I am very unhappy these days. My closest friend has
abandoned me in the last month or two. He used to email me incessantly,
often many times a day. Particularly this fall, I thought our friendship
was reaching greater intensity and meaning. His wife would even
check in often and ask for my advise on certain matters critical to their
family. In their time of need, they requested my financial
assistance and I gave it willingly. Now, much silence, and only an
occasional brief hello. What did I do to Barack Obama to deserve this
treatment?
It was grand while it lasted. However, in
reflection, it was a pretty one sided relationship. He never seemed
available to sit down and meet with me for lunch, or to watch a
ballgame. But
during most of 2012 I was sure we would be best friends forever. He was
pretty formal, always referring to me as Robert when he wrote, never
the more familiar Rob, Robby, Bob or even Nuss. But I didn't mind, it
was just his way I thought.
People often questioned our
relationship. Many attacked him but I defended against these
assaults with a great ferocity. I stayed up nights worried about his
welfare, concerned that he might soon be unemployed. I challenged those
bent on his undoing. I wrote often of the slings and arrows that
he was forced to endure. My allegiance to my friend was virtually
boundless.
My son was always skeptical when I told him I had
gotten yet another note from Barack (I didn't have any nicknames for him
either). He suggested that I was but a part of a massive mailing
campaign and that we had not really formed a lasting bond. But I just
dismissed his remarks as being made out of jealousy.
Maybe Barack
never was that interested in me. He didn't ask about my back,
or the state of my golf swing, or how my mom was feeling. He didn't invite me to play in one of his basketball games. We never
spoke of going on vacation together, maybe just the guys. There was, in
retrospect, not a great deal of personal intimacy.
These days, I
mostly read about what he is doing or watch him on
TV. He is pretty famous after all. And he does have a lot on his plate. In just the past few weeks, he has had to deal with devastating
floods, horrific violence and John Boehner. I guess it is no wonder that
we haven't been able to chat.
I have a feeling though that he
will come crawling back soon, begging forgiveness for his sudden
departure from my life. And I am hopeful that in future years, around
early 2015 I will develop a new best friend. Maybe even Hillary Clinton.
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Sunday, December 16, 2012
Banning and Buying Back Assault Weapons
In 1995 there were approximately 200,000,000 guns in possession of
private citizens in this country. Now the estimate is 300,000,000 or
almost 1 gun for every man, woman and child in this country.
It is suggested that about 48,000 people will die as a result of gun
violence in the United States during the next 4 years if no action is
now taken.
What is the true benefit of future gun control laws unless we somehow address the issue of the almost incomprehensible present proliferation of weapons?
On December 15, 2012, 2 Brooklyn Churches offered a $200 gift card in exchange for a buyback of weapons. 134 weapons were collected. Since the program began in July 2008, a joint effort of the New York City police department and Brooklyn churches, approximately 9000 weapons had been recovered.
On that same day, a gun buyback program was announced in Evanston, Illinois, Camden, New Jersey, San Francisco and Oakland, and Durham.
In 1996, in reaction to the death of 35 people in a shooting massacre in Tasmania, Australia passed legislation banning semi-automatic rifles and shotguns and instituted a mandatory government buyback for these weapons. Nearly 700,000 guns were purchased from a population of approximately 12,000,000 people. In a study done a decade later, it was found that the firearm homicide rate declined by 59% and firearm suicides by 65%. There was no reported corresponding increase in homicides and suicides in non-fiream related incidents. Furthermore, mass shootings have declined to 0 since full implementation of the law.
In 2007 HR 3766 was introduced in the 112th Congress. By its provisions the Secretary of HUD would be permitted to make grants to local governments to conduct gun buyback programs. This proposed legislation was a renewal of the terms of HR 2493, which was before the 110th Congress in 2003. It followed earlier attempts. None got out of committee.
On September 13, 1994 Congress passed the Federal Assaults Weapon Ban, a ten year prohibition on the sale of 19 semi-automatic firearms and many high capacity magazines. In 2003, there was an attempt to renew the ban for an additional decade. Despite having 111 co-sponsors, the bill failed. Efforts to reintroduce the ban in later years met a similar fate.
