Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Entry 158: A Takedown of THE BEST WORDED PRO-GUN ARGUMENT [SOMEBODY ON FACEBOOK] HAS EVER READ

I have a Facebook friend who's really keen on putting up posts about government tyranny and the welfare state and all that type of tea party-esque jazz, and lately, since it's been a hot topic, he's really been hammering out the pro-gun posts and links.  Sometimes I have a look at what he puts up, just because, why not, and today I came across the gem below.  It was under the header: THE BEST WORDED PRO-GUN ARGUMENT I HAVE EVER READ.  I've copied it verbatim, and I've given my comments in bold.  (By the way, I'm going to be sexist and assume the author is male, even though he never says that, because I'm pretty sure he is.)


"The Gun Is Civilization" by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force.

If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force.

Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

The author's starting point -- the premise from which his later arguments emanate.  It's laid out neatly and concisely, and it's obviously horseshit.  "Reason or force, that's it"? Those are the only two ways we have as humans to get somebody to do what we want?  What about manipulation?  What about shame or guilt or coercion or addiction or love or loyalty?  The reason-or-force premise is embarrassingly simpleminded.  So already the author is on such weak, infantile footing there's really no need to continue, but let's do so anyway, just for kicks.   

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion.

Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

Watch out Zeno, you've got nothing on this guy.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force.

You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

Unless I, say, hit you in the back of your head and steal your gun.  Or maybe I just shoot you at random when you are walking down the street minding your own business, because I'm crazy.  Who says I want to deal with you at all?  Maybe I'm just nuts.  Where does that fit into your reason-or-force model?

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

I don't know what type of gun this guy is talking about, but from what I know about guns they actually have to be removed from their holsters, aimed, and fired to work properly.  The last story I heard from somebody about getting mugged (sadly, it happens too often in certain parts of D.C.), the muggers walked up next to him on a crowded street, socked him nearly unconscious, rifled through his pockets, and snatched his girlfriend's purse, all in about 15 seconds.  Having a gun wouldn't have mattered one bit (other than some muggers would now have his gun), because they never would've had a chance to use it.  What, are we all supposed to walk around with our guns drawn like a S.W.A.T. team?  Should I invest in one of those gun-slinging contraptions like DeNiro had in "Taxi Driver"?  This "equal footing" thing is gun-nut fantasy. 

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations.

These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a armed mugger to do his job.

That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

Dude, muggings aren't duels.  Each gentlemen doesn't get ten paces before he turns and fires.  Muggers aren't going to slap you in the face with a glove, and make an honorable announcement that they shall mug you henceforth at high noon a fortnight from the morrow.  If one creeps up on you and puts a gun to your head, how are you even going to deploy your gun without getting shot?  "Uh... this gun shaped thing is actually my wallet... I'm just getting your money... so don't shoot."  If you have a gun, you basically have to anticipate who the bad guys are (assuming you see them coming at all) and be ready to fire at the drop of a hat.  A lot can go wrong with that, just ask Trayvon Martin... oh wait, never mind, you can't.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Force monopoly?  We do have such things in this nation called police forces.  I haven't heard one person make the argument that policemen should give up their guns.  Actually, nobody is even really arguing private citizens should give up their guns, just certain types of guns that aren't even practical for self-defense.  Mostly what gun-control types want is to try to ensure that guns stay out of the hands of people who are too crazy, or criminal, or stupid to have them.  (And also to demonstrate that most gun zealots are not the profound thinkers and champions of liberty they think they are... Maybe that's just what I want.)

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury.

This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst.

The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

Again with the level field nonsense.  A gun does not work "solely in favor of the weaker defender".  It works in the favor of the person who is willing and able to use it first.  A drawn gun could be used for protection, sure, but it could also unnecessarily escalate a situation and lead to a fatal accident.  If all criminals remember to wear their "I'm a Criminal" buttons that day, then deciding when to use a gun is easy, but when they forget, it's a decision I'd prefer be made by a trained professional.  Like this author, actually, given his military background, I don't have a problem with him having guns.  (Writing about having guns on the other hand...)    

The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter.

It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force.

It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

It's a civilized act in a society comprised of completely rational individual units (even the criminal units are rational) all of whom fit nicely into a category of good (those who persuade through logic) or bad (those who persuade through force).  Unfortunately, our society, the one in which we all actually live, is a bit more nuanced and subtle than that.  Gun nuts aren't good with nuance and subtlety. 

Ugh... pure tripe.  This is my new gold standard for the "a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like" category.  It is decidedly not the best worded pro-gun argument I've ever read.

Monday, January 28, 2013

Entry 157: Three More Quick Takes

1.  S and I got into it a little bit this weekend -- typical couple stuff.*  Well, I mean, our particular arguments are very specific to us, but the general level of the quarrels is typical couple stuff.  We have the same few recurring arguments.  One of them stems from her compulsion to always puts too much on her plate.  Inevitably some of it then spills over onto my plate, and then I get annoyed because I like to keep my plate sparse, and then she gets annoyed because I'm annoyed, and I don't really want to help her because I never signed on for whatever it is she's doing in the first place, and then one of us says the wrong thing when the other is hungry or tired or otherwise in a irritable state, and the whole thing blows up.

