The Big Ten Men's Basketball Tournament tips off today. Now before you get excited about Selection Sunday coming up this weekend, know that is not actually the case. For the first time since it was instituted, the Big Ten Tourney will not be held on the final weekend of the regular season.
Instead, conference officials--in yet another money grab--agreed to hold the tournament a week earlier so they could play in that hotbed of Big Ten Basketball: Madison Square Garden in New York. MSG is not available during traditional Championship Week because the Big East plays its conference tourney there. That basically relegates the Big Ten to JV status--playing at the same time as such powerhouses as the Patriot League and the Horizon League. And we're not talking about the "real" Big East when Syracuse, Georgetown and Villanova were national powers. We are talking about the Marquette, Creighton, Butler Big East--which just adds further insult to injury.
Although, the watered down Big East will likely still pack in bigger crowds for their tournament games that the Big Ten will. The average conference campus is more than 650-miles from Madison Square Garden. And hotel rooms in New York City are much more expensive than the usual conference tournament host sites of Indianapolis or Chicago. The one bright spot is that attendance should be better than last year's Big Ten Tournament in Washington, DC which conjured up the phrase "Plenty of good seats still available" every time there would be a shot of the stands on TV.
This downgrading of what should be the premier event of the Big Ten Basketball season is part of the conference's misguided efforts to make New York and Washington "Big Ten cities". While there is certainly fan interest and media coverage of Maryland Basketball in the nation's capital, nobody in NYC gives a rat's behind about Rutgers. I would be willing to bet there are more alumni of Big Ten schools in New York than there are fans of the Scarlet Knights in the entire country. But is that interest worthy of having the conference tournament moved out of its regular timeslot and playing second fiddle to everything else that goes on in NYC when it could be the biggest thing going on in Indy, Milwaukee or Detroit?
And any "inroads" the conference may make this week will be quickly forgotten next week when the Big East Tournament at Madison Square Garden itself gets overshadowed by the Atlantic Coast Conference tourney taking over the Barclays Center in Brooklyn at the same time. The ACC will be coming to town with number one ranked Virginia and the Duke Blue Devils--who are reviled by even the most casual college basketball fan. By Selection Sunday, you'd be hard pressed to even remember who won the Big Ten Championship.
Perhaps most importantly, how will this early tournament affect Big Ten teams that do make the Big Dance? Those knocked out in the quarterfinals will go two weeks without playing a game. The conference championship game participants a week-and-a-half. You ask any coach and he'd tell you it's best to play every third day to stay sharp. When the Big Ten fails to get anyone to the second weekend of the NCAA tournament I hope that conference officials can take time away from counting their money and consider the negative effects of their short-sighted decisions.
Wednesday, February 28, 2018
Tuesday, February 27, 2018
Liberals' Toy Trains
I saw yesterday that the city of Washington, DC is replace their streetcar fleet. Transit officials say they are having a hard time getting parts anymore for the trains--as the company that made them is no longer in business--and the foreign company that can make those parts is always backlogged. The cost to replace those streetcars is estimated at 25-MILLION dollars. Did I mention the streetcars that are going to be replaced are just two years old?
Fortunately, the problems with the DC streetcars isn't going to affect a lot of people. The trains currently run on just one street--H Street--covering a two mile stretch of bureaucratic office buildings and lobbying groups before ending up near RFK stadium where the DC United MLS soccer team plays a handful of home games a year. According to the DC Transit website, buses run along that same route almost as regularly as the streetcars.
The need to buy all new cars won't derail (pun intended) plans to expand the system to one other street by the year 2024--which is three years later than first expected. The cost for that is estimated at 89-million dollars--plus buying another 20-million worth of trains. Installing streetcars is no easy task. The entire street must be torn up so that the rails can be installed down the middle of it. And wires need to be strung along the entire route between buildings--since you can't have pedestrians stepping on an electrified third rail that subways use. Although a future expansion to the Georgetown area would use wireless streetcars that run on batteries--but that also cost 85-MILLION dollars.
The good news for DC streetcar riders is that the cost of the new trains and the expansion of the line will not be passed along to them. Rides on the streetcar will continue to be FREE for the foreseeable future. That's right, DC Transit makes no attempt to generate any revenue from the streetcars--despite their exorbitant costs. That expense is just charged to the taxpayer--some of whom are us--as the Federal Government subsidizes operations of the capital city.
DC streetcar riders should consider themselves lucky, as least they can use their trains. Cincinnati found out the hard way theirs don't run so well in cold and icy conditions. They too started out with free rides, but as soon as a fare was instituted, ridership fell 25-percent short of expectations--and those numbers continue to decline.
Milwaukee is finishing the construction work on their streetcar line this year and service should begin in the fall. If it performs as well as those in most other American cities, I'll have plenty of fodder for My Two Cents for years to come.
Fortunately, the problems with the DC streetcars isn't going to affect a lot of people. The trains currently run on just one street--H Street--covering a two mile stretch of bureaucratic office buildings and lobbying groups before ending up near RFK stadium where the DC United MLS soccer team plays a handful of home games a year. According to the DC Transit website, buses run along that same route almost as regularly as the streetcars.
The need to buy all new cars won't derail (pun intended) plans to expand the system to one other street by the year 2024--which is three years later than first expected. The cost for that is estimated at 89-million dollars--plus buying another 20-million worth of trains. Installing streetcars is no easy task. The entire street must be torn up so that the rails can be installed down the middle of it. And wires need to be strung along the entire route between buildings--since you can't have pedestrians stepping on an electrified third rail that subways use. Although a future expansion to the Georgetown area would use wireless streetcars that run on batteries--but that also cost 85-MILLION dollars.
The good news for DC streetcar riders is that the cost of the new trains and the expansion of the line will not be passed along to them. Rides on the streetcar will continue to be FREE for the foreseeable future. That's right, DC Transit makes no attempt to generate any revenue from the streetcars--despite their exorbitant costs. That expense is just charged to the taxpayer--some of whom are us--as the Federal Government subsidizes operations of the capital city.
DC streetcar riders should consider themselves lucky, as least they can use their trains. Cincinnati found out the hard way theirs don't run so well in cold and icy conditions. They too started out with free rides, but as soon as a fare was instituted, ridership fell 25-percent short of expectations--and those numbers continue to decline.
Milwaukee is finishing the construction work on their streetcar line this year and service should begin in the fall. If it performs as well as those in most other American cities, I'll have plenty of fodder for My Two Cents for years to come.
Monday, February 26, 2018
Paying For Your Vacation
I expect to hear "I bet you are looking forward to your vacation next week" quite often over the next few days. My wife and I are heading out on our annual winter pilgrimage to much warmer weather, where she can sit on a beach or by a pool and I can play golf all day for a week. But I don't get to look forward to that until the night before we fly out.
Like many of you, when I'm not at work, not as much work gets done. And in a business where we can't just turn off the lights, lock the door and come back to pick up where we left off a week ago, that means I have to get two weeks worth of work done in just one week. This week I have to book twice as many interviews for Bob Burnell to talk to while I'm gone. Working on stories that are not time-sensitive for inclusion in newscast all next week. Recording weekend programs two weeks in advance and producing a 67-item checklist so that the people that are here can complete all of the daily tasks that I handle.
It's almost like the system punishes you for taking time away from your job. Maybe we should adopt the attitude that Europeans have. No one goes to Spain in August because everyone in Spain is on vacation in August--and nothing gets done while they are gone. It's a good thing the countries don't border each other, or Germans would likely have to be brought in just to keep things operating efficiently.
One thing that I'm good at is unplugging and forgetting about this place while on vacation. I don't wake up in the morning worrying "Did Anthony Domol send the morning forecast?". And I turn off all the "breaking news alerts" on my phone so that "Trump Tweets Insults at North Korea" doesn't wake me up at 3:30 am.
The pile of work that you need to do before a vacation--and that you face when you come back--is likely the reason that Americans take less time off than all other industrialized nations--and why so many of us leave vacation time on the table every year. So now it's off to tackle my doubled workload, so I can have a few days to relax and recharge for the double-work week on the back-end.
Like many of you, when I'm not at work, not as much work gets done. And in a business where we can't just turn off the lights, lock the door and come back to pick up where we left off a week ago, that means I have to get two weeks worth of work done in just one week. This week I have to book twice as many interviews for Bob Burnell to talk to while I'm gone. Working on stories that are not time-sensitive for inclusion in newscast all next week. Recording weekend programs two weeks in advance and producing a 67-item checklist so that the people that are here can complete all of the daily tasks that I handle.
It's almost like the system punishes you for taking time away from your job. Maybe we should adopt the attitude that Europeans have. No one goes to Spain in August because everyone in Spain is on vacation in August--and nothing gets done while they are gone. It's a good thing the countries don't border each other, or Germans would likely have to be brought in just to keep things operating efficiently.
One thing that I'm good at is unplugging and forgetting about this place while on vacation. I don't wake up in the morning worrying "Did Anthony Domol send the morning forecast?". And I turn off all the "breaking news alerts" on my phone so that "Trump Tweets Insults at North Korea" doesn't wake me up at 3:30 am.
The pile of work that you need to do before a vacation--and that you face when you come back--is likely the reason that Americans take less time off than all other industrialized nations--and why so many of us leave vacation time on the table every year. So now it's off to tackle my doubled workload, so I can have a few days to relax and recharge for the double-work week on the back-end.
Friday, February 23, 2018
Losing the TV Olympics
"It has been a disastrous Olympics for the United States"
I actually heard that from more than one TV commentator this week as the US "languishes" in 4th place in the medal count at the Winter Games. What we have here is a situation where perception is trumping reality.
