There is talk among the "experts" that this year's World Series may re-kindle America's love of baseball. Social media has been abuzz the past week with exclamations of disbelief as nearly every game has seen huge scoring and momentum swings and late inning rallies--not to mention a record number of home runs. And yet here I am--a diehard baseball fan--and I am disgusted by what I have seen.
This has not been great baseball. What we have seen so far in the World Series is some combination of T-Ball, Home Run Derby and a video game set on a level that is too easy. A 13-12 score between what are supposed to be the two best teams in the sport in a championship series is embarrassing. Both managers have so badly-handled their pitching staffs that no starters can make it past the fourth inning--but no one coming in from the bullpen can get anyone out. Perhaps they have decided to over-strategize the pitching in these playoffs, since the only thing they have to worry about on the offensive side is who is going to hit the next three run home run.
Now buzz is building about this being the "Greatest World Series Ever"--which really makes me mad. The list of "Greatest World Series Ever" begins with the 1991 Twins-Braves classic and ends with the nearly as good 1975 tilt between Cincinnati and Boston. The 1991 Series will almost be impossible to beat as it featured five, 1-run games, three that went to extra innings, a dramatic walk off homer in game six by Kirby Puckett (cue Jack Buck "AND WE WILL SEE YOU TOMORROW NIGHT!!") and dominant pitching performances by John Smoltz for Atlanta and Jack Morris of Minnesota in Game 7--who pitched all ten innings to pick up the win. Because offense was at such a premium in that series, every pitch was gut-wrenching drama and just getting a runner into scoring position ramped that up even higher. And the thought that Morris or any of the great Braves pitchers were going to come out at the first sign of trouble after the third inning was absurd.
And as for 1975, the heroics performed by nine Hall of Famers on the two teams was the stuff of legend--featuring Carlton Fisk's 12th inning homer that he waved fair off the foul pole over the Green Monster to conclude the greatest baseball game ever played--and Joe Morgan's incredibly clutch performance in Game 7 to bring Cincinnati from behind in the 9th and continue the Curse of the Bambino for another 30-years.
Unfortunately, ratings for this World Series are up considerably--as Millenials alerted to the craziness unfolding that night tune in on all of their devices to check out a video game come alive (although nowhere near the numbers for the 1991 Series). And those ratings equal dollar signs to MLB owners, who are likely thinking of ways to make every regular season game starting next year 13-12 with 15 pitching changes--and five hour game times. Before you know it, pitchers will be throwing underhand--and there will be a keg out a second base.
Tuesday, October 31, 2017
Monday, October 30, 2017
Thank You For Your Service
The couple in the row ahead of us got up about an hour and 15-minutes into it Saturday night. I knew they weren't just going to the bathroom or going to get a refill on their drink--you don't take your coats with you if you plan on coming back. I'll be honest, I was tempted to go with them as what I had been seeing was flat out pissing me off--and I almost couldn't take it anymore. And I'm just talking about watching a movie here.
My wife and I went to see Thank You For Your Service--which is based on the true-life experiences of three Iraq War veterans that struggled to cope with their return to civilian life in 2007. If you think that this is a standard war movie where the Americans come out the heroes or die valiantly while trying to save freedom you are in for a big surprise. Instead, this is a dark portrayal of how we as a country have failed those who have fought for us since 2001.
Denial of psychological issues by military commanders, the overloaded and inefficient VA system and even the failures of support networks at home make you feel as frustrated as the characters on the screen who just want to get some help for the experiences that haunt them. And then they start taking these dark turns that make you feel even worse for them--and that give you some insight into why returning soldiers have such high rates of suicide.
Because the stars of this movie are unknowns to me, it felt more like they were the men they portrayed. If Adam Driver had been up there it would have seemed fake--"Hey, Kylo Ren fought in Iraq". And because the characters aren't famous military heroes, there was never that assurance of knowing how this is going to end.
I would like to think that Thank You For Your Service is going to serve as a turning point in our treatment of returning vets. But considering there were fewer than 20-people in the showing with my wife and me--and two of them left halfway through--I doubt it's going to capture much of the public's attention. There was a seventh Saw movie to see and fifty different combinations of superheroes to put into films throughout the holiday season that everyone would much rather see.
Nobody wants to be made uncomfortable anymore. Or made to think about what our priorities really should be. You know, the title is perfect as well--because "thank you for your service" has become the automatic response to finding out someone has served their country. But are we really showing them appreciation?
My wife and I went to see Thank You For Your Service--which is based on the true-life experiences of three Iraq War veterans that struggled to cope with their return to civilian life in 2007. If you think that this is a standard war movie where the Americans come out the heroes or die valiantly while trying to save freedom you are in for a big surprise. Instead, this is a dark portrayal of how we as a country have failed those who have fought for us since 2001.
Denial of psychological issues by military commanders, the overloaded and inefficient VA system and even the failures of support networks at home make you feel as frustrated as the characters on the screen who just want to get some help for the experiences that haunt them. And then they start taking these dark turns that make you feel even worse for them--and that give you some insight into why returning soldiers have such high rates of suicide.
Because the stars of this movie are unknowns to me, it felt more like they were the men they portrayed. If Adam Driver had been up there it would have seemed fake--"Hey, Kylo Ren fought in Iraq". And because the characters aren't famous military heroes, there was never that assurance of knowing how this is going to end.
I would like to think that Thank You For Your Service is going to serve as a turning point in our treatment of returning vets. But considering there were fewer than 20-people in the showing with my wife and me--and two of them left halfway through--I doubt it's going to capture much of the public's attention. There was a seventh Saw movie to see and fifty different combinations of superheroes to put into films throughout the holiday season that everyone would much rather see.
Nobody wants to be made uncomfortable anymore. Or made to think about what our priorities really should be. You know, the title is perfect as well--because "thank you for your service" has become the automatic response to finding out someone has served their country. But are we really showing them appreciation?
Friday, October 27, 2017
Bursting the Conspiracy Bubble
Researchers and production assistants at all of the major news outlets had probably better cancel their weekend plans. The National Archives are supposed to release all of the "secret files" the Government has been holding on the Kennedy assassination today. Those poor reporters will now have to spend the next 72-hours pouring over transcripts of questioning sessions conducted by federal investigators,typed reports of "tips" that came into law enforcement across the country, ballistics reports, witness statements, travel records, internal memos and phone records--all in search of "proof" that JFK's death was the result of a conspiracy, and not an act of one idiot.
The release of the materials today is actually a direct result of Oliver Stone's movie JFK back in the 1990's--which led to a renewed interest in assassination conspiracy theories. He led millions of Americans to believe that the Government knew what really happened--and that because it would "threaten the power structure in Washington", evidence was being covered up. So to appease the masses, there was an agreement to release all archive documents in 2017.
So now it will be the job this weekend of those researchers and PA's to find that proof. To somehow link together a tip here, a plane ticket receipt there and a witness statement in another file to prove that the Soviet Union, Fidel Castro, the mob, the CIA, the FBI, the Dallas Police Department and the nebulous "Military Industrial Complex" all colluded to kill President Kennedy for the combined reasons of blocking Soviet missles in Cuba, revenge for the Bay of Pigs Invasion, cracking down on organized crime, promoting civil rights and not wanting to step up military intervention in Vietnam. That was the reason that Oliver Stone and his conspiracy theorists wanted us to believe, right?
Here is what all of the documents that will be released today will show: that the Federal Government and other law enforcement wasted a whole lot of money, time and resources on a wild goose chase trying to support the cockamamie conspiracy theories. We will find out that entire departments at the FBI and CIA were dedicated to re-examining all communications between Moscow, Havana and Washington in the years before November of 1963 to see if there were any "hidden instructions" on carrying out the plot to kill Kennedy. We will probably learn a lot more about every single person that Lee Harvey Oswald ever met in his entire life, where he bought everything he owned, and where he had been every minute for the ten years before getting that job at the Texas Book Depository.
And once we finish up going through all of those records we will find that there is NO credible evidence at all to support a conspiracy to kill Kennedy. But rather than finally put this to rest, all today's release of records will do is fuel a new demand to release "the real evidence that the Government is obviously still hiding".
The release of the materials today is actually a direct result of Oliver Stone's movie JFK back in the 1990's--which led to a renewed interest in assassination conspiracy theories. He led millions of Americans to believe that the Government knew what really happened--and that because it would "threaten the power structure in Washington", evidence was being covered up. So to appease the masses, there was an agreement to release all archive documents in 2017.
So now it will be the job this weekend of those researchers and PA's to find that proof. To somehow link together a tip here, a plane ticket receipt there and a witness statement in another file to prove that the Soviet Union, Fidel Castro, the mob, the CIA, the FBI, the Dallas Police Department and the nebulous "Military Industrial Complex" all colluded to kill President Kennedy for the combined reasons of blocking Soviet missles in Cuba, revenge for the Bay of Pigs Invasion, cracking down on organized crime, promoting civil rights and not wanting to step up military intervention in Vietnam. That was the reason that Oliver Stone and his conspiracy theorists wanted us to believe, right?
Here is what all of the documents that will be released today will show: that the Federal Government and other law enforcement wasted a whole lot of money, time and resources on a wild goose chase trying to support the cockamamie conspiracy theories. We will find out that entire departments at the FBI and CIA were dedicated to re-examining all communications between Moscow, Havana and Washington in the years before November of 1963 to see if there were any "hidden instructions" on carrying out the plot to kill Kennedy. We will probably learn a lot more about every single person that Lee Harvey Oswald ever met in his entire life, where he bought everything he owned, and where he had been every minute for the ten years before getting that job at the Texas Book Depository.
And once we finish up going through all of those records we will find that there is NO credible evidence at all to support a conspiracy to kill Kennedy. But rather than finally put this to rest, all today's release of records will do is fuel a new demand to release "the real evidence that the Government is obviously still hiding".
Thursday, October 26, 2017
If It's Brown, It's Down
What is it with Wisconsin and being in a hurry to establish a hunting season for every animal or bird that populates this state? Yesterday, the state Natural Resources Board gave the DNR permission to start drafting rules for an elk hunt--even though the elk population hasn't hit the goal for starting a hunting season.
