Wealth, poverty in politics

I want to comment on some comments I heard recently while listening to Micky Plyler’s radio sports talk show (link to his blog) on The Drive, WCCP 104.9, based in Clemson, S.C. For the next few weeks, I will be working in one town and living in another state, which affords me ample driving time to catch some talk radio. As a side note, it’s disheartening that the news talk radio station once pulsing through Greenville, S.C., known as The Peak, shut down several years ago and reformatted to a popular music station. Meanwhile, a 24/7 sports talk radio station in WCCP seems to be thriving and growing. Examples abound, but this shows one where our interests as a society are: not on the truly important stuff, but on the escapist stuff. And lest one should question such a statement, I say that as a fan of WCCP.

Regardless, Plyler runs in the early morning on weekdays. He’s a solid sports analyst, and I’ve enjoyed listening to him. But during a segment while talking about sports salaries, he began talking about University of North Carolina basketball coach Roy Williams and how some had critized guys like him for their seemingly exhorbitant salaries. Plyler then went on a five-minute or so tangent, veering into politics, saying how guys like Williams should not be hated for their wealth, but rewarded because they clawed their way up, working hard and making it: the American dream. As he was drifting ever away from sports, I wondered to myself, to paraphrase my own early-morning thought, “What the heck is a sports talk host doing commenting on politics?”

He then implied we were laying the groundwork for socialism — Wonder where he could have heard that?? — and that we seemingly reward those who sit on their butts and do nothing and are going to begin taxing those who have worked hard and scratched their way to the upper echelon.

First, let me make President Barack Obama’s tax policy clear: families earning less than $250,000 per year will get a cut, leaving the wealthiest 3 percent of Americans to see an increase. Now, by comparison, and just for fun, I make in the neighborhood of one-sixth of $250,000. Of course, my taxes will be cut come April 1, but so will the taxes of numerous families who draw enough money to afford lake houses, and heck, second houses, of which, I do not … not by a long shot. So, people who will actually get tax cuts include, not only those who’s fiscal belt may be tight, but those who’s fiscal belt may be quite comfortable. I would be doing jumping jacks if I made $240,000 per year, and these very folks will get cuts! For couples making more than 250k, if you feel you will be financially hurt by the new tax hikes, get real.

Now, Plyler and others have made the claim that the rich help keep the country afloat, have done the work and deserve to be where they are. Why tax them more? Isn’t that self-defeating for the economy? On this, here’s two points. First, every person who makes 250k or more did not get it through their own work ethic. Every person who is rich did not necessarily get it through some effort of themselves, as Plyler seems to claim. Some were simply born into privileged positions or families (i.e. members of the Kennedys, Bushes or Tony Blair’s four children, etc.) Yes, many in sports, like Alex Rodriquez and Roy Williams, likely worked hard to achieve their level of success, but let’s face it, others did not. They were simply born and privilege followed. Here’s where the argument against taxing the hard-working and relieving the destitute breaks down: not every person who is rich clawed up the ladder to get that way and not everyone who is poor or needy is lazy.

I saw a bumper sticker recently that read, to paraphrase, I’m too poor to vote Republican. That should be true of anyone making less than 250k or so per year. If it’s not clear by now, the Republican calling card goes something like this: tax cuts for corporations and for the rich; deregulation of big business; personal freedoms, like gun rights, unless such rights, (i.e. censorship, gay marriage or abortion) contrast with the Bible’s teaching, which consequently, has nothing at all to do with running a country. See: Thomas Jefferson’s “wall of separation between church and state,” which has become quite permeable.

To end, the common Republican ideology of letting poor folks and middle class folks fend for themselves (in the belief that church and other civic groups will and should come to the aid of the most needy) is, not only flawed, but cruel. Churches and other groups are limited in who they can help, and government programs, while sometimes mired in bureacracy and inefficiency, are some folks’ only means to survival. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and others can talk tough all they want about personal responsibility, but when was the last time they were in a Medicaid office or a health department office? Plyler claimed the private sector can perform worlds better than anything the government can offer, and I’m inclined to agree. But I don’t see any private industries waiting in line to help the indignant or the unemployed or those who need insurance for their children. So, for some, government aid is the only alternative. Republicans who bemoan the welfare state should take a trip down to the local health department, hospital or Social Security office to get a big whiff of humanity.

Obama, of course, probably hasn’t seen the inside of one of these offices in years, except to visit, but at least he seems to understand the need that exists, not only for those who are the neediest among us, but for the working families who are putting bread on the table and yet worried about tomorrow. The Republican ideology, as I have outlined, simply doesn’t work, and Plyler and others are out of their element in praising the private sector over the public one, for the former certainly has its own means toward an incongruent end.

