Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Thursday, July 17, 2008
The Oscars and the Dead
The death of Heath Ledger has created a firestorm of speculation regarding a possible nomination and Academy Award for best actor. Most of the articles focus on how rare it is for the Academy to bestow an award upon a dead actor.
Veteran Oscar watcher O'Neil said was quoted in an article as saying "These awards are all about hugs and there's something creepy about embracing the dead."
Funny, I though the awards were about honoring the best actors, films, filmmakers, and other film production staffs. If the best just happens to pass away during that year this makes his/her work no longer the best? The person was alive while the work was created, just not during award season!
This just shows that the awards are not about honoring the best in the business. The voting is not based on who was the best but on who the voter "feels" is most deserving at that time of the award, regardless of the quality of the competition. This is how we get Shakespeare in Love and George Clooney Oscars.
Why bother to honor the dead? It is not like they can personally get the award. Hollywood likes a story and celebrates its own history. That is why the Oscars are called the 75th Oscars and not the 2008 Oscars. Near the end of every Oscar telecast there is a montage film of those actors and industry participants who passed away during that year. Hollywood needs the dead and should honor a deserving dead actor.
This entire discussion could be moot if another actor puts on a stronger performance or a strong performance which is equally deserving of an Oscar. But the debate about whether or not to grant a posthumous award at all, even to a deserving recipient is ridiculous.
Veteran Oscar watcher O'Neil said was quoted in an article as saying "These awards are all about hugs and there's something creepy about embracing the dead."
Funny, I though the awards were about honoring the best actors, films, filmmakers, and other film production staffs. If the best just happens to pass away during that year this makes his/her work no longer the best? The person was alive while the work was created, just not during award season!
This just shows that the awards are not about honoring the best in the business. The voting is not based on who was the best but on who the voter "feels" is most deserving at that time of the award, regardless of the quality of the competition. This is how we get Shakespeare in Love and George Clooney Oscars.
Why bother to honor the dead? It is not like they can personally get the award. Hollywood likes a story and celebrates its own history. That is why the Oscars are called the 75th Oscars and not the 2008 Oscars. Near the end of every Oscar telecast there is a montage film of those actors and industry participants who passed away during that year. Hollywood needs the dead and should honor a deserving dead actor.
This entire discussion could be moot if another actor puts on a stronger performance or a strong performance which is equally deserving of an Oscar. But the debate about whether or not to grant a posthumous award at all, even to a deserving recipient is ridiculous.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Article Featuring Me: Online Education
I just dug this article up. The article was about online degrees and the reasons people obtain them. I was featured in the article as an online student.
Everything in the article is true, except for the MBA part. I probably won't complete that until 2010.
http://jobs.aol.com/article/onlinecampus/_a/speed-up-your-degree-opt-for-an/20071002131309990001
Everything in the article is true, except for the MBA part. I probably won't complete that until 2010.
http://jobs.aol.com/article/onlinecampus/_a/speed-up-your-degree-opt-for-an/20071002131309990001
Israel Returns Prisoners in Exchange for Dead Soldiers: Corrupt and Morally Bankrupt Actions
On Wednesday, 16 July 2008, the Israeli government exchanged live criminals in exchange for two dead soldiers’ remains. This was a result of a near unanimous decision in the Israeli parliament. New organizations are billing this as a close to the 2006 war which resulted from the kidnapping of the now returned soldiers’ bodies. The Israeli government has had a long standing policy of bringing their “boys” home, dead or alive at all costs.
The question I ask is: “What is the cost of such an exchange?”
It is mandatory that Israelis citizens of age must serve in the military. There are some exceptions to this but by and large, everyone serves in some capacity. I have not heard of any movement to abolish the mandatory service policy so I will assume that it will stay in place for the long term future.Therefore, there is no need for the military to have a public relations or marketing campaign to attract recruits. Surely, this policy would serve such a need but the need does not exist.
This leaves only two beneficiaries of the return policy: the deceased’s family and politicians.
I understand the idea of giving closure to the families of kidnapped of missing soldiers. An exchange does not solve this problem without possibly creating more families of deceased citizens as a result of repeat murderous offenses by those released. Israel has placed getting closure for these families above the lives of all other families in Israel.
I am not trying to be crass or insensitive, but a kidnapped soldier or a missing soldier should, given the nature of the enemy, be presumed dead. The only thing a returned body allows for is that single family to benefit. Why does it matter where the dead body is buried? Will those families offer solace to the new families that bury their children, brothers, sisters, and other loved ones in the same cemetery as a result of a repeated offense by one of the freed prisoners or the new and dangerous assaults made by an emboldened enemy?
It was an uneven exchange. The trade was not criminal for criminal or soldier for soldier. A murderous criminal serving a life sentence is not the equivalence of a victim of a crime or a soldier in a professional state army. A soldier is a defender of his government’s orders and policies. A murderer serves no purpose other than his own. It is not sanctioned by the government (although in this case it was recognized by the government as such). It is a private act of rage and destruction against a private citizen.
The international community has been absent in recognizing and distinguishing the types of prisoners that each side has. Israel should not be asked to return criminals in exchange for soldiers. These soldiers were kidnapped by an enemy state or government or group recognized by the government as a legitimate military force. As such, rules of combat should apply.
Imagine if Mexico kidnapped two American soldiers at the border and in exchange for the return of their remains wanted 400 Mexican gang members to be returned to their homeland. To take this one step further, these gang members would be set free upon their return and welcomed home as heroes. Even more, what if one of the gang members had murdered a Los Angeles police officer, a father right in front of his daughter, then the daughter, and caused the mother to smother her child in a failed attempt at saving both their lives from his murderous intentions? Now let us suppose such a deal is made. There is still a real possibility that those gang member prisoners can come back into the country and commit further crimes. Are you outraged? Does it seem uneven, even pointless to exchange the prisoners for the dead?
The international community, especially the German mediator, touted the exchange as necessary and a positive step in the right direction for the two sides. This statement shows a clear bias against the citizens of Israel. The government has acted in a corrupt and morally bankrupt manner in approving the exchanges. Political expediency and short-sighted thinking lead to a failed policy and a series of actions by the government that places a greater value on the dead than the living. By negotiating this exchange the International community and Israeli government legitimize the actions of the terrorist states and organizations. This creates a legitimate mode of action for the terrorists to free their criminal brethren.
The cost is too high. May the soldiers rest in peace, but perhaps they should not do so in Israel at the cost of future dead Israeli citizens. May the families find comfort in life, but not at the cost of future Israeli families losing a loved one. This policy must end.
The question I ask is: “What is the cost of such an exchange?”
