaming the Bush tax cuts of 2003 for the government’s so-called lack of revenue. It’s easy to understand as stated the assumption being that if incomes being the same a higher tax rate would then result in higher revenues being collected by the government. Unfortunately for the President macroeconomics isn’t that simple. There is no way to prove that income would be the same if tax rates were higher and history shows that lower rates can lead to higher revenues. There is a point where higher tax rates actually lead to lower revenue. Tax revenue as a portion of GDP actually increased following the tax cuts of 2003. The key is to find the point where revenue is maximized and history has shown that it’s not at high rates.

So what is the best path? Should the government institute all kinds of programs and then collect taxes to meet their costs? Or should the government limit what it spends to what it’s able to collect while enacting tax policies that encourage economic growth? To this President it’s simple enough to trot out the less fortunate amongst us as representative of the nation and rely on emotions to gain support for growing government. Problem is, government already spends more than it has and eventually bills come due. People should be able to keep most of what they earn and should not have to pay more as consumers when corporations are taxed higher. The President does not seem to care about reality instead chasing cheap political points. Our country deserves better.

A Failed Stimuli Analogy

The brilliance of the democrat party is the ability of their mouthpieces to broadly apply the typically incomprehensible machinations of big government logic into effective sound bites applying nonsense that somehow seems similar to day-to-day activities. If the world was just this shell game administered by big government types would be dismissed as laughable. Unfortunately, big government has been winning for so long that the federal government is utterly confounding to most citizens and because of that it’s easier to conceptualize its unnecessary largess by talking point.

Recently a friend and successful small-business owner intoned on how perfectly logical the idea of the government’s stimulus was. The way that he understood it was as analogous to a slow month for his business necessitating some purchases on credit card based on the idea of building future business. And that was exactly how the failed stimulus was sold but never could have worked.

The reason is that the government only consumes. It does not produce anything that is actually demanded by actual consumers. There are certainly ‘entitlements’ and ‘benefits’ but as their names describe, they are demanded by beneficiaries that do not pay for their use. They are paid for by the government taking (in the form of taxes) from citizens who mostly do not consume or demand these ‘entitlements’. Because they are ‘free’ to those who consume them the demand for so-called ‘entitlements’ is often much greater than supply and to provide for more demand those who do not consume these ‘entitlements’ must be taxed even more.

The stimulus was meant to make large capitol purchases and to fix useful government offerings such as roads which in theory require people to do things that they are paid for and then in turn they would buy things after being paid. Bam, economy stimulated. Even better, democrats told us that not only would those who were paid would buy things, but that others would be motivated to spend by their spending resulting in a ‘multiplier’ effect where the economy would somehow magically grow at a rate greater than the money spent by the government.

Problem was that the stimulus was temporary and unsustainable. The new employee might not want to spend that money too quickly knowing that they’ll likely to be out of a job once the stimulus ended. And those businesses augmented by the spending also knew it was temporary, why would they invest in anything knowing that once complete with stimulus work future projects may not be there? Worse, much of the funding was used as stop-gap measures in state budgets, allowing them to avoid deficits by allotting those funds to existing debt where it did nothing useful.

An artificial infusion of cold-hard cash into the economy may provide a sugar rush but in the end that money has to be paid back sometime and those whom are taxed most acutely understand that they and future earners will be on the hook. Whereas my friend understands the business that he is in and can effectively plan for ways to grow his business by spending, our federal government has proven many times over that it cannot understand how to effectively make decisions for every citizen’s business. If my friend loses his investment, he’s out personally so he’s very careful with accounting. The government never does because democrats always blame “the rich” for their addiction to spending and claim that raising taxes will lift all boats. And when the country would have to find $15 trillion just to make it to even there isn’t enough to tax.

Fanboy Death Cultists Ruin Viewing Enjoyment

The first time that I encountered the phenomena was when I started to watch “The Sopranos”. With each successive episode the interwebs were aflutter with rumors surrounding the eventual demise (in the mortal way) of the show’s main character. Discussion centered on the how, when, where and by whom and it had become a foregone conclusion that Tony Soprano just had to be whacked at some point or another. Years went by and nothing. And then in the series finale, the final scene was an intense sequence of happenings about a family dinner in a restaurant. Anxiety built second by second inviting the viewer’s imagination to run wild in regard to what would happen next. And then…nothing, the scene cut to black and “The Sopranos” moved on to syndication. The interwebs exploded with dissatisfaction over the seeming lack of finality. I thought that the ending was perfect as it demonstrated the anxiety Tony Soprano dealt with all the time. But what do I know?