Yes, we sent the largest team in Winter Olympics history--so being far behind less-populous countries like Norway and Canada looks bad. But let's be honest, what percentage of our population is ever exposed to conditions suited to winter sports. And when events are known as "Nordic Skiing" people from Nordic countries should probably dominate.
Incredible successes have been achieved by Americans in these games. We won our first ever medal in men's single luge. Chris Mazdzer won silver after failing to get into the top ten for many of the events leading up to the Olympics. We won our first-ever gold medal in women's cross-country skiing in the team sprint event. Our women's hockey team finally got over the mental hurdle that has killed them for so many years when they play the Canadians. And later today, we will win our first ever gold or silver in men's curling.
The reason it seems like the US is a "disaster" this year is because we are losing what I like to call the "TV Olympics"--the tiny sliver of action that NBC decides to show during their prime-time broadcast window. NBC hitched its wagon--as it always does--to a few high-profile athletes in its promotion leading up to the games. Snowboarders like Chloe Kim and Shaun White delivered gold in primetime. But they were one-night, one-event athletes. We saw plenty of Mikaela Schiffrin and Lindsey Vonn flashing their blonde hair and blue eyes before the games. But weather delays forced Schiffrin to cut back on the aggressive schedule she planned to ski--and Vonn simply wasn't good enough in her latest comeback from a knee injury.
And then there is figure skating. Adam Rippon became the "breakout star" of the Games (on NBC). He was "flamboyant". He was "sassy". He "put Vice President Mike Pence in his place". He also doesn't do quad-jumps in his routines--and he was never a serious medal contender coming to South Korea. Nathan Chen does a lot of quads in his routine. But he flamed out in the short program and dug himself a hole too deep to get out of in the long program. The Americans choked in ice dancing, weren't good enough in pairs and the women's team was just weak this time around. But because these are the athletes that NBC (and other media outlets) know get ratings in primetime--they were all we heard about.
The real sport we need to be concerned about is speed skating. Medals were few and far between for Team USA in these games--and the future of the sport doesn't look too bright. In fact, most of our top contenders in South Korea are recent converts from in-line skating--who started skating on ice in just the last couple of years. That doesn't bode well for folks at the Pettit Center in West Allis--where greats like Bonnie Blair and Dan Jansen honed their skills.
In terms of a TV show, these Olympics have been a bomb. In terms of what this is supposed to be about--sports--we've done fine this time around.
I actually heard that from more than one TV commentator this week as the US "languishes" in 4th place in the medal count at the Winter Games. What we have here is a situation where perception is trumping reality.
Yes, we sent the largest team in Winter Olympics history--so being far behind less-populous countries like Norway and Canada looks bad. But let's be honest, what percentage of our population is ever exposed to conditions suited to winter sports. And when events are known as "Nordic Skiing" people from Nordic countries should probably dominate.
Incredible successes have been achieved by Americans in these games. We won our first ever medal in men's single luge. Chris Mazdzer won silver after failing to get into the top ten for many of the events leading up to the Olympics. We won our first-ever gold medal in women's cross-country skiing in the team sprint event. Our women's hockey team finally got over the mental hurdle that has killed them for so many years when they play the Canadians. And later today, we will win our first ever gold or silver in men's curling.
The reason it seems like the US is a "disaster" this year is because we are losing what I like to call the "TV Olympics"--the tiny sliver of action that NBC decides to show during their prime-time broadcast window. NBC hitched its wagon--as it always does--to a few high-profile athletes in its promotion leading up to the games. Snowboarders like Chloe Kim and Shaun White delivered gold in primetime. But they were one-night, one-event athletes. We saw plenty of Mikaela Schiffrin and Lindsey Vonn flashing their blonde hair and blue eyes before the games. But weather delays forced Schiffrin to cut back on the aggressive schedule she planned to ski--and Vonn simply wasn't good enough in her latest comeback from a knee injury.
And then there is figure skating. Adam Rippon became the "breakout star" of the Games (on NBC). He was "flamboyant". He was "sassy". He "put Vice President Mike Pence in his place". He also doesn't do quad-jumps in his routines--and he was never a serious medal contender coming to South Korea. Nathan Chen does a lot of quads in his routine. But he flamed out in the short program and dug himself a hole too deep to get out of in the long program. The Americans choked in ice dancing, weren't good enough in pairs and the women's team was just weak this time around. But because these are the athletes that NBC (and other media outlets) know get ratings in primetime--they were all we heard about.
The real sport we need to be concerned about is speed skating. Medals were few and far between for Team USA in these games--and the future of the sport doesn't look too bright. In fact, most of our top contenders in South Korea are recent converts from in-line skating--who started skating on ice in just the last couple of years. That doesn't bode well for folks at the Pettit Center in West Allis--where greats like Bonnie Blair and Dan Jansen honed their skills.
In terms of a TV show, these Olympics have been a bomb. In terms of what this is supposed to be about--sports--we've done fine this time around.
Thursday, February 22, 2018
He May Get It
I'm not going to give an endorsement in the selection process of the new Oshkosh School District Superintendent. But I do have to laud some of the comments I heard from interim Beloit Superintendent Darrell Williams during our conversation last night.
First off, I give Williams credit for not being the usual academic in his interactions with people. He's a two-hand hand-shaker--which invariably makes you a two-hand-shaker and pretty soon you feel like you've just signed the Camp David Accords to bring peace to the Middle East. And not everyone is addressed as "sir" or "madam" during an introduction with Darrell. But I digress.
In answering my question about the role of schools in the community, Williams mentioned the standard "closing the achievement gap", but he also brought up something that I haven't heard from many in education anymore: "closing the attitude gap". And he specifically called out students and parents that make no effort to take advantage of the myriad programs and services school districts already have in place--and then end up blaming "the schools" for the child's lack of education.
Williams got another two-hand-shake from me after that answer, because it shows that he "gets it". To say that today's education system "doesn't do enough" is disingenuous to those working in the system--and insulting to those that fund the system. Consider that we feed kids two meals a day--even during the summer, provide them with modern technology and internet access for free, we artificially reduce class sizes, offer before and after school babysitting services, counseling services, healthcare services, reading specialists, math tutoring, one-on-one specialized instruction, an alternative high school, mentoring programs, work-to-learn programs and student-directed learning.
And yet, what is the only message we hear? "We need to do more for our schools--because there are still kids falling through the cracks". Now we need to pay for older students to ride the bus for free because they don't want to walk in the cold. Or we should pay for free broadband internet at home so there is no "technology gap". The ugly truth--as Mr Williams points out in his "attitude gap" response--is that those kids are looking for the cracks and their parents are helping to find them.
It would be incredibly refreshing to have a Superintendent that demands accountability from all students and parents--and not treat them like "victims of the system". It would be nice to hear that we the taxpayers are going above and beyond in providing equal opportunities for all students--and that "doing more for our schools" will in no way guarantee equal results for all kids. And that's why Darrell Williams probably has no chance to be the next Oshkosh School Superintendent.
First off, I give Williams credit for not being the usual academic in his interactions with people. He's a two-hand hand-shaker--which invariably makes you a two-hand-shaker and pretty soon you feel like you've just signed the Camp David Accords to bring peace to the Middle East. And not everyone is addressed as "sir" or "madam" during an introduction with Darrell. But I digress.
In answering my question about the role of schools in the community, Williams mentioned the standard "closing the achievement gap", but he also brought up something that I haven't heard from many in education anymore: "closing the attitude gap". And he specifically called out students and parents that make no effort to take advantage of the myriad programs and services school districts already have in place--and then end up blaming "the schools" for the child's lack of education.
Williams got another two-hand-shake from me after that answer, because it shows that he "gets it". To say that today's education system "doesn't do enough" is disingenuous to those working in the system--and insulting to those that fund the system. Consider that we feed kids two meals a day--even during the summer, provide them with modern technology and internet access for free, we artificially reduce class sizes, offer before and after school babysitting services, counseling services, healthcare services, reading specialists, math tutoring, one-on-one specialized instruction, an alternative high school, mentoring programs, work-to-learn programs and student-directed learning.
And yet, what is the only message we hear? "We need to do more for our schools--because there are still kids falling through the cracks". Now we need to pay for older students to ride the bus for free because they don't want to walk in the cold. Or we should pay for free broadband internet at home so there is no "technology gap". The ugly truth--as Mr Williams points out in his "attitude gap" response--is that those kids are looking for the cracks and their parents are helping to find them.
It would be incredibly refreshing to have a Superintendent that demands accountability from all students and parents--and not treat them like "victims of the system". It would be nice to hear that we the taxpayers are going above and beyond in providing equal opportunities for all students--and that "doing more for our schools" will in no way guarantee equal results for all kids. And that's why Darrell Williams probably has no chance to be the next Oshkosh School Superintendent.
Wednesday, February 21, 2018
No Way to Win (or Lose)
I will admit that I went to bed after the second period of last night's Team USA-Czech Republic men's Olympic Hockey game because 9:10 pm start times don't go well with 2:45 am wake up calls for work. And it is a good thing I did, because if I had stayed up until the end of the game I would have had no sleep while ranting and raving about how this contest was decided.
If you didn't stay up either, the US lost to the Czechs--and were eliminated from medal contention--in an overtime shootout. As a fan of "real hockey" I DETEST the shootout more than anything else in sports. An elimination playoff game that featured great competition for three full periods and a ten minute overtime gets decided by trick shots.