It is mandatory that Israelis citizens of age must serve in the military. There are some exceptions to this but by and large, everyone serves in some capacity. I have not heard of any movement to abolish the mandatory service policy so I will assume that it will stay in place for the long term future.Therefore, there is no need for the military to have a public relations or marketing campaign to attract recruits. Surely, this policy would serve such a need but the need does not exist.
This leaves only two beneficiaries of the return policy: the deceased’s family and politicians.
I understand the idea of giving closure to the families of kidnapped of missing soldiers. An exchange does not solve this problem without possibly creating more families of deceased citizens as a result of repeat murderous offenses by those released. Israel has placed getting closure for these families above the lives of all other families in Israel.
I am not trying to be crass or insensitive, but a kidnapped soldier or a missing soldier should, given the nature of the enemy, be presumed dead. The only thing a returned body allows for is that single family to benefit. Why does it matter where the dead body is buried? Will those families offer solace to the new families that bury their children, brothers, sisters, and other loved ones in the same cemetery as a result of a repeated offense by one of the freed prisoners or the new and dangerous assaults made by an emboldened enemy?
It was an uneven exchange. The trade was not criminal for criminal or soldier for soldier. A murderous criminal serving a life sentence is not the equivalence of a victim of a crime or a soldier in a professional state army. A soldier is a defender of his government’s orders and policies. A murderer serves no purpose other than his own. It is not sanctioned by the government (although in this case it was recognized by the government as such). It is a private act of rage and destruction against a private citizen.
The international community has been absent in recognizing and distinguishing the types of prisoners that each side has. Israel should not be asked to return criminals in exchange for soldiers. These soldiers were kidnapped by an enemy state or government or group recognized by the government as a legitimate military force. As such, rules of combat should apply.
Imagine if Mexico kidnapped two American soldiers at the border and in exchange for the return of their remains wanted 400 Mexican gang members to be returned to their homeland. To take this one step further, these gang members would be set free upon their return and welcomed home as heroes. Even more, what if one of the gang members had murdered a Los Angeles police officer, a father right in front of his daughter, then the daughter, and caused the mother to smother her child in a failed attempt at saving both their lives from his murderous intentions? Now let us suppose such a deal is made. There is still a real possibility that those gang member prisoners can come back into the country and commit further crimes. Are you outraged? Does it seem uneven, even pointless to exchange the prisoners for the dead?
The international community, especially the German mediator, touted the exchange as necessary and a positive step in the right direction for the two sides. This statement shows a clear bias against the citizens of Israel. The government has acted in a corrupt and morally bankrupt manner in approving the exchanges. Political expediency and short-sighted thinking lead to a failed policy and a series of actions by the government that places a greater value on the dead than the living. By negotiating this exchange the International community and Israeli government legitimize the actions of the terrorist states and organizations. This creates a legitimate mode of action for the terrorists to free their criminal brethren.
The cost is too high. May the soldiers rest in peace, but perhaps they should not do so in Israel at the cost of future dead Israeli citizens. May the families find comfort in life, but not at the cost of future Israeli families losing a loved one. This policy must end.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Published Letter to the Editor of LA Times
I wrote a letter to the LA Times this week and it was published. Below are the links to both the article and the letter! The story pertained to the screening of inmates by the Sheriff Department for immigration status. I commented on the "sad" story of a Mexican immigrant who was about to be deported for the third or fourth time who has a wife and kids at home.
The Article: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/immigration/la-me-immigjail22-2008jun22,0,2078919.story
The Letter: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/letters/la-le-wednesday25-2008jun25,0,5377661,full.story
The Article: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/immigration/la-me-immigjail22-2008jun22,0,2078919.story
The Letter: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/letters/la-le-wednesday25-2008jun25,0,5377661,full.story
Monday, June 23, 2008
Diversity and Tolerance: The Culture Wars
Last "holiday season" a rabbi filed suit against a Seattle Airport in order to have a Chanuka Menorah placed alongside the usual Christmas Tree (or is it Holiday Tree now?). While many people were mad at him for possibly having the tree removed, as it almost was, I am more upset that there is a tree up in the first place. While many might disagree with me politically regarding what a government should and should not do, I cannot see that anyone can really argue that government spending on any decorations for any holiday are warranted or even an acceptable use of public funds. If a private business chooses to place a decoration up that is their business.
In recent years Target has been criticized for taking the word Christmas out of the store sales and making it merely a "Winter Holiday Season.” Many people are upset over this but Target is a business and I can only assume that in an effort to best serve its customers it made an educated choice which a private (not governmentally owned) business may do.
The main reason for all of this hullabaloo is that diversity has created a climate where we expect all cultures to be represented or at least have a chance at being represented in every situation. This exposure to the cultures of others, while enlightening, has actually watered down the cultures into marketable clichés. A Christmas tree somehow became the symbol of a Christian holy day and a marketable symbol at that. The holidays of Kwanzaa and Chanuka are treated as sidekicks to Christmas just because they happen to fall during the same so called “holiday season.” Christmas and Chanuka have absolutely nothing in common. They are probably the anti-thesis of each other if one really studies the true meaning and history of each.
When diversity makes all cultures seem relative to each other the real differences are masked. It is for this reason people like quotes such as “we are all people” or “we all live on the same planet” or “can’t we all just get along?” and forget that individual cultures have different views on what behavior is acceptable and what getting along means. While a Muslim community in the Middle East may be viewed as backwards in their treatment of women or how they live, this is their culture. Any attempt to homogenize them or incorporate modern notions of the best way to live would destroy that culture.
Are some cultures worth destroying? That depends upon the particular view of each culture and within it, the majority of its participants. Certainly, any culture has a right to defend its way of life. The resulting wars and killings may seem harsh but are necessary for the preservation of civil societies. By civil societies I mean independent cultures that operate on their own and take care of the needs of the people within the culture.
Diversity in its current incarnation has created a world of supposed equality amongst cultures. The results are terrible. It has become impossible for any culture to attempt to defend itself without being told by the UN to stop or risk sanctions. The West fights the East and the Islamic Terrorists fight the World. Meanwhile, people think that if we all just understand each other a bit better we will avoid all this strife. By “understand” they mean let things go that are fundamental to the very core of their own culture. How can a Jewish person let go of an ingrained hatred of Jews by the Palestinians? How can the feminists let go of their belief that women should be equal to men? Certainly in a country with Islamic rule this will not happen.
Should we then forget this and make peace anyhow?
In order for any culture to survive it must fight for its own beliefs. This is an essential characteristic of a culture. It has a definite identity and a strong identification of its members. Additionally, the members are willing to defend their culture as it exists or lose and become another culture.