Matt Millen’s NFL commentary and the press

First, apologies for not being terribly consistent with the blogging as of late. My personal writing time has been largely devoted to some short stories I’m working on.

Today, I wanted to comment on Matt Millen’s commentary during the Super Bowl pregame show. The content of said commentary is not my concern, of course. The fact the he was and is commentating is my concern.

What broadcast executive would give this guy a job at NBC after he, for all intent and purposes, ran the Detroit Lions farther into the abyss? What would make someone think, “Eh, he failed at running a football team. Maybe he will be OK at commentary?”

I don’t know the answer there, but he started talking on NBC during the pregame show, and it was a distraction for me, as I’m sure it was for many others, knowing the history of the Lions, etc. I think NBC took some hits for that … if not in the ratings, at least in untangible viewer perceptions.

To make it worse:

Every time a certain familiar face showed up on camera Sunday during NBC’s Super Bowl pregame show, Channel 4 ran a scroll at the bottom of the screen:

“Matt Millen was president of the Lions for the worst eight-year run in the history of the NFL. Knowing his history with the team, is there a credibility issue as he now serves as an analyst for NBC Sports? …” — Detroit Free Press

Ok, so, knowing his history with the Lions, we might agree with this statement. But what of Channel 4? A television news channel should not be running editorial content to supplement its coverage. And believe me, both of those sentences were nothing but opinion. Channel 4 was unquestionably in the wrong. But, to be sure, this is a symptom of many local news television channels. The only potentially truly objective news medium is newspapers (Broadsheet, not tabloid). While the word “money” rules the day no matter where you get your news, newspapers seem to still hold the purest form for objective news.

Top sports icons

I was listening to the Arnie Spanier show some tonight, and as he must have 75 percent of the three-hour show talking about it, he was seemingly fixated on the 10-year anniversary marking Michael Jordan’s retirement from basketball. He enumerated some sports figures, with Jordan topping the list, who had transcended their sports and who have become worldwide figures. From what I could gather, his list ran thusly:

  1. Michael Jordan
  2. Muhammad Ali
  3. Jack Nicholson
  4. (Honorable mentions: Jim Brown and Tiger Woods)

He also mentioned Wayne Gretsky, O.J. Simpson and a few others as possible candidates (some at the suggestion of call-ins).

I think Jordan is unquestionably the leader, but when talking about names who would be recognized all over the world and who transcend their sports, I think guys Hulk Hogan, O.J. Simpson, Pete Rose, Jackie Robinson, Babe Ruth, Dale Earnhardt and Hank Aaron should probably be in the discussion as well, though no name one could mention would approach Jordan’s influence, perhaps with the exception of Robinson. Of course, when placing Jordan in this position, one must limit oneself to modern times, say, the past 50 years or so. Going back any further, of course, we can name those pioneers in the negro leagues, Pele and others.

In the modern era, I can think of none other than the aforementioned. If anyone has ideas for more candidates who would fall into this category, feel free to comment and let us know …

Favre’s talks with Detroit Lions’s Millen

I’m not a fan of making a reporter part of the news story except in the case of litigation, where the reporter is subpoenaed to court. Here appears to be a story of egos: Jay Glazer’s in refusing to concede that he may have goofed whatsoever and Favre refusing to say he may have went over the line in divulging information, whether against league rules or not. In reality, there is no line. Players, according to Glazer’s original report are free to do as they wish.

Still, Favre has the right to do whatever he pleases. If he wants to help other teams there is nothing in league rules that prevents him from doing so.

So, what’s the main nutgraph, the main point of the story? I’m not sure. I am sure that Glazer’s original piece gives not one credible or even identified source. Are we to trust Glazer that the sources are valid. I suppose, but it’s still not a good idea to publish a story without at least one identified source. Otherwise, there is no way to quantify anything.

The original story is here

Favre admits talking to Lions’ Millen

by FOXSports.com

Speaking at the Jets’ training complex in Florham Park, N.J., Favre spent nearly 15 minutes answering questions about the Sunday report by FOXSports.com’s Jay Glazer that said he called the Lions before their Sept. 14 game against the Packers. The report said Favre spent more than an hour giving Millen and Lions coaches information on nuances of the offense he used to run. Green Bay won the game 48-25.

Three days after calling a FOXSports.com report that he talked with the Detroit Lions before their Sept. 14 game against Green Bay “total b.s.,” former Packers QB Brett Favre admitted on Wednesday that he had indeed spoken with then-Lions president Matt Millen prior to the game.
Favre, who had a bitter split with the Packers in the offseason, said Millen called to invite him to go hunting. The friends then talked about football, but Favre denied sharing any specific information to be used against the Packers.