If we are going to get serious about the issue of gun control, if we are going to enter into an actual debate, then we should consider a number of simultaneous measures. There has been recent talk, as there is each time a massacre occurs, of inadequate screening of those who purchase guns, especially those capable of mass (and massive) destruction. There is also the inevitable conversation relating to the mental health care challenges that are not met as one of the instrumental predicates for disaster. Yes, both of these are relevant and important.
But we fail to see the forest for the trees covered in guns. In addition to reinstating the Assault Weapons Ban, why can Congress not pass simultaneous legislation outlawing the possession of these weapons for the general public at present? And, in conjunction therewith, enact a law that would provide states with the resources to buy back these weapons, much as they did in Australia. The cost of doing this, given the enormous increase in gun ownership in our country, would be very significant. I suggest that the cost of not doing this is, and will continue to be even higher.
What is the true benefit of future gun control laws unless we somehow address the issue of the almost incomprehensible present proliferation of weapons?
On December 15, 2012, 2 Brooklyn Churches offered a $200 gift card in exchange for a buyback of weapons. 134 weapons were collected. Since the program began in July 2008, a joint effort of the New York City police department and Brooklyn churches, approximately 9000 weapons had been recovered.
On that same day, a gun buyback program was announced in Evanston, Illinois, Camden, New Jersey, San Francisco and Oakland, and Durham.
In 1996, in reaction to the death of 35 people in a shooting massacre in Tasmania, Australia passed legislation banning semi-automatic rifles and shotguns and instituted a mandatory government buyback for these weapons. Nearly 700,000 guns were purchased from a population of approximately 12,000,000 people. In a study done a decade later, it was found that the firearm homicide rate declined by 59% and firearm suicides by 65%. There was no reported corresponding increase in homicides and suicides in non-fiream related incidents. Furthermore, mass shootings have declined to 0 since full implementation of the law.
In 2007 HR 3766 was introduced in the 112th Congress. By its provisions the Secretary of HUD would be permitted to make grants to local governments to conduct gun buyback programs. This proposed legislation was a renewal of the terms of HR 2493, which was before the 110th Congress in 2003. It followed earlier attempts. None got out of committee.
On September 13, 1994 Congress passed the Federal Assaults Weapon Ban, a ten year prohibition on the sale of 19 semi-automatic firearms and many high capacity magazines. In 2003, there was an attempt to renew the ban for an additional decade. Despite having 111 co-sponsors, the bill failed. Efforts to reintroduce the ban in later years met a similar fate.
If we are going to get serious about the issue of gun control, if we are going to enter into an actual debate, then we should consider a number of simultaneous measures. There has been recent talk, as there is each time a massacre occurs, of inadequate screening of those who purchase guns, especially those capable of mass (and massive) destruction. There is also the inevitable conversation relating to the mental health care challenges that are not met as one of the instrumental predicates for disaster. Yes, both of these are relevant and important.
But we fail to see the forest for the trees covered in guns. In addition to reinstating the Assault Weapons Ban, why can Congress not pass simultaneous legislation outlawing the possession of these weapons for the general public at present? And, in conjunction therewith, enact a law that would provide states with the resources to buy back these weapons, much as they did in Australia. The cost of doing this, given the enormous increase in gun ownership in our country, would be very significant. I suggest that the cost of not doing this is, and will continue to be even higher.
Friday, December 14, 2012
Gun Control? I Doubt It
A guest post by Richie Jay
It's really depressing to write this, but the policy analyst in me thinks that even this incident won't inspire meaningful regulation of weapons of mass destruction (aka high-capacity, high-frequency guns). The NRA tomorrow will be the same strong lobby it was yesterday, just as it is after every mass murder. Our president, and Democratic legislators, will still be afraid or unwilling to take them on, even on obvious areas of broad national consensus that have no meaningful or detrimental effect on hunters and self-defense advocates. And you can forget about this swaying the Republicans in Congress: They are objectively the most radical major party in American politics in at least a century. They're not going to suddenly find moderation or become reasonable on this issue, much as they have refused to compromise, negotiate, or, frankly, even budge on just about anything else.
