.JPG)
Occupy
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
Thursday, August 30, 2012
Armstrong's Fall from Grace
Lance Armstrong is an inspiration. As a survivor of testicular cancer, Armstrong returned to his level of athletic achievement and then surpassed it in a feat that seemed impossible. He won seven straight Tour de France championships from 1999-2005. In a sport that no one cared about, Armstrong willed Americans to pay attention to his success and be inspired by his struggle. He then turned that fame and success into a foundation that has done incredible amounts of good in terms of spread of information and fundraising for cancer research.
All of this you knew already. If you were cognizant of sports, pop culture, or that annoying person with a rubber LiveStrong bracelet, Armstrong was and still is a commercial behemoth. Last week, the US Anti Doping Association suggested that they will revoke all of Armstrong's victories and erase his name from the record book after he decided to stop fighting allegations and investigations of his alleged doping and/or use of Performance Enhancing Drugs.
So, we are left in the lurch without a satisfactory answer... He never tested positive, but there were supposedly 10 former teammates who were ready to testify under oath that Armstrong did dope during his winning stretch. Reports have also emerged that Armstrong might have been tipped off before tests, allowing him to perform 'alterations' to compensate for doping. Another clear fact is that doping is anything but uncommon. Just a cursory list of riders who either tested positive or were accused of doping is enough to make you question whether this sport is one that can be competitive without such banned practices. Watching those riders push through the Pyrenees shows me that you'd have to be insane to even try.
Lance Armstrong acted as many symbols during his seven year reign. First as a cancer survivor, but as the winning continued, more causes seemed to attach themselves to him (whether he wanted them to or not). Remember, much of this was post 9/11 during the War on Terror, where a good portion of the nation wanted nothing else but to stick their nose up at any foreign nation. Especially France. Remember Freedom Fries? Lance was going into their country and beating them at their sport. While not saying that Armstrong himself felt this way, his sheer existence fed into the unhealthy jingoistic fervor that originated with our own Bush Administration.
All during Lance's run, French newspapers (especially Le Monde) were desperately trying to find proof of cheating, something to discredit Armstrong. And through this, Lance was defiant. He never tested positive, and he was tested hundreds of times. His defiance only has one parallel in my mind - track star Marion Jones, who held as many press conferences as she could gloating that she'd never tested positive for PEDs... until she did test positive. After such a self-righteous stance of denial, the fall from grace for each has to be even more severe.
Lance will be fine. The LiveStrong Foundation has received a record amount of donations in the wake of this news, and Armstrong will be able to hold onto the fact that he never tested positive. That's something Marion Jones can't say anymore. But, it's tough to imagine that his 'golden boy' reputation will ever recover. Did he cheat? I read a book a few years ago called From Lance to Landis that chronicled a sprawling system of doping from Armstrong's time to later American Tour de France winner Floyd Landis (who has also had his title stripped). Everything in it is circumstantial, but I found it convincing.
I just don't know how to feel about this. It's tough, because I like Lance and I think his story is one that we should aspire to. But he won't be remembered the same way... and he shouldn't be. Something about Idols and their clay feet. Oh, and no one cares about cycling again.
All of this you knew already. If you were cognizant of sports, pop culture, or that annoying person with a rubber LiveStrong bracelet, Armstrong was and still is a commercial behemoth. Last week, the US Anti Doping Association suggested that they will revoke all of Armstrong's victories and erase his name from the record book after he decided to stop fighting allegations and investigations of his alleged doping and/or use of Performance Enhancing Drugs.
So, we are left in the lurch without a satisfactory answer... He never tested positive, but there were supposedly 10 former teammates who were ready to testify under oath that Armstrong did dope during his winning stretch. Reports have also emerged that Armstrong might have been tipped off before tests, allowing him to perform 'alterations' to compensate for doping. Another clear fact is that doping is anything but uncommon. Just a cursory list of riders who either tested positive or were accused of doping is enough to make you question whether this sport is one that can be competitive without such banned practices. Watching those riders push through the Pyrenees shows me that you'd have to be insane to even try.
Lance Armstrong acted as many symbols during his seven year reign. First as a cancer survivor, but as the winning continued, more causes seemed to attach themselves to him (whether he wanted them to or not). Remember, much of this was post 9/11 during the War on Terror, where a good portion of the nation wanted nothing else but to stick their nose up at any foreign nation. Especially France. Remember Freedom Fries? Lance was going into their country and beating them at their sport. While not saying that Armstrong himself felt this way, his sheer existence fed into the unhealthy jingoistic fervor that originated with our own Bush Administration.
All during Lance's run, French newspapers (especially Le Monde) were desperately trying to find proof of cheating, something to discredit Armstrong. And through this, Lance was defiant. He never tested positive, and he was tested hundreds of times. His defiance only has one parallel in my mind - track star Marion Jones, who held as many press conferences as she could gloating that she'd never tested positive for PEDs... until she did test positive. After such a self-righteous stance of denial, the fall from grace for each has to be even more severe.