As private citizens living within our own cultures and intermingling with other cultures we maintain a dual citizenship in both the outside world and our own cultures. We feel this difference every day when we deal with those outside of our own culture. The main reason American society has lasted as long as it has is due to the government’s ability to remain out of the sphere of culture and religion. This is why many oppose church and state mingling or government funding for anything other than national defense and infrastructure interests. Any more intermingling affects the individual cultures within American society and makes a homogenous society with nothing worth fighting for but much fighting about what exactly is.
In the end we have societies fighting for inconsistent reasons. This is one reason the War on Terror” is so debated. There is a large block of people that do not understand why the fight exists in the first place. Since diversity has taught them that all cultures are allowed to freely exist and no other culture may assert any dominance over another there is never a reason to fight, even when another culture actually does attempt to assert dominance over others.
I may have digressed far from my original scenario involving Christmas Trees and Chanuka Menorahs in airports but this is exactly where this scenario leads us to when all cultures must always be represented at every moment and at every time by selectively taking aspects of each and attempting, on a micro scale, to blend them into a “holiday season” or, on the macro scale, a global culture.
(This blog is a previously written piece I placed in my computer archives in anticipation of creating a blog. Now that I have a blog I am slowly editing and releasing my writings. Enjoy!)
In recent years Target has been criticized for taking the word Christmas out of the store sales and making it merely a "Winter Holiday Season.” Many people are upset over this but Target is a business and I can only assume that in an effort to best serve its customers it made an educated choice which a private (not governmentally owned) business may do.
The main reason for all of this hullabaloo is that diversity has created a climate where we expect all cultures to be represented or at least have a chance at being represented in every situation. This exposure to the cultures of others, while enlightening, has actually watered down the cultures into marketable clichés. A Christmas tree somehow became the symbol of a Christian holy day and a marketable symbol at that. The holidays of Kwanzaa and Chanuka are treated as sidekicks to Christmas just because they happen to fall during the same so called “holiday season.” Christmas and Chanuka have absolutely nothing in common. They are probably the anti-thesis of each other if one really studies the true meaning and history of each.
When diversity makes all cultures seem relative to each other the real differences are masked. It is for this reason people like quotes such as “we are all people” or “we all live on the same planet” or “can’t we all just get along?” and forget that individual cultures have different views on what behavior is acceptable and what getting along means. While a Muslim community in the Middle East may be viewed as backwards in their treatment of women or how they live, this is their culture. Any attempt to homogenize them or incorporate modern notions of the best way to live would destroy that culture.
Are some cultures worth destroying? That depends upon the particular view of each culture and within it, the majority of its participants. Certainly, any culture has a right to defend its way of life. The resulting wars and killings may seem harsh but are necessary for the preservation of civil societies. By civil societies I mean independent cultures that operate on their own and take care of the needs of the people within the culture.
Diversity in its current incarnation has created a world of supposed equality amongst cultures. The results are terrible. It has become impossible for any culture to attempt to defend itself without being told by the UN to stop or risk sanctions. The West fights the East and the Islamic Terrorists fight the World. Meanwhile, people think that if we all just understand each other a bit better we will avoid all this strife. By “understand” they mean let things go that are fundamental to the very core of their own culture. How can a Jewish person let go of an ingrained hatred of Jews by the Palestinians? How can the feminists let go of their belief that women should be equal to men? Certainly in a country with Islamic rule this will not happen.
Should we then forget this and make peace anyhow?
In order for any culture to survive it must fight for its own beliefs. This is an essential characteristic of a culture. It has a definite identity and a strong identification of its members. Additionally, the members are willing to defend their culture as it exists or lose and become another culture.
As private citizens living within our own cultures and intermingling with other cultures we maintain a dual citizenship in both the outside world and our own cultures. We feel this difference every day when we deal with those outside of our own culture. The main reason American society has lasted as long as it has is due to the government’s ability to remain out of the sphere of culture and religion. This is why many oppose church and state mingling or government funding for anything other than national defense and infrastructure interests. Any more intermingling affects the individual cultures within American society and makes a homogenous society with nothing worth fighting for but much fighting about what exactly is.
In the end we have societies fighting for inconsistent reasons. This is one reason the War on Terror” is so debated. There is a large block of people that do not understand why the fight exists in the first place. Since diversity has taught them that all cultures are allowed to freely exist and no other culture may assert any dominance over another there is never a reason to fight, even when another culture actually does attempt to assert dominance over others.
I may have digressed far from my original scenario involving Christmas Trees and Chanuka Menorahs in airports but this is exactly where this scenario leads us to when all cultures must always be represented at every moment and at every time by selectively taking aspects of each and attempting, on a micro scale, to blend them into a “holiday season” or, on the macro scale, a global culture.
(This blog is a previously written piece I placed in my computer archives in anticipation of creating a blog. Now that I have a blog I am slowly editing and releasing my writings. Enjoy!)
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Scripps Spelling Bee
After a long day of errands, studying, and drivng I decided to sit down and watch the Scripps Spelling Bee that I DVRed over Memorial Day Weekend. The annual event was televised by ABC and actually gets some ratings. I find it ho-hum that these kids can spell as well as they do but amused at the way they do it. Wthout fail they all ask for the word to be used in a sentence, the form of the word, alternate pronunctiations, and origins. After asking this, they again want it in a sentence or ask other questions. Then they spell it and get all happy when they get it right.
While the ability to spell is amazing in today's modern world of spell check, it would be even more amazing if the kids knew the meaning of the words they can spell. The spelling bee is a memorization contest. Oddly enough, the commentators make claims that some are more experienced or are favored to win it all. How can someone be more experienced? The words change every time. It does not matter how many times you have been in the finals before, the next time is a completely different game. Also, favored to win? Do they follow the contestants around and see their study routines or something? How does one pick a favorite in the spelling bee?
The kids also look like social misfits. The kids look like they spend their entire lives reading a dictionary. This is as cool as they will ever be! They get to be on TV, interviewed between rounds about how they feel and their approach. "What was going through your mind as you were trying to spell ommateal (of, relating to, or having compound eyes, adjective)?" Answer "I was trying to remember the letters of the alphabet."
Why does the bee have an age limit? Is an adult expected to know how to spell words like boulangere (cooked with sliced onions in a casserole, adjectve)? Doubtful. I would love to see an adult bee or one with the definitions as well!
While the ability to spell is amazing in today's modern world of spell check, it would be even more amazing if the kids knew the meaning of the words they can spell. The spelling bee is a memorization contest. Oddly enough, the commentators make claims that some are more experienced or are favored to win it all. How can someone be more experienced? The words change every time. It does not matter how many times you have been in the finals before, the next time is a completely different game. Also, favored to win? Do they follow the contestants around and see their study routines or something? How does one pick a favorite in the spelling bee?
