Halftime during the Blame Bowl

I have avoided writing on this topic for days.  I did not want to add to the toxic waste of recriminations and finger pointing over the accountability for the tragic shooting in Tucson on Saturday.  After careful reflection, however, I believe that I can add to the debate in a new and meaningful way.  I believe that I can make the case of straight line causation from one specific societal influence directly to the violence.  I have not heard one talking head or so-called “expert” address the most egregious purveyor of systematic violence that is directly responsible for preying on the most weak-minded in our society.  I refer, of course, to the NFL’s marketing of professional football.

The language of the game, repeated ad naseum during playoff season, is riddled with references to a wide variety of weapons, from small arms to WMDs.  How many times did the unbalanced shooter hear about Brady’s effectiveness from the “shotgun” formation before the violent imagery seeped into his consciousness and forced him to act?  We have all been affected, sometimes overtly, by commentators loving references to Clay Matthews’ bulging biceps as his “guns”.  Immobile quarterbacks are known as the proverbial “sitting ducks”, ready to be hunted.  Devin Hester being deified for his ability to “knife” through special teams’ coverage is repulsive, and any American interested in a more civic discourse should reject these types of dangerous clichés that lead directly and unequivocally to public mayhem.

You disagree?  Have you ever met a Raiders fan on game day up close?

One month before the assailant took deadly aim, ESPN was consumed with talk about the “gunner” for the Dolphins being tripped up deliberately by the Jets sideline players during punt return coverage.  You don’t need an advanced degree in criminology to see how a mentally ill young man could take up this assault against a gunner with a gun of his own.  Words matter.  The cumulative effect of this kind of verbiage must have become too much for him to bear.

Can’t we get back to talking about kinder, gentler football topics, like Rex Ryan’s predilection for women’s footwear?

  

Yes, the NFL has taken a zero tolerance stance to “shots to the head”, but at the same time, the league is marketing these hits to young fans.  The league cannot ignore this hypocrisy, and their flag waving attempt at political correctness fools no one.  No sane person can deny the relationship between these football messages and the events of Saturday in Arizona.  Let’s face it, half the players on the field are offensive in one form or another.  Do I have to draw it on a chalkboard for you to understand?

Even in the aftermath of the events of Saturday, I have heard ESPN on-air personalities Mike and Mike describe the Falcons-Packers game as a potential “shoot out” in Atlanta.  Other than supplying the weapons at a kiosk on the Georgia Dome concourse at halftime, I am not sure that they could be more culpable for any future violence in Atlanta than that.  Shame on you, ESPN.

Ron Jaworski has been all over the same network leading up to the playoffs.  Known as “The Polish Rifle” during his playing days, his presence on screen has to influence those viewers most vulnerable to his commentary on “schemes” and “disguised” attacks.  This is the language of paranoia, and terror is what resulted.  Jaws can claim that everyone is doing it, and hey – it’s just football, right?  That does not relieve him or his network of responsibility for its cultural insensitivity.  He could be just as tough with a nickname like, “The Polish Sausage” instead, and no one would get hurt.

I do not think it is a coincidence that no one seems to be mentioning the “bomb” pass anymore, ever since the new START treaty was ratified by Congress.  The connection couldn’t be clearer.  Tone down the rhetoric of war, and weapons of war disappear.  If we tone down the rhetoric of violence, lives may be spared.

Tone does matter, and I hope that this weekend’s playoff coverage will be more inclusive, more gentle, and more responsible.  This violent talk must stop, or as a Baltimore Raven once said, “Nevermore.” 

Please pray for the victims, and join me in condemning the league for its role in making Jared Lee Loughner into a killer.  Punish the league by voting with your ticket dollars.  Go see a baseball game.

J-E-T-S, Jets, Jets, Jets!

Big Brother’s Fingerprints

Sixty-one years ago, George Orwell’s final novel was published.  1984 has since entered the pantheon of influential American novels, and there is no more compelling character within its pages than Big Brother.  Big Brother’s name has been invoked to scare generations of Americans on the potential of unchecked government intrusion into our private lives, and he is the official boogeyman of libertarians across the nation.   He represents the elimination of choice in our lives.  He represents a loss of personal freedom.  He represents the suppression of individuality.  Big Brother (the TV show notwithstanding) is usually bad, and no one likes Big Brother.   He is always watching, and we cringe at the thought of the invasion of our privacy (unless we are on Facebook, where privacy is frowned upon).