Another HBO show, “Big Love”, about polygamy illustrated another example of the phenomena. Again, the main character’s eventual earthly demise was an oft-discussed topic, which was confusing, as the lead character was a hardware store owning politician. Certainly Bill Hendrickson had a large number of enemies for a suburbanite who wasn’t the head of a mob family but the obsession with whether or not he would be taken out seemed out of place. In the end, the show decided to end poor Bill, by making a peripheral character act out mindlessly over a triviality, and his three wives thrived in his absence. Apparently the moral of the “Big Love” story was that polygamy equals female empowerment, if the dude’s out of the picture. I thought that the ending was silly and meant to sate the palates of the death obsessed and avoid online criticism.

This phenomena, the obsessive cult of death, is a powerfully annoying segment of the fanboy persuasion at the moment. It is made up of know it all, impossible to satisfy sophists who think that no television series is any good unless main character(s) are somehow dispatched someway for the made up reason that these characters’ deaths adds depth to a story. These kinds of people would rather Ross and Rachel run over by a cab than get back together. They would have had Frasier dive off the Space Needle rather than move on. Michael Scott in Colorado? Of course not, they would rather him be face down in the Colorado. Apparently the emotional ties these cultists have to television characters require end of lives to coincide with the end of a show.

This week the interwebs gleamed with self-satisfaction and congratulations over the “brave” decision HBO made in killing off the character in the excellent “Game of Thrones” played by the actor listed first in the opening credits, apparently the ‘lead’ character. But was it really that brave? I ask knowing that “Game of Thrones” is the television adaptation of a book first published in 1996 in which this ‘lead’ character was assassinated as part of the larger story, which really isn’t about him. It wasn’t brave; it was true to the story on which the television show was based. Unfortunately the obsessive cult of death, who apparently doesn’t read, being obsessive and all couldn’t help themselves. It’s too bad because “Game of Thrones” is an excellent and riveting fantasy done well as a television show and is better enjoyed for what it is rather than congratulated for killing off characters.

The never-ending campaign

It depends on one’s perspective the virtue of certain candidates for President next year. There are a number of reasons, beyond simple partisan politics, that this country should elect a new President next year even though the incumbent is running for re-election.

The current President was elected on a wave of charisma and sloganeering making sweeping proclamations, blaming President Bush for every ill in the country and winning on a thin resume that was mostly ignored by the media believing in the nebulous hope and change. Unemployment is worse than at his inauguration and at any point during the prior President’s tenure, and is much higher than that promised by the President if his “stimulus” package were passed. It was passed and benefits are hard to identify. Instead it has opened the gate to further proliferate spending leading to a two year increase in the nation’s deficit that is worse than that of the previous eight combined.

The President does not identify policies implemented throughout his tenure as deficient for not meeting his grandiose assurances, instead continuing to blame President Bush and asking for more of the same as if the problem isn’t with spending money that doesn’t exist, instead the problem is that we do not spend enough of what we do not have. We are expected to accept higher prices and more control in the private sector because we are told that central planners better understand the best interests of 300 million people in countless disparate communities and across thousands of industries better than ourselves and that our planet’s security is best suited by unproven at best methodologies. We are expected to accept indeterminate metrics such as jobs “saved”. Corporations are demonized for “sitting” on trillions of dollars while changing and growing regulations increase the cost of employment and doing business.

The President has already begun his campaign for re-election and is running as the same unknown quantity in face of a resume as President. Will it work? It depends. Much of the added deficit has been dedicated to increasing unemployment benefits and increasing welfare rolls to unprecedented levels, increasing dependency on government. The President’s case rests in the idea that the failures of his policies as stated are attributable to past events or require more time than projected. It also requires a significant portion of the electorate to believe that they cannot do any better than the just enough provided them by government programs once meant only to be a safety net but are now considered entitlements. Enough, the only thing that this President seems to be able to do is campaign. This President has failed by any real metric and does not deserve to be President for another four years.

And the NBA crowns a deserving champion

As a dedicated anti-fan of the Dallas Cowboys and as a fan of the outclassed and vanquished LA Lakers, it was not easy to cheer for the Mavericks in the NBA finals. Or was it? The Mavs do represent an annoying portion of an annoying state after all. But, they have a roster made up of likeable players including familiar veterans and are owned by a crazy billionaire who has the passion of a fan. Also, they are anchored by a 13 year veteran of the league, a fun loving 7 footer who plays like a 2 guard. And, in the finals they were pitted against a team that defined arrogance and premature celebration. Sure, Jason Terry of the Mavs tattooed the NBA trophy on his arm last post season, but that was mere silly exuberance from a role player when compared with “The Decision” and braggadocios statements about not 6. OK, maybe it wouldn’t be too hard to root for the Mavs after all.