The kids also look like social misfits. The kids look like they spend their entire lives reading a dictionary. This is as cool as they will ever be! They get to be on TV, interviewed between rounds about how they feel and their approach. "What was going through your mind as you were trying to spell ommateal (of, relating to, or having compound eyes, adjective)?" Answer "I was trying to remember the letters of the alphabet."
Why does the bee have an age limit? Is an adult expected to know how to spell words like boulangere (cooked with sliced onions in a casserole, adjectve)? Doubtful. I would love to see an adult bee or one with the definitions as well!
Thursday, May 8, 2008
American Idol - My Idea for a New and Better Format
This season of American Idol has been the lowest rated season despite the assertion by those running the show that it is the most talented edition yet. The reason for this is that the show has taken on an identity apart from its stated purpose. The cast has become the focus, not the goal.
Randy Jackson. Paula Abdul, Simon Cowell, and Ryan Seacrest have taken over the show. Instead of the audience intensely listening to the contestants sing and judging them by each performance, the audience is waiting to hear what the judges have to say. Will Randy call his dogs? How will Paula act (crazy or sane)? What insulting line will Simon throw at the contestant? How much longer can Ryan Seacrest drag out the show and trade meaningless and repetitive barbs with Simon?
The show needs to rededicate itself to finding a talented musical/singing artist that America will root for and support. To do this, the focus needs to be on the talent, not the glitz of the show.
The initial round of the show is always the lousy auditions. This needs to be stopped. It is entertaining but totally useless to the competition. Save it for a mid-season special or the DVD extras! Instead, add more layers to the selection process.
Perhaps the show should even find a way to open the auditions up to the public by posting audition tapes on a web-site and asking viewers to rate the singers. The highest rated would then advance to the first round of auditions.
Instead of narrowing it down to the top 24, have the top 50. Introduce the 50 during the premiere. Show some footage of each and their back story. Then, the next episode would start the competition.
Randy Jackson. Paula Abdul, Simon Cowell, and Ryan Seacrest have taken over the show. Instead of the audience intensely listening to the contestants sing and judging them by each performance, the audience is waiting to hear what the judges have to say. Will Randy call his dogs? How will Paula act (crazy or sane)? What insulting line will Simon throw at the contestant? How much longer can Ryan Seacrest drag out the show and trade meaningless and repetitive barbs with Simon?
The show needs to rededicate itself to finding a talented musical/singing artist that America will root for and support. To do this, the focus needs to be on the talent, not the glitz of the show.
The initial round of the show is always the lousy auditions. This needs to be stopped. It is entertaining but totally useless to the competition. Save it for a mid-season special or the DVD extras! Instead, add more layers to the selection process.
Perhaps the show should even find a way to open the auditions up to the public by posting audition tapes on a web-site and asking viewers to rate the singers. The highest rated would then advance to the first round of auditions.
Instead of narrowing it down to the top 24, have the top 50. Introduce the 50 during the premiere. Show some footage of each and their back story. Then, the next episode would start the competition.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Democratic Presidential Nominee Selection Process: Problems and Some Solutions
The Process:
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are locked in an unprecedented contest for the Democratic Party nominee for President of the United States. Many in the party feel the contest has gone on too long and is ruining the party's chances of success in the general elections come November. This problem is entirely of the Democratic Party's own making and those that are clamoring for someone to drop out are being hypocrites.
The whole point of a nomination process with multiple primaries spaced out over the course of six months is to allow the ebbs and flows of a campaign to present itself to the voting public. There are several elements to look at with regard to the counting of delegates and the naming of the nominee:
Primaries and Caucases - Some are winner take all, others are proportional. Either way, candidates are awarded delegates bases on these events. The general public votes to award the candidate the delegates.
Super Delegates - These are select individuals within the Democratic Party who have an extra vote, not counting the primaries and caucases. They may vote any way they choose and shift the delegate count.
Popular Vote - While the winner of this does not get a prize at all for this "accomplishment," Mrs. Clinton has been touting this as her saving grace.
The Problems:
The complaint is that the process has gone on too long! Wait a minute! Many states wanted to move their primaries earlier in the process and were told not to do so. In fact, Florida and Michigan were punished for doing just that. If those votes were counted, perhaps people would be calling for Obama to resign from the race.
The super delegates are also keeping the race alive. As long as Hillary Clinton can show she has the support of main stream voters she can still win the nomination because the super delegates are tasked with selecting the most electable candidate if the electorate is skewed by fringe elements. It seems in this case that African-American (black) voters have been coming out in larger than usual numbers and almost 90% are voting for Obama. The super delegates may look at this and do either one of two things. 1) They may believe that the black voters will not turn out in such numbers in a general election or even with such a large percentage of black voters, when the candidate is pitted against the Republican nominee it will not be enough to overcome a deficit of votes and win the general election. 2) The superdelegates can select Obama because he has won the most delegates in primaries and caucases.
The Solutions:
The best way, in my ever to be humble opinion, to cure this would be to have a primary month or maybe two months. They should be held closer to the convention. This would force candidates to focus their campaigns on a broad platform. This would eliminate changing of positions after one primary to placate the voters in the next one, or pandering to different groups. A candidate would have to show his (or her) actual politics and make the nation believe that he (or she) is a national leader! After all, they are not running for governor of the individual states they are campaigning in, they are running for President of the United States.
Another solution is either to remove the super delegate option or have them vote earlier in the process, maybe before the primaries so as not to be swayed by the popular vote and bandwagon effect.
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are locked in an unprecedented contest for the Democratic Party nominee for President of the United States. Many in the party feel the contest has gone on too long and is ruining the party's chances of success in the general elections come November. This problem is entirely of the Democratic Party's own making and those that are clamoring for someone to drop out are being hypocrites.
The whole point of a nomination process with multiple primaries spaced out over the course of six months is to allow the ebbs and flows of a campaign to present itself to the voting public. There are several elements to look at with regard to the counting of delegates and the naming of the nominee:
Primaries and Caucases - Some are winner take all, others are proportional. Either way, candidates are awarded delegates bases on these events. The general public votes to award the candidate the delegates.
Super Delegates - These are select individuals within the Democratic Party who have an extra vote, not counting the primaries and caucases. They may vote any way they choose and shift the delegate count.
Popular Vote - While the winner of this does not get a prize at all for this "accomplishment," Mrs. Clinton has been touting this as her saving grace.
The Problems:
The complaint is that the process has gone on too long! Wait a minute! Many states wanted to move their primaries earlier in the process and were told not to do so. In fact, Florida and Michigan were punished for doing just that. If those votes were counted, perhaps people would be calling for Obama to resign from the race.