Lance will be fine. The LiveStrong Foundation has received a record amount of donations in the wake of this news, and Armstrong will be able to hold onto the fact that he never tested positive. That's something Marion Jones can't say anymore. But, it's tough to imagine that his 'golden boy' reputation will ever recover. Did he cheat? I read a book a few years ago called From Lance to Landis that chronicled a sprawling system of doping from Armstrong's time to later American Tour de France winner Floyd Landis (who has also had his title stripped). Everything in it is circumstantial, but I found it convincing.
I just don't know how to feel about this. It's tough, because I like Lance and I think his story is one that we should aspire to. But he won't be remembered the same way... and he shouldn't be. Something about Idols and their clay feet. Oh, and no one cares about cycling again.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
The Rich and John Galt
I had an thought the other day, is there another reason for the fact that the largest corporations in the country have higher profits than ever yet they aren't hiring more workers? OK, other than the inherent flaws in Supply Side economics. Why would employers increase their workforce when there isn't a larger market for their products if they were given more money? They wouldn't, it's as simple as that.
My hypothesis is that their behavior is based more in ideology rather than economics. One of the sacred tomes for conservatives is Ayn Rand's gargantuan novel Atlas Shrugged. The premise of the novel is that in a dystopian future, where the 'burdens' that politicians and greedy workers place on the job creators of America, the rich all decide that America doesn't deserve their genius so they abandon the country to create a utopia somewhere else. This was done under the overarching pseudonym 'John Galt.' After the cultural impact that the novel had, the term 'Going Galt' came to signify the possibility that a similar tactic might be employed by the corporate heads in our country.
If you look at the majority of these disgustingly rich individuals (the Koch Brothers, and the Walton Family are great examples), and you can see them modeling themselves as Randian heroes in opposition to the lowly workers. Through union-busting and putting out propaganda against any talk of forming a union... they defeat the Proletariat before they even put up a fight.
My point is this, for the past 30 years our country has been operating under the premise that if we gave the wealthiest of the wealthy billions upon billions in tax cuts, they would hire more workers and grow the economy out of the goodness of the hearts. Shockingly, that hasn't happened. Any growth that we've experienced as a nation is a byproduct of bubbles that have been inflated beyond any reasonable value (Tech, Housing), only to have said bubble burst and jolt our economy into recession. The wealthy have pocketed the vast majority of this money for themselves.
I will call this phenomenon 'John Galt Syndrome.' It's the best possible situation that corporations could hope to achieve. They continue to rake in outrageous profits that they wouldn't be able to if they did really 'Go Galt,' they are able to refuse to put money into an economy that desperately needs investment and they are able to put unlimited amounts of money into political campaigns of Republicans that have vowed to regulate and ask of them even less than they are expected to now (Thanks Citizens United!). So, there you have it. Right wing ideologues are able to fulfill their ideology all while making an ungodly amount of money. And if that doesn't work, there's always government bailouts! It isn't Socialism when its given to bankers and not poor people.
I am part of the 99 Percent and I'm pretty fair in assuming that you are too. Let's change this paradigm and set up an economy that actually works.
My hypothesis is that their behavior is based more in ideology rather than economics. One of the sacred tomes for conservatives is Ayn Rand's gargantuan novel Atlas Shrugged. The premise of the novel is that in a dystopian future, where the 'burdens' that politicians and greedy workers place on the job creators of America, the rich all decide that America doesn't deserve their genius so they abandon the country to create a utopia somewhere else. This was done under the overarching pseudonym 'John Galt.' After the cultural impact that the novel had, the term 'Going Galt' came to signify the possibility that a similar tactic might be employed by the corporate heads in our country.
If you look at the majority of these disgustingly rich individuals (the Koch Brothers, and the Walton Family are great examples), and you can see them modeling themselves as Randian heroes in opposition to the lowly workers. Through union-busting and putting out propaganda against any talk of forming a union... they defeat the Proletariat before they even put up a fight.
My point is this, for the past 30 years our country has been operating under the premise that if we gave the wealthiest of the wealthy billions upon billions in tax cuts, they would hire more workers and grow the economy out of the goodness of the hearts. Shockingly, that hasn't happened. Any growth that we've experienced as a nation is a byproduct of bubbles that have been inflated beyond any reasonable value (Tech, Housing), only to have said bubble burst and jolt our economy into recession. The wealthy have pocketed the vast majority of this money for themselves.
I will call this phenomenon 'John Galt Syndrome.' It's the best possible situation that corporations could hope to achieve. They continue to rake in outrageous profits that they wouldn't be able to if they did really 'Go Galt,' they are able to refuse to put money into an economy that desperately needs investment and they are able to put unlimited amounts of money into political campaigns of Republicans that have vowed to regulate and ask of them even less than they are expected to now (Thanks Citizens United!). So, there you have it. Right wing ideologues are able to fulfill their ideology all while making an ungodly amount of money. And if that doesn't work, there's always government bailouts! It isn't Socialism when its given to bankers and not poor people.
