August Thoughts

Wilson’s Law of Unintended Consequences

Actions taken with the best of intentions by ignorant people will always have a bad result.

To explain this one we could talk about the results of creating an entitlement culture, results such as those Britain is suffering from her rioting youths. We could point to most of the progressive liberal agenda in America as well. Consider America’s inner city communities. The poverty rates, unemployment rates, single parent family rates, crime rates, drug usage rates, and just about every other bad “rate” you can think of are much, much worse now and the direct result of the War on Poverty begun in the mid ‘60s than they were before that “war” began.

However, rather than get too heavy, here is a simple little tale of what happens when a person thinks she understands something, but doesn’t, and then acts on that understanding with every intention of helping, and doesn’t.

My first wife and I were at a local plywood mill to get her paycheck. As we came out of the office, she noticed clinging to the side of the building a very large moth, at least 4 inches across, perhaps larger. It was one of those moths that could change its color and patterning to match the background. It was already starting to turn a sickly light green that was the building’s wall color. It was a spectacular creature, really.

“Oh, this poor thing isn’t safe here,” she said. Plywood mills are inherently dangerous places for people and she was imputing those dangers to the moth. After all, at least people understand and can mostly protect themselves from racing front end loaders, screaming saw blades, flying wood chips, slamming steel conveyor systems, overhead cranes carrying large heavy objects and the like. This poor moth had made a bad choice for a place to rest.

She scooped it up in her hands and said she intended to take it into town to set it free in a safer place. So we drove into town, and stopped on Main Street to go into the post office. Once out of the car, she flung her hands into the air, releasing the moth, which then flew straight upwards.

Free, free at last! And safe, for the first 10 feet, at which point a large bird swooped in and grabbed that moth in mid-air.

My wife was left staring open mouthed at the spot where a little puffy cloud of feathery moth wing particles hovered briefly and then slowly rained down on her upturned, horrified face.


MSM Follies

I have for a while been ranting, sometimes here, but usually just to myself or the boys at the bar, about the hypocrisy and basic dishonesty of the mainstream media. The bias is blatantly liberal and progressive. Unless, of course, you’re a liberal or progressive, in which case it is, as FOX says, “fair and balanced.”
Seriously, though, you would think even the MSM would start feeling just a wee bit embarrassed about being so obviously two-faced.

Rick Perry recently said that if Bernanke and the Federal Reserve print more money it would be “treacherous,” perhaps even “treasonous” and if he might get treated “pretty ugly” if he came to Texas. Did the MSM ever howl! They are still screaming to high heaven (oops, they don’t believe in that). Yet, Biden recently called the Republicans in Congress “terrorists,” a label that any number of progressive pundits and “journalists” routinely use to describe Tea Party members. Even Obama has exhorted his followers to bring “guns to a knife fight” with his “enemies.”

A lot of people, me included, get upset with the unfairness of it, thinking that the MSM has the power to and does shape opinion far and wide. If it weren't for the extremely liberal press we lament, the whole progressive house of cards would come tumbling down. Lately, however, I have been changing my mind about that.

Delusional is the word that often comes to my mind for those who believe the tripe the MSM is generally serving up as “journalism.” Indeed, I think that many in press themselves are delusional. According to my good old Webster’s ”delusional” (as I just used it) means “a false belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that persist despite the facts and is common in some psychotic states.” (That means state of mind, not California. Or does it?) That whole idea of a delusional press has been tugging at me, suggesting to me that it’s not as bad as I may think.

Does anyone listen to a delusional person besides his therapist? When confronted by a delusional person don’t we quietly back away and try not to make any threatening or sudden moves. Whatever you do, don’t make eye contact!

Is anyone paying attention to the MSM other than those who already are of the same mind, the same thinking, the same delusions? I’m beginning to think not.

Recently I ran across a neat little essay/blog by Walter Russell Mead dated August 16, 2011 in American Interest.com. Mead’s basic premise is that the MSM, far from helping the liberal agenda, actually hurts it. By constantly affirming to liberals that they are always right and the conservatives are always wrong, the MSM lulls liberals into ignoring reality and getting walloped time and again by events and outcomes they don’t understand or didn’t see coming.

Mead has some wonderful turns of phrase. Here is one that I loved.