The super delegates are also keeping the race alive. As long as Hillary Clinton can show she has the support of main stream voters she can still win the nomination because the super delegates are tasked with selecting the most electable candidate if the electorate is skewed by fringe elements. It seems in this case that African-American (black) voters have been coming out in larger than usual numbers and almost 90% are voting for Obama. The super delegates may look at this and do either one of two things. 1) They may believe that the black voters will not turn out in such numbers in a general election or even with such a large percentage of black voters, when the candidate is pitted against the Republican nominee it will not be enough to overcome a deficit of votes and win the general election. 2) The superdelegates can select Obama because he has won the most delegates in primaries and caucases.
The Solutions:
The best way, in my ever to be humble opinion, to cure this would be to have a primary month or maybe two months. They should be held closer to the convention. This would force candidates to focus their campaigns on a broad platform. This would eliminate changing of positions after one primary to placate the voters in the next one, or pandering to different groups. A candidate would have to show his (or her) actual politics and make the nation believe that he (or she) is a national leader! After all, they are not running for governor of the individual states they are campaigning in, they are running for President of the United States.
Another solution is either to remove the super delegate option or have them vote earlier in the process, maybe before the primaries so as not to be swayed by the popular vote and bandwagon effect.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Fixing the US Presidential Nomination Scheme
The current chaos in the Democratic party has people wondering what exactly is going on with the vote. It is very clear that some election reform is needed to make the process more transparent and less open to fraud.
Currently, the two main parties recieve government funding to assist them in running an election to choose their presidential candidate. This funding is a way for the two parties to maintain their absolute power over the government of the United States.
I propose that no government funding be given to either party to assist them in staging an election. The parties should be considered private organizations and have to seek funding like any other private club, from membership.
Primaries, at least in their current incarnation, would be eliminated. Each party would be free to set up its own voting standard and have to pay for them.
In order to get on the National ballot a party must have a certain number of memberships or, if the party is not able to gain enough membership, they may submit a determined number of signatures. Then the national ballot will be set, party wise. After this qualification, parties may hold a primary to select a candidate. Since this would be a private process, the parties may do this any way they choose.
Currently, people register for a political party and participate in that party's primary process. The only difference would be that, under my plan, members might have to pay or perform some other service for the party to gain membership. This would promote a more honest membership system. People would be less inclined to change their party allegience just to cause chaos in the system. This would also give an opportunity for more political parties to enter the national government. This would be a good thing since diversity in government might promote new ideas and alternatives that the two party system either ignores or fails to address.
I am proposing that the primaries be a private affair. The national election would still be open to everyone who is registered to vote.
Currently, the two main parties recieve government funding to assist them in running an election to choose their presidential candidate. This funding is a way for the two parties to maintain their absolute power over the government of the United States.
I propose that no government funding be given to either party to assist them in staging an election. The parties should be considered private organizations and have to seek funding like any other private club, from membership.
Primaries, at least in their current incarnation, would be eliminated. Each party would be free to set up its own voting standard and have to pay for them.
In order to get on the National ballot a party must have a certain number of memberships or, if the party is not able to gain enough membership, they may submit a determined number of signatures. Then the national ballot will be set, party wise. After this qualification, parties may hold a primary to select a candidate. Since this would be a private process, the parties may do this any way they choose.
Currently, people register for a political party and participate in that party's primary process. The only difference would be that, under my plan, members might have to pay or perform some other service for the party to gain membership. This would promote a more honest membership system. People would be less inclined to change their party allegience just to cause chaos in the system. This would also give an opportunity for more political parties to enter the national government. This would be a good thing since diversity in government might promote new ideas and alternatives that the two party system either ignores or fails to address.
I am proposing that the primaries be a private affair. The national election would still be open to everyone who is registered to vote.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Fixing the NBA: The League, The Playoffs, The All-Star Game, The Draft, and the Last Minutes of the Game
The NBA has a major problem on its hands. The Eastern Conference is largely comprised of mediocre and downright awful teams. The Western Conference seems to get stronger and more competitive every year. The problem is most glaring when it comes to seeding for the post season. Teams with better records are being left out of the playoffs instead of teams with lousy records simply because they play in a different conference. Additionally, a lousy team can win a division and make the playoffs, and be seeded higher up, whereas a better team in a different division can be seeded lower or miss the playoffs altogether.
Several factors have led to this but the problem can be fixed in a simple manner. The league must remove the conference and division distinctions. Teams would play an even schedule. This gives a true indication of which team is truly the best, not just in the East or West. Analysts could measure them by how they played league-wide without the debate and controversy which accompanies divisions, conference separations, and an uneven schedule.
Instead of the top 8 teams in each conference making the post season, the top 16 teams would make the playoffs. By doing so, the NBA would have 30 teams, all competing against each other for seeding. However, only the best teams would make the playoffs. No team with a worse record will ever make the playoffs over a team with a better record. Teams should also be reseeded after each round. The playoffs would be best of seven games all the way through.
This also removes the need for a draft lottery. Since all teams will be ranked against each other evenly, on a scale of 1 to 30, the worst team will get the number one pick and so on, all the way up to the number one team.
The all-star game would be coached by the two coaches of the past year’s finals teams and the players could be selected by those coaches in a draft consisting of players in a pool created by the fans in a vote.
In addition to the league structure and playoff system I also would like to see the game speed up and stay fast until the end. Too many fouls occur at the end of close games which make the last 2 minutes of a game take more than 10. I propose that these fouls, which occur where a defensive player obviously attacks the offensive player rather than the ball, be treated as technical fouls resulting in 2 shots and possession of the ball.
Another problem facing the league is the NBA draft and the age of players. The NBA should allow players to join the league after high school. I have never heard a job qualification in the business world which read “Must have some college experience.” The NBA seems to be asking that high-school graduates attend a single year of college just so they can be cultivated. Most would agree that one year of college does not add enough of a growth in maturity and in skill level to make a significant or even minimal difference in the level of play at the professional level. Teams should be free to evaluate all the talent and decide for themselves if the high school graduate has the level of skills they desire for their franchise. More likely than not, the player will not be ready. However, allowing high school graduates to directly enter the work force in the NBA would not foreclose the possibility that a phenomena like LeBron James will be made ineligible until after he attends one year at Akron University!
Several factors have led to this but the problem can be fixed in a simple manner. The league must remove the conference and division distinctions. Teams would play an even schedule. This gives a true indication of which team is truly the best, not just in the East or West. Analysts could measure them by how they played league-wide without the debate and controversy which accompanies divisions, conference separations, and an uneven schedule.
Instead of the top 8 teams in each conference making the post season, the top 16 teams would make the playoffs. By doing so, the NBA would have 30 teams, all competing against each other for seeding. However, only the best teams would make the playoffs. No team with a worse record will ever make the playoffs over a team with a better record. Teams should also be reseeded after each round. The playoffs would be best of seven games all the way through.