When the state started buying elk from Kentucky to transplant in northwestern Wisconsin, they said that there would be no hunting until 300 elk were roaming the area. That was a protection for the species, as enough would be left after hunting season to re-populate. Right now, there are an estimated 240 elk in Wisconsin--or about twenty percent fewer than what the DNR said it was going to need to start hunting them. But now, the department can't wait that long and they want to start selling hunting licenses.
This mirrors the DNR's reaction to the removal--albeit temporary--of the gray wolf form the endangered species list. I think it took about two seconds from the Federal decision to be announced to the Department drafting rules to hunt wolves in Wisconsin. As someone who had the "endangered resources" wolf license plates on my Jeep for years, I was offended that the animals that my extra registration fee were going to protect, were now going to be fair game for every deer hunter harboring a grudge.
Are there not enough other hunting options in Wisconsin that as soon as there is one more animal than is necessary to guarantee the continuance of a species we need to have a new hunting season for it? We already have seasons for deer, bear, coyotes, rabbits, foxes, mink, weasles, beavers, muskrats, raccoons, opussum, skunks, ducks, geese, turkeys, morning doves, grouse and pheasants. There's even a couple more species you can shoot with a special permit if they become a nuisance on your property. And yet, the DNR feels it needs to start hunting elk before their pre-determined goal is even met.
A few days ago I talked about possible replacements for "America's Dairyland" on our license plates. I guess I forgot "If It's Brown, It's Down".
When the state started buying elk from Kentucky to transplant in northwestern Wisconsin, they said that there would be no hunting until 300 elk were roaming the area. That was a protection for the species, as enough would be left after hunting season to re-populate. Right now, there are an estimated 240 elk in Wisconsin--or about twenty percent fewer than what the DNR said it was going to need to start hunting them. But now, the department can't wait that long and they want to start selling hunting licenses.
This mirrors the DNR's reaction to the removal--albeit temporary--of the gray wolf form the endangered species list. I think it took about two seconds from the Federal decision to be announced to the Department drafting rules to hunt wolves in Wisconsin. As someone who had the "endangered resources" wolf license plates on my Jeep for years, I was offended that the animals that my extra registration fee were going to protect, were now going to be fair game for every deer hunter harboring a grudge.
Are there not enough other hunting options in Wisconsin that as soon as there is one more animal than is necessary to guarantee the continuance of a species we need to have a new hunting season for it? We already have seasons for deer, bear, coyotes, rabbits, foxes, mink, weasles, beavers, muskrats, raccoons, opussum, skunks, ducks, geese, turkeys, morning doves, grouse and pheasants. There's even a couple more species you can shoot with a special permit if they become a nuisance on your property. And yet, the DNR feels it needs to start hunting elk before their pre-determined goal is even met.
A few days ago I talked about possible replacements for "America's Dairyland" on our license plates. I guess I forgot "If It's Brown, It's Down".
Wednesday, October 25, 2017
Not Quite What It Should Be
I know it will be nice to have professional basketball here in Oshkosh starting next month, but to me, the NBA G-League is still not what it should be. Just looking at the Wisconsin Herd roster, you see its filled with a couple of guys that we can expect to play with the Bucks for spot duty this year (in fact, Gary Payton, Junior has already been recalled to the big club due to an injury to Malcolm Brogdon) along with undrafted college guys and a few NBA training camp cuts.
What the G-League should be is the solution to the one-and-done corruption of college basketball. Currently, NBA rules prohibit drafting a player until he is one year past his high school graduation. Because those guys can't play in the G-League either, they end up attending the minimum number of classes required by the NCAA to remain eligible for the first semester at a college basketball power, then attend no classes the second semester and leave school completely after the NCAA Tournament to prepare for the draft. Their being considered "student-athletes" is a complete sham--and prestigious universities lower both their standards and their reputations bending over backwards to accommodate them just for the sake of athletic glory.
But if the NBA lifted its age requirement, those guys (along with other talented players without the academic acumen to even stay eligible for one semester in college) could be drafted--and if they aren't ready for the big time, they can work on their games in the G-League and get paid--by both the parent club and by the shoe companies (solving another pox upon college basketball). That way college hoops can return to teams made up of kids that actually want to be in school.
Would opening the G-League to all high school grads (or at least those who reach 18-years old--and may not have even bothered to graduate) reduce the talent level of college basketball? It probably would. But college teams that have been together for three or four years would play better ball than the McDonald's All American team of freshmen that Kentucky hoops has been putting out there the last decade. And keep in mind, college basketball fans won't care--because the name on the FRONT of the jersey is far more important to them than the names on the BACK of the jersey.
I don't know if the NBA would ever go that route, as higly-touted prospects would likely demand more money to play in the G-League than the retreads currently filling those rosters. It's far too convenient and cheap to use the NCAA as a free farm system for the top line young players. But it sure would fix a lot of problems plaguing the sport in the so-called "amateur ranks". Now if we could just get the NFL to part with a few million from its coffers to start a professional minor league too....
What the G-League should be is the solution to the one-and-done corruption of college basketball. Currently, NBA rules prohibit drafting a player until he is one year past his high school graduation. Because those guys can't play in the G-League either, they end up attending the minimum number of classes required by the NCAA to remain eligible for the first semester at a college basketball power, then attend no classes the second semester and leave school completely after the NCAA Tournament to prepare for the draft. Their being considered "student-athletes" is a complete sham--and prestigious universities lower both their standards and their reputations bending over backwards to accommodate them just for the sake of athletic glory.
But if the NBA lifted its age requirement, those guys (along with other talented players without the academic acumen to even stay eligible for one semester in college) could be drafted--and if they aren't ready for the big time, they can work on their games in the G-League and get paid--by both the parent club and by the shoe companies (solving another pox upon college basketball). That way college hoops can return to teams made up of kids that actually want to be in school.
Would opening the G-League to all high school grads (or at least those who reach 18-years old--and may not have even bothered to graduate) reduce the talent level of college basketball? It probably would. But college teams that have been together for three or four years would play better ball than the McDonald's All American team of freshmen that Kentucky hoops has been putting out there the last decade. And keep in mind, college basketball fans won't care--because the name on the FRONT of the jersey is far more important to them than the names on the BACK of the jersey.
I don't know if the NBA would ever go that route, as higly-touted prospects would likely demand more money to play in the G-League than the retreads currently filling those rosters. It's far too convenient and cheap to use the NCAA as a free farm system for the top line young players. But it sure would fix a lot of problems plaguing the sport in the so-called "amateur ranks". Now if we could just get the NFL to part with a few million from its coffers to start a professional minor league too....
Tuesday, October 24, 2017
Violating the 11th Commandment
While running for Governor of California in the 1960's Ronald Reagan established the 11th Commandment of politics: "Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican". For decades the GOP abided by that commandment--as it's presidential primaries were fairly cordial affairs compared to the ugliness that beset the Democratic Party . But in today's political climate, the order to keep all in-party squabbles out of the limelight has gone completely out the window.
The latest example of that here is Assembly Speaker Robin Vos calling three State Senators that demanded Governor Scott Walker veto certain items in the new state budget in order to guarantee their votes "terrorists" during an interview on Up Front With Mike Gousha. This was quite surprising coming from Vos--who considers himself to be a Reagan Republican--and who is noted for not only toeing the party line but working behind the scenes to keep everyone else in line. Of course, Vos backed away from those comments and apologized after it became a statewide new story yesterday.
The Vos incident is just the tip of the iceberg of very public Republican in-fighting. That starts right at the top--with President Donald Trump putting anyone that doesn't bow to his wishes or that criticizes his outrageous comments and twitter rants on full blast in all forms of the media. I would suggest the President be given a large plaque with Reagan's sage advice to hang where he can see it from his desk in the Oval Office--but I know he wouldn't abide by it because Trump doesn't accept good advice from anyone.
However, you have to wonder if the 11th Amendment even applies to the President. Reagan did say "fellow Republican"--and as he has proven since day one of his campaign (and 40-years before that), President Trump is not a Republican. Yes, he won the party's nomination in an over-crowded field that spread real party support too thin early in the process and allowed his traveling circus to gain momentum. Then the Democrats put up the worst possible candidate to oppose him and he ends up with back-door win in the general election. But since then he has repeatedly shown that there will be no allegiance with the party or its platform--Trump is in politics strictly for himself.
So let the leader of the Trump Party speak ill of actual Republicans all he wants. And let those that actually stand by the principals of the party fire right back. But don't let him turn us against each other. For as another wise Republican once said "A house divided cannot stand".
The latest example of that here is Assembly Speaker Robin Vos calling three State Senators that demanded Governor Scott Walker veto certain items in the new state budget in order to guarantee their votes "terrorists" during an interview on Up Front With Mike Gousha. This was quite surprising coming from Vos--who considers himself to be a Reagan Republican--and who is noted for not only toeing the party line but working behind the scenes to keep everyone else in line. Of course, Vos backed away from those comments and apologized after it became a statewide new story yesterday.
The Vos incident is just the tip of the iceberg of very public Republican in-fighting. That starts right at the top--with President Donald Trump putting anyone that doesn't bow to his wishes or that criticizes his outrageous comments and twitter rants on full blast in all forms of the media. I would suggest the President be given a large plaque with Reagan's sage advice to hang where he can see it from his desk in the Oval Office--but I know he wouldn't abide by it because Trump doesn't accept good advice from anyone.
However, you have to wonder if the 11th Amendment even applies to the President. Reagan did say "fellow Republican"--and as he has proven since day one of his campaign (and 40-years before that), President Trump is not a Republican. Yes, he won the party's nomination in an over-crowded field that spread real party support too thin early in the process and allowed his traveling circus to gain momentum. Then the Democrats put up the worst possible candidate to oppose him and he ends up with back-door win in the general election. But since then he has repeatedly shown that there will be no allegiance with the party or its platform--Trump is in politics strictly for himself.
So let the leader of the Trump Party speak ill of actual Republicans all he wants. And let those that actually stand by the principals of the party fire right back. But don't let him turn us against each other. For as another wise Republican once said "A house divided cannot stand".