“I didn’t give him any game planning,” Favre said. “I haven’t been in that offense in over a year. I don’t know what else to tell you. It was pretty simple.”

Favre and Jets coach Eric Mangini said that sharing information is common in the NFL, and it isn’t against league rules.

“It happens every day,” Favre said. “It happens more than you know.”

Favre initially denied any contact with the Lions, sending a text message to Sports Illustrated’s Peter King on Sunday calling the report “total b.s. . . . not true and pretty ridiculous.”

“I stand by my story 1000 percent,” Glazer said Wednesday. “I guess Brett and I will just agree to disagree on certain things. The way I do my work, I don’t go on what just one person told me. I investigated this fully and for quite some time. I spoke with several sources, and when I go with something, I make sure it’s dead-on. I think my track record speaks for itself.”

Favre said he received a call from Millen while traveling home from the Jets’ training facility, and the two spoke for 25 minutes.

Green Bay beat Detroit twice last season, including a 37-26 victory in November in which Favre set a team record with 20 consecutive completions. Favre had a bitter split with the Packers in the offseason.

“We went empty formation and just keep throwing completion after completion,” Favre said he told Millen. “They study film, they know what type of plays.

“When Matt called me and was talking about hunting and told me that he lived an hour from here, don’t think for a second I wasn’t thinking, ‘Now, surely he wants to know something,”‘ Favre said. “Yeah, I played for the Packers for 16 years and we played against the Lions a bunch, but it’s no secret what we did against them. I don’t have a playbook from Green Bay. I didn’t send the playbook. I didn’t call him and say, ‘Look, if you do this, you’re going to win the game.’ I didn’t do that.”

Favre also said Dallas quarterback Tony Romo called him last week — not the other way around — to ask for suggestions on playing through injuries.

“Next thing I know, I’m calling everyone in the league, giving out secrets,” Favre said. “I’m willing to help, but it’s awful ridiculous.”

“I did not call the Lions, nor did I call Tony Romo,” a defiant Favre said Wednesday. “I don’t know what else to tell everyone, but I’m not calling people.”

During the call with Millen, Favre said as far as he knew, he was on the line only with Millen.

But he added that if he were “a guessing man,” there’s a chance other people might have been listening in on the conversation.

“I don’t know,” he said. “I’m telling you, I didn’t have a game plan in my lap, driving home, saying, ‘OK, last year, third-and-3 to (the) 6, we went … hold on, light.”‘

Favre, wearing a green Jets sweat shirt and a navy New York Titans cap, held his composure throughout the news conference. He clenched his jaw a few times and only once raised his voice in anger, when he was told that former teammate Charles Woodson said if the Lions called Favre, it’s OK, but not if it happened the other way around.

“Go back and tell Charles I did not call them,” an irritated Favre said. “I didn’t call ’em.”

Favre was asked numerous times if he might have said anything that could be perceived as helping the Lions plan for the Packers. After all, Favre and Green Bay had an ugly divorce in the summer.

“I’m well aware of the perception of what’s going on,” Favre said. “Aren’t you and isn’t everyone else? Believe me, I’m trying my best to help this team win, the New York Jets, and spending no time trying to make sure the Packers lose. I’ve got enough on my plate, believe me.”

Favre said the controversy wouldn’t change the way he approaches similar situations.

“Nothing was wrong,” he said. “If Matt calls me and says, ‘Sorry about the big deal, the offer still stands,’ I’ll take the call. I know he’s not in football right now, but, you know, nothing happened. Nothing happened that was any different than happens any other day. But the fact I was in Green Bay for so long and what happened this offseason, that makes it a big deal.

“I am who I am. I’m part of the Jets. I’m trying to get ready for the Chiefs. I don’t have time to be dealing with other issues, especially other game plans. I wish them well up there. I really do.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

2012 Olympics go intergalactic?

l apologize in advance for adding yet another opinion piece to the already over-loaded annuls of writing on the Olympics. But I’m egged on, however, by the sheer colossal nature in which the Games rocketed into our living rooms.

Rarely do I keep track of all the heart-tugging stories surrounding the athletes and their families. We’ve heard them all before: How Gustavo trained for the javelin throw by launching carved Brazil nut tree branches heavenward on some sun-soaked South American coast. How Ludwig worked on endurance by carrying his trusty Bavarian mountain scenthound backpack-style high into the Swedish mountains. How John from San Diego biked into the Nevada desert only to be greeted by a pack of unsympathetic wolves. How he slew them with a miniature pocketknife, carved out a souvenir from one of the beasts and appeared at the Games sporting a wolf fang necklace. How folks have sold off their own parents to afford the plane ride to the far reaches of the earth to compete.