This also removes the need for a draft lottery. Since all teams will be ranked against each other evenly, on a scale of 1 to 30, the worst team will get the number one pick and so on, all the way up to the number one team.
The all-star game would be coached by the two coaches of the past year’s finals teams and the players could be selected by those coaches in a draft consisting of players in a pool created by the fans in a vote.
In addition to the league structure and playoff system I also would like to see the game speed up and stay fast until the end. Too many fouls occur at the end of close games which make the last 2 minutes of a game take more than 10. I propose that these fouls, which occur where a defensive player obviously attacks the offensive player rather than the ball, be treated as technical fouls resulting in 2 shots and possession of the ball.
Another problem facing the league is the NBA draft and the age of players. The NBA should allow players to join the league after high school. I have never heard a job qualification in the business world which read “Must have some college experience.” The NBA seems to be asking that high-school graduates attend a single year of college just so they can be cultivated. Most would agree that one year of college does not add enough of a growth in maturity and in skill level to make a significant or even minimal difference in the level of play at the professional level. Teams should be free to evaluate all the talent and decide for themselves if the high school graduate has the level of skills they desire for their franchise. More likely than not, the player will not be ready. However, allowing high school graduates to directly enter the work force in the NBA would not foreclose the possibility that a phenomena like LeBron James will be made ineligible until after he attends one year at Akron University!
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Welfare Systems Inherently Fail
Poverty is a global problem which occurs because of ineffective resource allocation. Resources are not centrally located, nor can they be. A global allocation system is impossible because it lacks the ability to collect and allocate the resources. The attempt to properly allocate resources has led to the formation of societies. Societies in turn have created governments to act as gatekeepers and create an orderly resource allocation scheme. However, a local society (all governments are a form of local society) lacks sufficient resources within its jurisdiction to provide every resource to every member.
All resource allocation schemes are inherently flawed. Resources can never be properly allocated. As such, there will always be those who have and those that do not. No individual can overcome this. Therefore, individuals acting as a society have set up governments to act as resource gatekeepers. Governments can only attempt to alleviate resource inequity by passing regulations on what resources are available to its citizens and how they may be used. A government can directly control resources or indirectly control resources. Governments directly control resources which are within their territorial jurisdiction. So long as the resource is only available in their territorial jurisdiction, they have absolute control over its allocation. Governments have indirect control over resources outside of their territorial jurisdiction through trading of resources. To make the trading of resources easier, all governments have created a monetary system. The money one has in his hand has a value and can be traded for resources up to the value in hand.
I posit that governmental control of the monetary system is the primary cause of inequity in resource allocation. I further posit that there is no system available that can ever equitably allocate resources.
In order to have a monetary system, the paper bills must be backed by a resource of value. This resource must be held in the control of the government. It is, in essence, largely taken off the market. Additionally, those in power force everyone within the jurisdiction of the government to use this resource as the basis for the monetary system. The government, through its leaders has by force declared that anyone who wishes engage in commerce with those under and within that government’s jurisdiction must use their currency or an equivalent thereof (foreign monetary systems using a resource that the local government has agreed can be measured against their currency).
Since government controls the very resource used in the allocation of every other resource, there can only be a finite amount and each jurisdiction has the potential for an infinite number of citizens. Messing up the equation even further is the credit system. This system allows people to possess more monetary resources than actually exist. This creates debt. Government has also used credit to allocate resources. This creates one big messy monetary system which results in perpetual deficits.
Even if a government were to balance its budget, much of that balancing is a result of credit. The money does not really exist. The only way to get out of this mess is to scrap the credit system and even this is problematic. To do so, government must legislate a resource allocation scheme which only allows a finite amount of resources to an infinite amount of resource users. Additionally, governments must base this scheme on resources which it can control 100% with no exceptions. To do so, every single resource would have to be produced and made available within its territorial jurisdiction. This is a complete impossibility as well as a utopian dream.
Only a central government which has territorial jurisdiction over the entire globe could achieve such a thing. Given all of the variables which arise, it is impossible. Resources have different value to different people both on a global level and on a local level. More importantly, resources have different value on an individual person basis. In order for a central government to properly allocate all resources, some extravagant program would have to be designed to take into account every individual person’s vale of a resource.
Governments have attempted to do away with this problem by declaring a set value for all resources and only allowing allocation of this set value to each member of society. This system fails every time for many reasons, most notably because no government controls enough of any one resource to properly sustain itself for the long run.
Governments which attempt to allow the individual citizens to allocate the resources amongst themselves fail as well because any one person can attain more of a resource than another and withhold the resource. Thus, a person who obtains a lot of land resources controls how others use that land.
Free market systems tout the ingenuity of individuals as the saving grace of the system. Progress is made by those who create a new resource which can substitute for an already existing resource, thereby reallocating the wealth through supply and demand forces. This system is aided by laws which protect ideas and inventions such as copyright and patent laws. The problem with these laws is that they are government sanctioned monopolies on resources and thereby create resource inequity.
There will always be more resource seekers than resource owners. Hence, there is a finite amount of resources available to an infinite amount of people. There is a global resource pie with a finite amount of slices. Many claim that there is an infinite amount of resources, mankind need only discover it. The problem is not in the natural existence of resources, but in the allocation system. A resource is only created by a person or entity in control of the facilities and mechanisms to bring those resources to a useful state. Also, not every person or entity is capable of creating every resource it requires or desires.
A person requires food, but must grow the food in order to have it. This requires ownership of land. Ownership is a construction enforced by government or individual might. One could purchase food from a supplier with his resources but , again, this requires some form of resource ownership enforced by government or individual might.
Welfare systems make several determinations. Chief among them, they determine what resource requires reallocation (usually it is based on money) The system must then determine the minimum acceptable level an individual should have. The system must determine who has this resource and devise a program for the reallocation of this resource to those not in possession of the minimum level and must do so without placing others below the minimum.
Incidental to this system, by removing one resource from someone, the program will always cause a less amount of another resource to be available to that person. It is impossible to measure a minimum level of every resource, as such, all welfare systems cannot fix any problem without causing another problem in another resource allocation scheme.
Taxes are a resource allocation scheme. Governments then pass legislation which allocates this tax revenue to a welfare scheme. Any government program is a form of welfare. It is assisting someone in some way. Police assists a community, the army assist the nation, infrastructure supports those that use it. Governments have the impossible task of determining the proper allocation of resources to each welfare system. No agreement amongst total-citizenry will ever be made as to the proper allocation of resources to welfare programs. Most cannot agree what welfare programs are in the proper domain of government, if any.
What is the solution? There is no solution. People only act in their own interest. Society can only hope that the culmination of all those individual acts together result in a functional society. Functional societies are those where the majority can survive and perpetuate the society. Short of this, there is no solution.