Is Big Brother always bad?  As technology has improved geometrically since the original publication date of Orwell’s masterpiece, the reach of law enforcement and government regulation into what was formerly the realm of individual choice and private preference has expanded incrementally.  The creep of Big Brother’s reach is usually in the name of safety and security, and those are good things, popular things.  For example, traffic cameras slow speeders and reduce the number of accidents at risky intersections.  Some don’t like being watched, but few are in favor of more accidents.  Ashley Halsey III raised the specter of Big Brother indirectly for me in her provocative front page story in Saturday’s Washington Post, and caused me to struggle with my competing instincts to protect free choice, privacy and security.

The article, titled “Too drunk? Your car won’t go along for the ride”, said that we are 5-7 years away from reliable sensors in cars that would measure the driver’s blood alcohol level, and disable the engine automatically if a legally intoxicated individual tried to operate it.  The passive infrared sensors could become standard features on cars of the future, and teach an important lesson in temperance to a new generation - the hard way.

The technology is possible because of increased investment in security research post-9/11.  Advances in bomb-detecting devices are paving the way for this new intrusive safety feature.  Could another consequence of Osama bin Laden's war against the West be fewer alcohol related road fatalities?   This partnership between the auto manufacturers and Federal safety regulators (NHTSA) is in itself a scary idea for the strict anti-government activists out there, who recoil at taxpayer dollars being used to help private industry in any way, even to provide better safety to all citizens.

My first objections to the idea were all based on ignorance of the technology.  How would it know, based on the air in the car, who was drunk?  Could a car be rendered inoperable if filled with one designated driver and three slobbering drunks breathing on his neck?  If the touch pad system were deployed to cars, would those wanting a few glasses of wine with dinner use the “sensor-free” car for those outings, and only young Johnny would be forced to drive the Big Brother Blood Monitoring Mobile?  I will need to know more to render an opinion on whether I think it would even work.

The drunk-free sensors could be an optional feature, an “upgrade”, like leather interiors or side impact air bags.  Volvo would be the first to make them standard issue in keeping with their marketing strategy to sell safety, not cars.  What demographic of car buyer would gravitate to cars with the standard issue sensors?  Soccer moms?  More importantly, which demographic would shy away from cars with this feature?  Could late model cars be more likely to be pulled over at night than the new cars with the passive system installed?  We could see a new wrinkle in the profiling debate.  “Step out of the vehicle.  I pulled you over because you are driving a 1998 Honda Civic, and it was pulling to the right in a suspicious manner.”

Car prices would have to rise if the new system became a mandatory feature, like the air bag increased vehicle costs.  How much of an increase would be too much?  The system is just one cost, too.  The other cost to manufacturers is liability insurance.  If a drunk driver kills someone, is the car company now an accessory, since their sensor system did not prevent the accident?  Personal responsibility takes one more step backwards.

There is another side to this coin, of course.  Alcohol related injuries and deaths extract a tremendous financial toll not only on the victims but on society as a whole.  Last year, over 10,000 fatalities on the roads were alcohol-related, and injuries and property damages add to the costs.  If this technology reduced these costs in financial and human terms, is it worth the inconvenience?  Remember, the installation of seat belts into cars was fought by automobile companies as imposing a sort of safety tax onto the price of every vehicle.  Then lives started being saved, and today, seat belts are not only mandatory, many states mandate their use by all passengers.  In retrospect, the arguments of the 1960s against mandatory seat belt installation in cars seem ridiculous.

My final thought is an important one.  A passive blood alcohol sensor in every car assumes the worst – the driver is impaired until the computer proves otherwise.  Is there anything more un-American than being guilty until proven innocent?

In this situation, we may be forced to choose between freedom and privacy on one end of the continuum, and safety and security on the other end.  The middle ground between the two is viewed as a momentary pause on the slippery slope towards one extreme direction or the other.  I wonder if no balancing point truly exists.  Mandatory sensors, or the wild, wild West – which will we embrace?  I want my kid’s car to turn off if they are legally impaired, no question.  I would prefer that they hand the keys to someone else before a computer ever has to make that choice for them.