It's really depressing to write this, but the policy analyst in me thinks that even this incident won't inspire meaningful regulation of weapons of mass destruction (aka high-capacity, high-frequency guns). The NRA tomorrow will be the same strong lobby it was yesterday, just as it is after every mass murder. Our president, and Democratic legislators, will still be afraid or unwilling to take them on, even on obvious areas of broad national consensus that have no meaningful or detrimental effect on hunters and self-defense advocates. And you can forget about this swaying the Republicans in Congress: They are objectively the most radical major party in American politics in at least a century. They're not going to suddenly find moderation or become reasonable on this issue, much as they have refused to compromise, negotiate, or, frankly, even budge on just about anything else.
The Time for Action is Now
"School Gunman Kills 20 Children in Connecticut"
The massacres have come with such frequency that it has been almost impossible for the mind to absorb and retain. Through it all there has been a total abdication of responsibility by the government. Tragedy met with silence.
The events in an elementary school in Connecticut impact all of us in visceral ways. If there is a moment in time to address our moral failure to confront the epidemic of gun violence, now is that time. Now, when the wounds are deep and fresh. Now, when emotions, not the lobbyists at the NRA, speak loudest. Now, when the President says that we must "take meaningful action" Now, now, now before the passage of time and the political winds blow us in another direction.
The massacres have come with such frequency that it has been almost impossible for the mind to absorb and retain. Through it all there has been a total abdication of responsibility by the government. Tragedy met with silence.
The events in an elementary school in Connecticut impact all of us in visceral ways. If there is a moment in time to address our moral failure to confront the epidemic of gun violence, now is that time. Now, when the wounds are deep and fresh. Now, when emotions, not the lobbyists at the NRA, speak loudest. Now, when the President says that we must "take meaningful action" Now, now, now before the passage of time and the political winds blow us in another direction.
Of Bar Mitzvahs and Batting Averages
("Fascination With a New Yorker's Jewish Roots" and "For New York Fans Accustomed to Letdown, A New Reason to Kvell")
While I applaud Mr. Youkilis on his ability to read Hebrew (with the vowels) and his stellar performance at his Bar Mitzvah, I will "kvell" only if he hits much better than last year's .235. Being Jewish only gets you so far, even in New York.
While I applaud Mr. Youkilis on his ability to read Hebrew (with the vowels) and his stellar performance at his Bar Mitzvah, I will "kvell" only if he hits much better than last year's .235. Being Jewish only gets you so far, even in New York.
The Updated Declaration of Independence
This piece is a truncated version of the initial Declaration of
Independence of 237 years ago. The names have been changed to indict the
guilty
The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription
IN CONGRESS, January 1, 2013
The unanimous Declaration of the Democratic Party
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it. All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government.
The history of the present Republican Party is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these United States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the Democratic Party, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these United States, solemnly publish and declare, that these United States are, and of Right ought to be Free and are Absolved from all Allegiance to the Republican Party, and that all political connection between them and the United States, is and ought to be totally dissolved; And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription
IN CONGRESS, January 1, 2013
The unanimous Declaration of the Democratic Party
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it. All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government.
The history of the present Republican Party is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these United States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
They have refused to Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
They have refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
They have called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with their measures.
They have endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither.
They have made Judges dependent on their Will alone.
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the Democratic Party, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these United States, solemnly publish and declare, that these United States are, and of Right ought to be Free and are Absolved from all Allegiance to the Republican Party, and that all political connection between them and the United States, is and ought to be totally dissolved; And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Weighty Matters
Six pairs of old corduroy pants lay on the bed, ready to be tried on. Several minutes later, a self evident truth emerged. My closet was suddenly thinner but clearly I was not.
I do not own a scale. Thus in the past weeks, as I pulled up the underwear on both hips a little higher, I convinced myself that the protruding flesh was a mirage. When I looked into the full length mirror in the bedroom and was unhappy with the image staring back, I just raised the underpants and lowered the expectations.
After the latest Thanksgiving day massacre, I seemed to abandon all pretense of control. Moderation was a four letter word that I could not spell. It seemed that each day brought more than ample opportunity to become, well, more than ample. And what right did I have to squander an opportunity?
Have you ever eaten ziti pizza? What I find most appealing is not only the combination of 2 of my favorite foods, but the fact that the local establishment cuts their pies into enormous slices. Thus, when I decide to order only a single piece, I am being prudent. I can understand why the mega soda has become an endangered species in New York City.