I will never understand why the powers-that-be think the best way to break ties is to completely abandon the normal gameplay and go to a completely different way of playing just because you don't want it to "go on too long". The NHL uses the shootout during its regular season--after playing an equally-stupid, five-minute, 3-on-3 overtime period. But that's for one of 82-games and really doesn't mean that much in the grand scheme of things. But in the Playoffs--where every game has greatly-magnified meaning--the teams play 5-on-5 "regular" sudden death hockey for as long as it takes to get a game-winning goal.
And that has produced some of the most epic hockey games in the sport's history. Three and four overtime contests with multiple close calls and dramatic game winners that remain part of the sports lore. Unlike the three goals that might be scored in a shootout by one team edging out the two goals scored by the other.
You don't see tie games in Olympic Basketball decided by a free-throw shooting contest. And when they had baseball and softball in the Olympics, those extra innings games weren't decided by Home Run Derby. The integrity of those sports is preserved all the way to the conclusion.
I fear that based on the competitive balance between the two teams that tonight's Women's Hockey gold medal game between Team USA and Canada will also likely end up in a shootout--with neither side feeling like they really "earned" that win. So let them play until there is a winner. And leave the "shootout" for the losers over on the soccer pitch.
If you didn't stay up either, the US lost to the Czechs--and were eliminated from medal contention--in an overtime shootout. As a fan of "real hockey" I DETEST the shootout more than anything else in sports. An elimination playoff game that featured great competition for three full periods and a ten minute overtime gets decided by trick shots.
I will never understand why the powers-that-be think the best way to break ties is to completely abandon the normal gameplay and go to a completely different way of playing just because you don't want it to "go on too long". The NHL uses the shootout during its regular season--after playing an equally-stupid, five-minute, 3-on-3 overtime period. But that's for one of 82-games and really doesn't mean that much in the grand scheme of things. But in the Playoffs--where every game has greatly-magnified meaning--the teams play 5-on-5 "regular" sudden death hockey for as long as it takes to get a game-winning goal.
And that has produced some of the most epic hockey games in the sport's history. Three and four overtime contests with multiple close calls and dramatic game winners that remain part of the sports lore. Unlike the three goals that might be scored in a shootout by one team edging out the two goals scored by the other.
You don't see tie games in Olympic Basketball decided by a free-throw shooting contest. And when they had baseball and softball in the Olympics, those extra innings games weren't decided by Home Run Derby. The integrity of those sports is preserved all the way to the conclusion.
I fear that based on the competitive balance between the two teams that tonight's Women's Hockey gold medal game between Team USA and Canada will also likely end up in a shootout--with neither side feeling like they really "earned" that win. So let them play until there is a winner. And leave the "shootout" for the losers over on the soccer pitch.
Tuesday, February 20, 2018
They Did That On Purpose
One of the great things about the Founding Fathers and the framers of the Constitution is that they made it very, very, very hard for the Government to take away our rights. Having paid a heavy price to secure our independence, they didn't want it just given away by one judge, a slim legislative majority or a power-hungry executive. That's why they made it a long and arduous effort to amend the Constitution--and it's why they built redundancies into the document too.
I was reminded of that as discussions both on-line and on the news channels turned to the potential repeal of the Second Amendment in response to the rash of school shootings over the past decade. Again, such a repeal would take years and the consent of 38-states to ratify a new amendment to repeal the old amendment. There has not been an amendment added to the Constitution since 1992 (not allowing Congress to change its salaries within their current terms)--and it was first proposed 202 years before it was finally ratified. It was just the 17th amendment added since the original Bill of Rights in 1789.
But even if there was somehow a successful repeal of the Second Amendment, that still wouldn't open the door for Government confiscation of guns. You see, the Fifth Amendment requires the Government show cause before seizing any private property from citizens. That means the owners of all 300-million weapons in the US could demand a court hearing before any confiscation could take place. How long do you think it would take to cycle through all of those cases--plus the appeals to which the citizens are entitled under the Sixth Amendment?
And we are only talking about the people that we already know have guns. To root out those still possessing weapons in unknown numbers, that would require search warrants under the Fourth Amendment. Judges not overwhelmed by Fifth Amendment cases would be inundated with requests from police agencies to search homes and storage units of suspected weapons owners before any action could be taken against them--triggering their Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights.
We may look at the Founding Fathers as relatively uneducated men with beliefs that don't conform to modern social mores. But they obviously understood human nature--that there would be knee-jerk reactions to things that happened in our society. Or that total idiots might be elected to positions of power. And they built incredible safeguards into our system of governance. And the most important of those is that the rights of the individual have always, still are, and hopefully always will be more important that the power of the Government.
I was reminded of that as discussions both on-line and on the news channels turned to the potential repeal of the Second Amendment in response to the rash of school shootings over the past decade. Again, such a repeal would take years and the consent of 38-states to ratify a new amendment to repeal the old amendment. There has not been an amendment added to the Constitution since 1992 (not allowing Congress to change its salaries within their current terms)--and it was first proposed 202 years before it was finally ratified. It was just the 17th amendment added since the original Bill of Rights in 1789.
But even if there was somehow a successful repeal of the Second Amendment, that still wouldn't open the door for Government confiscation of guns. You see, the Fifth Amendment requires the Government show cause before seizing any private property from citizens. That means the owners of all 300-million weapons in the US could demand a court hearing before any confiscation could take place. How long do you think it would take to cycle through all of those cases--plus the appeals to which the citizens are entitled under the Sixth Amendment?
And we are only talking about the people that we already know have guns. To root out those still possessing weapons in unknown numbers, that would require search warrants under the Fourth Amendment. Judges not overwhelmed by Fifth Amendment cases would be inundated with requests from police agencies to search homes and storage units of suspected weapons owners before any action could be taken against them--triggering their Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights.
We may look at the Founding Fathers as relatively uneducated men with beliefs that don't conform to modern social mores. But they obviously understood human nature--that there would be knee-jerk reactions to things that happened in our society. Or that total idiots might be elected to positions of power. And they built incredible safeguards into our system of governance. And the most important of those is that the rights of the individual have always, still are, and hopefully always will be more important that the power of the Government.
Monday, February 19, 2018
It's All About Him
Remember all of the criticism of President Obama for "making everything about him". People used to count the number of times he would use the word "I" in a speech. There were entire white papers written on how the President turned any events into a referendum on his leadership or into personal attacks on him based on his race. But his predecessor doesn't hold a candle to President Trump when it comes to self-centeredness.
The latest example comes from the Florida school shooting. Over the weekend the President blasted the FBI for failing to stop the suspect after being tipped off to his on-line threats several months before the incident. President Trump tweeted that the Bureau would have stopped the shooter if it hadn't been trying to prove his campaign was involved in collusion with the Russians.
I highly doubt that field agents in Mississippi--where the tip on the shooter's on-line posts came from--or in South Florida were spending a whole lot of time on the Russian collusion investigation. The President apparently believes that everyone in the FBI works on the same thing at the same time--mainly discrediting him. That is distressing, as the FBI is part of the Executive Branch of government--and therefore falls under the oversight of the President.
And then, the President took a trip to the hospital where some of the shooting victims remain in intensive care. He didn't meet with them, but rather spent his time (a very short amount of it as we will discuss in a moment) with doctors and first responders. A picture of the President and First Lady with the group shows Trump with a smile on his face and a big "thumbs up". That's not exactly the empathetic type of response one would expect from our leaders at a time of tragedy. And while much was made of this "visit", it took less than 20-minutes--as the President "needed" to get to a disco-themed party at his Mar-A-Lago estate that night.
When critics call the President "racist", "bigoted", "sexist", "misogynistic", "xenophobic" and "homophobic" I tend not to agree with them. Mr Trump doesn't hate anyone of different colors, genders, heritages or sexual preferences. He simply does not care one iota about any of them--unless they can further his own success--then he puts up with them until they are no longer needed.
The latest example comes from the Florida school shooting. Over the weekend the President blasted the FBI for failing to stop the suspect after being tipped off to his on-line threats several months before the incident. President Trump tweeted that the Bureau would have stopped the shooter if it hadn't been trying to prove his campaign was involved in collusion with the Russians.
I highly doubt that field agents in Mississippi--where the tip on the shooter's on-line posts came from--or in South Florida were spending a whole lot of time on the Russian collusion investigation. The President apparently believes that everyone in the FBI works on the same thing at the same time--mainly discrediting him. That is distressing, as the FBI is part of the Executive Branch of government--and therefore falls under the oversight of the President.
And then, the President took a trip to the hospital where some of the shooting victims remain in intensive care. He didn't meet with them, but rather spent his time (a very short amount of it as we will discuss in a moment) with doctors and first responders. A picture of the President and First Lady with the group shows Trump with a smile on his face and a big "thumbs up". That's not exactly the empathetic type of response one would expect from our leaders at a time of tragedy. And while much was made of this "visit", it took less than 20-minutes--as the President "needed" to get to a disco-themed party at his Mar-A-Lago estate that night.
When critics call the President "racist", "bigoted", "sexist", "misogynistic", "xenophobic" and "homophobic" I tend not to agree with them. Mr Trump doesn't hate anyone of different colors, genders, heritages or sexual preferences. He simply does not care one iota about any of them--unless they can further his own success--then he puts up with them until they are no longer needed.
Friday, February 16, 2018
Politcially Correct Time Off
Did you know that Spring Break is "culturally insensitive"? I didn't either--until this week's Oshkosh School Board meeting. That meeting featured a workshop session on the 2018-2019 student calendar. The discussion eventually turned to Spring Break--which will be March 25th through the 29th next year.