This technology, if installed on all cars in the future, should reduce alcohol-related driving fatalities.  How many fewer, and at what cost, remains to be debated.  This technology could save our lives, but only if we submit to its’ will.  Maybe Orwell was correct when he wrote, “Freedom is Slavery.”

 

 

War of Words

There are different ways to chart the ebb and flow of history, and measure the concepts that define the various eras.  Leave it to Google to find another high tech way.

This is the link to a crazy powerful site called Books Ngram Viewer.  Google charted the usage of words in recorded book history to find out how often they occur, and then charts the frequency on a graph.  It gives the user the ability to see visually how some ideas rise and fall over time.  Sounds silly, but here's an example:

This is a chart I created in seconds that compares the appearance of the words 'diversity' (blue line) and 'inclusion' (red line).  Looks like diversity really took off in the late 1980s, and has fallen off since the administration of George the II.

Let's try a single word:  terrorism.

Quite a jump starting in the late 1990s, and a major spike after September 11th.

One more word war:  Franklin Roosevelt vs. John Kennedy:

Interesting how their appearance in books seems to run in a parallel trend.

Anyway, try the site, and stage your own war of words from the safety of your own home.  Boys vs. Girls, Football vs. Baseball vs. Soccer, whatever you want.  Harvard vs. Yale gives a good result.

Thanks to Dan Pink for the head's up on this cool procrastination tool.

Sour Kraut-Hammer

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/30/AR2010123003047.html

In last Friday’s Washington Post (Dec. 31st), everyone’s favorite right wing pundit, Charles Krauthammer, argued that Obama’s use of executive orders and regulatory rules to circumvent the legislative process was an abuse of the system, and another example of his secret plan to create an imperial Presidency.  I disagree.  Obama’s use of these tools are a symptom of a dysfunctional Congress, and these tools have been used for years by many Presidents, and to a greater degree.

He started off with a statement that raised my ire.  When talking about Medicare payments for end-of-life counseling (you know, the "Death Panels"). he writes that "it aroused so much anxiety as a possible first slippery step on the road to state-mandated late-life rationing that the Senate never included it in the final health-care law."  Yes, it raised so much anxiety because the far right media echo chamber repeated the falsehood over and over and over.  In the absence of fact, repetition is a good substitute.  But I digress.  Back to my point.

Circumventing the sausage making process of the modern Congress by using the other available tools at a President’s disposal is nothing new, or unique, as Krauthammer would lead the reader to believe.  Obama’s predecessor, George Bush, used signing statements to unilaterally decide what parts of laws he would enforce and which ones he would ignore.  That's not just circumventing.  That's changing the rules.

Bush "broke all records" while abusing this presidential tool, "using signing statements to challenge about 1,200 sections of bills over his eight years in office, about twice the number challenged by all previous presidents combined."  Many of Mr. Bush’s challenges were based on an expansive view of the president’s power, as commander in chief, to take actions he believes necessary, regardless of what Congress says in legislation.

The American Bar Association declared that such signing statements were “contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional separation of powers,” and called on Mr. Bush and future presidents to stop using them and to return to a system of either signing a bill and then enforcing all of it, or vetoing the bill and giving Congress a chance to override that veto.

I searched in vain for an op-ed by Mr. Krauthammer condemning this practice by his Champion of Freedom.  If he published one, I could not find it on the “lame stream” Internet.  Let me know if I missed it.

In fact, in one of Obama’s first acts as President, he revoked Bush's most far-reaching claim of control over agency regulations. Executive Order 13422, which Bush issued in January 2007, replaced career civil servants steeped in the specific missions and subject-matter expertise of their agencies with political appointees.  Executive Order 13422 gave the president undue control over federal agency rulemaking while circumventing legislative intent, but that must not concern Krauthammer.  Bush was a Republican, doing the will of the people, no doubt.

Other Presidents have used the executive order and regulatory powers to advance their agendas and programs, beginning with George Washington.  The Constitution allows for that power, although it was probably more necessary in a time when Congress was a tough group to gather together for legislative sessions.  Air travel was almost 2 centuries away at the time.  The fact of matter is that without using regulatory authority and executive orders, nothing would get done.  If that is Krauthammer goal, to stop functioning government and create a libertarian utopia (or anarchy), then condemn the practice by ALL Presidents. 