Monday, October 23, 2017
The Savers Get Punished Again
I've always expected the Government to come for our retirement funds. There is a lot of money tied up in tax-sheltered accounts that every member of Congress could find multiple ways to spend. I just always assumed that Democrats that would take steps to take it away--not Republicans.
There would always be a Bernie Sanders-like liberal that would see no need for Americans to put away money for their retirement--because "the Government will always be there to take care of you". All we would need to do is trust Washington to actually hang on to that money until retirement time. But looking at how Social Security and Medicare are trending--all of that would be gone long before those of us in Generation X would need it.
But it surprises me that it is Republicans that are taking the first steps to take away the incentive to save for retirement. The GOP tax plan being touted by everyone includes a provision that would reduce the non-taxable amount that can go into regular Individual Retirement Accounts or employer-provided 401k accounts from $18-thousand to just about $2400. While I would like to think that this change will drive more people to contribute to tax-free growth accounts like Roth IRAs, it will more than likely push folks to just spend the extra money promised by the tax reform measure right away.
The greatest fear is that Congress will eventually change the Tax Code to do away with the tax-free distributions from Roth IRAs and Roth 401k accounts. My wife and I are taking advantage of that benefit the most--maxing out our Roth contributions with post-tax dollars now, to reap the benefits in our golden years. But as more Americans do that, Washington would see a lot of dollars flowing to retirees that they can't touch. And based on an inability to control Government spending, they are going to need that cash even more in the future than they do now.
Plus, to keep the Code consistent, the maximum Roth contribution would likely be reduced to match the standard IRA limit as well--even though we are depositing post-tax dollars, and Government has already been given their share. If that happens, you have to wonder how or why anyone will see the benefit of saving for the future. And in doing so, Republicans will be playing right into the hands of the Democrats that preach Government dependency.
There would always be a Bernie Sanders-like liberal that would see no need for Americans to put away money for their retirement--because "the Government will always be there to take care of you". All we would need to do is trust Washington to actually hang on to that money until retirement time. But looking at how Social Security and Medicare are trending--all of that would be gone long before those of us in Generation X would need it.
But it surprises me that it is Republicans that are taking the first steps to take away the incentive to save for retirement. The GOP tax plan being touted by everyone includes a provision that would reduce the non-taxable amount that can go into regular Individual Retirement Accounts or employer-provided 401k accounts from $18-thousand to just about $2400. While I would like to think that this change will drive more people to contribute to tax-free growth accounts like Roth IRAs, it will more than likely push folks to just spend the extra money promised by the tax reform measure right away.
The greatest fear is that Congress will eventually change the Tax Code to do away with the tax-free distributions from Roth IRAs and Roth 401k accounts. My wife and I are taking advantage of that benefit the most--maxing out our Roth contributions with post-tax dollars now, to reap the benefits in our golden years. But as more Americans do that, Washington would see a lot of dollars flowing to retirees that they can't touch. And based on an inability to control Government spending, they are going to need that cash even more in the future than they do now.
Plus, to keep the Code consistent, the maximum Roth contribution would likely be reduced to match the standard IRA limit as well--even though we are depositing post-tax dollars, and Government has already been given their share. If that happens, you have to wonder how or why anyone will see the benefit of saving for the future. And in doing so, Republicans will be playing right into the hands of the Democrats that preach Government dependency.
Friday, October 20, 2017
Sure, Now You Love Him
Remember how President George W Bush was treated while in office? Late night comedians mocked him as being some kind of idiot. Democrats claimed he knew nothing about foreign policy. He was portrayed as racist because he didn't go to New Orleans five minutes after Katrina passed to start helping "all of those black people". Even when he left office his successor blamed him for everything little thing that he couldn't accomplish.
Now today, W is the toast of the media and the Left for his subtly scathing attack on the Trump administration during a speech on Thursday. Without ever mentioning the President by name, Bush laid into the rise of ultra-nationalism, the demonizing of minorities and immigrants, and the alienation of long-time allies. He even mocked those who buy into conspiracy theories and those who choose to ignore outright lies. The message was in no way different from the way President Bush spoke or acted when he was in the White House--and yet he was pilloried by those who now want to hoist him on a pedestal as the "Anti-Trump voice of reason".
That being said, nothing the former President said yesterday is wrong--and more of us real Republicans need to be saying the same thing. Instead of trying to carefully craft replies to outrageous statement from the President that you hope won't send him in to a further Twitter storm, GOP leaders need to re-iterate real conservative values and solutions to problems--even if it might make the man who usurped the party's leadership mad. If I hear one more strategist talk about how important it is to keep President Trump as a "Republican ally" in order to "protect the agenda" I'm going to throw my shoe at them--just like the Iraqi "reporter" did to President Bush after the war.
Republicans need to give up on prefacing their comments with "Well I don't agree with the President, but....."--and instead say firmly and consistently "This is not what we stand for as a party or as a country and I will not sit here silently and act like this is no big deal". It's where the majority of Americans do stand--and as George W Bush got them to admit this week, it's even something liberals are now willing to accept.
Now today, W is the toast of the media and the Left for his subtly scathing attack on the Trump administration during a speech on Thursday. Without ever mentioning the President by name, Bush laid into the rise of ultra-nationalism, the demonizing of minorities and immigrants, and the alienation of long-time allies. He even mocked those who buy into conspiracy theories and those who choose to ignore outright lies. The message was in no way different from the way President Bush spoke or acted when he was in the White House--and yet he was pilloried by those who now want to hoist him on a pedestal as the "Anti-Trump voice of reason".
That being said, nothing the former President said yesterday is wrong--and more of us real Republicans need to be saying the same thing. Instead of trying to carefully craft replies to outrageous statement from the President that you hope won't send him in to a further Twitter storm, GOP leaders need to re-iterate real conservative values and solutions to problems--even if it might make the man who usurped the party's leadership mad. If I hear one more strategist talk about how important it is to keep President Trump as a "Republican ally" in order to "protect the agenda" I'm going to throw my shoe at them--just like the Iraqi "reporter" did to President Bush after the war.
Republicans need to give up on prefacing their comments with "Well I don't agree with the President, but....."--and instead say firmly and consistently "This is not what we stand for as a party or as a country and I will not sit here silently and act like this is no big deal". It's where the majority of Americans do stand--and as George W Bush got them to admit this week, it's even something liberals are now willing to accept.
Thursday, October 19, 2017
Stop Giving Us What We Want!!
Milwaukee County is considering a lawsuit against pharmaceutical companies and distributors blaming them for the rise in opioid addiction. The argument will be that the drug companies profited from the painkillers prescribed to people that later turned into heroin addicts that either died from an overdose, required medical treatment for overdoses, or ended up in jail or prison for crimes committed in the pursuit of money to buy drugs.
The argument in these lawsuits is that the makers of painkillers downplayed their potential for addiction--while marketing them to doctors and patients. It mirrors the lawsuits that were filed against tobacco companies accusing them of downplaying the risk of cancer and promoting cigarettes and smokeless products to an "unwitting public". The issue that I have with such suits--and the huge judgments usually awarded by sympathetic juries--is that they are based on the assumption that if people know something is risky or bad for them, they will automatically not want to use it.
In the case of cigarettes, warning labels first went on their packaging in 1966. What effect did that have on smoking rates in the US? Did anyone in your family ever talk about the first time they saw that warning and immediately gave up tobacco use? As I recall, smokers were everywhere in the 70's. Why? Because people didn't care. They thought smoking helped keep them thin, or it helped to keep them awake, or it made them look cool. Warnings did little to curb demand.
And the same holds true for prescription painkillers. Doctors could tell patients "If I prescribe this for you, you will end up becoming addicted, switching to heroin after the prescription runs out, you will steal from your family and employer to buy more drugs and you will likely end up dead in your car parked behind some abandoned building" and the first thing the patient will say is "But I won't feel my back pain, right?" And if that doctor were to say "I'm not giving you painkillers because I think you can live with that pain" the patient would be in a different physician's office later that day demanding pain pills.
America's opioid epidemic is not the result of a slick marketing campaign or alleged cover up of scientific studies. It is the end result of our societal belief that we should not have to deal with any discomfort in our lives. Painkillers--like erectile dysfunction medications and drops for chronic dry eye--are products of public demand. If everybody wasn't demanding to not wake up with soreness in their back or knees painkiller addiction would be a minor issue. And we wouldn't have TV ads for products that "cure opioid induced constipation". But, because those responsible for their own situation don't want to be held responsible, elected officials are more than willing to try and prove it's someone else's fault.
The argument in these lawsuits is that the makers of painkillers downplayed their potential for addiction--while marketing them to doctors and patients. It mirrors the lawsuits that were filed against tobacco companies accusing them of downplaying the risk of cancer and promoting cigarettes and smokeless products to an "unwitting public". The issue that I have with such suits--and the huge judgments usually awarded by sympathetic juries--is that they are based on the assumption that if people know something is risky or bad for them, they will automatically not want to use it.
In the case of cigarettes, warning labels first went on their packaging in 1966. What effect did that have on smoking rates in the US? Did anyone in your family ever talk about the first time they saw that warning and immediately gave up tobacco use? As I recall, smokers were everywhere in the 70's. Why? Because people didn't care. They thought smoking helped keep them thin, or it helped to keep them awake, or it made them look cool. Warnings did little to curb demand.
And the same holds true for prescription painkillers. Doctors could tell patients "If I prescribe this for you, you will end up becoming addicted, switching to heroin after the prescription runs out, you will steal from your family and employer to buy more drugs and you will likely end up dead in your car parked behind some abandoned building" and the first thing the patient will say is "But I won't feel my back pain, right?" And if that doctor were to say "I'm not giving you painkillers because I think you can live with that pain" the patient would be in a different physician's office later that day demanding pain pills.