I jest, but rarely do I get so enthralled that I pay much attention to stories like these. This year was no different. I was terribly unenthralled. I did, however, catch the occasional swim meet, volleyball match and track event. Michael Phelps? He made the case as the greatest Olympian ever, and the split-second win against Serbia’s Milorad Cavic was a site to behold. Usain Bolt? He crushed the 100- and 200-meter dashes.

But as this is not the sports section, I’ll move on.

Most of the opening and closing ceremonies, for me, were spent with my bottom lip somewhere between my mouth and the floor, which presented a problem as snacks were often present. “They are going to blow up the Bird’s Nest,” I thought to myself, as a seemingly endless train of snaps, crackles and pops enveloped the TV screen. During portions of the ceremony, we saw a giant, unfurling screen depicting various aspects of Chinese fine arts; a living representation of the movable type press and various performances geared toward presenting glimpses into traditional Chinese culture.

Forward 17 days. The closing ceremony, which was a depiction of where Chinese culture might be headed in the future, was equally as explosive. Hundreds proceeded to beat drums in perfect synchronization; ride glowing circular, bicycle-looking things; flip; dance; sing; and form symbolically poignant circles. There were more drummers dangling from the ceiling, glowing people, unearthly gadgets being wheeled all about, and of course, that eternally catchy song, “Beijing Beijing, I Love Beijing.”

Was it just me, or did anyone else think the Death Star was going to touch down at any minute during this wild, phantasmic hullabaloo? Given the enormity of the scenes and imagery presented, the Death Star would have fit right in. Darth Vader would have beamed down, choked out the overhead announcer with his mind, breathed heavily into the microphone and said, “Yao Ming, come join … (labored breathing) … the Dark Side.” Then, Luke Skywalker, Master Yoda, Mace Windu and the gang would envelope the Bird’s Nest, save the basketball star from certain peril and strike up another round of “Beijing Beijing, I Love Beijing,” as the whole galaxy celebrated, just like at the end of “Return of the Jedi.”

Or at least that’s how I imagined it. In all seriousness, the competition part was good, but “spellbinding” doesn’t quite describe the beginning and end. Was China trying too hard to impress during its galactic, $100 million show? To some degree, yes. Case in point: The country actually tried to manipulate the atmosphere to prevent rainfall during the ceremonies, firmly pushing weather patterns, God or what have you out of the way. Will merry ol’ London attempt to top it? Not a chance. If it does, the land venerated land of Shakespeare and Milton would have to go truly intergalactic. I’m thinking: London/Moon 2012: A Space Odyssey. But I don’t see tea-sipping, bookish gents summoning the cosmos any time soon.

Regardless, NBC currently has DVDs of the opening ceremonies available, and my wife and I are actually considering coughing up the $30 in the near future. That way, we can visit Ming, Phelps, Usain, Gustavo, Lugwig, Luke, Yoda and the gang any time I like.

Ready for the booms, the whaps

If football season gives me the opportunity to watch something on TV other than The History Channel and Comedy Central, that can’t be a bad thing. I got bored with sitcoms about 10 years ago and don’t have the patience, nor want to expend the time, to watch dramas like Cold Case Files and CSI: (name your city). Though I do enjoy those shows, when and if I take the time to watch them.

But with football, both college and professional, I will take the time to sit there and watch an entire game, that is, if it’s one of my two favorite teams: the Denver Broncos or the Clemson Tigers. Other games I like to have on the TV while working on other things. My wife doesn’t like watching football, to my utter dismay and disbelief, so I may be forced this fall to by a cheap 19-inch and hunker down in the bedroom for about six hours on Sundays. Such is life.

Jay Cutler

Jay Cutler

A few words on Denver, since I follow the Broncos more closely than I do the Tigers. After last year’s disappointing display, Denver will, of course, be expected to make the playoffs this year. Fans expect Denver to be a playoff contender every single year, and anything less is disappointing. This is probably true of most every team that’s not in the midst of a rebuilding year, but this is especially true of Denver. After Elway’s retirement, the team has been up and down, but never all-that “up.” This year will hopefully be Cutler’s year to shine. Shanahan has taken some rather large steps to beef up talent on the offensive and defensive line, and I think that will pay off. I expect Selvin Young to do well in the backfield.

As for the Tigers, expectations are high there too … as they are every year. If Bowden doesn’t make a big splash nationally in the next year or two, he could be in trouble. The Tigers are again positioned in the top 10 via preseason polls, but the season hasn’t started yet, and the team seemed to falter when it counted. Let’s hope the team can actually match the hype this year.