I am part of the 99 Percent and I'm pretty fair in assuming that you are too. Let's change this paradigm and set up an economy that actually works.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Bin Laden has won, while America cheers
Osama bin Laden is dead. Ten years after the tragedy of 9/11, the figurehead of Al Qaida was shot in the head in Pakistan. The amount of euphoria that has poured out of so many Americans is kind of shocking to me. People who don't care about politics or foreign policy were on the streets shouting "USA!" And as this seemingly monumental moment in American history makes me wonder, how important is this news? And what can we learn from it?
What does this ultimately mean? Is the War on Terror over? Can we leave Afghanistan and Iraq? Are we now magically free of danger? The answer to these are obviously No. Directly after the horrific events of 9/11, world opinion was on the U.S.'s side. There was a candlelight vigil in downtown Tehran (Iran) in support of America. This proves that Islam is NOT a monolith. The world saw what radical Islam was capable and rejected it. How we got from that support to the mess that we're in now is due to the ineffective diplomacy (or lack thereof) by the Bush Administration.
Before the Afghan invasion, the Taliban offered to hand over Osama bin Laden to a third party where he could be put on trial. This could have be done without a single soldier setting foot in Afghanistan. This was unacceptable to the Bush Administration. They were using loaded terms such as 'crusade' (which hearkens back to the Christians' Crusades against Muslim 'barbarians'). Bush wanted bin Laden dead and, more importantly, the political benefits of being a wartime President and a conquering hero.
He quickly lost interest in the capture of bin Laden when there wasn't quick success. After bin Laden's escape in the mountains of Tora Bora, resources weren't allocated to finding him. Attention was turned towards convincing the American people of Iraq's involvement in the 9/11 plot. There was NEVER any proof of such connection.
It's important to look at what bin Laden's goals were. He didn't plan to topple the United States with one grandiose act, but to draw them out. In quotes, he made it quite clear what his plan was - draw the U.S. into a ground war in Asia and bleed the economy dry. His plan was to bankrupt us just the way that he and the Mujahadeen defeated the Soviet Union in their invasion of Afghanistan.
We have spent $1.2 Trillion in our wars in the Middle East, along with tax cuts and a Medicare prescription drug plan that were completely unpaid for. It's clear to see that bin Laden's strategy has been successful, as you can see by the harsh austerity proposals that are becoming more and more commonplace. If we continue these wars, the problem will only become worse. It is important to note this - Osama bin Laden has won. He has affected our economy in a near lethal way and we show no signs of wanting to reverse the damage.
I don't mean to sound 'unpatriotic,' but I am not heartened by the news of bin Laden's murder. By answering his display of violence with violence of our own, we proved that we aren't on a moral high ground in relation to terrorists. Thousands of our soldiers are dead and hundreds of thousands of Afghanis and Iraqis are dead. I don't see a winner in this. Death shouldn't be something to be cheered for.
What does this ultimately mean? Is the War on Terror over? Can we leave Afghanistan and Iraq? Are we now magically free of danger? The answer to these are obviously No. Directly after the horrific events of 9/11, world opinion was on the U.S.'s side. There was a candlelight vigil in downtown Tehran (Iran) in support of America. This proves that Islam is NOT a monolith. The world saw what radical Islam was capable and rejected it. How we got from that support to the mess that we're in now is due to the ineffective diplomacy (or lack thereof) by the Bush Administration.
Before the Afghan invasion, the Taliban offered to hand over Osama bin Laden to a third party where he could be put on trial. This could have be done without a single soldier setting foot in Afghanistan. This was unacceptable to the Bush Administration. They were using loaded terms such as 'crusade' (which hearkens back to the Christians' Crusades against Muslim 'barbarians'). Bush wanted bin Laden dead and, more importantly, the political benefits of being a wartime President and a conquering hero.
He quickly lost interest in the capture of bin Laden when there wasn't quick success. After bin Laden's escape in the mountains of Tora Bora, resources weren't allocated to finding him. Attention was turned towards convincing the American people of Iraq's involvement in the 9/11 plot. There was NEVER any proof of such connection.
It's important to look at what bin Laden's goals were. He didn't plan to topple the United States with one grandiose act, but to draw them out. In quotes, he made it quite clear what his plan was - draw the U.S. into a ground war in Asia and bleed the economy dry. His plan was to bankrupt us just the way that he and the Mujahadeen defeated the Soviet Union in their invasion of Afghanistan.
We have spent $1.2 Trillion in our wars in the Middle East, along with tax cuts and a Medicare prescription drug plan that were completely unpaid for. It's clear to see that bin Laden's strategy has been successful, as you can see by the harsh austerity proposals that are becoming more and more commonplace. If we continue these wars, the problem will only become worse. It is important to note this - Osama bin Laden has won. He has affected our economy in a near lethal way and we show no signs of wanting to reverse the damage.