It wasn’t that hard to admit that the Lakers deserved to lose. They were blown out and fell apart in the process. Kobe Bryant is one of the greatest players of his generation (and we happen to share a birth year) but he too often resorts to being a ball hog, making Lakers’ games difficult to watch. The Mavericks beat the Lakers in four straight in this year’s Western Conference Semifinals and it wasn’t even close.

Twice recently, the Mavericks lost in the first round of the NBA playoffs seeded first in the Western Conference, last year to the Spurs and in 2007 to the Golden State Warriors. In 2006, they made the finals and won the first two games, only to lose to the Miami Heat. These playoff failures branded the Mavs as chokers. Even with that reputation the Mavs have become playoff regulars, making it to the NBA’s playoffs every season since 2000, the year that Mark Cuban bought the team. Before that, the Mavs made the playoffs six times in twenty seasons. Eleven in a row is quite a feat.

In addition to finals MVP and 13 year veteran Dirk Nowitzki, the Mavs also feature Jason Kidd, a hall of fame point guard who was drafted by the Mavs in 1994 before leaving 1996 and spending 12 years between the Suns and Nets before returning. They also feature Shawn Marion and Caron Butler, two excellent players who have been on many different teams. They also feature JJ Barea, a 5 foot 9 point guard who seems to be able to score on anyone and even guarded 6 foot 9 LeBron James for appreciable stretches.

What the Mavs are is a great team, one that deserved to win the NBA championship. They proved it by winning four series against top competition. They beat the defending NBA champion Lakers in four straight games. They beat two up and coming teams in the Trailblazers and the Thunder. And, as a finale they beat the Miami Heat, a team with three of the league’s best players put together by a person with five rings as a coach and one as a player. The Mavericks were easy to root for and they deserved to win.

And the Heat lose...

I wanted to write about the conclusion to the NBA season in two parts because of the divergent storylines dominant today. The less important of the two is in regard to the so-called failure of the Miami Heat; the on his way out Chris Bosh, the apparently soon to be fired Erik Spoelstra, the unretiring Pat Riley, Dwyane Wade the premature showboating snot and the sometimes anointed greatest player in the game and serial choker, LeBron James.

That’s a lot of baggage for a basketball team located in one of the nicest parts of our country. And none of it matters, after all, basketball is just a game and while the goal of the NBA is to win the championship it isn’t really that much of a failure to win two games in the finals.

LeBron James showed his arrogant immaturity with an otherwise benign comment at the conclusion of the series meant to demonstrate that life is bigger than basketball but since he doesn’t think before speaking and has had no one do anything other than kiss up to him since he was like 12 he missed and said it in the most condescending way possible. Watching the comment I understood his meaning but couldn’t help wincing, what a jerk.

James couldn’t help himself earlier either, mocking the easiest to cheer player on the court, mindlessly following Wade’s faux coughing fits. Wade himself attempted to assert himself as a leader but instead couldn’t come back completely from a hip injury in game 5 and wasted years of goodwill with boorish behavior.

Of the so-called “big 3” Chris Bosh is who everyone thought he was. He played as well as he ever has and no one should expect anything more. Only disillusioned Miami fans or those whom have never seen a game before (all apologies for the redundancy) would have mistaken Bosh’s game for a close approximation of Wade’s or Jame’s. And that’s ok, it’s the NBA’s weird max salary rules that lead to a player like Bosh, who is very good but not great, to be paid like the absolute best in the game. It would be shameful if Bosh is scapegoated and then traded, but if he is, one hopes he is sent somewhere he can be appreciated and play his game.

So what does Miami do now? Do they blow everything up and start from scratch? That’s ridiculous. No matter the drama, no matter the disappointment of this season, the Miami Heat is a work in progress. Coach Erik Spoelstra has proven himself able and ready. He has worked for the Heat for more than ten years and earned his job the hard way. The Heat, with a completely revamped roster and employing with two players used to being the number one option, won two games in the NBA finals in their first year. Starting over for the second year will do nothing but lead to more disappointment. Considering the chaos, the constant chatter and pressure on the Heat this past NBA season, for them to make it to the finals, they will be back. So long as they build on what they have already done.

An Overreaction in College Sports

In recent college sports related news a ten year football coach with a national championship on his resume resigned because of NCAA regulations, an eight year athletic director who has fired two high profile coaches (one considered a legend and another who broke NCAA rules) and hired another who left after one year (and also supposedly broke NCAA rules) resigned, A QB who exchanged memorabilia for tattoos and perhaps received other benefits will abandon his senior year in college and finally, a storied football program will have a national title from nearly a decade ago vacated in addition to ongoing punishments to the current team because the family of one player on that team took benefits.