Director of Learning Kim Brown led the discussion on choosing that date--as it does not match up with Easter--which is April 21st in 2019--for the first time in many years. Brown initially claimed that the move was due to state testing from April 22nd to the 26th. But then she added this:
"The other beautiful piece to this is that we realize that we have a very diverse community, and so we think this is a good thing to maybe have spring break at a different time than the traditional Easter"
So what Ms Brown is saying is that the District is committing a "micro-aggression" against non-Christians by having spring break follow Easter every year. Knowing kids, all they care about is that they don't have to go to school for a week--and that joy likely far out-weighs the "insult" that comes with that time off following a major Christian holiday.
You will note that the time off is not called "Easter Break". Public school districts went away from using the term "Christmas Break" years ago--and even ditched "Holiday Break" as well. Now it's listed as just the "Winter Break". But you will notice nobody is pushing for "Winter Break" to not take place around the Christian holiday of Christmas. Wouldn't that be a "beautiful piece" in recognizing our diverse community if Oshkosh said "We are going to take 'Winter Break' from December 12th through the 16th this year!" Then they can recommend cultural sensitivity training for all of the parents that storm the next School Board meeting in vehement opposition to that change.
I also find it interesting that Oshkosh schools will not have classes on April 19th of 2019--Good Friday on the Christian calendar. How are we celebrating our "diversity" by giving kids off on the most somber of Christian holidays--but not on Rosh Hashanah or Yom Kippur, the Jewish High Holidays? And why don't we not serve lunch during the days of Ramadan--when Muslims fast?
When it comes to "equal treatment" of religion in our public institutions, the options are "all or none". I tend to lean toward "none" personally as it abides by the letter of the First Amendment. Plus, we give kids too much time off from school already--with early releases, random off-days every other month and the better part of three months doing nothing during the summer. Fewer family trips to Disney and those Mexican resorts would bolster the kids' college funds too.
Director of Learning Kim Brown led the discussion on choosing that date--as it does not match up with Easter--which is April 21st in 2019--for the first time in many years. Brown initially claimed that the move was due to state testing from April 22nd to the 26th. But then she added this:
"The other beautiful piece to this is that we realize that we have a very diverse community, and so we think this is a good thing to maybe have spring break at a different time than the traditional Easter"
So what Ms Brown is saying is that the District is committing a "micro-aggression" against non-Christians by having spring break follow Easter every year. Knowing kids, all they care about is that they don't have to go to school for a week--and that joy likely far out-weighs the "insult" that comes with that time off following a major Christian holiday.
You will note that the time off is not called "Easter Break". Public school districts went away from using the term "Christmas Break" years ago--and even ditched "Holiday Break" as well. Now it's listed as just the "Winter Break". But you will notice nobody is pushing for "Winter Break" to not take place around the Christian holiday of Christmas. Wouldn't that be a "beautiful piece" in recognizing our diverse community if Oshkosh said "We are going to take 'Winter Break' from December 12th through the 16th this year!" Then they can recommend cultural sensitivity training for all of the parents that storm the next School Board meeting in vehement opposition to that change.
I also find it interesting that Oshkosh schools will not have classes on April 19th of 2019--Good Friday on the Christian calendar. How are we celebrating our "diversity" by giving kids off on the most somber of Christian holidays--but not on Rosh Hashanah or Yom Kippur, the Jewish High Holidays? And why don't we not serve lunch during the days of Ramadan--when Muslims fast?
When it comes to "equal treatment" of religion in our public institutions, the options are "all or none". I tend to lean toward "none" personally as it abides by the letter of the First Amendment. Plus, we give kids too much time off from school already--with early releases, random off-days every other month and the better part of three months doing nothing during the summer. Fewer family trips to Disney and those Mexican resorts would bolster the kids' college funds too.
Thursday, February 15, 2018
This Time It Will Be Different
You know how we always say "This time it's going to be different" when there is a mass shooting? But then there really is no difference after that incident--until the next shooting when we say "This time it's going to be different"? Well, in the case of yesterday's school shooting in Florida, things will be very different--because this time, the shooter was taken alive.
Like capturing Al Qaeda or ISIS operatives, the arrest of Nickolas Cruz should give us incredible insight into the mind and thought process of a mass shooter that we could not gain after Columbine, Newtown, or Las Vegas--where the shooters either took their own lives, or were shot dead by police. And hopefully from Cruz we can learn the warning signs, tactics and steps to take to prevent the next mass shooting.
We already knew that Cruz had a history of erratic and violent behavior that had him in trouble at the school for years and ultimately resulted in his expulsion. Now is the time to figure out why he acted the way he did. How does he think his parents feel about him? How did his interactions with classmates make him feel--and how did he come to see them as people that needed to die? How did treatment by faculty and administrators fuel his anger? What kind of reaction was he hoping to get the first time he told friends he was going to "shoot up the school"?
Investigators can also get concrete evidence on how much time Cruz spent playing first-person shooter video games. When he started planning his attack on the school. How much research he did on previous school shootings. What he thought when he saw extensive media coverage of previous school shootings. How he plotted his attack to "maximize damage". How he planned out the purchase of his gun, ammunition, and smoke bombs so as not to draw attention to himself. Did he know that there would be no resistance to his attack, as the school is a "gun-free zone" and that liason officers were removed because they "send the wrong message to students of color"? And why he chose the day he did for his attack.
Yes, this time is going to be different. This time we are going to learn why these school shooters do what they do. This time we are going to learn the warning signs and the behaviors that set these boys and men on the path to mass murder. And this time we are going to start treating those unstable individuals as the threats they are--and not just "troubled youth that need more love".
Like capturing Al Qaeda or ISIS operatives, the arrest of Nickolas Cruz should give us incredible insight into the mind and thought process of a mass shooter that we could not gain after Columbine, Newtown, or Las Vegas--where the shooters either took their own lives, or were shot dead by police. And hopefully from Cruz we can learn the warning signs, tactics and steps to take to prevent the next mass shooting.
We already knew that Cruz had a history of erratic and violent behavior that had him in trouble at the school for years and ultimately resulted in his expulsion. Now is the time to figure out why he acted the way he did. How does he think his parents feel about him? How did his interactions with classmates make him feel--and how did he come to see them as people that needed to die? How did treatment by faculty and administrators fuel his anger? What kind of reaction was he hoping to get the first time he told friends he was going to "shoot up the school"?
Investigators can also get concrete evidence on how much time Cruz spent playing first-person shooter video games. When he started planning his attack on the school. How much research he did on previous school shootings. What he thought when he saw extensive media coverage of previous school shootings. How he plotted his attack to "maximize damage". How he planned out the purchase of his gun, ammunition, and smoke bombs so as not to draw attention to himself. Did he know that there would be no resistance to his attack, as the school is a "gun-free zone" and that liason officers were removed because they "send the wrong message to students of color"? And why he chose the day he did for his attack.
Yes, this time is going to be different. This time we are going to learn why these school shooters do what they do. This time we are going to learn the warning signs and the behaviors that set these boys and men on the path to mass murder. And this time we are going to start treating those unstable individuals as the threats they are--and not just "troubled youth that need more love".
Tuesday, February 13, 2018
No Sense Pretending Anymore
We are one step closer to actually caring about State Supreme Court Elections. Candidate Tim Burns has decided that he is going to throw out any pretense of being "non-partisan" and is openly running as a Democratic candidate this winter. He has criticized Governor Scott Walker and Republican legislators every opportunity he has been given and he flat out promises to overturn or strike down any of their laws if he ever gets the chance. Burns even puts a (D) next to his name in his TV ads.
Burns' campaign strategy is the culmination of a long-time trend away from "non-partisanship" in these spring elections. For decades now we have all known where those running for Justice (or State Superintendent of Public Instruction) stand on the "political spectrum"--and you could argue that there have always been "Republican" and "Democrat" candidates in every race. But until Burns came along, that was played out in actual judicial philosophy. Candidates that believe in the limited power of Government and that individual rights are clearly spelled out in the Constitution were going to get the support of Conservatives--while those that believe the courts should be used to advance social causes and guarantee equal outcomes (rather than opportunities) were going to get Liberal votes.
But Burns has become the first Supreme Court candidate to make it publicly known that he would use his position to actively defeat political opponents. In one sentence he attacks nearly every piece of legislation approved by the GOP and signed into law by the governor--and in the next claims that he would not pre-judge cases involving the Governor or the Legislature that come before him. I would point out that he never provides any constitutional grounds for his out-of-court stances on the cases that have gone before the Supreme Court--other that to call them "destructive".
As you might expect, Burns strategy is rubbing off on the other "liberal" candidate in the race. Milwaukee County Judge Rebecca Dallet is now running TV ads representing President Trump as a "threat to freedoms and rights". Never mind that the State Supreme Court would never hear matters involving Federal laws, Dallet wants everyone to know where she stands politically--in an effort to recruit "straight party" voters that appreciate Burns' brutal honesty about his affiliations.
Now, I don't want you to think that the third man in the race--Sauk County Judge Michael Screnock--is a pillar of non-partisanship either. His campaign is getting big-time help from the state Republican party--including cash donations.
It's just a matter of time before the pretense of non-partisan judgeships (and School Superintendents) is eventually dropped--and these positions move to the fall partisan election cycles--where turnout will be more than 20% every year. Then they can feature the ugly attack ads that we have come to expect with all elections--not to mention the over-the-top spending, the claims of voter suppression efforts and allegations that illegal voting carried one of the candidates to victory. And to think, we'll all have Tim Burns to thank for that.