“To the extent that they think about it — as opposed to simply letting their little lights artlessly shine — liberal journalists seem to think that acting like cheerleaders strengthens their team. It doesn’t."

That’s just about the worst insult one can give to those journalists, the ones who are “letting their little lights artlessly shine…” Ouchy mamma!

Mead starts with a discussion of the coverage and commentary on the recent Wisconsin recall elections proclaimed by most of the MSM as a victory for Democrats because they picked up two Senate seats after all the dust had settled. As Mead points out, the Republicans still hold the majority, the union busting law is still on the books and deemed constitutional, the Governor appears to be as popular as when he was elected, and to achieve this “victory” the Democrats spent scores of millions. He goes on to point to other examples such as Kerry and his war record, Gore and his pretentious elitism, and even Obama with the stimulus and cap and trade. Mead summarizes this way:

“Over and over again in modern American politics, liberals have developed “frames” and strategies for key issues that they think will shift the debate their way. Over and over again the echo chamber of the liberal press resounds with praises of the new approach. And over and over again liberals “unexpectedly” get sucker punched by conservative counter attacks a more critical press would have forecast as both inevitable and deadly.”

Mead finishes with: “Sometimes one wonders: is the liberal press secretly taking the Koch brothers’ money?”

So maybe the blatant hypocrisy of the MSM, their complete willingness to forgive liberals anything, Obama especially, and their refusal to ask any critical questions, investigate or fact check anything progressive is a good thing.

I’m beginning to think so.

More One Offs for July

Did you know that lithium batteries are considered hazardous cargo requiring special licenses, permits, containers and so on to transport? Yes sir, Federal government regulations say so. These are the same batteries found in every cell phone, iPod, laptop, and just about every other electronic device of which we all carry around one or two everywhere we go.

It’s a wonder people aren’t spontaneously combusting or exploding all over the planet from all that hazardous material we are all packing. Might this also explain what is causing all those whales to beach themselves? Possibly even global warming, er, I mean climate change?

***********************************************

Did you hear the one about MillerCoors and their license to sell beer in Minnesota?

Here is the direct quote from the Associated Press:

“Miller, Coors and other popular beers may disappear from Minnesota stores and bars within days because brewing giant MillerCoors lacks the proper licenses due to the state's government shutdown.

MillerCoors has 39 "brand label registrations" with the state that expired last month, and the employees who process renewals were laid off when state government shut down July 1 in a budget dispute, Doug Neville, a spokesman for the Department of Public Safety, said Wednesday.

State alcohol enforcement officials who remain on the job recently told officials with Chicago-based MillerCoors LLC that they need to come up with a plan soon for pulling their products he said.”

This is just gorgeous. You couldn’t make up this sort of plot, though Joseph Heller came close in Catch-22.

Cop: Sorry, Miller, but I’m going to have to run you in for not having the proper license.

Miller: Wait. I’ll get a license. Who do I talk to?

Cop: No one. The State doesn’t issue the license you need. Now, up against the wall and spread ‘em.

On a real world and practical sense note, if the budget is so bad, why lay off the license people who bring in revenue but not the cops who enforce the license and shut revenue off? With or without an up to date license, MillerCoors must generate millions in taxes from selling beer in Minnesota. All the license cops are going to do is make the budget thing worse by shutting off all that tax money in closing down the sales while spending tax money by way of their salaries and benefits as they drive around in $4 gallon state vehicles making sure no Miller cans and bottles are on the store shelves.

Do we think government of any sort is better at doing things for us than we are doing them for ourselves?

***********************************************

They caught a bunch of teachers and principals in Atlanta cheating on the standardized tests to make students score better and the teachers look like they were doing their job. This wasn’t just a one-time deal either as it appears it has been going on for a number of years. And, a bunch isn’t really descriptive enough as the number of teachers may extend into the hundreds and the principals to more than a half dozen. The cheating literally involved the teachers erasing wrong answers and marking in the right ones before turning the tests over to the scorers.

Guess whose fault it is?

Yep, that’s right: George Bush. If he hadn’t come up with that criminally insane program of No Child Left Behind which put impossible goals and standards in place, the teachers wouldn’t have to cheat to be successful. Seriously, I saw this offered in a news article, with top billing, as justification for the teachers’ actions. The problem, you see, is that the standards for learning are too high in comparison to the standards for honesty and integrity. So what do we expect teachers to do when faced with that dilemma?