If Krauthammer disagrees with the specific policy directive, fine.  Say so and be done.  His critique of the way in which Obama is operating to get things done in Washington, however, is misplaced and blindly partisan. 

Mirror Mirror

It has been said that perception is reality, but perhaps it’s time to update this popular expression.  How about “Reality is Reality”?  Americans are overweight, and getting bigger.  Diabetes caused by poor diets is one of this country’s fastest growing health problems, and the long-term cost of treating the disease will impact everyone’s wallet.

I came across this tidbit:

Despite surging obesity numbers in the U.S., a new survey finds that just one out of 10 Americans say their diet is unhealthy.

The survey, conducted by Consumer Reports, also found that while four in 10 admitted being "somewhat overweight," just 11 percent said they were very overweight or obese — a direct contradiction of previous weight measurements taken by researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which show that 68 percent of Americans are overweight or obese.

 

"There does seem to be a disconnect," between reality and the answers most of us give when asked questions about our diet, how much exercise we get and our weight, said Molly Kimball, a registered dietitian at Ochshner's Elmwood Fitness Center in New Orleans. (from MyHealthNewsDaily by Karen Rowan)

Full article:  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40907754/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/ 

“A disconnect”???  We certainly are a complex organism of rationalizations and self-deceptions.  68% of us are overweight or obese, and yet only 40% admit it.  My basic math skills tell me that 28% of people are overweight or obese, but do not recognize it.  Step One to recovery is admitting that there is a problem, so we have some work to do before we get to Step One as a nation. 

 

As troubling as that is, I find it equally troubling that at the other end of the spectrum, teenage girls are struggling with body image and increasingly obsessed about their own physical appearance to the point of self-induced illness.  Some waifs think they are too fat, and popular culture does nothing to dissuade them from this notion.  The American Dream for girls is no longer career, marriage, family.  It’s flat abs in 8 minutes a day.

In America, there are 2 certainties about our own body image (like politics, I might add):

·         The truth is somewhere in the middle (pun intended)

·         The closer you are to the situation, the harder it is to see the objective truth    

It is time to look at ourselves as individuals, and find our own healthy equilibrium between rest, exercise, diet, lifestyle, and weight.  The medical community and popular culture will sometimes be in sync with their messaging, and sometimes they will be at odds.  Our personal health is a combination of the physical, mental, emotional and spiritual.  “Healthy” is something that only we can define for ourselves, but in the meantime, take a long look at yourself in the mirror and a quick jog up two flights of stairs.  You’ll be closer to the truth after that.

Hold the Buffalo Wings

Spending time in Buffalo would make anyone a bit edgy, but as a hockey player, this story makes total sense to me:

Associated Press, January 6, 2011 - CHEEKTOWAGA, N.Y. –

An unruly Team Russia was booted from a flight at the Buffalo airport while trying to get home after winning the gold medal at the world junior hockey championships.

Airport spokesman C. Douglas Hartmayer says all 32 or so members of the Russian contingent were asked to get off a Delta flight headed to Atlanta after boarding for takeoff early Thursday morning.
Hartmayer says the group then left the terminal but didn't know where it went.

Tournament officials had no immediate comment. A call to a Delta spokeswoman wasn't immediately returned.

Russia overcame a three-goal deficit in the third period to stun Canada 5-3 in the gold-medal game Wednesday night.

So which event will happen first?:

·         Russian players are found.

·         Delta returns the phone call.

·         Flight attendants submit work comp claim for emotional distress and loss of consortium.

·         Canadian players are shipped to the Yukon for 10 years hard labor.

·         Stolichnaya Vodka inks the team to an endorsement deal.

I turned off the game in the 2^nd period when Team Canada was winning 3-0, but the game is being replayed on NHL Network later this week.  Looking forward to seeing it.

Repeal Appeal

The first order of business for the newly elected majority in the House is grandstanding.  I know, I know, you saw one of the new, powerful GOP House members on TV telling you with a squared jaw and steely eyes that it is all about jobs, jobs, jobs.  Brace yourselves – they were lying about that one, and a few others things, for good measure.