America's opioid epidemic is not the result of a slick marketing campaign or alleged cover up of scientific studies. It is the end result of our societal belief that we should not have to deal with any discomfort in our lives. Painkillers--like erectile dysfunction medications and drops for chronic dry eye--are products of public demand. If everybody wasn't demanding to not wake up with soreness in their back or knees painkiller addiction would be a minor issue. And we wouldn't have TV ads for products that "cure opioid induced constipation". But, because those responsible for their own situation don't want to be held responsible, elected officials are more than willing to try and prove it's someone else's fault.
Wednesday, October 18, 2017
A Lot On Our Plates
An effort is afoot to take "America's Dairyland" off of Wisconsin license plates. The catch-phrase has adorned our plates since the 1950's--when milk marketing really started taking off--but the folks at Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce believe it somehow limits how the state is perceived--like dairy farming is some backwoods operation conducted by country yokels.
But let's say that the DMV decides to change our plates, what should go on there instead? I can tell you what I definitely DON'T want to see: FoxConn Valley. This is the ridiculous name Governor Scott Walker is trying to coin that describes the part of Southeast Wisconsin where FoxConn is going to build their plant--and other tech companies are supposed to follow--like "Silicon Valley" in California. I strongly urge my fellow media members to reject this term and continue to call it Racine County.
I wouldn't mind if we trolled our neighbors a little bit with our license plates. Land of More Than 10,000 Lakes would remind Minnesotans that Wisconsin has more lakes than their claim to fame. We could also go with Semi-Permanent Home of Paul Bunyan's Axe--as the Football Badgers have not lost to the Golden Gophers in 13 YEARS!! No Tollroads Yet, Far Fewer Murders, Much Lower Taxes, or Not Financially Insolvent would be perfect pot shots to take at our neighbors to the south in Illinois. Still the Owners of Door County would be another good one.
Some self-deprecating humor could be fun. Out-Drinking Your State Since 1848 certainly fits. Say Cheese!! would probably cause a lot of national buzz and make our plates collectors items. Get Lost In Our Roundabouts would suit our aging driving population well. Beer, Packers and Deer Hunting certainly encapsulates our priorities--and sums up life in the state perfectly.
WMC is pushing for our state motto: Forward--which is boring. When Governor Tony Earl asked for license plate suggestions in the 1980's two top vote-getters were America's Northern Escape--which hasn't aged well--and We Like It Here!--which is the kind of marketing consultant crap that would likely be recycled if the state was willing to waste a couple million dollars on focus groups and test marketing.
My final suggestion sums up perfectly the state and country that we live in now and really helps to explain how we got here: The Land Hillary Forgot.
But let's say that the DMV decides to change our plates, what should go on there instead? I can tell you what I definitely DON'T want to see: FoxConn Valley. This is the ridiculous name Governor Scott Walker is trying to coin that describes the part of Southeast Wisconsin where FoxConn is going to build their plant--and other tech companies are supposed to follow--like "Silicon Valley" in California. I strongly urge my fellow media members to reject this term and continue to call it Racine County.
I wouldn't mind if we trolled our neighbors a little bit with our license plates. Land of More Than 10,000 Lakes would remind Minnesotans that Wisconsin has more lakes than their claim to fame. We could also go with Semi-Permanent Home of Paul Bunyan's Axe--as the Football Badgers have not lost to the Golden Gophers in 13 YEARS!! No Tollroads Yet, Far Fewer Murders, Much Lower Taxes, or Not Financially Insolvent would be perfect pot shots to take at our neighbors to the south in Illinois. Still the Owners of Door County would be another good one.
Some self-deprecating humor could be fun. Out-Drinking Your State Since 1848 certainly fits. Say Cheese!! would probably cause a lot of national buzz and make our plates collectors items. Get Lost In Our Roundabouts would suit our aging driving population well. Beer, Packers and Deer Hunting certainly encapsulates our priorities--and sums up life in the state perfectly.
WMC is pushing for our state motto: Forward--which is boring. When Governor Tony Earl asked for license plate suggestions in the 1980's two top vote-getters were America's Northern Escape--which hasn't aged well--and We Like It Here!--which is the kind of marketing consultant crap that would likely be recycled if the state was willing to waste a couple million dollars on focus groups and test marketing.
My final suggestion sums up perfectly the state and country that we live in now and really helps to explain how we got here: The Land Hillary Forgot.
Tuesday, October 17, 2017
Millennial Town
As the City of Oshkosh moves closer to selling off Lakeshore Golf Course so the Oshkosh Corporation has a sleek, modern headquarters to lure "young talent", let's start planning some other changes to cater to our new millennial neighbors. Here are some of the things that other cities are doing to "attract and retain" the next generation:
Streetcars--Millennials don't own cars. They can't afford them due to the colossal amount of student loan debt they took out to get their marketing degrees. So they expect the Government to provide for their transportation needs. Milwaukee is building theirs now because Portland built one and Portland is a "progressive city". Just like Portland's streetcar line, Milwaukee's won't ever break even because it doesn't go through neighborhoods where people beside urban professionals would be able to ride it. The Oshkosh streetcar go run along Marion Road and down Main Street so the young folks don't have to worry about stumbling home from the bars.
Densely concentrated housing--Millennials don't own houses. They can't afford them due to the colossal amount of student loan debt they took out for their sociology degrees. So they are only interested in dorm-like apartment complexes where they live stacked upon each other--somewhere near the streetcar line or close enough for them to walk to work or the bars (unless the weather is bad). They need to be pet-friendly for "fur babies" and they need to have rooftop party spaces. I guess Oshkosh homeowners are out of luck--since no one will be in the market to buy our property in the future.
Free Wi-Fi...everywhere--Young professionals today expect wi-fi for their multiple electronic devices anywhere--and they don't expect to pay for it. Businesses unwilling to provide that can expect fewer customers--and the City itself will be asked to foot the bill for public wi-fi--since everyone has a "right" to broadband internet.
Delivery services--Millennials aren't about going out to eat or going out to shop. There are video games to be played or a new season of Game of Thrones to binge watch on their tablets. So Oshkosh needs to have delivery service for everything. You want fresh sushi at 3:30 am? Somebody had better be open and have a delivery driver available. Grocery stores will need to have order pickers ready at a moments notice, and delivery vehicles idling in the parking lot because today's shopper doesn't expect to wait for their boxes of Lucky Charms and kale. Oshkosh may want to start working on its "drone corridor planning" now so local shops can compete with Amazon Prime.
Fewer schools and churches--Young Americans aren't having kids because they can't afford them. And they don't have space for them in their densely-concentrated housing units. The Oshkosh School District can start planning now which facilities to close and tear down as enrollment numbers will surely drop. And our millennial friends aren't too religious--so the rigid stained glass and steeple buildings can be torn down to make way for churches that more closely resemble social clubs--with workout facilities, coffee shops and religious philosophies that more closely adhere to the Democratic Party platform than the Bible.
A shiny new building on the lake alone won't guarantee Oshkosh gets the "best and the brightest". We need to be ready as a city to cater to Millennials' every want and whim--as ever-changing as they may be--because they are used to getting pretty much everything they want.
Streetcars--Millennials don't own cars. They can't afford them due to the colossal amount of student loan debt they took out to get their marketing degrees. So they expect the Government to provide for their transportation needs. Milwaukee is building theirs now because Portland built one and Portland is a "progressive city". Just like Portland's streetcar line, Milwaukee's won't ever break even because it doesn't go through neighborhoods where people beside urban professionals would be able to ride it. The Oshkosh streetcar go run along Marion Road and down Main Street so the young folks don't have to worry about stumbling home from the bars.
Densely concentrated housing--Millennials don't own houses. They can't afford them due to the colossal amount of student loan debt they took out for their sociology degrees. So they are only interested in dorm-like apartment complexes where they live stacked upon each other--somewhere near the streetcar line or close enough for them to walk to work or the bars (unless the weather is bad). They need to be pet-friendly for "fur babies" and they need to have rooftop party spaces. I guess Oshkosh homeowners are out of luck--since no one will be in the market to buy our property in the future.
Free Wi-Fi...everywhere--Young professionals today expect wi-fi for their multiple electronic devices anywhere--and they don't expect to pay for it. Businesses unwilling to provide that can expect fewer customers--and the City itself will be asked to foot the bill for public wi-fi--since everyone has a "right" to broadband internet.
Delivery services--Millennials aren't about going out to eat or going out to shop. There are video games to be played or a new season of Game of Thrones to binge watch on their tablets. So Oshkosh needs to have delivery service for everything. You want fresh sushi at 3:30 am? Somebody had better be open and have a delivery driver available. Grocery stores will need to have order pickers ready at a moments notice, and delivery vehicles idling in the parking lot because today's shopper doesn't expect to wait for their boxes of Lucky Charms and kale. Oshkosh may want to start working on its "drone corridor planning" now so local shops can compete with Amazon Prime.
Fewer schools and churches--Young Americans aren't having kids because they can't afford them. And they don't have space for them in their densely-concentrated housing units. The Oshkosh School District can start planning now which facilities to close and tear down as enrollment numbers will surely drop. And our millennial friends aren't too religious--so the rigid stained glass and steeple buildings can be torn down to make way for churches that more closely resemble social clubs--with workout facilities, coffee shops and religious philosophies that more closely adhere to the Democratic Party platform than the Bible.
A shiny new building on the lake alone won't guarantee Oshkosh gets the "best and the brightest". We need to be ready as a city to cater to Millennials' every want and whim--as ever-changing as they may be--because they are used to getting pretty much everything they want.
Monday, October 16, 2017
It's All on Mike Now
It was certainly coincidental that the Green Bay Packers' Super Bowl hopes were likely dashed on the very field where the game is going to be played in February. The loss of Aaron Rodgers for at least the rest of the regular season puts the pressure on someone whom I think has been allowed to skate for a number of years--Head Coach Mike McCarthy.
Gone is the "hustle to the line to catch the defense with 12-guys on the field on third down to pick up an easy first down". So too is the hard count to get the defense to jump on third and short or to get a free play for a bomb down the sidelines. No more recognition that the roll out right, throw back left to Jordy Nelson on the deep slant will inexplicably be completely uncovered by the defense. The perfectly underthrown pass that creates contact by the defensive back for a huge interference penalty to flip field position won't be so easy anymore. And the hail mary to save games on the last play won't be as common either.