My wife has a pet peeve when I diet. Not because there is a change in my demeanor, or that the meals in our house become radically different. No, what ibbles her is how quickly the flab disappears. "It is just so much easier for you" she will tell me each time the bagels, ice cream, french fries, bread, cookies, and basically every single food I enjoy are placed on the "do not disturb" list.
But the truth is that I am fortunate. Once I decide to deprive myself of virtually everything I actually want to eat, I am not left to suffer for prolonged periods. I have a friend who was a poster child for improper eating habits for much of his adult life. When he decided several years ago that he had enough of too much, he went from sinner to saint. Since his revelation, he has reached almost a zen state. Of his last 1095 lunches, I would say that all but three were comprised of grilled chicken and salad. I greatly admire his fortitude and hope for his continued remarkable success, but following in his much smaller footsteps is not my goal.
And so, I have a reverse New Year's resolution. While virtually the entire planet sets aside January 1 as the day that the excess shall be no more, I am hoping that on that day I can abandon my ascetic ways. When that occurs there will be a piece of ziti pizza with my name on it, waiting for me to hold it gently in my hands. But only one.
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
Me and the Dog of Ira Glass
Ira Glass was being interviewed on his show, This American Life. He was
recounting an almost unfathomable tale of devotion to his dog, that by
his own account, seemed wholly lacking in redeeming characteristics.
Caring for this animal was essentially a full time job. When asked why
he would subject himself to such hardship, Mr. Glass indicated that his
dog was a helpless creature. After a while, endless attention to it became the
natural order of his day and over time just this stress itself made the
relationship more meaningful. Mr. Glass could have been discussing my
wife's connection with me.
Over the course of the last 24 hours I placed an open seltzer bottle in the cabinet with the glasses, parked the car on the wrong level of our garage and spent at least 10 minutes in the bathroom trying to get the plastic cap off a razor blade. In that process, I managed to take the blade and plastic covering off simultaneously and then was unable to disengage the protecting piece from its companion. When I finally achieved success, I couldn't get the blade back onto the razor. I tried to shave with only the blade in my hand but almost slit my throat. After much effort, blade and razor were reunited and I emerged clean shaven, if shaken. No one in my family would be surprised by a single word in this paragraph.
There were signs of impending disaster from the earliest days of my marriage, over 35 years ago. On our honeymoon, one of the tires on our rental car went flat. I went to the trunk of the car and located what appeared to be instruments intended to address the issue. But even then, even when all the synapses were firing, even when hair grew on my head and not out of my nose and ears, even at the apex of my critical thinking, I had not a clue how to put A into B and end up with a new tire on a car. As my young bride watched, I flailed and failed.
I would assume that the dog of Mr. Glass has no real understanding of the strain he has placed upon his owner. He probably can't comprehend that his exotic food allergies, his seemingly incessant desire to nip at all humans, and his other deviations from the norm are considered drawbacks. He probably perceives that he and Mr. Glass are very ordinary and that their interaction is standard fare. I am not a dog and so I know that my inability to unscrew a light bulb is not cute. The broken shards that my wife takes out with parts of a potato does not qualify in her world as entertaining. The fact that I can't light the stove and that the tale I tell that one effort led to me burning off my eyebrows is deemed possible, is not in any way endearing. Who among us is unable to pump gas? Who would admit that getting keys off a key chain is an incomprehensible maze? How is vacuuming an art? When is getting an Allen wrench a test rather than a request? When did fitting the bottom sheet on a bed become a tug of war?
Mr. Glass may not have gotten what he bargained for with his dog. He may find that his life has headed in directions unintended and unanticipated since his pet entered his domain. But like he said, a dog doesn't speak the English language and can't fathom getting a paying job. There were well defined limits to his expectations. I was only 24 when my wife met me. I was in my last year of law school and had not yet developed any of physical shortcomings that would invade my body over the years. Back surgery was over 3 decades away. Even the years of treatments to try to turn my toenails into an approximation of the color and shape of my youth, was still off in the distance. It would be some time before my incessant desire to sing badly and an inopportune moments became a staple of my day. What my wife saw, and what she clearly entered into a bargain for, was not the dog of Mr. Glass.