I don't mean to sound 'unpatriotic,' but I am not heartened by the news of bin Laden's murder. By answering his display of violence with violence of our own, we proved that we aren't on a moral high ground in relation to terrorists. Thousands of our soldiers are dead and hundreds of thousands of Afghanis and Iraqis are dead. I don't see a winner in this. Death shouldn't be something to be cheered for.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Killing The Myth of Reagan Part One: Supply-Side Economics
Ronald Reagan is seen as a deity by a large portion of our population. According to Conservatives, he single-handedly defeated the Soviet Union and ended the Cold War, he cut taxes for everyone and brought our nation to its rightful place as the 'shining city on a hill' for the rest of the world to aspire to be. This... is a bit of a reach. Beyond the Iran-Contra scandal - which simultaneously implicated the Reagan Administration in helping an enemy state (Iran) as well as illegally arming Guerrillas in Nicaragua in direct violation of Congressional decree - the one aspect that Reagan was most popular for (Reaganomics) is deeply flawed.
Reading in textbooks, it's a bit difficult to understand what Reaganomics was exactly. We're simply supposed to nod and agree that it was great for everyone. The crux of Reaganomics was the theme of 'Supply side economics' - that if more money was given to the wealthy (the business owners), that would spur them to hire more workers, create jobs and grow the economy. To facilitate this, Reagan passed the biggest tax cut in American history. Taxes were cut for everyone, but the vast majority of them were given to the wealthy. The highest tax rate was lowered from 70% to 28%.
At first, this doesn't seem bad. We're told that tax cuts are good for everyone. No one likes taxes. But, a government needs funds to function. And while Conservatives may rail against 'Big Government,' no one can actually decide what to cut. This is a phenomenon that occurs again and again in polling. Americans want to shrink government (buying into a Conservative talking point), but when asked exactly what programs to eliminate they cannot name one. Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment insurance, Military and Education funding are hugely popular. So, with all of these programs needing funding, tax revenue needs to track their increases. This was completely undercut by Reagan's tax cuts. How was the gap bridged? Through borrowed money, adding to the National Debt. This tactic was relied upon by every single 'fiscally conservative' President from Reagan onward. Here's a link to a chart showing how the debt progressed from Jimmy Carter through George W. Bush: http://www.pensitoreview.com/Wordpress/wp-content/themes/mimbo2.2/images/Natl_Debt_Chart.jpg
This might be worth it if the growth of the economy grew exponentially. After all, these tax cuts should directly lead to job creation. There is a flaw in the Supply Side model, one that is quite obvious. If the only ones who are getting more money are the wealthy business owners, why should they hire more workers? The number of consumers wouldn't rapidly increase because those not in the top tax rates have the same amount of money. In economic terms, with demand stagnant there is no catalyst for supply to grow. If the money isn't put back into the economy, then it has to go one place - right in the richest people's pocket. In 1980, the average CEO made roughly 42 times more money than their average employee. Today, they make more than 300 times. With all this wealth concentrated in the hands of the few, it doesn't circulate through the economy. There are really only so many yachts and houses you can own. And as the rich get even richer, the poor get poorer.
The whole point of the high tax rate on the wealthy was to promote reinvestment in business. Through the high tax rates, business owners faced a stiff penalty if they decided to keep an astronomical amount from their business. If they weren't going to keep the money, then profits were usually put right back into businesses. This reinvestment paid for new factories, technology, research and development and, yes, jobs. These jobs gave the American public a larger portion of the income in the nation and increased the demand for products and services. It is this increased demand that can grow the economy consistently.
Our nation is now riddled with debt that has mainly been piled on during Republican administrations. From two perpetual wars, to even more tax cuts for the wealthy, to the Medicare Prescription Drug entitlement, huge costs have been put on the nation's credit card. The national debt is now over $14 Trillion, and Republicans are pushing to close the gap by cutting Social Services (i.e. Social Security, Medicare). These cuts will hurt low income individuals almost exclusively. I see another option - roll back the Reagan tax cuts and have the wealthy pay their share while stabilizing our economy.
The economy did grow during Reagan, which seems odd. It deceivingly appears to confirm Reaganomics' validity. Two other factors were key factors in why the economy grew and are also explanations for why our economy is in such dire shape now - deregulation and reliance on bubbles, and offshoring labor. Since this blog is huge already, I guess I'm going to have to break it into three parts. If you stuck with me this far, Thank You! This isn't the most interesting subject in the world but it's VERY important. I'll try to have Part 2 done this weekend and Part 3 done next week.