Conservative theory calls for less government intrusion but must concede that some government intrusion is required. Even amongst conservatives there is disagreement on what is a proper government intrusion.
Liberal theory calls for more government intrusion but must concede that government cannot intrude on every aspect of life sufficiently enough. Even amongst liberals there is disagreement on what is the proper limit of government intrusion.
As such, all political parties argue that their prescribed platform is the best system and seek to get elected by the citizens. Hence, the Libertarian Party has a set platform and ideology as to what government should do. Individual Libertarians, however, disagree. A society basically only functions when the individuals garner a large enough majority of supporters (with the ability to enforce their support) to place a political party in control to implement its prescribed program. Therefore, society will never be able to perfectly allocate its resources and inequitable and inefficient allocation of resources will always exist.
All resource allocation schemes are inherently flawed. Resources can never be properly allocated. As such, there will always be those who have and those that do not. No individual can overcome this. Therefore, individuals acting as a society have set up governments to act as resource gatekeepers. Governments can only attempt to alleviate resource inequity by passing regulations on what resources are available to its citizens and how they may be used. A government can directly control resources or indirectly control resources. Governments directly control resources which are within their territorial jurisdiction. So long as the resource is only available in their territorial jurisdiction, they have absolute control over its allocation. Governments have indirect control over resources outside of their territorial jurisdiction through trading of resources. To make the trading of resources easier, all governments have created a monetary system. The money one has in his hand has a value and can be traded for resources up to the value in hand.
I posit that governmental control of the monetary system is the primary cause of inequity in resource allocation. I further posit that there is no system available that can ever equitably allocate resources.
In order to have a monetary system, the paper bills must be backed by a resource of value. This resource must be held in the control of the government. It is, in essence, largely taken off the market. Additionally, those in power force everyone within the jurisdiction of the government to use this resource as the basis for the monetary system. The government, through its leaders has by force declared that anyone who wishes engage in commerce with those under and within that government’s jurisdiction must use their currency or an equivalent thereof (foreign monetary systems using a resource that the local government has agreed can be measured against their currency).
Since government controls the very resource used in the allocation of every other resource, there can only be a finite amount and each jurisdiction has the potential for an infinite number of citizens. Messing up the equation even further is the credit system. This system allows people to possess more monetary resources than actually exist. This creates debt. Government has also used credit to allocate resources. This creates one big messy monetary system which results in perpetual deficits.
Even if a government were to balance its budget, much of that balancing is a result of credit. The money does not really exist. The only way to get out of this mess is to scrap the credit system and even this is problematic. To do so, government must legislate a resource allocation scheme which only allows a finite amount of resources to an infinite amount of resource users. Additionally, governments must base this scheme on resources which it can control 100% with no exceptions. To do so, every single resource would have to be produced and made available within its territorial jurisdiction. This is a complete impossibility as well as a utopian dream.
Only a central government which has territorial jurisdiction over the entire globe could achieve such a thing. Given all of the variables which arise, it is impossible. Resources have different value to different people both on a global level and on a local level. More importantly, resources have different value on an individual person basis. In order for a central government to properly allocate all resources, some extravagant program would have to be designed to take into account every individual person’s vale of a resource.
Governments have attempted to do away with this problem by declaring a set value for all resources and only allowing allocation of this set value to each member of society. This system fails every time for many reasons, most notably because no government controls enough of any one resource to properly sustain itself for the long run.
Governments which attempt to allow the individual citizens to allocate the resources amongst themselves fail as well because any one person can attain more of a resource than another and withhold the resource. Thus, a person who obtains a lot of land resources controls how others use that land.
Free market systems tout the ingenuity of individuals as the saving grace of the system. Progress is made by those who create a new resource which can substitute for an already existing resource, thereby reallocating the wealth through supply and demand forces. This system is aided by laws which protect ideas and inventions such as copyright and patent laws. The problem with these laws is that they are government sanctioned monopolies on resources and thereby create resource inequity.
There will always be more resource seekers than resource owners. Hence, there is a finite amount of resources available to an infinite amount of people. There is a global resource pie with a finite amount of slices. Many claim that there is an infinite amount of resources, mankind need only discover it. The problem is not in the natural existence of resources, but in the allocation system. A resource is only created by a person or entity in control of the facilities and mechanisms to bring those resources to a useful state. Also, not every person or entity is capable of creating every resource it requires or desires.
A person requires food, but must grow the food in order to have it. This requires ownership of land. Ownership is a construction enforced by government or individual might. One could purchase food from a supplier with his resources but , again, this requires some form of resource ownership enforced by government or individual might.
Welfare systems make several determinations. Chief among them, they determine what resource requires reallocation (usually it is based on money) The system must then determine the minimum acceptable level an individual should have. The system must determine who has this resource and devise a program for the reallocation of this resource to those not in possession of the minimum level and must do so without placing others below the minimum.
Incidental to this system, by removing one resource from someone, the program will always cause a less amount of another resource to be available to that person. It is impossible to measure a minimum level of every resource, as such, all welfare systems cannot fix any problem without causing another problem in another resource allocation scheme.
Taxes are a resource allocation scheme. Governments then pass legislation which allocates this tax revenue to a welfare scheme. Any government program is a form of welfare. It is assisting someone in some way. Police assists a community, the army assist the nation, infrastructure supports those that use it. Governments have the impossible task of determining the proper allocation of resources to each welfare system. No agreement amongst total-citizenry will ever be made as to the proper allocation of resources to welfare programs. Most cannot agree what welfare programs are in the proper domain of government, if any.
What is the solution? There is no solution. People only act in their own interest. Society can only hope that the culmination of all those individual acts together result in a functional society. Functional societies are those where the majority can survive and perpetuate the society. Short of this, there is no solution.
Conservative theory calls for less government intrusion but must concede that some government intrusion is required. Even amongst conservatives there is disagreement on what is a proper government intrusion.
Liberal theory calls for more government intrusion but must concede that government cannot intrude on every aspect of life sufficiently enough. Even amongst liberals there is disagreement on what is the proper limit of government intrusion.
As such, all political parties argue that their prescribed platform is the best system and seek to get elected by the citizens. Hence, the Libertarian Party has a set platform and ideology as to what government should do. Individual Libertarians, however, disagree. A society basically only functions when the individuals garner a large enough majority of supporters (with the ability to enforce their support) to place a political party in control to implement its prescribed program. Therefore, society will never be able to perfectly allocate its resources and inequitable and inefficient allocation of resources will always exist.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Integrity of Politicians: Private Life of Political Candidates and Officers
The recent media frenzy surrounding the resignation of now former New York Governor, Elliot Spitzer, highlighted the growing disappointment the general public seems to have of the private conduct of its public officials. The new governor of New York, David Paterson, has admitted to having an open marriage. Many see this as an issue claiming this shows a lack of integrity. If the politician lacks integrity, how can he be trusted to properly fulfill his obligations as a public servant?