Mike McCarthy is going to have to re-design an offense on the fly that no longer has one exceptional player to make up for inadequacies in both personnel and balance. The last time Aaron Rodgers was out with a broken collarbone in 2013, the Packers went 2-4-1 with Seneca Wallace, Scott Tolzien and Matt Flynn at quarterback. And that was with a healthy offensive line and a young, still slightly-motivated Eddie Lacy in the backfield.
The 2017 Packers have an O-line that can't stay healthy and a converted wide receiver at tailback. So how does McCarthy craft a scheme that keeps Brett Hundley from having to win games by himself? Will he finally commit to a running game? To seek actual balance on offense? To controlling the clock so his equally-ineffective defense doesn't spend the entire game on the field?
Mike McCarthy is the seventh-highest paid coach in the NFL--and has never come under any scrutiny since his Super Bowl victory in 2011. For the rest of this year, we are going to see if it's the coach that makes the quarterback--or the quarterback that has been making the coach.
Gone is the "hustle to the line to catch the defense with 12-guys on the field on third down to pick up an easy first down". So too is the hard count to get the defense to jump on third and short or to get a free play for a bomb down the sidelines. No more recognition that the roll out right, throw back left to Jordy Nelson on the deep slant will inexplicably be completely uncovered by the defense. The perfectly underthrown pass that creates contact by the defensive back for a huge interference penalty to flip field position won't be so easy anymore. And the hail mary to save games on the last play won't be as common either.
Mike McCarthy is going to have to re-design an offense on the fly that no longer has one exceptional player to make up for inadequacies in both personnel and balance. The last time Aaron Rodgers was out with a broken collarbone in 2013, the Packers went 2-4-1 with Seneca Wallace, Scott Tolzien and Matt Flynn at quarterback. And that was with a healthy offensive line and a young, still slightly-motivated Eddie Lacy in the backfield.
The 2017 Packers have an O-line that can't stay healthy and a converted wide receiver at tailback. So how does McCarthy craft a scheme that keeps Brett Hundley from having to win games by himself? Will he finally commit to a running game? To seek actual balance on offense? To controlling the clock so his equally-ineffective defense doesn't spend the entire game on the field?
Mike McCarthy is the seventh-highest paid coach in the NFL--and has never come under any scrutiny since his Super Bowl victory in 2011. For the rest of this year, we are going to see if it's the coach that makes the quarterback--or the quarterback that has been making the coach.
Friday, October 13, 2017
Spare Us the Indignation
Hollywood can spare us the indignation and "shock" over the Harvey Weinstein case. The same people that gave a tearful standing ovation to convicted child rapist Roman Polanski when he was awarded an Oscar (in absentia to avoid arrest and going to prison for drugging and sodomizing a 13-year old girl) in 2003 are now "horrified" to find out that Weinstein (who once signed a petition to have Polanski pardoned) systematically harassed and abused female stars.
I guess those in Hollywood have never seen the movie The Godfather where Vito Corleone's godson--Johnny Fontane--isn't given a movie role because the studio director is angry that a young actress that he was having a controlling relationship with left him for Fontane in the past. Perhaps, someone should have arranged to have a horse's head put in Harvey Weinstein's bed while he slept--to "send him a message".
Of course, not everyone in Hollywood is "denouncing" the long-standing practice of sexual control. A few leading men that have dared speak out have come under a barrage of accusations themselves--most notably Ben and Casey Affleck--who sound like some real classy guys. Of course, that didn't stop President Trump from throwing Weinstein under the bus--which inevitably led to the re-release of the Access Hollywood audio recordings and the return of everyone's favorite pre-election catchphrase "Grab 'em by the p%$$#"
Instead of being angry with Hollywood studios, producers and stars, our attention should instead be on the folks at NBC News--for whom the person responsible for breaking this story, Ronan Farrow, works. Except Farrow didn't get his story produced by NBC News, but instead had to go The New Yorker Magazine. Farrow alleges that the suits at NBC quashed his story because exposing Weinstein could be detrimental to the entertainment division--which obviously relies upon studios run by guys just like Weinstein--who don't like their dirty laundry aired in public. Of course, Farrow has an axe to grid with Hollywood, as his dad--Woody Allen--left his mother--Mia Farrow--for his adopted step-sister--which everyone in the entertainment business treats like it's no big deal.
I find it hard to believe that Farrow didn't poke his head into the office of Rachel Maddow and tell her about the juicy scoop that he had. Being the champion of women's rights, Maddow certainly would have given Farrow a platform for his story--well at least after Weinstein was done raising incredible amounts of money as a "bundler" for Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. Which brings us to the tepid condemnation of Weinstein by Clinton after being badgered on the topic for several days. That has inevitably resurrected the names of Juanita Bryant and Paula Jones--not to mention fun with interns in the Oval Office.
So just go back to gratuitous female nudity in your films, and casting fifty-something year old men as the romantic leads with twenty-something women and patting yourself on the back at award shows for how "tolerant" and "empowering" you are, Hollywood stars. We know your true colors.
I guess those in Hollywood have never seen the movie The Godfather where Vito Corleone's godson--Johnny Fontane--isn't given a movie role because the studio director is angry that a young actress that he was having a controlling relationship with left him for Fontane in the past. Perhaps, someone should have arranged to have a horse's head put in Harvey Weinstein's bed while he slept--to "send him a message".
Of course, not everyone in Hollywood is "denouncing" the long-standing practice of sexual control. A few leading men that have dared speak out have come under a barrage of accusations themselves--most notably Ben and Casey Affleck--who sound like some real classy guys. Of course, that didn't stop President Trump from throwing Weinstein under the bus--which inevitably led to the re-release of the Access Hollywood audio recordings and the return of everyone's favorite pre-election catchphrase "Grab 'em by the p%$$#"
Instead of being angry with Hollywood studios, producers and stars, our attention should instead be on the folks at NBC News--for whom the person responsible for breaking this story, Ronan Farrow, works. Except Farrow didn't get his story produced by NBC News, but instead had to go The New Yorker Magazine. Farrow alleges that the suits at NBC quashed his story because exposing Weinstein could be detrimental to the entertainment division--which obviously relies upon studios run by guys just like Weinstein--who don't like their dirty laundry aired in public. Of course, Farrow has an axe to grid with Hollywood, as his dad--Woody Allen--left his mother--Mia Farrow--for his adopted step-sister--which everyone in the entertainment business treats like it's no big deal.
I find it hard to believe that Farrow didn't poke his head into the office of Rachel Maddow and tell her about the juicy scoop that he had. Being the champion of women's rights, Maddow certainly would have given Farrow a platform for his story--well at least after Weinstein was done raising incredible amounts of money as a "bundler" for Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. Which brings us to the tepid condemnation of Weinstein by Clinton after being badgered on the topic for several days. That has inevitably resurrected the names of Juanita Bryant and Paula Jones--not to mention fun with interns in the Oval Office.
So just go back to gratuitous female nudity in your films, and casting fifty-something year old men as the romantic leads with twenty-something women and patting yourself on the back at award shows for how "tolerant" and "empowering" you are, Hollywood stars. We know your true colors.
Thursday, October 12, 2017
The Best Team Parents Can Buy
Now that we've had a day to poke fun at US soccer fans after their team's miserable failure to qualify for the World Cup, let's talk about the serious threat that led to the debacle: elitism in sports.
More than one expert pointed out yesterday that Team USA was not a collection of the "best of the best" but rather the "best of those whose parents could afford to put them through the increasingly expensive 'elite' soccer training programs". In other words, the men on Team USA are the kids that didn't play with their friends from school on a local team--but rather were on the "elite travel team". And they went to the "elite soccer camp" during the summer. And they were enrolled in the "elite fitness program" during the winter--featuring specialized training and "elite coaching". All of which is very expensive.
But soccer is not alone in this. Baseball too has moved to a division between the "elite" and the "recreational". You can see that bifurcation right here in Oshkosh, with Oshkosh Youth Baseball focusing exclusively on the "traveling team" of "all stars"--each of whom has to come up with the cash to pay for uniforms, diamond rentals, equipment and tournament entry fees--with the YMCA running the actual day-to-day leagues for the kids who can't afford to be "elite". And as they age, those that can afford it go to hitting camps, or pitching camps, or fielding camps--not to mention winter throwing programs and private "hitting leagues" at indoor batting facilities.
The next time you are watching a major league baseball game, check out the composition of the teams. You'll notice a dwindling number of African-American players from urban backgrounds--because baseball is all but dead in cities--and those with a talent for the game are shut out from the "elite" programs cater to the kids in the suburbs. If Hank Aaron or Willie Mays were kids today, there would be no chance they would ever make it to "The Show".
Individual sports are the worst for "elitism". All American tennis pros now come from the "academy system"--where they go to school at warm-weather-based "tennis schools" with private tutors for academic work--and personal coaches for tennis training. Serena and Venus Williams grew up playing on public courts in Compton, California and were coached by their dad. They will likely be the last American players to take that route. Youth golfers sign up with swing coaches and short game coaches and mental coaches before they even get to high school--and they play only against other "elite" talent in the American Junior Golf Association circuit--with hefty membership and tournament fees that weed out a lot of potential competition. The closure of municipal golf facilities like Lakeshore here in Oshkosh provide even fewer entryways to the game for those who parents don't belong to the country club.
Basketball is also guilty of "elitism"--but the lower-economic-class kid still has a chance at success because the "sneaker culture" is helping to fund the "elite camps" and the "elite travel teams" with the hope that the next generation of stars will wear their brand. (Which has led to the latest recruiting scandal in college hoops). But you still see the best playing only with and against each other during the off-season--instead of with the teammates they will have in high school during the winter.
Being the weakest of our sports, the collapse of US men's soccer should serve as the "canary in the mineshaft" for the effect "pay to play" is having on our sports infrastructure.
More than one expert pointed out yesterday that Team USA was not a collection of the "best of the best" but rather the "best of those whose parents could afford to put them through the increasingly expensive 'elite' soccer training programs". In other words, the men on Team USA are the kids that didn't play with their friends from school on a local team--but rather were on the "elite travel team". And they went to the "elite soccer camp" during the summer. And they were enrolled in the "elite fitness program" during the winter--featuring specialized training and "elite coaching". All of which is very expensive.