Is it typical that putting dishes correctly in the dishwasher is as hard as solving a Rubik's cube? Can failing to put the emergency brake on a stick shift or putting it in gear on a hill be deemed acceptable because no one was hurt and the car miraculously parked itself at the bottom of a hill? Is setting the thermostat deemed advance mathematics? How many times can my son give me the same instructions for the computer? Is infinite an appropriate response?
I can't imagine what the future holds for my bride. Combining incompetence with incoherence is not a real daily double. My mom has spent the last half decade in an ever declining state of dementia. Long before the first symptoms were evident to the outside world, she complained of forgetfulness. Failing to bring the laundry upstairs after reminding myself countless times of this task only makes the events of the last day seem a precursor to ever diminished returns.
Ira Glass and my wife have much in common. I only hope that like Mr. Glass, my wife finds something compelling in a relationship with a unique partner. I hope she believes, as he must, that there is a strange and exotic beauty in all of this. I only know that if Mr. Glass and my wife ever decide that weird is not wonderful, both the dog and I are in trouble.
Over the course of the last 24 hours I placed an open seltzer bottle in the cabinet with the glasses, parked the car on the wrong level of our garage and spent at least 10 minutes in the bathroom trying to get the plastic cap off a razor blade. In that process, I managed to take the blade and plastic covering off simultaneously and then was unable to disengage the protecting piece from its companion. When I finally achieved success, I couldn't get the blade back onto the razor. I tried to shave with only the blade in my hand but almost slit my throat. After much effort, blade and razor were reunited and I emerged clean shaven, if shaken. No one in my family would be surprised by a single word in this paragraph.
There were signs of impending disaster from the earliest days of my marriage, over 35 years ago. On our honeymoon, one of the tires on our rental car went flat. I went to the trunk of the car and located what appeared to be instruments intended to address the issue. But even then, even when all the synapses were firing, even when hair grew on my head and not out of my nose and ears, even at the apex of my critical thinking, I had not a clue how to put A into B and end up with a new tire on a car. As my young bride watched, I flailed and failed.
I would assume that the dog of Mr. Glass has no real understanding of the strain he has placed upon his owner. He probably can't comprehend that his exotic food allergies, his seemingly incessant desire to nip at all humans, and his other deviations from the norm are considered drawbacks. He probably perceives that he and Mr. Glass are very ordinary and that their interaction is standard fare. I am not a dog and so I know that my inability to unscrew a light bulb is not cute. The broken shards that my wife takes out with parts of a potato does not qualify in her world as entertaining. The fact that I can't light the stove and that the tale I tell that one effort led to me burning off my eyebrows is deemed possible, is not in any way endearing. Who among us is unable to pump gas? Who would admit that getting keys off a key chain is an incomprehensible maze? How is vacuuming an art? When is getting an Allen wrench a test rather than a request? When did fitting the bottom sheet on a bed become a tug of war?
Mr. Glass may not have gotten what he bargained for with his dog. He may find that his life has headed in directions unintended and unanticipated since his pet entered his domain. But like he said, a dog doesn't speak the English language and can't fathom getting a paying job. There were well defined limits to his expectations. I was only 24 when my wife met me. I was in my last year of law school and had not yet developed any of physical shortcomings that would invade my body over the years. Back surgery was over 3 decades away. Even the years of treatments to try to turn my toenails into an approximation of the color and shape of my youth, was still off in the distance. It would be some time before my incessant desire to sing badly and an inopportune moments became a staple of my day. What my wife saw, and what she clearly entered into a bargain for, was not the dog of Mr. Glass.
Is it typical that putting dishes correctly in the dishwasher is as hard as solving a Rubik's cube? Can failing to put the emergency brake on a stick shift or putting it in gear on a hill be deemed acceptable because no one was hurt and the car miraculously parked itself at the bottom of a hill? Is setting the thermostat deemed advance mathematics? How many times can my son give me the same instructions for the computer? Is infinite an appropriate response?
I can't imagine what the future holds for my bride. Combining incompetence with incoherence is not a real daily double. My mom has spent the last half decade in an ever declining state of dementia. Long before the first symptoms were evident to the outside world, she complained of forgetfulness. Failing to bring the laundry upstairs after reminding myself countless times of this task only makes the events of the last day seem a precursor to ever diminished returns.
