Tangential Sporting Thoughts

ESPN had some awards for sports like things last night, the US Women’s Soccer team is playing for the World Cup, Major League Baseball has passed its halfway point, the NFL is ever closer to a labor agreement and the British Open has started. For an otherwise slow time of year there’s a lot going on. And with that, two sports stories this week stand above everything else, even though they’re only tangentially sports related and for now, hopefully to be overshadowed by a World Cup victory over Japan.

First, Steelers linebacker James Harrison is an idiot, a special kind of idiot who doesn’t exercise any discretion when speaking to journalists. Harrison, speaking with magazine “Men’s Journal” decided to unburden himself in regard to his personal feelings in regard to Steelers’ QB Ben Roethlisberger, RB Rashard Mendenhall and NFL commissioner Roger Goodell. Towards his teammates, Harrison was just a jerk. His statements towards the NFL commissioner were completely outrageous and so hate filled that they leave the reader to question Harrison’s mental health. The worst part is that there have been those who dismiss the statements as ‘just’ his personality and the writer of the piece paints Harrison as brave for stating what is ‘supposedly’ obvious to many NFL players. The statements were so vile that speculation has begun in regard to punishment ranging from fines to even being cut from his team. Freedom of speech doesn’t protect a person from their own poor decisions. Harrison can say whatever stupid thing he wants but an employer doesn’t have to put up with it. Harrison’s continued disrespect warrants punishment, and there is a kind of justice if it results in Harrison is working somewhere other than the NFL this fall.

After the prosecution indirectly, but maybe on purpose, shared disallowed testimony in the beginning of hall of fame worthy major league baseball pitcher Roger Clemens’ kabuki show trial the judge ordered a mistrial. Today was the second day of the trial, our tax dollars at work. Next up is a hearing on September 2^nd to determine whether or not the government is allowed a second chance to flush more government funds to try again. Key to the hearing will be the determination of whether or not the prosecution meant to improperly influence the jury by indirectly presenting inadmissible evidence. The prosecution will have to persuade the judge that their actions were inadvertent even though what was shown was very explicitly made inadmissible and the judge mentioned that even a first year law student would not have made the same mistake. Perhaps justice can work in mysterious ways as evidenced by this turn. Roger Clemens could be sentenced to hard time based on an almost impossible to prove notion that he lied when questioned by the US Congress in regard to his use of performance enhancing drugs. Just how many things are wrong with that sentence? Everything. Congress had no business investigating baseball. No one in government knows one way or another beyond a reasonable doubt if Roger Clemens ever did use performance enhancers. And even if he did lie, about something that can’t be proven either way, Clemens did no harm to anyone but himself. The trial is a depressing example of government waste and overreaching grandstanding. It is in the best interests of everyone involved that the mistrial leads to a ruling disallowing retrial.

What Big Government’s all About

In a recent scare tactic made towards Social Security recipients, the President made the statement that if our country’s debt ceiling is not raised per his request by August 2^nd that he cannot guarantee that Social Security checks will be sent. The obvious point of this statement was to obtain support for his position of raising the debt ceiling in return for some unspecified number of budget cuts (and therefore may be assumed to be no budget cuts) from those who receive these checks. Besides the President’s statement’s goal he provided evidence for criticism of both the Social Security program and big government “entitlements” as a whole.

Since its inception, Social Security has been sold to the public as a savings account created on behalf of and collected for and from citizens apparently too stupid to save for themselves for the purposes of old age. Every future recipient is given a statement each year detailing what they have paid in and based on what was paid in, what they should expect to receive in terms of “benefits” depending on receiving benefits starting at different ages. Interestingly enough, these “benefits” are not directly tied to what was paid into the program and if the recipient does not live to either see them or only collects a limited amount before leaving the living, they are not entitled to a full accounting based on what was paid in. And in fact, there is no bank or deposit account for these funds. They are pooled and used to pay current beneficiaries with anything left over used to purchase government bonds that are used to spend on other government programs based on the promise to be paid back by some future government revenues, with interest. Despite this being common knowledge, political advocates of Social Security have peddled the myth for many years of a Social Security “lock box”, the idea that Social Security funds are in effect saved, in government bonds. The President’s statement mentioning his personal guarantee demolishes the myth from two points. First, if there really was a “lock box”, if these government bonds were as good as any deposit account the checks would be guaranteed because the money would be there. Second, as an advocate of the Social Security program as designed the President’s acknowledgment of reality cannot be demonized as readily as opponents who are decried when they point out the fact that Social Security is no better than a mulit-generational ponzi scheme.

Basically government “entitlements”, the idea of taking money from some in the form of taxation and giving it to others directly, become unsustainable because demand for something ostensively costing nothing (as advertised by democrat politicians) will always grow much faster than supply. Another danger is that when government becomes the sole source of income for someone, that person is wholly dependent on that government for their very existence. Because of this situation, that person is very likely to support that government and any of that government’s proposals for fear of losing any of what that government deems they shall receive. The President’s statement makes clear that he isn’t above threatening those dependent on Social Security payments. Allowing the debt limit to not increase doesn’t mean that the government has no money, just that it cannot borrow anymore. Because this government spends much more than it can collect in taxes, decisions have to be made. Because prioritization of payments is made by the executive branch and because there is no real Social Security fund, the President can indeed make the threat to coerce recipients into supporting his expansion of government.