But soccer is not alone in this. Baseball too has moved to a division between the "elite" and the "recreational". You can see that bifurcation right here in Oshkosh, with Oshkosh Youth Baseball focusing exclusively on the "traveling team" of "all stars"--each of whom has to come up with the cash to pay for uniforms, diamond rentals, equipment and tournament entry fees--with the YMCA running the actual day-to-day leagues for the kids who can't afford to be "elite". And as they age, those that can afford it go to hitting camps, or pitching camps, or fielding camps--not to mention winter throwing programs and private "hitting leagues" at indoor batting facilities.
The next time you are watching a major league baseball game, check out the composition of the teams. You'll notice a dwindling number of African-American players from urban backgrounds--because baseball is all but dead in cities--and those with a talent for the game are shut out from the "elite" programs cater to the kids in the suburbs. If Hank Aaron or Willie Mays were kids today, there would be no chance they would ever make it to "The Show".
Individual sports are the worst for "elitism". All American tennis pros now come from the "academy system"--where they go to school at warm-weather-based "tennis schools" with private tutors for academic work--and personal coaches for tennis training. Serena and Venus Williams grew up playing on public courts in Compton, California and were coached by their dad. They will likely be the last American players to take that route. Youth golfers sign up with swing coaches and short game coaches and mental coaches before they even get to high school--and they play only against other "elite" talent in the American Junior Golf Association circuit--with hefty membership and tournament fees that weed out a lot of potential competition. The closure of municipal golf facilities like Lakeshore here in Oshkosh provide even fewer entryways to the game for those who parents don't belong to the country club.
Basketball is also guilty of "elitism"--but the lower-economic-class kid still has a chance at success because the "sneaker culture" is helping to fund the "elite camps" and the "elite travel teams" with the hope that the next generation of stars will wear their brand. (Which has led to the latest recruiting scandal in college hoops). But you still see the best playing only with and against each other during the off-season--instead of with the teammates they will have in high school during the winter.
Being the weakest of our sports, the collapse of US men's soccer should serve as the "canary in the mineshaft" for the effect "pay to play" is having on our sports infrastructure.
Wednesday, October 11, 2017
I Believe That We Don't Care!
It looks like Americans won't have to pretend to be interested in soccer for the next five years. With a shocking loss to Trinidad and Tobago last night, the US Men's National Team fails to qualify for the 2018 World Cup in Russia.
That means no lengthy on-line stories about how a deep run in the World Cup will "finally be the spark we need to make America a soccer mad country". There will be no TV features about local chapters of the American Outlaws (Team USA's official fan club) meeting at sports bars at 4:30 in the morning to watch the game, chant their chants and sing their songs. There won't be any commercials with soccer stars endorsing products and viewers having to ask "Who is that?" ESPN won't have to take time away from discussing controversies killing the NFL to break down action on the pitch.
There was great wailing and gnashing of teeth on social media last night about how missing the World Cup "will set back US soccer for decades". I have to ask "Set us back from what?" To put soccer's place in society in perspective, last night's crucial qualifying game was on Be In TV. It wasn't on ABC or ESPN or Fox Sports 1 or even Fox Sports 2. It was on Be In TV. Even if I had wanted to watch the game, it would have taken me almost an hour to first find out who was carrying it--and then somehow locate that network in my channel guide--if it's even included in one of the cable packages I get.
I'm old enough to remember when the formation of the North American Soccer League was going to make the US a "soccer country". And then the signing of aging international stars for NASL was going to do the trick. Then it was hosting the World Cup in 1994 that was going to ignite soccer-mania. Then it was the formation of Major League Soccer that was going to up our game. Then it was the US Women winning their World Cup several times that would do the trick. Then it was a long run in the World Cup a few years back that "announced our arrival on the international stage". Now a few years later, we are back to square one--unable to beat tiny Caribbean island nations who had nothing to play for.
As I've mentioned here before, it is okay if we suck at soccer. There are a lot of other sports we aren't good at--and nobody goes on five minute long rants on national TV to complain about it. Has the US ever qualified for Olympic Team Handball? What's our world ranking in field hockey? A couple of years ago, Soldier Field in Chicago was sold out to watch the New Zealand All Blacks destroy the US Eagles in a rugby "friendly"--were there calls to completely overhaul US Rugby after that?
Let's all agree that the United States has moved on from rudimentary sports like soccer. There is a reason that everyone's kids play it--it's easy. You run around for awhile, you kick the ball a few times, everyone goes home with a trophy--that's why little kids like it. But once you grow out of that phase, you learn to appreciate the difficulty of hitting a round ball with a round bat in baseball, or you enjoy watching men collide at full force and get back up to do it again in football (as opposed to acting like you have been shot when someone steps on your foot). Or your find the speed of hockey intoxicating.
So let the rest of humankind get all worked up about the World Cup next year. That will give us more time to focus on our fantasy football drafts.
That means no lengthy on-line stories about how a deep run in the World Cup will "finally be the spark we need to make America a soccer mad country". There will be no TV features about local chapters of the American Outlaws (Team USA's official fan club) meeting at sports bars at 4:30 in the morning to watch the game, chant their chants and sing their songs. There won't be any commercials with soccer stars endorsing products and viewers having to ask "Who is that?" ESPN won't have to take time away from discussing controversies killing the NFL to break down action on the pitch.
There was great wailing and gnashing of teeth on social media last night about how missing the World Cup "will set back US soccer for decades". I have to ask "Set us back from what?" To put soccer's place in society in perspective, last night's crucial qualifying game was on Be In TV. It wasn't on ABC or ESPN or Fox Sports 1 or even Fox Sports 2. It was on Be In TV. Even if I had wanted to watch the game, it would have taken me almost an hour to first find out who was carrying it--and then somehow locate that network in my channel guide--if it's even included in one of the cable packages I get.
I'm old enough to remember when the formation of the North American Soccer League was going to make the US a "soccer country". And then the signing of aging international stars for NASL was going to do the trick. Then it was hosting the World Cup in 1994 that was going to ignite soccer-mania. Then it was the formation of Major League Soccer that was going to up our game. Then it was the US Women winning their World Cup several times that would do the trick. Then it was a long run in the World Cup a few years back that "announced our arrival on the international stage". Now a few years later, we are back to square one--unable to beat tiny Caribbean island nations who had nothing to play for.
As I've mentioned here before, it is okay if we suck at soccer. There are a lot of other sports we aren't good at--and nobody goes on five minute long rants on national TV to complain about it. Has the US ever qualified for Olympic Team Handball? What's our world ranking in field hockey? A couple of years ago, Soldier Field in Chicago was sold out to watch the New Zealand All Blacks destroy the US Eagles in a rugby "friendly"--were there calls to completely overhaul US Rugby after that?
Let's all agree that the United States has moved on from rudimentary sports like soccer. There is a reason that everyone's kids play it--it's easy. You run around for awhile, you kick the ball a few times, everyone goes home with a trophy--that's why little kids like it. But once you grow out of that phase, you learn to appreciate the difficulty of hitting a round ball with a round bat in baseball, or you enjoy watching men collide at full force and get back up to do it again in football (as opposed to acting like you have been shot when someone steps on your foot). Or your find the speed of hockey intoxicating.
So let the rest of humankind get all worked up about the World Cup next year. That will give us more time to focus on our fantasy football drafts.
Tuesday, October 10, 2017
No Highlights, Just Challenges to Your Beliefs
The powers that be at ESPN find themselves at a crossroads. Are they going to be a sports network, or are they going to be "agents of social change"? The network suspended SportCenter host Jamele Hill for two weeks after she tweeted about boycotting Dallas Cowboys' sponsors and not buying their gear anymore because owner Jerry Jones has threatened to bench any player that protests during the National Anthem. Hill had previously been warned about "impulsive tweeting" after calling President Trump's supporters "Nazis".
The executives at ESPN have managed to put themselves in an unwinnable position. For the first three decades, they were the place fans could go for scores, highlights and plenty of live games. SportsCenter hosts were middle of the road "here are your stats" talking hairdos--with some, like Dan Patrick and Keith Olbermann injecting some humor and a heavy dose of sarcasm. But then, the decision was to make the network more like sports talk radio. So shows moved away from highlights, scores and live action and into "discussion and debate". Anchors were replaced with "insiders" who eventually gave way to "hot take machines" who threw out unsubstantiated opinions in a loud manner that seemed to give them some credibility.
That was followed by a conscious decision to present more "voices of the under-represented". ESPN went from a collection of frat boys to something a bit more representative of America's population--but not ESPN's core audience. And now that "voices of the under-represented" are saying things that those core viewers--and executives in the leagues upon which ESPN depends for its highest ratings--don't like, what do you do?
Jerry Jones of the Cowboys heads up the NFL's Broadcast Committee. Right now, the league spreads around it's broadcast rights to numerous outlets (and some social media as well). ESPN suits know full well that Monday Night Football and one of the Wild Card playoff games could easily go to Turner Broadcasting or Fox Sports 1 or kept in house on NFL Network. So when Jamele Hill takes shots at Jerry Jones, ESPN is given no choice but to shut down Jamele Hill.
Of course, other voices at ESPN will now rally to Hill's defense--creating even more division within the network. Ratings and subscription numbers show that viewers are not fans of the current direction of the network. The time may have come for ESPN (and its parent company, Disney) to decide if they are going to get back in to the business of sports--or go down in flames "fighting the good fight".
The executives at ESPN have managed to put themselves in an unwinnable position. For the first three decades, they were the place fans could go for scores, highlights and plenty of live games. SportsCenter hosts were middle of the road "here are your stats" talking hairdos--with some, like Dan Patrick and Keith Olbermann injecting some humor and a heavy dose of sarcasm. But then, the decision was to make the network more like sports talk radio. So shows moved away from highlights, scores and live action and into "discussion and debate". Anchors were replaced with "insiders" who eventually gave way to "hot take machines" who threw out unsubstantiated opinions in a loud manner that seemed to give them some credibility.