Burns' campaign strategy is the culmination of a long-time trend away from "non-partisanship" in these spring elections. For decades now we have all known where those running for Justice (or State Superintendent of Public Instruction) stand on the "political spectrum"--and you could argue that there have always been "Republican" and "Democrat" candidates in every race. But until Burns came along, that was played out in actual judicial philosophy. Candidates that believe in the limited power of Government and that individual rights are clearly spelled out in the Constitution were going to get the support of Conservatives--while those that believe the courts should be used to advance social causes and guarantee equal outcomes (rather than opportunities) were going to get Liberal votes.
But Burns has become the first Supreme Court candidate to make it publicly known that he would use his position to actively defeat political opponents. In one sentence he attacks nearly every piece of legislation approved by the GOP and signed into law by the governor--and in the next claims that he would not pre-judge cases involving the Governor or the Legislature that come before him. I would point out that he never provides any constitutional grounds for his out-of-court stances on the cases that have gone before the Supreme Court--other that to call them "destructive".
As you might expect, Burns strategy is rubbing off on the other "liberal" candidate in the race. Milwaukee County Judge Rebecca Dallet is now running TV ads representing President Trump as a "threat to freedoms and rights". Never mind that the State Supreme Court would never hear matters involving Federal laws, Dallet wants everyone to know where she stands politically--in an effort to recruit "straight party" voters that appreciate Burns' brutal honesty about his affiliations.
Now, I don't want you to think that the third man in the race--Sauk County Judge Michael Screnock--is a pillar of non-partisanship either. His campaign is getting big-time help from the state Republican party--including cash donations.
It's just a matter of time before the pretense of non-partisan judgeships (and School Superintendents) is eventually dropped--and these positions move to the fall partisan election cycles--where turnout will be more than 20% every year. Then they can feature the ugly attack ads that we have come to expect with all elections--not to mention the over-the-top spending, the claims of voter suppression efforts and allegations that illegal voting carried one of the candidates to victory. And to think, we'll all have Tim Burns to thank for that.
Monday, February 12, 2018
Let the Whole Thing Go
Tonight, the Oshkosh Advisory Parks Board will likely make a recommendation to the City on what to do with the remainder of the Lakeshore Golf Course after the Oshkosh Corporation builds its new corporate headquarters on about 35-acres. That leaves around 70-acres on site--most of which makes up what had been the front nine. Members of the Friends of Lakeshore group are pushing to preserve nine holes on the site for continued use as a golf course--with most of the holes converted to par 3's.
As an avid golfer, you might think that I would support that effort--but I do not. In fact, I strongly oppose the idea of maintaining any of the golf holes on the former Lakeshore site. For starters, nine-hole golf courses are a money-losing proposition. They hold far less appeal to golfers--who usually like to go a full 18. And executive-style par-three courses draw even less interest--as you don't use that $300 driver on any of the holes.
Even if the Parks Board did decide it wanted to preserve golf on the Lakeshore site, it faces almost insurmountable opposition at City Hall. Plain and simple, the City of Oshkosh doesn't want to be in the golf course business anymore. While officials were always careful to claim that their decision to sell Lakeshore was due to the "need to keep Oshkosh Corporation in Oshkosh", let's not forget the same site was offered up for a Bass Pro Shops store just a few years earlier. And if Oshkosh Corp decided that Des Plaines, Illinois or Northern Virginia was a better fit for them, the City would have jumped at the next chance to offer the course to another company that came calling.
That is why the Parks Board is being asked to make its decision now--so the liquidation process can begin. If golf is going to be preserved at Lakeshore, the greens, tee boxes and bunkers would need to still be maintained even though the site could not be used for golf this year, or next year, or possibly the year after that. That is expense with zero revenue in return. And for a city already crushed by debt, that is not something Oshkosh can take on. And while they may not be used for a couple of years, the mowers and conditioners at Lakeshore would still need to be maintained and operated--while a decision to dump golf now means they could be auctioned off to other courses and make the City some money.
And even if there was a par-3 course on the Lakeshore site, that would require a new parking lot, clubhouse and seasonal staff to operate it--more expense that city leaders have no interest in incurring. Plus, when the course fails to make any money, we have to put up with the constant carping of Mayor Steve Cummings (a realtor who--like Al Czervik in Caddyshack--sees golf courses and cemetaries as the greatest waste of prime real estate) reminding everyone the city never should have spent money on the place.
If a private developer wants to come in and turn a couple of acres into a driving range with a little short-game practice area and maybe lessons available for kids and beginners, that would be great--but municipal golf in Oshkosh is now dead--and we should move on from that completely. Besides, Trace Gardiner is now the pro at Westridge in Neenah and he's looking to do a lot of the same things he did at Lakeshore--and the Oshkosh Country Club is interested in becoming the host for the Oshkosh City Tournament from here on out. So let's let the Millenials have their walking paths and biking trails for the few days a month when they can tear themselves away from video games and social media.
As an avid golfer, you might think that I would support that effort--but I do not. In fact, I strongly oppose the idea of maintaining any of the golf holes on the former Lakeshore site. For starters, nine-hole golf courses are a money-losing proposition. They hold far less appeal to golfers--who usually like to go a full 18. And executive-style par-three courses draw even less interest--as you don't use that $300 driver on any of the holes.
Even if the Parks Board did decide it wanted to preserve golf on the Lakeshore site, it faces almost insurmountable opposition at City Hall. Plain and simple, the City of Oshkosh doesn't want to be in the golf course business anymore. While officials were always careful to claim that their decision to sell Lakeshore was due to the "need to keep Oshkosh Corporation in Oshkosh", let's not forget the same site was offered up for a Bass Pro Shops store just a few years earlier. And if Oshkosh Corp decided that Des Plaines, Illinois or Northern Virginia was a better fit for them, the City would have jumped at the next chance to offer the course to another company that came calling.
That is why the Parks Board is being asked to make its decision now--so the liquidation process can begin. If golf is going to be preserved at Lakeshore, the greens, tee boxes and bunkers would need to still be maintained even though the site could not be used for golf this year, or next year, or possibly the year after that. That is expense with zero revenue in return. And for a city already crushed by debt, that is not something Oshkosh can take on. And while they may not be used for a couple of years, the mowers and conditioners at Lakeshore would still need to be maintained and operated--while a decision to dump golf now means they could be auctioned off to other courses and make the City some money.
And even if there was a par-3 course on the Lakeshore site, that would require a new parking lot, clubhouse and seasonal staff to operate it--more expense that city leaders have no interest in incurring. Plus, when the course fails to make any money, we have to put up with the constant carping of Mayor Steve Cummings (a realtor who--like Al Czervik in Caddyshack--sees golf courses and cemetaries as the greatest waste of prime real estate) reminding everyone the city never should have spent money on the place.
If a private developer wants to come in and turn a couple of acres into a driving range with a little short-game practice area and maybe lessons available for kids and beginners, that would be great--but municipal golf in Oshkosh is now dead--and we should move on from that completely. Besides, Trace Gardiner is now the pro at Westridge in Neenah and he's looking to do a lot of the same things he did at Lakeshore--and the Oshkosh Country Club is interested in becoming the host for the Oshkosh City Tournament from here on out. So let's let the Millenials have their walking paths and biking trails for the few days a month when they can tear themselves away from video games and social media.
Friday, February 9, 2018
The B Team
Usually, today's My Two Cents would be my quadrennial love letter to Olympic Hockey. That and Ryder Cup Golf battle for first place on my list of absolute favorite sporting events. But this year, I am having a very hard time getting excited for the competition set to start next week.
For the first time since 1994, NHL players are not taking part in the Olympic competition. The league has barred anyone under contract to a team from heading to South Korea to represent their countries. That means we will not be getting "best on best" competition that we have enjoyed for the past 20-years. Instead, Team USA and Team Canada have had to select minor league players that were not on NHL rosters--while many European teams are allowed to use players from the second-best league in the world, the Kontinental Hockey League.
I can't blame the NHL for deciding to bow out of these games. South Korea is not a "growth market" for the sport of hockey. Team USA and Team Canada will be playing their games in the wee hours of the morning North American time--so TV exposure will be almost nothing. Owners have grown tired of having to shut down the league for three weeks every four years, resulting in empty arenas and lost revenues. And to add insult to injury, the International Olympic Committee does not allow the NHL to use video footage of the games in any promotional messages or ads. So really, what point is there to sending all-star teams to PyeongChang (or to Beijing, China in 2022)?
There is a simple solution to this. Ice Hockey could be moved to the Summer Games. The reason basketball is played in the summer despite being a winter sport in most countries is that in the first couple of Olympics it was played outdoors--on dirt courts (which explains the absurdly low score in the first Gold Medal Game--which was played in a rain that turned the court into mud). Ice Hockey was also played outdoors at first (even the 1960 hockey venue at Squaw Valley, California was an open-air arena). But now, indoor refrigerated ice surfaces are common around the world so playing in August or September really isn't that hard. That would allow NHL'ers on their summer off-season to take part. But that will never happen because that would mean giving up the premier event of the Winter Games. While we fawn over figure skating here in the US, in the rest of the world (actually Canada and Europe) the men's hockey tournament is what everyone pays attention to. That's why the Gold Medal Game is the last event before the closing ceremonies.
In all honesty, Team USA is a bunch of has-beens and never-weres. I would almost rather have seen us send a college all-star team that was given a year to play in a development program and see if they could re-capture some of the magic of the young unknowns that performed the Miracle On Ice in 1980. I guess that this year's team could get hot and go on a two-week run and capture gold--but it won't have that same "feel" that Lake Placid had.