I spent this late night ranting and listening to some old school Saliva. I figured you should be able to have the same experience
Reading in textbooks, it's a bit difficult to understand what Reaganomics was exactly. We're simply supposed to nod and agree that it was great for everyone. The crux of Reaganomics was the theme of 'Supply side economics' - that if more money was given to the wealthy (the business owners), that would spur them to hire more workers, create jobs and grow the economy. To facilitate this, Reagan passed the biggest tax cut in American history. Taxes were cut for everyone, but the vast majority of them were given to the wealthy. The highest tax rate was lowered from 70% to 28%.
At first, this doesn't seem bad. We're told that tax cuts are good for everyone. No one likes taxes. But, a government needs funds to function. And while Conservatives may rail against 'Big Government,' no one can actually decide what to cut. This is a phenomenon that occurs again and again in polling. Americans want to shrink government (buying into a Conservative talking point), but when asked exactly what programs to eliminate they cannot name one. Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment insurance, Military and Education funding are hugely popular. So, with all of these programs needing funding, tax revenue needs to track their increases. This was completely undercut by Reagan's tax cuts. How was the gap bridged? Through borrowed money, adding to the National Debt. This tactic was relied upon by every single 'fiscally conservative' President from Reagan onward. Here's a link to a chart showing how the debt progressed from Jimmy Carter through George W. Bush: http://www.pensitoreview.com/Wordpress/wp-content/themes/mimbo2.2/images/Natl_Debt_Chart.jpg
This might be worth it if the growth of the economy grew exponentially. After all, these tax cuts should directly lead to job creation. There is a flaw in the Supply Side model, one that is quite obvious. If the only ones who are getting more money are the wealthy business owners, why should they hire more workers? The number of consumers wouldn't rapidly increase because those not in the top tax rates have the same amount of money. In economic terms, with demand stagnant there is no catalyst for supply to grow. If the money isn't put back into the economy, then it has to go one place - right in the richest people's pocket. In 1980, the average CEO made roughly 42 times more money than their average employee. Today, they make more than 300 times. With all this wealth concentrated in the hands of the few, it doesn't circulate through the economy. There are really only so many yachts and houses you can own. And as the rich get even richer, the poor get poorer.
The whole point of the high tax rate on the wealthy was to promote reinvestment in business. Through the high tax rates, business owners faced a stiff penalty if they decided to keep an astronomical amount from their business. If they weren't going to keep the money, then profits were usually put right back into businesses. This reinvestment paid for new factories, technology, research and development and, yes, jobs. These jobs gave the American public a larger portion of the income in the nation and increased the demand for products and services. It is this increased demand that can grow the economy consistently.
Our nation is now riddled with debt that has mainly been piled on during Republican administrations. From two perpetual wars, to even more tax cuts for the wealthy, to the Medicare Prescription Drug entitlement, huge costs have been put on the nation's credit card. The national debt is now over $14 Trillion, and Republicans are pushing to close the gap by cutting Social Services (i.e. Social Security, Medicare). These cuts will hurt low income individuals almost exclusively. I see another option - roll back the Reagan tax cuts and have the wealthy pay their share while stabilizing our economy.
The economy did grow during Reagan, which seems odd. It deceivingly appears to confirm Reaganomics' validity. Two other factors were key factors in why the economy grew and are also explanations for why our economy is in such dire shape now - deregulation and reliance on bubbles, and offshoring labor. Since this blog is huge already, I guess I'm going to have to break it into three parts. If you stuck with me this far, Thank You! This isn't the most interesting subject in the world but it's VERY important. I'll try to have Part 2 done this weekend and Part 3 done next week.
I spent this late night ranting and listening to some old school Saliva. I figured you should be able to have the same experience
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Words I Never Said
I was listening to the new Lupe Fiasco album, Lasers, and heard a song that really stuck with me. It was "Words I Never Said" and here are the lyrics:
It’s so loud Inside my head
With words that I should have said
As I drown in my regrets
I can’t take back the words I never said
I can’t take back the words I never said
I really think the war on terror is a bunch of bullshit
Just a poor excuse for you to use up all your bullets
How much money does it take to really make a full clip
9/11 building 7 did they really pull it
Uhh, And a bunch of other cover ups
Your child's future was the first to go with budget cuts
If you think that hurts then, wait here comes the uppercut
The school was garbage in the first place, that's on the up and up
Keep you at the bottom but tease you with the uppercrust
You get it then they move you so you never keeping up enough
If you turn on TV all you see’s a bunch of “what the fucks”
Dude is dating so and so blabbering bout such and such
And that ain't Jersey Shore, homie that's the news
And these the same people that supposed to be telling us the truth
Limbaugh is a racist, Glenn Beck is a racist
Gaza strip was getting bombed, Obama didn’t say shit
That's why I ain't vote for him, next one either
I’ma part of the problem, my problem is I’m peaceful
And I believe in the people.
Chorus
Now you can say it ain't our fault if we never heard it
But if we know better than we probably deserve it
Jihad is not a holy war, wheres that in the worship?