The first fact to know is that the Affordable Care Act will not be repealed, at least not in the next 2 years.  The Senate will not back the House, Obama would veto the repeal if it even got that far, and the GOP lacks the votes to overturn the veto.  It’s not even close.  This fact will not slow the GOP from doing what new Majority Leader Eric Cantor says “reflects what most people inside the beltway and outside the beltway want”.
  
Oops – another lie.  The public is split into thirds on this one.  Approximately one-third favors repeal, one-third favors expansion of the Act, and another third is willing to wait and see what happens.  Perhaps Cantor misspoke.  Perhaps he meant to say that the repeal effort reflects what the far right and health insurance companies want.  Hmmm, I thought they wanted jobs, jobs, jobs.

Of course, everyone knows that the ACA was a jobs killer.  Everyone knows this because someone said it on TV, or blogged about it, and it was repeated in the echo chamber as gospel truth.  Well, here’s the news from today about jobs:

• Private employers added 297,000 jobs in December compared with a revised gain of 92,000 in November, a report by a payroll processor showed on Wednesday.  The ADP gain in December was the largest in the history of ADP report.
• Fewer jobs were eliminated in nearly every major industry in 2010, the Challenger (Challenger, Gray and Christmas) report said. Layoffs in the automotive sector totaled 16,001, down 91 percent from a year ago. Retail employers — which cut 98,807 jobs a year ago — announced 38,751 layoffs in 2010, a decrease of nearly two-thirds.
• A report from consultants Challenger, Gray & Christmas, Inc., showed the number of planned layoffs at U.S. firms fell in December to the lowest level since 2000, while the combined yearly total was the lowest since 2007.
• Downsizing in 2010 totaled 529,973 lost positions, a 59 percent drop from the previous year. The 2010 total was the lowest since 434,350 job cuts were announced in 1997.

How could the private job growth picture have improved if ACA is still on the books?  Could it be that someone isn’t being completely honest with you?

During the debate on HCR, the Republican minority insisted that any bill, but especially the health care bill, be scored by the Congressional Budget Office to assess impact on the deficit.  They couldn’t possibly vote for any bill that added one penny to the deficit (oops – another lie: the tax compromise they voted for added trillions to the deficit).  As you may have forgotten, the CBO scored the ACA as directed, and determined that the bill would reduce the deficit over the next 10 years, while expanding coverage to 94% of Americans.  The Republicans voted against it anyway.

So I have a modest proposal – let’s send the repeal bill to the CBO to assess its impact on the deficit.  If it increases the deficit by one penny, don’t vote for the bill.  Oh no, that might expose a troubling hypocrisy in the right wing rhetoric.  The deficit is a critical issue when we discuss defunding NPR.  When reduced tax rates for all those small mom and pop stores on Main Street USA generating $1,000,000 in household income are under consideration, the deficit is not such a big deal.
   
If we skip the step of checking out the repeal bill’s impact on the deficit, let’s try something else that the GOP was for before they were against it.  Let’s have an open process and allow amendments to be added to the bill.  Not so much, says Rep. Cantor.  "It's a straightforward document," he said.
 
This should come as no surprise.  The GOP would not want to expose the component parts of the bill to public scrutiny.  Show of hands – who is in favor of allowing insurers to discriminate against children with pre-existing conditions?  I didn’t think so.  The ACA has benefits, some of which have come on line and some of which will not be in place until 2014, but exposing these benefits to the light of day would not be doing the ‘will of the people’ in this Orwellian new reality.

The Washington Monthly provides a good summary:

For two years, Republicans said all legislation had to be paid for ... but when it comes time to repeal health care reform, Republicans no longer care about their alleged principles.

For two years, Republicans said all legislation needed scores from the Congressional Budget Office ... but when it comes time to repeal health care reform, Republicans no longer care about their alleged principles.

For two years, Republicans said it was imperative for the minority to be allowed to offer amendments to legislation ... but when it comes time to repeal health care reform, Republicans no longer care about their alleged principles.

For two years, Republicans said self-executing rules and bypassing committees were outrageous abuses ... but when it comes time to repeal health care reform, Republicans no longer care about their alleged principles.

Boehner recently spoke at the AEI and said that the GOP should be "focusing on our collective responsibility to govern."  Oops – not so much.  Voting to repeal a bill that has no chance of repeal is not responsible governing.  Even if you hate the bill, the repeal effort is a waste of time.  Focus on making ACA work.