This only works because government has made too many citizens dependent on it and because for some reason there are some still willing to lend to our government. One day, there won’t be any more lenders but there will still be too many people dependent on government. Threats won’t work then but this President’s plan is to no longer be around when that day comes. And that’s leadership as defined by democrat community organizers.

On Grantland.com

For the better part of the last ten years I have read most everything published by Bill Simmons on ESPN.com. Simmons is an immensely talented writer who is able to cover sports from the viewpoint of a fan and writes in a form that flows in a way that sucks the reader in. Like many talented creators, Simmons often was less than pleased with his employer and shared that with his readers on more than several occasions. Recently there were rumors regarding his possible departure from ESPN, reality resulted in a new ESPN.com website, Grantland, of which Simmons is editor in chief.

In the initial editorial, Simmons described Grantland as a site dedicated to the intersection of sports and pop culture as seen through the writings of several highly regarded authors. It would be separate from ESPN and provide a more sophisticated analysis of both key subjects. As a longtime reader of Simmons I was looking forward to Grantland and so far I have been disappointed. At best it’s comparable to certain sections of the Onion’s AV Club website and at worst it seems like a US weekly type celebrity obsessive. For the most part the only difference to Simmons; style has been an increase in forced inanities used to maintain the tie between sports and pop culture. That and a few curse words.

Two weeks ago there was a column about how Ryan Reynolds isn’t a movie star and how Will Smith doesn’t challenge himself enough in his films and therefore isn’t as good an actor as he could be. Yawn. Neither argument matters. Will Smith has made a lot of movies and most of them have made a lot of money. And even if he wasn’t successful in film, he was the Fresh Prince of Bel-Air and that alone makes him an institution in my household. And what in the world must have Reynolds done to Simmons to deserve such treatment? Reynolds has been in a lot of movies (to include many starring roles) as well and started in a television role also, in ABC’s Two Guys, a Girl and a Pizza Place. Besides, Simmons identifies Justin Timberlake as a movie star in the piece and despite his merits I can’t even recall him in an actual starting role outside of this summer’s “Friends with Benefits”. But I digress. None of it matters because there is no way to actually label such things, it’s all just opinion.

Last week Simmons attempted to solve the NBA labor kerfuffle by using the movie “Dave”, about a presidential impersonator who solves all the country’s problems when he is somehow made President. And Simmons takes this concept very seriously. Simmons should have asked movie star Ben Affleck to re-enact his seen in “Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back” to explain to him that Dave was a fictional character. The reason the comparison doesn’t work is that “Dave” is a deeply flawed fictional fantasy land film that over simplifies the deeply flawed nonsense that makes up our government. Simmons’ piece is basically an eighteen year old movie based cudgel used to attack NBA commissioner David Stern. Does Simmons demonstrate any real, actual knowledge of the NBA and the various positions that led to the current labor strife? Actually, yes, there is some good background information that is lost in the silly tie to a stupid movie. There are ideas in the piece, such as Simmons’ contention that star NBA players actually aren’t paid enough. Again, just the writer’s opinion and one better left to stand on its own without the movie references.

I have read other columns on Grantland but haven’t been able to finish most because they’re either boring or are nothing more than idle celebrity gossip. It’s still early though and as a fan, I hope Simmons figures it out.

Misunderstanding Arizona

This morning on Mike & Mike in the morning on ESPN Radio the hosts discussed the non-attendance of several Major League baseball players from tomorrow’s all-star game and the reasons they won’t be participating. One reason given wasn’t accorded much validity because of a lack of players speaking out but it was something that has been mentioned before. This possible reason is Arizona’s Senate Bill 1070, the infamous “immigration law”, thought to be a deterrent for some players as this year’s all-star game is being held in the Arizona Diamondbacks’ stadium.

This casual mention wouldn’t warrant much more than eye-rolling except for the utter disregard for the actual contents of the law as presented by the hosts. The way that the law was stated was as “Arizona’s immigration law”. Unfortunately the narrative about what and why SB 1070 is has been distorted to a point where the truth doesn’t matter. Mike & Mike weren’t particularly inflammatory, as many in the media typically are, using adjectives such as ‘harsh’ to describe the law, but they were still irresponsible.

Irresponsible because SB 1070 is not an Arizona immigration law, it does not set guidelines for whom from where may enter Arizona from other countries. It is a bill that follows United States federal immigration law, making federal offenses state offenses as well. There are many examples all over the country where what is a federal crime is also a state crime. To this point the federal government has proven ineffective in enforcing federal immigration law in Arizona and because of issues that their state has experienced because of heightened illegal immigration because of their proximity to the Mexican border, Arizona lawmakers decided to craft legislation empowering state law enforcement to implement federal laws within the state’s boundaries. Again, there are other state laws all over the country designed for the same purpose and as long as state laws follow federal laws without going beyond them, it is perfectly legal.

The hosts of the Mike & Mike show didn’t mean to misrepresent the Arizona law but they did. The media and opposing political narrative in regard to the law has been shaped to foster this misunderstanding. With it repeated over and over again it is not surprising that many simply don’t understand reality. Many of the professional athletes that have voiced disagreement with the assumption of the law come from different countries, most with stricter immigration laws than the United States. Opponents of the Arizona law prefer ignorance because then the false narrative will be accepted without question which leads to offhand comments accepting it as truth on a morning sports talk show. And we all suffer for it.

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.