Recently, the school board gave about 80 teachers and 6 principals the option to resign or be fired. Apparently the option to resign is to allow the victims, er, I mean the teachers, to preserve their reputation. One presumes this is so they will have a better opportunity to get another job without the black mark of being a cheater on their resume. One also supposes the school district will give them a nice letter of recommendation as well. That way they can get another teaching position and be just as successful in their new school.

Given the bullshit the teachers union and liberals in general are able to generate, if I was one of those teachers, I’d make them fire me because you know I could sue for wrongful termination and retire on the judgment once a liberal court got done with it. It beats having to get another teaching job at which I obviously don’t like working hard or honestly, as evidenced by what my students’ real test scores should be.

Wanna See My New Tat?

It has been far too long since I visited this page. I had every good intention of getting back on track after getting my computer restored after the crash. But, as they say, the road to hell is paved…

What brings me out of my shell, awakens the sleeping giant, got the blood stirring, roused the unwashed, etc, bad metaphor, etc, was the recent trials and tribulations of The Ohio State University football program. I’m a Duck, Duck, Duck, and I am crying no tears over the poor Buckeyes travails. And yet, I am still outraged at the whole affair. Not in the way you think, I’ll bet.

The consensus is that Ohio State’s program, its players and coach are cheaters. They knowingly broke the rules and they must all suffer, quit or be fired, and be damned forever. But what rules did they break? Notwithstanding future developments, and I for one suspect there will be more, the currently known violations are that players sold or traded their autographs and other personal property like jerseys, championship trinkets and rings, and the like for tattoos and other merchandise and possibly money. Yes, they broke NCAA rules that specifically forbid doing those things. Yes, they probably lied about it when caught. Yes, one supposes there should be penalties for these actions.

And what a bunch of no good hypocrites and rotten scoundrels that makes the rest of us.

The NCAA, colleges and universities, Nike, Budweiser, ESPN/CBS/NBC/ABC/FOX, memorabilia manufacturers, stadium vendors, parking lots, hotels, restaurants, and a host of other companies and entities large and small, collectively make billions (with a B) from college football every year. College football is just about as good as a license to print money for many.

The rest of us don’t have a thought about the fact that we send those kids onto a field to play (the lucky ones with a full ride scholarship) for the cost of their tuition and board and perhaps a small stipend. They will to a man be injured at some point and in their later years suffer from the stress and damage incurred in the few short years of their college career. Most will never play professional football; even most of the ones who are college stars will not end up making a living in professional football.

But we have a rule that says a kid cannot sell stuff that belongs to him if it in any way touches on the fact that he plays college football.

How insane is that? How hypocritical? How essentially rotten to that kid?

When the good players are in high school, the colleges start recruiting. They come sniffing around like some sort of weasels looking for something good to eat, promising, cajoling. The kids are told how wonderful they are, how good a player they are and will be, how much we love them, will love them, just come play for us. They show up on campus and the adulation from the press, boosters, coeds, and fans kicks in. Let them actually be successful on the field and before long they are treated like gods. Is it any wonder they start to wonder just what it is they can’t do if they want to do it? Can any of us doubt, if put in that position, that we would begin to understand how it is that everyone is making money off of me except me, and I really want that bitchin’ tattoo, so okay, here’s my old red jersey, and see I even signed it for you. Oh, and the kid is maybe 19 or 20.

Do you remember when the Olympics were restricted to just amateur athletes? Every four years the Russians, East Germans, and all the rest of the communist/socialist countries would send athletes to the games whose only job in their country was to train for and play their sport. Because of the different definitions applied to “socialist” workers than those in the capitalist nations, they were defined as amateurs. Of course it was a big joke; our amateurs really were (for the most part) and we policed it scrupulously. Each succeeding set of games our pimple faced kids and independently wealthy athletes were becoming less and less competitive facing these communist professionals. Finally, in a fit of rare common sense and understanding of the true nature of the situation, it was decided that western professionals could compete, too.