That was followed by a conscious decision to present more "voices of the under-represented". ESPN went from a collection of frat boys to something a bit more representative of America's population--but not ESPN's core audience. And now that "voices of the under-represented" are saying things that those core viewers--and executives in the leagues upon which ESPN depends for its highest ratings--don't like, what do you do?
Jerry Jones of the Cowboys heads up the NFL's Broadcast Committee. Right now, the league spreads around it's broadcast rights to numerous outlets (and some social media as well). ESPN suits know full well that Monday Night Football and one of the Wild Card playoff games could easily go to Turner Broadcasting or Fox Sports 1 or kept in house on NFL Network. So when Jamele Hill takes shots at Jerry Jones, ESPN is given no choice but to shut down Jamele Hill.
Of course, other voices at ESPN will now rally to Hill's defense--creating even more division within the network. Ratings and subscription numbers show that viewers are not fans of the current direction of the network. The time may have come for ESPN (and its parent company, Disney) to decide if they are going to get back in to the business of sports--or go down in flames "fighting the good fight".
Monday, October 9, 2017
Maybe You Should Watch the Livestream at Home
So it had to come to this. In Neenah this weekend, parents at youth soccer games were banned from yelling anything from the sidelines. No "RUN! RUN! RUN!" to kids that may have forgotten how to move about on the field. No "SHOOT! SHOOT! SHOOT!" directed at players who may not know how to score. And no "HOW CAN YOU NOT CALL THAT [EXPLETIVE] [EXPLETIVE] [EXPLETIVE] FOUL? ARE YOU [EXPLETIVE] BLIND?!?!?!
As I tell anyone that asks me about my experiences in youth sports, I tell them the only thing wrong with it is the adults. I think that kids are willing to accept some errors from officials during games--since they themselves make mistakes on the field or the floor too. But when adults from the stands make every call against their child sound like the greatest affront to justice in the history of mankind, the players learn less respect for authority as well.
I've heard just about every possible insult and profanity you can imagine come from parents and fans at youth sporting events. But I'm 45-years old, and I can tune that garbage out. The reason Neenah Youth Soccer put a gag order on parents this weekend is because the refs working their games are teenagers--players in the same program getting experience in a different aspect of the game and likely making some money as well. This is common in many youth sports programs with older kids working contests for little kids.
But how interested would you be in helping the program when five or six grown men and women spend the entire contest yelling at you? Of course, those five or six adults are also spending the entire game yelling at their own kids, the other kids and the coaches too--because six-year old girls soccer is without a doubt, the most intense sport on earth and is a matter of life or death. Interestingly, some of the kids that were interviewed after their much quieter games admitted it was easier to concentrate on the game and what their coaches were yelling from the sidelines, without Mom and Dad constantly calling after them.
Do I think all youth sports leagues should have "silent fan" policies in place? No way. In putting a gag order on all comments from the bleachers, you also take away the positive reinforcement of a "good hustle" or "nice pass" that kids like to hear from their parents. If anything, parents and fans should police themselves--telling Mr Every Call the Ref Makes Against Us Is Wrong to sit his butt down and to shut his mouth because the only thing he is accomplishing is to embarrass himself and his child.
As I tell anyone that asks me about my experiences in youth sports, I tell them the only thing wrong with it is the adults. I think that kids are willing to accept some errors from officials during games--since they themselves make mistakes on the field or the floor too. But when adults from the stands make every call against their child sound like the greatest affront to justice in the history of mankind, the players learn less respect for authority as well.
I've heard just about every possible insult and profanity you can imagine come from parents and fans at youth sporting events. But I'm 45-years old, and I can tune that garbage out. The reason Neenah Youth Soccer put a gag order on parents this weekend is because the refs working their games are teenagers--players in the same program getting experience in a different aspect of the game and likely making some money as well. This is common in many youth sports programs with older kids working contests for little kids.
But how interested would you be in helping the program when five or six grown men and women spend the entire contest yelling at you? Of course, those five or six adults are also spending the entire game yelling at their own kids, the other kids and the coaches too--because six-year old girls soccer is without a doubt, the most intense sport on earth and is a matter of life or death. Interestingly, some of the kids that were interviewed after their much quieter games admitted it was easier to concentrate on the game and what their coaches were yelling from the sidelines, without Mom and Dad constantly calling after them.
Do I think all youth sports leagues should have "silent fan" policies in place? No way. In putting a gag order on all comments from the bleachers, you also take away the positive reinforcement of a "good hustle" or "nice pass" that kids like to hear from their parents. If anything, parents and fans should police themselves--telling Mr Every Call the Ref Makes Against Us Is Wrong to sit his butt down and to shut his mouth because the only thing he is accomplishing is to embarrass himself and his child.
Friday, October 6, 2017
When Liberalism and Reality Collide....Again
I find a certain degree of irony in the fight to preserve the Appleton Coated paper mill in Combined Locks. Outagamie County Executive Tom Nelson--a perpetual Democratic candidate for several other elected positions--is actively trying to find a buyer to continue to operate a plant that can't make any money because of a movement that Nelson himself fully supports.
I'm talking about the "paperless revolution". Everyone from utilities to private businesses to government entities are crowing about how they are going away from printing up documents and "wasting paper" by putting all of their forms, reports and even register receipts into digital formats to be accessed by computer, tablet or smart phone. By "going paperless" we are "helping the environment" by not having to cut down so many trees to make paper. We aren't spewing carbon emissions into the air from paper converting mills. And we are using less "toxic" ink to print color pages.
That all sounds great--unless you work for Appleton Coated, or any of the hundreds of other specialty papermakers around the country. Coated mainly produces glossy sheets for magazines and textbooks. When publishers touting themselves as "good planetary stewards" encourage their readers to move to digital subscriptions (or just post their content with links anyone can access on social media) what happens to the printing market? And with more schools using taxpayer dollars to purchase tablets or laptops for students to access their learning materials, where is the built-in market for textbooks?
"Going green" has real economic impacts--to which workers at Appleton Coated can now attest.
While paper plants close, no one is opening up "megabit" or "pixel" plants to replace them. If there was some way to "digitally" wipe your butt that would replace the need for toilet paper, I'd bet that Tom Nelson would be installing that system in all Outagamie County buildings to make them more "eco-friendly". And then a few years later, (provided some TV cameras are there to record it) he would claim to be "working hard to save" all the tissue mill jobs that he and his "green" supporters made obsolete.
I'm talking about the "paperless revolution". Everyone from utilities to private businesses to government entities are crowing about how they are going away from printing up documents and "wasting paper" by putting all of their forms, reports and even register receipts into digital formats to be accessed by computer, tablet or smart phone. By "going paperless" we are "helping the environment" by not having to cut down so many trees to make paper. We aren't spewing carbon emissions into the air from paper converting mills. And we are using less "toxic" ink to print color pages.
That all sounds great--unless you work for Appleton Coated, or any of the hundreds of other specialty papermakers around the country. Coated mainly produces glossy sheets for magazines and textbooks. When publishers touting themselves as "good planetary stewards" encourage their readers to move to digital subscriptions (or just post their content with links anyone can access on social media) what happens to the printing market? And with more schools using taxpayer dollars to purchase tablets or laptops for students to access their learning materials, where is the built-in market for textbooks?
"Going green" has real economic impacts--to which workers at Appleton Coated can now attest.
While paper plants close, no one is opening up "megabit" or "pixel" plants to replace them. If there was some way to "digitally" wipe your butt that would replace the need for toilet paper, I'd bet that Tom Nelson would be installing that system in all Outagamie County buildings to make them more "eco-friendly". And then a few years later, (provided some TV cameras are there to record it) he would claim to be "working hard to save" all the tissue mill jobs that he and his "green" supporters made obsolete.
Thursday, October 5, 2017
An Alternative History of Gun Control in America
As a student of history, it's sometimes fun to read "alternative histories"--where theories about how different life would be today if say the Confederacy had won the Civil War, or if Germany had never declared war on the US right after Pearl Harbor. Today, I will present to you the Alternative History of Gun Control in America--if we had "done something" right after mass incidents of gun violence.
We start in 1966 when Marine sharpshooter Charles Whitman took his sniper rifle to the top of the bell tower at the University of Texas campus in Austin and killed 18 people while wounding another 31. In our alternate history, we immediately banned military sniper rifles and banned all guns from college campuses.
Then in 1984, James Huberty purchased an Uzi machine gun, a shotgun and a pistol hours before going into the McDonalds in San Ysidro, California and killing 22-people while wounding another 19. In our alternate history we immediately banned the sale of machine guns, required background checks and a waiting period for the purchase of guns.
Then in 1999, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold got their older friends to buy them some guns, before making some purchases of their own after turning 18--learned how to make improvised explosives on the Internet--and a few months later went to Columbine High School, where they killed 15-people and injured another 24. In our alternate history, we immediately banned the purchase of firearms for another person that cannot buy them, we banned parents of minors from allowing them to have guns, we raised the age to own a gun to 21 and we banned weapons from all school campuses.
Then in 2007, 23-year old Seung-Hui Cho purchased handguns that he used to kill 32 people and wound another 17 on the Virginia Tech campus--despite a ban on weapons at the school. When it was discovered that Cho had a history of mental health issues--but had never been committed to an institution, therefore allowing him to pass the mandatory background check and waiting period--in our alternate history we banned anyone with mental health problems from owning a gun.
Then in 2012, unable to buy a gun because of mental health issues, Adam Lanza killed his mother and stole her guns before going to Sandy Hook Elementary School where she taught, and despite a ban on weapons on the campus, killed 28-people and wounded two more. In our alternate history we immediately banned anyone living with someone with mental illness from owning a gun.
Then in 2016, Omar Mateen--a convert to radical Islam--passed background checks after being removed from the FBI's Terror Watch List and purchased guns used to kill 49 people and injure another 58 at the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando. In our alternate history, we tried to ban all people on the terror watch list at any time from buying guns, but an outcry of racial profiling defeated that effort.