Murdering is not Islam
And you are not observant
And you are not a muslim
Israel don’t take my side cause look how far you’ve pushed them
Walk with me into the ghetto, this where all the Kush went
Complain about the liquor store but what you drinking liquor for?
Complain about the gloom but when’d you pick a broom up?
Just listening to Pac ain't gone make it stop
A rebel in your thoughts, ain't gon make it halt
If you don’t become an actor you’ll never be a factor
Pills with million side effects
Take em when the pains felt
Wash them down with Diet soda
Killin off your brain cells
Crooked banks around the World
Would gladly give a loan today
So if you ever miss payment
They can take your home away
Chorus
I think that all the silence is worse than all the violence
Fear is such a weak emotion that's why I despise it
We scared of almost everything, afraid to even tell the truth
So scared of what you think of me, I’m scared of even telling you
Sometimes I’m like the only person I feel safe to tell it to
I’m locked inside a cell in me, I know that there’s a jail in you
Consider this your bailing out, so take a breath, inhale a few
My screams is finally getting free, my thoughts is finally yelling through
It’s so loud Inside my head
With words that I should have said
As I drown in my regrets
I can’t take back the words I never said
It leaves me with an interesting thought - do people really regret the things they don't say more than what they do? I think that the answer is yes. To take this beyond the petty issues and move toward the big picture, all you have to look at is the complete apathy of the average voter on politics and the inner-workings of the US. Our nation is in crisis, and in the hands of political parties that more and more resemble each other. As Republicans and Democrats take more and more corporate money, the less they give a fuck about the "Average American." This is not the view that is shown on our corporate media. Politics is shown as a horse race between ideologically opposed groups. The actual agenda is one that trends to the Right with no counterbalance. No matter your viewpoint, Gridlock is the word that best describes our Legislative situation.
Where does this leave the American public? Either to become entirely partisan and root for 'your side' in this sham of a horse race or to become apathetic. Just under 57% of registered voters voted for President in 2008 and only 37.8% voted in the midterms last year. That's a lot of voluntarily voiceless citizens. And while these people may not regret the decision to not vote in the short term, they sure as hell will have an opinion on what tax rates, spending, cuts, social issues that their 'representatives' will enact in laws in the future.
I, myself, will internalize this song and learn the lesson. Centrism and 'balance' does not equal fact. I truly believe that Liberalism is the correct lens to view the world through which you can build the best, most just society. Rush Limbaugh is a racist. Fox News DOES gin up support for causes that benefit only the wealthy through scare tactics and pitting 'real Americans' (White people) against the 'enemy' (non-whites).
The content of the speech is not the most important issue. Whether or not you agree with Lupe Fiasco on his opinions, you have to respect his willingness to share them. John Stuart Mill's philosophy on Speech in a democracy stated that it was bad to silence individuals' speech, whether they were incorrect or not. In a society with an open forum for ideas, all can be shared equally and the best of them can rise to the top. With today's media, there is a loudspeaker repeating the same ideas over and over that can drown out many if not all others. It is up to all of us to think for ourselves and say what we think. Vote. Become politically active by finding something that you're passionate about. Anything less can lead nowhere but regret...
It’s so loud Inside my head
With words that I should have said
As I drown in my regrets
I can’t take back the words I never said
I can’t take back the words I never said
I really think the war on terror is a bunch of bullshit
Just a poor excuse for you to use up all your bullets
How much money does it take to really make a full clip
9/11 building 7 did they really pull it
Uhh, And a bunch of other cover ups
Your child's future was the first to go with budget cuts
If you think that hurts then, wait here comes the uppercut
The school was garbage in the first place, that's on the up and up
Keep you at the bottom but tease you with the uppercrust
You get it then they move you so you never keeping up enough
If you turn on TV all you see’s a bunch of “what the fucks”
Dude is dating so and so blabbering bout such and such
And that ain't Jersey Shore, homie that's the news
And these the same people that supposed to be telling us the truth
Limbaugh is a racist, Glenn Beck is a racist
Gaza strip was getting bombed, Obama didn’t say shit
That's why I ain't vote for him, next one either
I’ma part of the problem, my problem is I’m peaceful
And I believe in the people.
Chorus
Now you can say it ain't our fault if we never heard it
But if we know better than we probably deserve it
Jihad is not a holy war, wheres that in the worship?
Murdering is not Islam
And you are not observant
And you are not a muslim
Israel don’t take my side cause look how far you’ve pushed them
Walk with me into the ghetto, this where all the Kush went
Complain about the liquor store but what you drinking liquor for?
Complain about the gloom but when’d you pick a broom up?