Certainly college athletics is going through a very interesting time. When news like this breaks en masse over a relatively short period of time it can seem as though there is an intractable mess of things in college athletics and can convey an unflattering image. When considered against hundreds of colleges with sports programs that exist, further examination of NCAA rules and enforcement and uncertainty in regard to the behavior of past college programs that image softens a bit.

There seems to be a conventional wisdom within sports media that an NCAA violation constitutes some malicious deed resulting in a news cycle hate of a person who may have just lost their career or their opportunity for an education or preparation for a future in professional sports. It certainly isn’t easy to find sympathy with someone who broke rules governing their livelihood and the punishments received are justified because those in these positions must understand the consequences of such actions when entering that environment, however, the public condemnation of these people is often over the line and is unnecessary.

Much of the reason lies within NCAA rules and enforcement. Coaches are fired for too much contact with recruits, an arbitrary limit set each time technology provides a new possibility. Coaches are chastised for not knowing the personal lives of a single player of more than a 100 while they work 15 hour days throughout the season. Players are made out to be simpletons who cannot understand the rules and likened to servants because to some their relatively charmed college existence isn’t more like that of a professional’s, a life which very few of them will ever know. Players on a team in 2011 cannot play in the postseason because of the actions of a single player and his family who moved on six years ago.

Sports media opinion when it comes to college sanctions range from the lecturing and judgmental to insane, suggesting prison or outrageous fines for what basically amount to thought crimes and selfishness. Others irresponsibly use it to push for making college sports into basically a minor league, advocating salaries for players while completely ignoring the fact that most programs could never survive such a system and could effectively destroy college sports. What’s missing is a sense of proportion and an ability to step back and contemplate that sports is not a life and death thing and that while these actions are wrong they are not doing real, actual harm to anyone. No one is being literally robbed nor physically harmed. A need for drama and hate objects too often clouds effective reasoning.

And “The Diesel” Retires

Seven foot one inch center Shaquille O’Neal spent eighteen years in the NBA, playing for six teams, his longest and most successful stint of eight seasons, coming with the Lakers. The Lakers have announced that they plan to retire 34, Shaq’s uniform number when he was on the team, a deserved honor. In those eight Lakers seasons, O’Neal averaged 27 points on a 58.4% shooting average, 12 rebounds and 2 blocks over about 64 games per season. And even those gaudy statistics don’t do complete justice to the menacing physical presence that defined Shaq during his Lakers tenure. He wasn’t a great free throw shooter and he never made a 3 pointer in purple and yellow but his rap, “Shoot Pass Slam” answers what kind of player Shaq was and why he was so effective a center.

I remember first seeing Shaq when he absolutely dominated opposing college teams across two seasons at LSU. His first four seasons in the NBA, with the Orlando Magic (who were fortunate to have the first pick in the draft when Shaq joined the NBA) that dominance almost instantly translated; he averaged 23.4 points a game his rookie season and improved to a staggering 29.3 in both his second and third. Some speculated that Shaq would have a relatively short NBA career because of his size and a propensity for shortened seasons and overweight appearances at the beginning of training camp. Ultimately, he was able to prove that idea wrong by remaining at least a factor for 18 seasons, even averaging 17.8 points over 75 games during his 2008-2009 season for the Suns.

Shaq has been known for his personality almost as much as his game, releasing multiple rap albums, staring in movies (including the serious Blue Chips in 1994) and making himself available for appearances and comments regarding sports, pop culture and most anything.

As a Lakers fan I had to choose when Shaq’s conflicts with Kobe Bryant became untenable and even though he can be a ball-hogging snit, I chose Kobe just like the Lakers did. In comments and behavior Shaq made his dislike of Bryant and dissatisfaction with the Lakers well known, even attributing it as a motivational factor in the NBA Championship he earned with the Heat in 2006.

Begrudged statements from Shaq were often over the line in my opinion and the fact that he played for four teams, in ever decreasing amounts of time following his Lakers tenure soured Shaq for me. Many seemed to identify him as media savvy and as an intelligent self-marketer and certainly Shaq was both but he also made himself a caricature because of his appetite for attention and dismaying things that he said often about Kobe and many others. And because he can’t help himself, Shaq the icon unfortunately cannot be separated from Shaq the bully, just another reason to make explicit the fact that he cannot be considered a role model. But he did give LA eight great seasons and he will no doubt have many more years in the public eye. I wince at the thought while wishing Shaq good luck in retirement.