And then in 2017, Stephen Paddock used modification kits to make his more than 40 rifles automatic and used a room in a high-rise hotel to kill 59 people and wound 525 at a Las Vegas country music festival. In our alternate history, we are going to ban those modification kits, limit how many guns a person can own, and ban guns from high-rise buildings.
But as you can see in our alternate history, "doing something" about gun control definitely made us safer.
We start in 1966 when Marine sharpshooter Charles Whitman took his sniper rifle to the top of the bell tower at the University of Texas campus in Austin and killed 18 people while wounding another 31. In our alternate history, we immediately banned military sniper rifles and banned all guns from college campuses.
Then in 1984, James Huberty purchased an Uzi machine gun, a shotgun and a pistol hours before going into the McDonalds in San Ysidro, California and killing 22-people while wounding another 19. In our alternate history we immediately banned the sale of machine guns, required background checks and a waiting period for the purchase of guns.
Then in 1999, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold got their older friends to buy them some guns, before making some purchases of their own after turning 18--learned how to make improvised explosives on the Internet--and a few months later went to Columbine High School, where they killed 15-people and injured another 24. In our alternate history, we immediately banned the purchase of firearms for another person that cannot buy them, we banned parents of minors from allowing them to have guns, we raised the age to own a gun to 21 and we banned weapons from all school campuses.
Then in 2007, 23-year old Seung-Hui Cho purchased handguns that he used to kill 32 people and wound another 17 on the Virginia Tech campus--despite a ban on weapons at the school. When it was discovered that Cho had a history of mental health issues--but had never been committed to an institution, therefore allowing him to pass the mandatory background check and waiting period--in our alternate history we banned anyone with mental health problems from owning a gun.
Then in 2012, unable to buy a gun because of mental health issues, Adam Lanza killed his mother and stole her guns before going to Sandy Hook Elementary School where she taught, and despite a ban on weapons on the campus, killed 28-people and wounded two more. In our alternate history we immediately banned anyone living with someone with mental illness from owning a gun.
Then in 2016, Omar Mateen--a convert to radical Islam--passed background checks after being removed from the FBI's Terror Watch List and purchased guns used to kill 49 people and injure another 58 at the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando. In our alternate history, we tried to ban all people on the terror watch list at any time from buying guns, but an outcry of racial profiling defeated that effort.
And then in 2017, Stephen Paddock used modification kits to make his more than 40 rifles automatic and used a room in a high-rise hotel to kill 59 people and wound 525 at a Las Vegas country music festival. In our alternate history, we are going to ban those modification kits, limit how many guns a person can own, and ban guns from high-rise buildings.
But as you can see in our alternate history, "doing something" about gun control definitely made us safer.
Wednesday, October 4, 2017
Quid Pro Quo
One of the things that has surprised me so far in the debate over selling Lakeshore Golf Course to the Oshkosh Corporation for their new headquarters is that no one at City Hall or on the Common Council has said "Oshkosh doesn't need to be in the golf course business". I don't know if that is because everyone wants to cover their butts in case the Oshkosh Corp purchase falls through, and the City continues to own the course property. Comments like that would lead everyone to believe that the City would just walk away from operating the site as a course and leave it on the open market for another development purpose.
So if the City is really interested in continuing to provide a municipal golf course to residents as a recreation option, I'd like to suggest a new deal for the Oshkosh Corp: We will sell you the Lakeshore site for $1, if you are willing to build us a new municipal golf course.
You talk about a win-win situation for everyone! Oshkosh Corp gets the "WOW!" site that they are looking for at a price that no other city will be willing to match (except for the old Plexus site in Neenah--at least that's what I've been told) while the current and future golfers of Oshkosh get a brand new facility to enjoy for decades. And since City Manager Mark Rohloff stated right here on WOSH that the sale of Lakeshore will not be used to pay off city debts--the loss of revenue from the sale should be a wash.
The American Society of Golf Course Architects down in Brookfield estimates a practical municipal golf facility can be built for $3-million. That is very close to what several real estate brokers here in Oshkosh have estimated the City should get for the 30-acres they are looking to sell for the headquarters project. The huge benefit for Oshkosh Corp is that instead of spending that on a land purchase, by gifting the new course to the City it becomes a tax write off. Yet another win!!
The big question is where to locate our new, donated golf course? I would suggest the area designated as the new Aviation Business Park near Wittman Regional Airport--since actual development of that site is likely on-hold forever--since the Winnebago County Board refuses to fund construction of a taxiway to the airport--which is kind of a requirement for an aviation business park to have if you are going to get any aviation-related businesses to locate there. Or, there are site near the City that could be annexed in after construction on the course is complete.
But what if City officials actually don't want to be in the golf course business anymore--and no one has said it yet because "We must do everything we can to keep Oshkosh Corporation in Oshkosh" sounds more "bold"? Well, there is precedence for overriding that desire. I don't think the City wants to be in the waterpark business either (dragging the School District into the mix by having to staff the facility during the summer)--but when the Leach family "gifted" us one, it would have made City Hall look bad if they had said "no thanks".
So what do you say Oshkosh Corp--a little quid pro quo? You get Lakeshore and us golfers get to keep playing?
So if the City is really interested in continuing to provide a municipal golf course to residents as a recreation option, I'd like to suggest a new deal for the Oshkosh Corp: We will sell you the Lakeshore site for $1, if you are willing to build us a new municipal golf course.
You talk about a win-win situation for everyone! Oshkosh Corp gets the "WOW!" site that they are looking for at a price that no other city will be willing to match (except for the old Plexus site in Neenah--at least that's what I've been told) while the current and future golfers of Oshkosh get a brand new facility to enjoy for decades. And since City Manager Mark Rohloff stated right here on WOSH that the sale of Lakeshore will not be used to pay off city debts--the loss of revenue from the sale should be a wash.
The American Society of Golf Course Architects down in Brookfield estimates a practical municipal golf facility can be built for $3-million. That is very close to what several real estate brokers here in Oshkosh have estimated the City should get for the 30-acres they are looking to sell for the headquarters project. The huge benefit for Oshkosh Corp is that instead of spending that on a land purchase, by gifting the new course to the City it becomes a tax write off. Yet another win!!
The big question is where to locate our new, donated golf course? I would suggest the area designated as the new Aviation Business Park near Wittman Regional Airport--since actual development of that site is likely on-hold forever--since the Winnebago County Board refuses to fund construction of a taxiway to the airport--which is kind of a requirement for an aviation business park to have if you are going to get any aviation-related businesses to locate there. Or, there are site near the City that could be annexed in after construction on the course is complete.
But what if City officials actually don't want to be in the golf course business anymore--and no one has said it yet because "We must do everything we can to keep Oshkosh Corporation in Oshkosh" sounds more "bold"? Well, there is precedence for overriding that desire. I don't think the City wants to be in the waterpark business either (dragging the School District into the mix by having to staff the facility during the summer)--but when the Leach family "gifted" us one, it would have made City Hall look bad if they had said "no thanks".
So what do you say Oshkosh Corp--a little quid pro quo? You get Lakeshore and us golfers get to keep playing?
Tuesday, October 3, 2017
I've Concentrated Myself and I Can't Win Elections!!
Today, the US Supreme Court will begin the process of deciding if voters can self-segregate. Oral arguments are scheduled in the lawsuit challenging the state's redistricting in 2011. A dozen Democrats living in heavily-Republican areas claim they have been "disenfranchised" because they have to vote in a district almost guaranteed to go Republican. They want the court to redraw the lines so that their districts have more Democrats in them.
Who they should be suing are all of the Democrats that have abandoned the suburban and rural areas of the state to densely concentrate themselves in urban areas. Liberals' desire to live near their government jobs, with public transit, neighborhood public schools and government funded recreation facilities have surrendered vast swaths of the state to Republican voters.
That ultra-concentration of support is borne out in the map from the 2010 gubernatorial election--the last one before the 2011 redistricting:
The map shows the dense concentration of Democratic voters in a handful of counties--often surrounded by just as densely concentrated Republican voters--and a few sections of the state that "lean" Republican.
So when you look at that map, how do you draw legislative and Congressional districts that produce "competitive" races? Remember when President Obama paid a campaign visit to Milwaukee and he stopped in a Milwaukee district where he garnered 100% of the vote in 2008. If a Republican couple was to move into that district could they make a claim that they are "disenfranchised"?
Democrats like to use the "we won the popular vote" argument--pointing out that more votes were cast for Democratic legislative candidates statewide than Republicans--but they ended up with just one-third of the seats in the Assembly. But just like the party learned in the Electoral College, running up huge margins in a select few parts of the country or state doesn't mean you get to run the whole show. Nor does it explain how the GOP won the statewide US Senate or Presidential races.
But if you think that you can take the map split between dark blues and dark reds and somehow make districts that don't look like Jackson Pollock paintings, go right ahead. Just hope that Democrats don't decide that city living isn't for them anymore.
Who they should be suing are all of the Democrats that have abandoned the suburban and rural areas of the state to densely concentrate themselves in urban areas. Liberals' desire to live near their government jobs, with public transit, neighborhood public schools and government funded recreation facilities have surrendered vast swaths of the state to Republican voters.
That ultra-concentration of support is borne out in the map from the 2010 gubernatorial election--the last one before the 2011 redistricting:
So when you look at that map, how do you draw legislative and Congressional districts that produce "competitive" races? Remember when President Obama paid a campaign visit to Milwaukee and he stopped in a Milwaukee district where he garnered 100% of the vote in 2008. If a Republican couple was to move into that district could they make a claim that they are "disenfranchised"?
Democrats like to use the "we won the popular vote" argument--pointing out that more votes were cast for Democratic legislative candidates statewide than Republicans--but they ended up with just one-third of the seats in the Assembly. But just like the party learned in the Electoral College, running up huge margins in a select few parts of the country or state doesn't mean you get to run the whole show. Nor does it explain how the GOP won the statewide US Senate or Presidential races.
But if you think that you can take the map split between dark blues and dark reds and somehow make districts that don't look like Jackson Pollock paintings, go right ahead. Just hope that Democrats don't decide that city living isn't for them anymore.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)