Just listening to Pac ain't gone make it stop
A rebel in your thoughts, ain't gon make it halt
If you don’t become an actor you’ll never be a factor
Pills with million side effects
Take em when the pains felt
Wash them down with Diet soda
Killin off your brain cells
Crooked banks around the World
Would gladly give a loan today
So if you ever miss payment
They can take your home away
Chorus
I think that all the silence is worse than all the violence
Fear is such a weak emotion that's why I despise it
We scared of almost everything, afraid to even tell the truth
So scared of what you think of me, I’m scared of even telling you
Sometimes I’m like the only person I feel safe to tell it to
I’m locked inside a cell in me, I know that there’s a jail in you
Consider this your bailing out, so take a breath, inhale a few
My screams is finally getting free, my thoughts is finally yelling through
It’s so loud Inside my head
With words that I should have said
As I drown in my regrets
I can’t take back the words I never said
It leaves me with an interesting thought - do people really regret the things they don't say more than what they do? I think that the answer is yes. To take this beyond the petty issues and move toward the big picture, all you have to look at is the complete apathy of the average voter on politics and the inner-workings of the US. Our nation is in crisis, and in the hands of political parties that more and more resemble each other. As Republicans and Democrats take more and more corporate money, the less they give a fuck about the "Average American." This is not the view that is shown on our corporate media. Politics is shown as a horse race between ideologically opposed groups. The actual agenda is one that trends to the Right with no counterbalance. No matter your viewpoint, Gridlock is the word that best describes our Legislative situation.
Where does this leave the American public? Either to become entirely partisan and root for 'your side' in this sham of a horse race or to become apathetic. Just under 57% of registered voters voted for President in 2008 and only 37.8% voted in the midterms last year. That's a lot of voluntarily voiceless citizens. And while these people may not regret the decision to not vote in the short term, they sure as hell will have an opinion on what tax rates, spending, cuts, social issues that their 'representatives' will enact in laws in the future.
I, myself, will internalize this song and learn the lesson. Centrism and 'balance' does not equal fact. I truly believe that Liberalism is the correct lens to view the world through which you can build the best, most just society. Rush Limbaugh is a racist. Fox News DOES gin up support for causes that benefit only the wealthy through scare tactics and pitting 'real Americans' (White people) against the 'enemy' (non-whites).
The content of the speech is not the most important issue. Whether or not you agree with Lupe Fiasco on his opinions, you have to respect his willingness to share them. John Stuart Mill's philosophy on Speech in a democracy stated that it was bad to silence individuals' speech, whether they were incorrect or not. In a society with an open forum for ideas, all can be shared equally and the best of them can rise to the top. With today's media, there is a loudspeaker repeating the same ideas over and over that can drown out many if not all others. It is up to all of us to think for ourselves and say what we think. Vote. Become politically active by finding something that you're passionate about. Anything less can lead nowhere but regret...
Monday, February 21, 2011
Merging Sports and Politics: The NFL Lockout
People look to sports as something that is a refuge from politics and divisive topics. I admit that it's really easy to look at it that way - there isn't much that my dad and I agree upon but we both really love football and the Chicago Bears in particular. But, this ideal is really a lie. Nothing is separate from politics, because while professional sports masquerades as completely privately owned, owners deliver ultimatums to taxpayers demanding millions for new stadiums or they'll take the hometown team to wherever will pony up the money. And then, after taking the money, they still charge $90 a ticket. In fact, during the chaos of Hurricane Katrina, the Louisiana Superdome housed countless homeless individuals. That was the first time that any of them had stepped foot in the stadium that they helped build with their tax dollars.
One interesting aspect of the current Super Bowl champions - The Green Bay Packers - is that there is no one owner of the team. It is collectively owned by the citizens of Green Bay, Wisconsin. Written in the bi-laws of the team is a clause that any profit made from the sale of the team must be donated to the United Way. The Packers are quite literally a product of Socialism. During the Super Bowl broadcast, this fact was not mentioned once. Sure they had time to show Cameron Diaz feeding popcorn to Alex Rodriguez, but not to mention that the Packers had a completely opposite ownership structure to that of the Dallas Cowboys and Jerry Jones' $1 Billion stadium that the game was played in.
The negotiations between the NFL owners and the Player's Union is the interaction that I'm really most interested in at the moment. If you listen to casual sports fans, you're likely not to find that much interest. They see the disagreement as millionaires fighting with billionaires, something that just does not matter to the common fan. But the fact is this - if March 4th passes and there is not a new collective bargaining agreement between the players and the owners, there will be a lockout and there might not be any NFL football next year.
How did it come to this? Well, there was an agreement between the sides in 2006. It was set to last for seven years, but the owners dissolved the agreement after the 2010 season in hopes of getting a greater share of profits. The NFL makes $9 Billion a year. The original agreement was a 60/40 split in favor of the owners after taking an agreed upon amount off the top for the owners (This is to account for stadiums and other 'additions' that improve the game that the players agree to help subsidize the owners). So, in real terms as of last year, out of the $9 Billion the owners kept $1 Billion off the top and split the remaining $8 Billion 60/40.