That being said, I'm sure that as soon at the Red, White and Blue hits the ice to take on Slovenia for that first game at 6:10 am on Wednesday morning, the butterflies will return to my stomach and I'll be keeping one eye on the TV here in the newsroom--living and dying with each shot, save and goal. They may be has-beens and never-weres--but they are OUR has-beens and never-weres. Plus, there's always the women's competition, where all the best in the world are playing--and Team USA and Team Canada are all but assured of meeting for the gold medal yet again.
For the first time since 1994, NHL players are not taking part in the Olympic competition. The league has barred anyone under contract to a team from heading to South Korea to represent their countries. That means we will not be getting "best on best" competition that we have enjoyed for the past 20-years. Instead, Team USA and Team Canada have had to select minor league players that were not on NHL rosters--while many European teams are allowed to use players from the second-best league in the world, the Kontinental Hockey League.
I can't blame the NHL for deciding to bow out of these games. South Korea is not a "growth market" for the sport of hockey. Team USA and Team Canada will be playing their games in the wee hours of the morning North American time--so TV exposure will be almost nothing. Owners have grown tired of having to shut down the league for three weeks every four years, resulting in empty arenas and lost revenues. And to add insult to injury, the International Olympic Committee does not allow the NHL to use video footage of the games in any promotional messages or ads. So really, what point is there to sending all-star teams to PyeongChang (or to Beijing, China in 2022)?
There is a simple solution to this. Ice Hockey could be moved to the Summer Games. The reason basketball is played in the summer despite being a winter sport in most countries is that in the first couple of Olympics it was played outdoors--on dirt courts (which explains the absurdly low score in the first Gold Medal Game--which was played in a rain that turned the court into mud). Ice Hockey was also played outdoors at first (even the 1960 hockey venue at Squaw Valley, California was an open-air arena). But now, indoor refrigerated ice surfaces are common around the world so playing in August or September really isn't that hard. That would allow NHL'ers on their summer off-season to take part. But that will never happen because that would mean giving up the premier event of the Winter Games. While we fawn over figure skating here in the US, in the rest of the world (actually Canada and Europe) the men's hockey tournament is what everyone pays attention to. That's why the Gold Medal Game is the last event before the closing ceremonies.
In all honesty, Team USA is a bunch of has-beens and never-weres. I would almost rather have seen us send a college all-star team that was given a year to play in a development program and see if they could re-capture some of the magic of the young unknowns that performed the Miracle On Ice in 1980. I guess that this year's team could get hot and go on a two-week run and capture gold--but it won't have that same "feel" that Lake Placid had.
That being said, I'm sure that as soon at the Red, White and Blue hits the ice to take on Slovenia for that first game at 6:10 am on Wednesday morning, the butterflies will return to my stomach and I'll be keeping one eye on the TV here in the newsroom--living and dying with each shot, save and goal. They may be has-beens and never-weres--but they are OUR has-beens and never-weres. Plus, there's always the women's competition, where all the best in the world are playing--and Team USA and Team Canada are all but assured of meeting for the gold medal yet again.
Thursday, February 8, 2018
Welcome to the Banana Republic
So President Trump wants to have a big military parade through Washington, DC this summer. This isn't a totally unprecedented thing. Doughboys marched through the streets of major cities before heading off to Europe to fight in World War I. There were huge military parades after GI's returned from World War II. But public displays of military might here in the US have become extremely rare in the last fifty years.
The President claims he wants the parade to show "appreciation" for the military. Personally, I think he is jealous of similar types of displays in North Korea and other pissant countries where despots think they are impressing their own people while "scaring" the rest of the world. So Trump wants an even bigger dog and pony show to let everyone know that he has the biggest arsenal. I also picture him donning some brown, pseudo-military style jacket adorned with a bunch of fake medals and standing at attention holding a salute as division after division marches by. I'd bet that his lackey former Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke has a bunch of jackets and medals in a closet somewhere that the President can wear.
Plus, the timing of this just reeks of a political ploy. I'm sure every Republican will make a point of attending this spectacle--while Democrats will stay away in droves. That just gives the GOP another mid-term election talking point: "Democrats hate the military! They didn't attend the military appreciation parade and clap for every soldier that walked by!"
The United States doesn't need a four hour parade through the nation's capital to display its military might. It is on display every day in every corner of the globe. If you take a short drive from the Winter Olympics in PyeongChang to the Demilitarized Zone, you will find US soldiers there making sure the troops that parade through North Korea's capital under the watchful eye of Kim Song Un don't come pouring across the border. Our Navy patrols every ocean and the coasts of every continent. Our Air Force has planes in the air 24-hours a day every day of the year flying over global hotspots. And we have satellites in space keeping an eye on the bad guys. We and the rest of the world already know our capabilities.
If President Trump really wants to show "appreciation" for the military, he would improve the Veterans Administration. Or he would free the strategists from "limited engagement" practices and open up the type of fighting that would bring an end to the War on Terror much faster--so those troops can be home with their families once and for all. But the Warrior Businessman isn't going to do that. He is a showman and his followers are big into fake patriotism--so a grand parade to feed their egos is all we are going to get.
The President claims he wants the parade to show "appreciation" for the military. Personally, I think he is jealous of similar types of displays in North Korea and other pissant countries where despots think they are impressing their own people while "scaring" the rest of the world. So Trump wants an even bigger dog and pony show to let everyone know that he has the biggest arsenal. I also picture him donning some brown, pseudo-military style jacket adorned with a bunch of fake medals and standing at attention holding a salute as division after division marches by. I'd bet that his lackey former Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke has a bunch of jackets and medals in a closet somewhere that the President can wear.
Plus, the timing of this just reeks of a political ploy. I'm sure every Republican will make a point of attending this spectacle--while Democrats will stay away in droves. That just gives the GOP another mid-term election talking point: "Democrats hate the military! They didn't attend the military appreciation parade and clap for every soldier that walked by!"
The United States doesn't need a four hour parade through the nation's capital to display its military might. It is on display every day in every corner of the globe. If you take a short drive from the Winter Olympics in PyeongChang to the Demilitarized Zone, you will find US soldiers there making sure the troops that parade through North Korea's capital under the watchful eye of Kim Song Un don't come pouring across the border. Our Navy patrols every ocean and the coasts of every continent. Our Air Force has planes in the air 24-hours a day every day of the year flying over global hotspots. And we have satellites in space keeping an eye on the bad guys. We and the rest of the world already know our capabilities.
If President Trump really wants to show "appreciation" for the military, he would improve the Veterans Administration. Or he would free the strategists from "limited engagement" practices and open up the type of fighting that would bring an end to the War on Terror much faster--so those troops can be home with their families once and for all. But the Warrior Businessman isn't going to do that. He is a showman and his followers are big into fake patriotism--so a grand parade to feed their egos is all we are going to get.
Wednesday, February 7, 2018
Becoming More Like "Us"
One of the complaints that you hear in the debate over modern immigration is that "they don't try to assimilate into 'American culture'". I too find it annoying that I have to "press 1 for English" and I feel that governments and private companies printing documents or packaging in multiple languages is a waste of resources. But I can tell you that "assimilation" is taking place--and one of the surprising places you can find it is in girls' youth sports.
I've refereed a lot of basketball in almost 20-years and I can tell you that the "face" of players in our area is definitely changing. A recent middle school girls game here in Oshkosh featured two teams almost completely made up of "students of color". African-Americans used to be the only minorities you would see playing girls' sports in this area. But this game featured players from Central America, Native Americans, Asians, African refugees and girls from families that came here from Southwest Asia.
At a recent tournament in Winneconne, two girls were playing in Burkas. The National High School Sports Federation has amended its rules to allow for Muslim girls to wear head coverings--as for decades having something on your head on the court was strictly prohibited. Those girls were also wearing long sleeve undershirts and compression tights--with high socks--to abide by their religious code of "modesty". I hadn't seen that on the court until maybe two years ago.
What makes this trend great is the traditional roles of females in the cultures from where these families came is not conducive to playing sports. And I think that those kids take great pride in breaking those social norms. While they may not be the best players on their teams, those children of immigrants and refugees seem to play with a greater joy than the daughters of "townies". Sports is giving them a chance to interact with their peers, to express themselves in ways that their mothers and grandmothers likely never had, and to be a little more "American"--given our national obsession with all things sports.
The one thing that I also notice is that the new diversity on the court isn't being matched by diversity in the stands. It seems that the older generations aren't turning out to show full support for their daughters by attending games. While it's possible that those parents may have to work during game times, I fear that perhaps there still isn't "acceptance" of the new role their kids are taking on in society. When I start getting yelled at in several different languages from adults in the stands, I'll know that the parents are "becoming more American" too.
I've refereed a lot of basketball in almost 20-years and I can tell you that the "face" of players in our area is definitely changing. A recent middle school girls game here in Oshkosh featured two teams almost completely made up of "students of color". African-Americans used to be the only minorities you would see playing girls' sports in this area. But this game featured players from Central America, Native Americans, Asians, African refugees and girls from families that came here from Southwest Asia.
At a recent tournament in Winneconne, two girls were playing in Burkas. The National High School Sports Federation has amended its rules to allow for Muslim girls to wear head coverings--as for decades having something on your head on the court was strictly prohibited. Those girls were also wearing long sleeve undershirts and compression tights--with high socks--to abide by their religious code of "modesty". I hadn't seen that on the court until maybe two years ago.
What makes this trend great is the traditional roles of females in the cultures from where these families came is not conducive to playing sports. And I think that those kids take great pride in breaking those social norms. While they may not be the best players on their teams, those children of immigrants and refugees seem to play with a greater joy than the daughters of "townies". Sports is giving them a chance to interact with their peers, to express themselves in ways that their mothers and grandmothers likely never had, and to be a little more "American"--given our national obsession with all things sports.