Ira Glass and my wife have much in common. I only hope that like Mr. Glass, my wife finds something compelling in a relationship with a unique partner. I hope she believes, as he must, that there is a strange and exotic beauty in all of this. I only know that if Mr. Glass and my wife ever decide that weird is not wonderful, both the dog and I are in trouble.
Monday, December 3, 2012
My Debt Reducing Fantasy
A guest post by Richie Jay
I understand that Mitt Romney ran a campaign built upon a foundation of willful lies and intentional vagueness (he lost, but he likely would've lost even worse if he hadn't tacked away from the far right during the debates, and if he had been clear and upfront about his regressive tax and spending priorities), and his debt reduction plan was basically to give additional massive tax cuts to the rich, close some unspecified loopholes, and then, like magic, there'd be rainbows, butterflies, full employment, and a balanced budget.
But now that we're actually approaching something with the terribly misleading name, "The Fiscal Cliff," and the presidential campaign is officially over, you'd think the Republicans could get serious about actual fiscal policy, especially because they claim to be very concerned about the national debt. So, after Obama puts out his actual plan to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire on the wealthiest Americans, and to reduce spending in specified areas, Boehner replies that this is not a serious plan (he called it a "La-la-land offer," in fact). So Obama challenges Boehner to put up an alternative.
And what does Boehner do? He basically reintroduces the Romney-Ryan plan: Deeper cuts to government programs, disproportionately hurting the poor and working class, and, you guessed it, unspecified changes in tax policy (closing loopholes, limiting deductions) that are supposed to raise a bunch of money, but since we aren't allowed to know which ones, we can't know if this is true, and we can't know who will face the burden of these changes.
The worst offenders, however, are the media, who will surely pretend that this is an actual plan, a true and reasonable counter-proposal to Barack Obama's budget. And there'll be pundit debates on the tee-vee over which plan is better, with equal time given to each one: Obama's with real numbers, or Boehner's less arithmetic-y version (math is hard!). And, of course, they'll bring up Simpson-Bowles, which never actually agreed on a plan (thanks, Paul Ryan!), and what ideas they did come up with are right out of the traditional pro-austerity Republican playbook. (Even Obama's plan is no liberal dream, but at least it's an actual plan).
So as long as we're living in a non-reality-based universe, I've got a fool-proof proposal to solve America's 'debt crisis': Unicorns that fart $100 bills. That's right. I'm talking a whole Texas-sized prairie filled with farting unicorns. Then we just collect all those $100 bills, give them a good sanitizing, and -- boom -- just like that, budget balanced, jobs created (unicorns are very high maintenance), precipice averted, and world's greatest petting zoo established (watch out for the horn, though).
I understand that Mitt Romney ran a campaign built upon a foundation of willful lies and intentional vagueness (he lost, but he likely would've lost even worse if he hadn't tacked away from the far right during the debates, and if he had been clear and upfront about his regressive tax and spending priorities), and his debt reduction plan was basically to give additional massive tax cuts to the rich, close some unspecified loopholes, and then, like magic, there'd be rainbows, butterflies, full employment, and a balanced budget.
But now that we're actually approaching something with the terribly misleading name, "The Fiscal Cliff," and the presidential campaign is officially over, you'd think the Republicans could get serious about actual fiscal policy, especially because they claim to be very concerned about the national debt. So, after Obama puts out his actual plan to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire on the wealthiest Americans, and to reduce spending in specified areas, Boehner replies that this is not a serious plan (he called it a "La-la-land offer," in fact). So Obama challenges Boehner to put up an alternative.
And what does Boehner do? He basically reintroduces the Romney-Ryan plan: Deeper cuts to government programs, disproportionately hurting the poor and working class, and, you guessed it, unspecified changes in tax policy (closing loopholes, limiting deductions) that are supposed to raise a bunch of money, but since we aren't allowed to know which ones, we can't know if this is true, and we can't know who will face the burden of these changes.