Coming into these negotiations, the owners' position is that they want to keep the 60/40 split but increase the amount off the top to $2 Billion. The players' counteroffer is a 50/50 split with the original $1 Billion. So, who is right here? The NFL is a growing business and profits will only increase. Upon getting the offer for the $2 Billion subsidy for the owners, the players asked to see the financial activities of the teams to see both where the money would go and whether or not they actually need it. The owners refused.
My take is this, NFL owners are trying desperately to retake any losses that they supposedly took in the 2006 agreement and then some. Owners have been preparing for this lockout for years. They have secured guaranteed TV contracts that will pay the owners next season whether there is any football or not. They have started rescinding coaches' health care as well as players'. Their plan is this - settle in with the TV money and paint the players as greedy athletes who are at fault for there being no football until the players finally cave.
This cannot happen. The players are the talent that feeds this machine and without them, all the owners really have is REALLY expensive fields. How can anyone think that the players should agree to the ultimatum placed before them? With an additional $1 Billion taken away from the players over the length of the contract (7 years), you're asking the players to voluntarily give away $7 Billion. The average player only plays 3.4 years, and that lack of revenue is a huge hit to the amount of money that a player can make in their career.
The main hope for the NFLPA (the players union) is that fans side with them in this struggle. Players want to play this game and only ask for an equitable share of the money that this sport generates. I ask everyone to educate themselves on the matter and show this country that organized labor is a vital part of this country's greatness (I'm also talking to you Governor Walker)
Head to nfllockdown.com and sign the petition to send a message to the owners
Also, this ad was rejected for play at the Super Bowl because of 'content' issues. I guess supporting the game is just too controversial. Watch the ad and pass it on... It's powerful
One interesting aspect of the current Super Bowl champions - The Green Bay Packers - is that there is no one owner of the team. It is collectively owned by the citizens of Green Bay, Wisconsin. Written in the bi-laws of the team is a clause that any profit made from the sale of the team must be donated to the United Way. The Packers are quite literally a product of Socialism. During the Super Bowl broadcast, this fact was not mentioned once. Sure they had time to show Cameron Diaz feeding popcorn to Alex Rodriguez, but not to mention that the Packers had a completely opposite ownership structure to that of the Dallas Cowboys and Jerry Jones' $1 Billion stadium that the game was played in.
The negotiations between the NFL owners and the Player's Union is the interaction that I'm really most interested in at the moment. If you listen to casual sports fans, you're likely not to find that much interest. They see the disagreement as millionaires fighting with billionaires, something that just does not matter to the common fan. But the fact is this - if March 4th passes and there is not a new collective bargaining agreement between the players and the owners, there will be a lockout and there might not be any NFL football next year.
How did it come to this? Well, there was an agreement between the sides in 2006. It was set to last for seven years, but the owners dissolved the agreement after the 2010 season in hopes of getting a greater share of profits. The NFL makes $9 Billion a year. The original agreement was a 60/40 split in favor of the owners after taking an agreed upon amount off the top for the owners (This is to account for stadiums and other 'additions' that improve the game that the players agree to help subsidize the owners). So, in real terms as of last year, out of the $9 Billion the owners kept $1 Billion off the top and split the remaining $8 Billion 60/40.
Coming into these negotiations, the owners' position is that they want to keep the 60/40 split but increase the amount off the top to $2 Billion. The players' counteroffer is a 50/50 split with the original $1 Billion. So, who is right here? The NFL is a growing business and profits will only increase. Upon getting the offer for the $2 Billion subsidy for the owners, the players asked to see the financial activities of the teams to see both where the money would go and whether or not they actually need it. The owners refused.
My take is this, NFL owners are trying desperately to retake any losses that they supposedly took in the 2006 agreement and then some. Owners have been preparing for this lockout for years. They have secured guaranteed TV contracts that will pay the owners next season whether there is any football or not. They have started rescinding coaches' health care as well as players'. Their plan is this - settle in with the TV money and paint the players as greedy athletes who are at fault for there being no football until the players finally cave.
This cannot happen. The players are the talent that feeds this machine and without them, all the owners really have is REALLY expensive fields. How can anyone think that the players should agree to the ultimatum placed before them? With an additional $1 Billion taken away from the players over the length of the contract (7 years), you're asking the players to voluntarily give away $7 Billion. The average player only plays 3.4 years, and that lack of revenue is a huge hit to the amount of money that a player can make in their career.
The main hope for the NFLPA (the players union) is that fans side with them in this struggle. Players want to play this game and only ask for an equitable share of the money that this sport generates. I ask everyone to educate themselves on the matter and show this country that organized labor is a vital part of this country's greatness (I'm also talking to you Governor Walker)
Head to nfllockdown.com and sign the petition to send a message to the owners
Also, this ad was rejected for play at the Super Bowl because of 'content' issues. I guess supporting the game is just too controversial. Watch the ad and pass it on... It's powerful
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)