The one thing that I also notice is that the new diversity on the court isn't being matched by diversity in the stands. It seems that the older generations aren't turning out to show full support for their daughters by attending games. While it's possible that those parents may have to work during game times, I fear that perhaps there still isn't "acceptance" of the new role their kids are taking on in society. When I start getting yelled at in several different languages from adults in the stands, I'll know that the parents are "becoming more American" too.
Tuesday, February 6, 2018
Taking a Bath
I guess we should be encouraged that the UW-Oshkosh Foundation is starting to divest itself of some of its assets to pay the money is owes for projects that resulted in its bankruptcy. Over the weekend, the Chancellor's House went up for sale on the open market. But the asking price reveals yet again the out and out fraud that was perpetrated by previous University and Foundation leadership.
With an asking price of just under $400,000 the Foundation is looking at taking a loss of 50-grand on the Chancellor's House. Former Chancellor Richard Wells was paid $450-thousand for the building in 2013. It was a transaction that raised some eyebrows at the time, but we were all assured this was a fair price. Remember, in 2013 the Oshkosh real estate market was not nearly as red hot as it is now--so paying about $100-thousand above fair market value was questionable at best. Even with the run-up in home prices since then, the current value doesn't come close to reaching what the Foundation thought the property was worth five years ago.
In the light of what was revealed a couple of years later with Wells having made secret transfers to the Foundation to cover debts it couldn't possibly hope to repay--after making guarantees to banks that are strictly prohibited by state policy--you can't help but see the overpayment for the house as a nice little "bonus payment". Since he was hit with the civil lawsuit by the University System for these actions, Wells has maintained nothing improper was ever done, because he "didn't personally benefit from them". But the gross overpayment for the Chancellor's House stands out as an obvious example of financial gain provided by the group that his actions benefited.
So now even if the Foundation gets its full asking price--which given the "uniqueness" of the Chancellor's House and it's less than convenient location is a stretch--it will still result in a $50,000 shortfall which the Foundation is doing everything in its powers to force taxpayers to cover. If that ends up being the case, maybe we should crowd-source the purchase of the home. Then we can get Chip and JoAnna Gaines to come in and completely remake the property. They could do a combined Dateline/Fixer Upper special--where Keith Morrison spends the first hour detailing the sordid financial transactions and hidden transfers (Oh those pesky financial receipts)--and then the Gaines could use some reclaimed barn doors from out in Omro to completely redecorate the interior in the second hour. That should immediately increase demand for the house and bring in buyers from all over the country who want to live in a "famous house"--and then overpay, leaving us (and not Former Chancellor Wells) with a tidy little profit.
With an asking price of just under $400,000 the Foundation is looking at taking a loss of 50-grand on the Chancellor's House. Former Chancellor Richard Wells was paid $450-thousand for the building in 2013. It was a transaction that raised some eyebrows at the time, but we were all assured this was a fair price. Remember, in 2013 the Oshkosh real estate market was not nearly as red hot as it is now--so paying about $100-thousand above fair market value was questionable at best. Even with the run-up in home prices since then, the current value doesn't come close to reaching what the Foundation thought the property was worth five years ago.
In the light of what was revealed a couple of years later with Wells having made secret transfers to the Foundation to cover debts it couldn't possibly hope to repay--after making guarantees to banks that are strictly prohibited by state policy--you can't help but see the overpayment for the house as a nice little "bonus payment". Since he was hit with the civil lawsuit by the University System for these actions, Wells has maintained nothing improper was ever done, because he "didn't personally benefit from them". But the gross overpayment for the Chancellor's House stands out as an obvious example of financial gain provided by the group that his actions benefited.
So now even if the Foundation gets its full asking price--which given the "uniqueness" of the Chancellor's House and it's less than convenient location is a stretch--it will still result in a $50,000 shortfall which the Foundation is doing everything in its powers to force taxpayers to cover. If that ends up being the case, maybe we should crowd-source the purchase of the home. Then we can get Chip and JoAnna Gaines to come in and completely remake the property. They could do a combined Dateline/Fixer Upper special--where Keith Morrison spends the first hour detailing the sordid financial transactions and hidden transfers (Oh those pesky financial receipts)--and then the Gaines could use some reclaimed barn doors from out in Omro to completely redecorate the interior in the second hour. That should immediately increase demand for the house and bring in buyers from all over the country who want to live in a "famous house"--and then overpay, leaving us (and not Former Chancellor Wells) with a tidy little profit.
Monday, February 5, 2018
Getting Back to Reality
NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell made some news during the pre-Super Bowl hype that the league would be taking yet another look to "clarify" the catch/no catch rule. Apparently that re-assessment began with last night's Super Bowl, as two plays that had been catches for the first 80+ years of the NFL--but were not considered receptions the last couple of seasons--were once again considered legal.
I'm talking about the pivotal touchdown catches by (former Badger) Corey Clement and Zach Ertz--which basically won the game for the Philadelphia Eagles last night. On the Clement catch, the use of super-slo-mo-4k-hi-def-frame-by-frame-stop-action replay showed the ball coming out of his left hand while he was out of bounds and heading to the ground before being re-secured before hitting the ground. The Ertz play saw the tight end haul in the pass, take two steps, dive to the goal-line and then have the ball pop out of his hands as it made contact with the ground in the end zone.
In both cases, the officials watching the play live and at regular speed called the catches "good" and counted the touchdowns--and then it went to replay. And this is where obvious receptions the last few years have gone to be overturned for reasons that no network analyst or casual fan can explain. NBC color guy Cris Collinsworth--after viewing the super-slo-mo-4k-hi-def-frame-by-frame-stop-action replay twice talked himself into believing the plays should be ruled incomplete--even though he would be the first to admit that they were both clearly catches--but that is the state of over-analysis of NFL replay now.
But in a refreshing twist, Referee Gene Steratore upheld both catches, giving the Eagles 12-points that proved to be the difference in an eight-point win. Now, fans of the Pittsburgh Steelers and the Dallas Cowboys are likely very upset this morning--as they lost big games, this year in the case of the Steelers (against New England in a game that decided home field advantage in the AFC) and a few years back in the case of Dallas (against Green Bay in the playoffs) on the exact opposite calls on the same exact types of catches. These are the infamous "Jesse James Catch"--in which the Steelers tight end caught the ball at the 2-yard line, took two steps, went to his knees and reached for the goal line--only to have the ball touch the ground and be ruled incomplete on replay and the even more infamous "Dez Bryant Catch" where the Cowboys receiver jumped over the Packers defensive back, grabbed the ball, took two steps, lunged for the goal line with the ball secured in his left hand and had the ball pop out when it hit the ground.
As I posted on social media right after the game, Steratore and his crew deserve a lot of credit for those calls last night. Just because officials blew it on previous big plays, doesn't mean that you have to too. Perhaps last night gets us on the path to calling what we can see with our eyes in real time--instead of what we think we see at one-tenth speed on a video monitor.
I'm talking about the pivotal touchdown catches by (former Badger) Corey Clement and Zach Ertz--which basically won the game for the Philadelphia Eagles last night. On the Clement catch, the use of super-slo-mo-4k-hi-def-frame-by-frame-stop-action replay showed the ball coming out of his left hand while he was out of bounds and heading to the ground before being re-secured before hitting the ground. The Ertz play saw the tight end haul in the pass, take two steps, dive to the goal-line and then have the ball pop out of his hands as it made contact with the ground in the end zone.
In both cases, the officials watching the play live and at regular speed called the catches "good" and counted the touchdowns--and then it went to replay. And this is where obvious receptions the last few years have gone to be overturned for reasons that no network analyst or casual fan can explain. NBC color guy Cris Collinsworth--after viewing the super-slo-mo-4k-hi-def-frame-by-frame-stop-action replay twice talked himself into believing the plays should be ruled incomplete--even though he would be the first to admit that they were both clearly catches--but that is the state of over-analysis of NFL replay now.
But in a refreshing twist, Referee Gene Steratore upheld both catches, giving the Eagles 12-points that proved to be the difference in an eight-point win. Now, fans of the Pittsburgh Steelers and the Dallas Cowboys are likely very upset this morning--as they lost big games, this year in the case of the Steelers (against New England in a game that decided home field advantage in the AFC) and a few years back in the case of Dallas (against Green Bay in the playoffs) on the exact opposite calls on the same exact types of catches. These are the infamous "Jesse James Catch"--in which the Steelers tight end caught the ball at the 2-yard line, took two steps, went to his knees and reached for the goal line--only to have the ball touch the ground and be ruled incomplete on replay and the even more infamous "Dez Bryant Catch" where the Cowboys receiver jumped over the Packers defensive back, grabbed the ball, took two steps, lunged for the goal line with the ball secured in his left hand and had the ball pop out when it hit the ground.
As I posted on social media right after the game, Steratore and his crew deserve a lot of credit for those calls last night. Just because officials blew it on previous big plays, doesn't mean that you have to too. Perhaps last night gets us on the path to calling what we can see with our eyes in real time--instead of what we think we see at one-tenth speed on a video monitor.
Friday, February 2, 2018
Plenty of Infrastructure to See Here
There was a lot of talk during this week's State of the Union Address about fixing America's "crumbling infrastructure". Well, those attending the Super Bowl in the Twin Cities this weekend will get to see plenty of new infrastructure. I'm not talking about the replacement bridge along Interstate 35 after the fatal collapse or the light rail line that runs between Mall of America and the baseball stadium. I'm referring to the new definition of "infrastructure": sports stadiums.