The worst offenders, however, are the media, who will surely pretend that this is an actual plan, a true and reasonable counter-proposal to Barack Obama's budget. And there'll be pundit debates on the tee-vee over which plan is better, with equal time given to each one: Obama's with real numbers, or Boehner's less arithmetic-y version (math is hard!). And, of course, they'll bring up Simpson-Bowles, which never actually agreed on a plan (thanks, Paul Ryan!), and what ideas they did come up with are right out of the traditional pro-austerity Republican playbook. (Even Obama's plan is no liberal dream, but at least it's an actual plan).
So as long as we're living in a non-reality-based universe, I've got a fool-proof proposal to solve America's 'debt crisis': Unicorns that fart $100 bills. That's right. I'm talking a whole Texas-sized prairie filled with farting unicorns. Then we just collect all those $100 bills, give them a good sanitizing, and -- boom -- just like that, budget balanced, jobs created (unicorns are very high maintenance), precipice averted, and world's greatest petting zoo established (watch out for the horn, though).
Saturday, December 1, 2012
Day of Rest? When is it Not OK to Bench Your Best Players
David Stern's stern reprimands aside, the decision to field less than your best is a time honored tradition in sports.
In 1990 a $25,000 fine was levied by Commissioner Stern against the Lakers for Pat Riley putting out a Washington Generals type squad for the last game of the regular season. The succinct response of the coach was that "I decide who the heck I want to play."
In 1990 a $25,000 fine was levied by Commissioner Stern against the Lakers for Pat Riley putting out a Washington Generals type squad for the last game of the regular season. The succinct response of the coach was that "I decide who the heck I want to play."
In the middle of the third quarter of game 15 of the
2009 NFL season, Peyton Manning headed to the bench, notwithstanding
his team holding a tenuous 15-10 lead against the Jets. Shortly
thereafter, dreams of a perfect season vanished in a 29-15 defeat and
the team was booed off the field by the hometown crowd. The Jets playoff
hopes, dead on arrival, were revived while others like the Steelers and
Texans, fighting for the post-season could only watch and wonder.
Afterwards, came the explanation. "I can narrow my scope and once you
make a decision you live with it." Coach speak at its finest.
And in a shining example of oratorical beauty on
this topic, Washington Nationals Manager Davey Johnson proclaimed this
September: "I really don't give a rat's ass what somebody thinks about
my club and who I put on the field to either help somebody else or I'm not
supposed to rest my regulars after we clinch it."
It is not only those with little or nothing to lose
who play this game (or more accurately, don't), In August of 2010, the
Yankees were battling for first place with the Tampa Bay Rays. On a
Sunday, manager Joe Girardi left A-Rod and several other regulars on the
bench. When explaining the resulting 3-0 loss, which dropped their lead
to a single game, Girardi said, "I'm just playing so I don't blow somebody out...People they're gonna question it, but I gotta think
about the long haul."
The decision of the Spurs to send four regulars home before a nationally televised game against the Miami Heat this week was certainly not a determination one could anticipate. A marquis match-up and then it wasn't. Yet the fact that the game was in doubt until the last seconds should make for more than an interesting asterisk.
Is there something larger than a responsibility to your own team? In sports, particularly professional sports, is there an obligation to put on the best show every night? The answers of the coaches cited herein, when forced to address those questions, are clear and certain.
Is there something larger than a responsibility to your own team? In sports, particularly professional sports, is there an obligation to put on the best show every night? The answers of the coaches cited herein, when forced to address those questions, are clear and certain.
Did Coach Popovich step over some mythical line any
more than the others? Did he damage the integrity of the game or did he
merely make a tactical decision, and in the process send a message both
to the soon to be departing Mr. Stern and the next NBA czar about
protecting players against unreasonable scheduling demands of the
league?
This was not equivalent to the actions of the Olympic badminton players from South Korea, China and Indonesia intentionally "not using one's efforts to win a match" and "conducting oneself in a manner clearly abusive or detrimental to the sport."
This was not equivalent to the actions of the Olympic badminton players from South Korea, China and Indonesia intentionally "not using one's efforts to win a match" and "conducting oneself in a manner clearly abusive or detrimental to the sport."
Commissioner Stern apologized to the fans and
pounded the Spurs for their transgression. He should instead be
apologizing to the coach for condemning his decision to consider the long term
welfare of his team rather than the overnight TV numbers.
Even God rested on the seventh day.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)