The answer is simple. It comes down to the legality and illegality of the actions the politician is engaged in. In the case of Elliot Spitzer, he was engaged in illegal conduct. Using a prostitution service in the manner he did is considered a Federal offense. New evidence reveals he may have used campaign funds to finance his sexual (mis)adventures.
Governor Paterson is engaged in legal conduct. An affair is not a crime. Bill Clinton’s affair itself was not a crime, but his perjury concerning testimony related to the affair was. Did this affair have an affect on Clinton’s policy pursuits as president? Probably not.
Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa of Los Angeles admitted to having an affair but was not engaged in illegal conduct. His problem is that he ran as a family values candidate. Most of the public would not call an affair a family value. Does this reflect on his integrity as a person? Of course it does. Does this reflect on his integrity to fulfill his obligations as mayor? Perhaps, but not likely.
The public and media should stop clamoring for perfectly moral candidates. They do not exist. Most people have moral lapses and dilemmas that they consider private. Being in public office does not make those same problems more grave, they just get exposed more often. That is the nature of the media in the United States which is driven by ratings rather than quality of the news being reported and its usefulness to the public.
To summarize, illegal activity is wrong and should be a factor in deciding the integrity of a politician as to his capacity to perform his public duties; legal activity that is just morally wrong should not!
The answer is simple. It comes down to the legality and illegality of the actions the politician is engaged in. In the case of Elliot Spitzer, he was engaged in illegal conduct. Using a prostitution service in the manner he did is considered a Federal offense. New evidence reveals he may have used campaign funds to finance his sexual (mis)adventures.
Governor Paterson is engaged in legal conduct. An affair is not a crime. Bill Clinton’s affair itself was not a crime, but his perjury concerning testimony related to the affair was. Did this affair have an affect on Clinton’s policy pursuits as president? Probably not.
Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa of Los Angeles admitted to having an affair but was not engaged in illegal conduct. His problem is that he ran as a family values candidate. Most of the public would not call an affair a family value. Does this reflect on his integrity as a person? Of course it does. Does this reflect on his integrity to fulfill his obligations as mayor? Perhaps, but not likely.
The public and media should stop clamoring for perfectly moral candidates. They do not exist. Most people have moral lapses and dilemmas that they consider private. Being in public office does not make those same problems more grave, they just get exposed more often. That is the nature of the media in the United States which is driven by ratings rather than quality of the news being reported and its usefulness to the public.
To summarize, illegal activity is wrong and should be a factor in deciding the integrity of a politician as to his capacity to perform his public duties; legal activity that is just morally wrong should not!
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Steroids and Major League Baseball
I already posted my take on how to improve the actual game of baseball in terms of its play. Now I wish to turn my attention to the public relations fiasco which has been the steroid allegations in the sport.
The Mitchel Report was supposed to be a step forward. Instead, it was a step backwards. The focus was too much on the individuals and not on the actual culture which allowed it to occur.
Instead of debating about Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds, MLB should be focusing on cleaning up the future. The past has happened and should not be revisited.
MLB needs to notify the MLBPA that it will enforce the law of the United States as well as implement a new drug testing policy which is far more reaching than the current policy. It seems that the clubhouse mentality is like the Vegas mentality. What happens in the clubhouse stays in the clubhouse. A "good samaritan" rule should be put into place whereby any player who has knowledge of another player's use of a banned substance, whether it can be tested for or not, is obligated to come forward or can face penalties such as fines or suspension. This should also apply to the teams themselves. If a trainer, team medical personell, manager, owner, president (you name it) knows a player is using a banned substance or performance enhancing drug and fails to report the player that team should face some form of punishment.
While the criminal justice system does not impose a duty on citizens to report crime, the business of MLB has a right to impose such a rule if a person or organization wishes to trade in and on the MLB name.
The MLBPA has failed its members by not seeking an implementation of a strictly adhered to drug policy with tough sanctions. While in the short term it may hurt its members financially to be suspended it will eventually hurt everyone long term because salaries are in some form tied to the revenue of the sport. If people do not feel the sport offers a legitimate athletic contest then they will not patronize the sport. One need only look to cycling where steroid problems have bogged down the sport's ability to become truly popular in the US and the credibility of its winners are forever to be questioned. MLB and the MLBPA need to recognize and come to terms with this reality.
As for Congress and their silly involvement in the issue, what exactly are they looking to find? The proper procedure is to have the US Attorney General's office look into the allegations and if there is enough evidence of a crime having been committed then they can charge the player, trainer, medical doctor (or dentist), or the baseball executive responsible. All the Capital Hearings will do is make a mockery of the situation and focus on an individual rather than the sport and league as a whole.
The Mitchel Report was supposed to be a step forward. Instead, it was a step backwards. The focus was too much on the individuals and not on the actual culture which allowed it to occur.
Instead of debating about Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds, MLB should be focusing on cleaning up the future. The past has happened and should not be revisited.
MLB needs to notify the MLBPA that it will enforce the law of the United States as well as implement a new drug testing policy which is far more reaching than the current policy. It seems that the clubhouse mentality is like the Vegas mentality. What happens in the clubhouse stays in the clubhouse. A "good samaritan" rule should be put into place whereby any player who has knowledge of another player's use of a banned substance, whether it can be tested for or not, is obligated to come forward or can face penalties such as fines or suspension. This should also apply to the teams themselves. If a trainer, team medical personell, manager, owner, president (you name it) knows a player is using a banned substance or performance enhancing drug and fails to report the player that team should face some form of punishment.
While the criminal justice system does not impose a duty on citizens to report crime, the business of MLB has a right to impose such a rule if a person or organization wishes to trade in and on the MLB name.
The MLBPA has failed its members by not seeking an implementation of a strictly adhered to drug policy with tough sanctions. While in the short term it may hurt its members financially to be suspended it will eventually hurt everyone long term because salaries are in some form tied to the revenue of the sport. If people do not feel the sport offers a legitimate athletic contest then they will not patronize the sport. One need only look to cycling where steroid problems have bogged down the sport's ability to become truly popular in the US and the credibility of its winners are forever to be questioned. MLB and the MLBPA need to recognize and come to terms with this reality.
As for Congress and their silly involvement in the issue, what exactly are they looking to find? The proper procedure is to have the US Attorney General's office look into the allegations and if there is enough evidence of a crime having been committed then they can charge the player, trainer, medical doctor (or dentist), or the baseball executive responsible. All the Capital Hearings will do is make a mockery of the situation and focus on an individual rather than the sport and league as a whole.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