Consider that in 1987--just thirty years ago--the Twin Cities had one sports stadium, the MetroDome, and two arenas, The Met Center and the St Paul Civic Auditorium. The Twins, the Vikings and the University of Minnesota Golden Gophers football team all shared the MetroDome--while the North Stars played at the Met.
Then, the NBA awarded the Cities an expansion team--the Timberwolves. The owner of the new team had no interest in playing at the existing Met, so he built his own arena in downtown Minneapolis in 1990--the Target Center--at a cost of 104-million dollars. Just five years later, he and his family divested themselves of the franchise--but the new owner had no interest in owning the arena--so the City of Minneapolis ponied up 72-million dollars to buy the building, and an additional 50-million bucks for an interior renovation--even though the facility was just five years old. As part of the deal, the City also pays a 1.6-million dollar annual subsidy to the arena to cover operating losses--even though it has some event there almost every night. And now, the City is funding another renovation, to the tune of 49-million dollars.
Then in the late 1990's, the National Hockey League awarded an expansion franchise to the Twin Cities--The Minnesota Wild--to replace the North Stars--who had moved to Dallas about a decade earlier. Despite having a fairly new Target Center in which to play games, the ownership group of the Wild wanted their own brand-new arena in which to play. The City of Saint Paul jumped at the chance to one up Minneapolis and built them the Xcel Energy Center--at a cost of 170-million dollars. Xcel was built on the site of the Civic Center--which was torn down at the age of 37.
Then, the University of Minnesota decided they didn't want to share the MetroDome anymore, so they convinced the State to provide 138-million dollars toward a new on-campus football facility--TCF Bank Stadium. Another 111-million bucks were ponied up by the University--from donations that people apparently didn't want to give to classrooms or scholarships. When the Vikings played there for two seasons, an additional 7-million dollars was needed for "upgrades" to a three year old stadium.
After several failed attempts to leave, the Minnesota Twins were threatened with contraction by Major League Baseball in the early 2000's, and that convinced Hennepin County to pay 260-million dollars toward construction of Target Field in downtown Minneapolis.
Finally, the Minnesota Vikings, fed up with being stuck in the MetroDome by themselves got the State to pony up 498-million dollars to fund a portion of US Bank Stadium--which will host Sunday's Super Bowl. State lawmakers thought they could save taxpayers money by funding the project with legalized pull-tab gambling--but so far revenues have been only five percent of what was expected--and it will in fact be the taxpayers funding the state's share of the stadium costs.
Now if you lost track with all of those numbers, the Twin Cities has spent 1.4-BILLION dollars in public monies on five sports facilities in just the past 30-years--all so their privately-owned teams (except the Gophers) don't have to share arenas or stadiums and they can keep luxury suite revenues. I'm guessing they could have fixed a lot of "crumbling infrastructure" with that cash--and likely still had their teams.
Consider that in 1987--just thirty years ago--the Twin Cities had one sports stadium, the MetroDome, and two arenas, The Met Center and the St Paul Civic Auditorium. The Twins, the Vikings and the University of Minnesota Golden Gophers football team all shared the MetroDome--while the North Stars played at the Met.
Then, the NBA awarded the Cities an expansion team--the Timberwolves. The owner of the new team had no interest in playing at the existing Met, so he built his own arena in downtown Minneapolis in 1990--the Target Center--at a cost of 104-million dollars. Just five years later, he and his family divested themselves of the franchise--but the new owner had no interest in owning the arena--so the City of Minneapolis ponied up 72-million dollars to buy the building, and an additional 50-million bucks for an interior renovation--even though the facility was just five years old. As part of the deal, the City also pays a 1.6-million dollar annual subsidy to the arena to cover operating losses--even though it has some event there almost every night. And now, the City is funding another renovation, to the tune of 49-million dollars.
Then in the late 1990's, the National Hockey League awarded an expansion franchise to the Twin Cities--The Minnesota Wild--to replace the North Stars--who had moved to Dallas about a decade earlier. Despite having a fairly new Target Center in which to play games, the ownership group of the Wild wanted their own brand-new arena in which to play. The City of Saint Paul jumped at the chance to one up Minneapolis and built them the Xcel Energy Center--at a cost of 170-million dollars. Xcel was built on the site of the Civic Center--which was torn down at the age of 37.
Then, the University of Minnesota decided they didn't want to share the MetroDome anymore, so they convinced the State to provide 138-million dollars toward a new on-campus football facility--TCF Bank Stadium. Another 111-million bucks were ponied up by the University--from donations that people apparently didn't want to give to classrooms or scholarships. When the Vikings played there for two seasons, an additional 7-million dollars was needed for "upgrades" to a three year old stadium.
After several failed attempts to leave, the Minnesota Twins were threatened with contraction by Major League Baseball in the early 2000's, and that convinced Hennepin County to pay 260-million dollars toward construction of Target Field in downtown Minneapolis.
Finally, the Minnesota Vikings, fed up with being stuck in the MetroDome by themselves got the State to pony up 498-million dollars to fund a portion of US Bank Stadium--which will host Sunday's Super Bowl. State lawmakers thought they could save taxpayers money by funding the project with legalized pull-tab gambling--but so far revenues have been only five percent of what was expected--and it will in fact be the taxpayers funding the state's share of the stadium costs.
Now if you lost track with all of those numbers, the Twin Cities has spent 1.4-BILLION dollars in public monies on five sports facilities in just the past 30-years--all so their privately-owned teams (except the Gophers) don't have to share arenas or stadiums and they can keep luxury suite revenues. I'm guessing they could have fixed a lot of "crumbling infrastructure" with that cash--and likely still had their teams.
Thursday, February 1, 2018
Save the Buggy Whip Jobs!
I believe that if our current attitudes toward the role of Government in the free market system had been held throughout the history of our country, American cities would still be full of blacksmith shops, buggy whip plants and wagon wheel makers. That belief was bolstered by the email titled "Kimberly Clark Announcement Proves Walker-Trump Economy Not Working For Wisconsin", a reply from a member of the Whitewater City Council to our tweet about the KC plant closings yesterday blaming Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, and the various demands from local elected officials for the Government to "do something to save these jobs".
Consider what Kimberly Clark makes at the plants that it is closing not just here in the Fox Valley but all around the world: Diapers, tissues and feminine hygiene products. These are consumer-driven items and the fact of the matter is that Americans--and especially Europeans--are having fewer babies. So what should the Government "do" to increase demand for diapers? Pass the opposite of China's "one child" laws and require all Americans to have at least 2 or 3 kids? Should children be required to wear diapers until they are five years old? Should the increasing numbers of post-menopausal women still be made to purchase tampons? I find it interesting that the same people that demanded the requirement of health insurance coverage for birth control crow about the decrease in unintended pregnancies since the passage of the Affordable Care Act--but then blame Republicans for decreased diaper sales. Perhaps we just need to wait for all of the Baby Boomers to get into their eighties and nineties and the production lines can be restarted to produce adult incontinence products.
And then you have Outagamie County Executive Tom Nelson back out there offering grants and revolving loan funds to Kimberly Clark and all of the other papermakers that have announced plant closures to "retool" their operations. Retool to produce what? The mills that have shut down make carbonless copy paper. How many checks or duplicate forms do you fill out nowadays? Or they make glossy paper for catalogs and sales presentations. How many of those still come to your mailbox? Does Amazon print catalogs?
You know what people do want to buy now? Electronic devices with touch screens and high-definition displays. And do you know who makes those? Why it's Foxconn--the company building a new plant right here in Wisconsin--and who is receiving huge amounts of tax incentives--which those trying to save the diaper jobs are calling "Corporate Welfare".
Yes, it sucks that the nice people that work in the paper industry are losing their jobs. But the blacksmiths, buggy whip producers and the wagon wheel makers were nice people too--and they all found new things to make that people wanted to buy.
Consider what Kimberly Clark makes at the plants that it is closing not just here in the Fox Valley but all around the world: Diapers, tissues and feminine hygiene products. These are consumer-driven items and the fact of the matter is that Americans--and especially Europeans--are having fewer babies. So what should the Government "do" to increase demand for diapers? Pass the opposite of China's "one child" laws and require all Americans to have at least 2 or 3 kids? Should children be required to wear diapers until they are five years old? Should the increasing numbers of post-menopausal women still be made to purchase tampons? I find it interesting that the same people that demanded the requirement of health insurance coverage for birth control crow about the decrease in unintended pregnancies since the passage of the Affordable Care Act--but then blame Republicans for decreased diaper sales. Perhaps we just need to wait for all of the Baby Boomers to get into their eighties and nineties and the production lines can be restarted to produce adult incontinence products.
And then you have Outagamie County Executive Tom Nelson back out there offering grants and revolving loan funds to Kimberly Clark and all of the other papermakers that have announced plant closures to "retool" their operations. Retool to produce what? The mills that have shut down make carbonless copy paper. How many checks or duplicate forms do you fill out nowadays? Or they make glossy paper for catalogs and sales presentations. How many of those still come to your mailbox? Does Amazon print catalogs?
You know what people do want to buy now? Electronic devices with touch screens and high-definition displays. And do you know who makes those? Why it's Foxconn--the company building a new plant right here in Wisconsin--and who is receiving huge amounts of tax incentives--which those trying to save the diaper jobs are calling "Corporate Welfare".
Yes, it sucks that the nice people that work in the paper industry are losing their jobs. But the blacksmiths, buggy whip producers and the wagon wheel makers were nice people too--and they all found new things to make that people wanted to buy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)