I know some lamented that loss of the sense of the amateur athlete. It was a shame in many ways. However, what most of us think we know about it is sort of wrong. The whole idea of “amateur athlete” was a complete fiction from the get go. It was an artificial construct of the Victorian age created by well to do men who could indulge their Grecian fantasies (there is sport and then there is sport). What distinguishes an amateur from a professional? Well, at the turn of the previous century it wasn’t just whether one got paid to play the game. It also meant, among other things for example, that an amateur should not have a personal private coach, and absolutely could not one have one in the stadium while the athlete was performing. Apparently, an amateur was not only someone who did not get paid to play the game, but also didn’t pay someone else to teach him or train him to get better at it. It just wasn’t the gentlemanly thing to do, eh what?

Why do we persist in this ridiculous notion that our college football players are “amateurs” and should remain so? Are they still amateurs if they get paid to attend the university with a scholarship? Isn’t that the same as trading their game playing for money and other valuable considerations? Why is it okay for a college to buy the services of an athlete this way, but it is not in other ways? Oh, I forgot, with a scholarship he will get an education that he might not otherwise be able to get. I guess that means that just about every college football player is poor and only plays (hires out his body and skills) so he can get an education, and that’s why we set it up this way, out of the goodness of our hearts in order to educate the needy. Please, pull the other one.

But we regulate how many scholarships and for how much each school can give, so that makes it fair and okay, right? Sure it does. It just means there is more competition for the scholarships, which naturally are only given to the best players we can get to come to our school. Let’s face it; we don’t give football scholarships to the neediest players, or to the smartest or the most personable. We give it to the ones we believe will be the best players. Why? So we can win, baby!

All this other nonsense about forbidding money from boosters or trading jerseys for tattoos is really just about controlling the NCAA franchise, which is designed to make money for the members of the NCAA and all the rest of the television, beer, and shoe companies, et al, who know on which side of the bed their golden goose is buttered.

The minute you pay kids, set them up with houses, girls and cars (wait, I think they already have that), is the minute you lose control of your slave. He’s not your slave anymore, he is a free agent. The thing about free agents is they tend to go to work for those who will pay them the most. Heavens, some schools might even try to buy a championship team by spending more than others! What kind of world would that be? No, we are much better off with our clean system where schools attract athletes on the basis of their training facilities, the quality of their coaches, the finest living and eating facilities, the chances of winning a championship and the success rate of its athletes turning professional. And let us not forget how terribly important it is to pick a college football program that also happens to belong to a school with a top ranked Sports Communication bachelors degree. That’s the way to really do amateur athletics right.

I’ll bet you don’t like the slave analogy. Okay, slave is harsh. Indentured servant is perhaps more accurate. No, still not quite right. The gist of both is right, however. Let's face it, the kids aren't under contract. Or are they? Consider, once a kid plays football for one school, and then leaves that school, according to the rules in most cases he cannot play for another school the following year, but must sit out a season. Why?

Well, for one, like a non-compete contract, it provides a powerful incentive not to change schools, for a whole bunch or reasons. For another, many colleges and universities would try to hawk each other’s best players, offering ever increasing inducements to change. It would be a free for all. Yeah, sounds terrible. For the school. So what? Why is that so bad? For the rest of us I mean? For the athletes? Who actually loses in that scenario? Well, the slave owner of course, and … gee, I can’t think. No, wait, I remember. It would inevitably result in somebody paying kids to change schools and that would ruin their amateur status and make them ineligible to play. Yeah, that's it. It's about maintaining the integrity of the game.

It’s time for us to seriously reconsider the paradigm. Everybody associated with college football is getting paid real money except the athlete himself. All the rules are basically set up to protect the NCAA franchise (and its co-conspirators, I mean, business partners). All of these rules really don't have much to do with the spirit of amateurism or this figment of an idea we call the student athlete. It’s all about the money. Period.

The athletes themselves, especially those ones on scholarship, are mostly still better treated and compensated than most other students on campus, but that isn’t really the point. It’s not a competition between the different kinds of student on campus, athlete or not. Do I feel sorry for the OSU football players and their coach? No. Am I defending them for breaking the rules? No. Do I condone it? No. Are they getting what they deserve? I don’t know, but I know I am not happy to see it.

I am ashamed of us, however. We’ve bought into the fantasy of NCAA football and the whole concept of the amateur football student athlete. It’s a mostly imagined concept and a false one. We’ve erected this high sanctimonious structure on top of the shaky foundation of a hypocritical system.

Changing metaphors, it smells rotten and is getting worse.