Then the meta-fight starts, and the meta-fight is usually worse than the actual fight.  The meta-fight always entails S complaining that I'm talking down to her or using a rude tone and me complaining that she's being overly sensitive and pouting instead of actually trying to work things out.  Then we'll each go do something else, take a few minutes to cool off, and reconcile over Downton Abbey and trail mix.

Actually, it's been Breaking Bad lately.  S has never seen it, so I agreed to watch the entire series again from the beginning.  I love that show.  Although, I forgot that the first season and half is actually not great.  It's OK, but it's not great.  The story moves a little too slowly at first, and it's just not as engaging as it is in the later seasons (although you could argue that the groundwork laid early on is part of what makes the rest of the series so great).  S almost gave up on it, but I think she's solidly back in now.  The turning point of the series, in my opinion, is when Bob Odenkirk comes onto the scene as the shady lawyer Saul Goodman.  He's excellent -- a very underrated aspect of the show.



2.  I should go to the dentist sometime soon.  I haven't been in over a year.  It's just pure lethargy on my part.  It's not that I don't want to take the time to go to the dentist.  It's that I don't want to take the time to find a dentist.  I haven't had a regular dentist since high school.  For a brief period of time I was on S's insurance, so I went to her dentist, but I since switched to my work plan, and that practice is no longer in my network.  (Hardcore free-market types are always raving about the "choices" you get with private insurance, but a lot of the time having a "choice" means spending an hour on the phone trying to find somebody who's accepting new patients and who you're covered under.)  Plus, last time I went one of the dentists overlooked a crack in my tooth that was apparently pretty obvious, and another one introduced himself as "Dr. Steve".  Uh... you do realize I'm not seven, right?  I'm more than happy to call you "Dr. [Last Name]" or just "Steve" if you're not into the whole formality thing, but you gotta drop the whole "Dr. [First Name]" schtick when you're talking to another adult.  That's reserved for celebrity doctors and rappers.



3.  I've been playing a lot of classical music for Lil' S lately.  It's not because I think it will make him smart or anything like, it's because he likes music, and I can only handle "kids music" for about 30 seconds before I start going mad ("Head, shoulder, knees, and toes, knees, and toes... head, shoulder, knees, and toes, knees, and toes... eyes and ears and mouth and nose... head, shoulder, knees, and toes, knees, and toes!").  I think I pretty much have classical music figured out.  Mozart = happy, Beethoven = sad.  I'm pretty sure that's all there is to it.

[A friend of S's got us a Mozart Magic Cube for Lil' S.  We've been rocking it like it's 1779.]


*S said that I could write about our fights on this blog as long as I acknowledge that she said that... so this is that acknowledgement.

Friday, January 25, 2013

Entry 156: Three Quick Takes

1.  I don't like it when people use the word "nationality" when they mean "ethnicity" or "race".  This just bothers me for some reason.  Occasionally people ask me what my wife's nationality is, and I'll respond without missing a beat, "American", even though I know they know she's American, and that what they're really asking is what her lineage is.  It's not a PC thing on my part, it's just a definitional pet peeve thing.

2.  I have the perfect compromise for the gun control kerfuffle.  No new gun control laws whatsoever, but the NRA has to disband, and all gun zealots have to shut the fuck up forever.  I'm only half joking about this.  The attitudes of gun nuts toward guns is more worrisome to me than the guns themselves.  And here's a hypothetical situation for you to ponder.  Suppose some sort of cosmic deal was offered by an all-powerful being: Gun violence would be ended forever and in exchange all guns will vanish forever.  If each gun owner in the U.S. has a vote, what percentage are voting against the deal?  In other words, what percentage of gun owners love their guns so much that deep down inside they would rather have guns and live with the violence than have no guns and no violence?  Is it as high as 10%?  20%?  Is this deal even accepted? Is it more than 50%?  I honestly think it might be.              

3.  I read that Ashton Kutcher is playing Steve Jobs in a biopic.  He's an interesting pick, and not one I would've guessed, primarily because his style isn't really suited to a role like Steve Jobs.  And by "style" I mean "terrible acting".  I guess I should applaud Kutcher though, as I'm all about efficiency and Kutcher is nothing if not efficient.  He looks decent with his shirt off, and he was halfway funny playing a moron on a sitcom (and halfway is being pretty generous).  That's it, yet somehow he gets real acting gigs -- that's a damn good use of resources.  Matt LeBlanc must be jealous.  Don't worry, Matt, you'll always have Ed.  It was the minor leagues, but it was a major friendship.   


Until next time...


Friday, January 18, 2013

Entry 155: Lancelot Livestrong and the Fightin' Te'o

So Lance Armstrong's interview with Oprah aired last night.  I didn't watch it.  For one thing, it was on The Oprah Network.  I don't know if we get The Oprah Network, and, frankly, I don't care to find out.  For another, there wasn't really any reason to watch it; I know the story already (I was pretty sure he cheated two years ago) , I didn't expect any big revelations.  This interview struck me as much more sizzle than steak.

My own feeling on Armstrong is as follows.  I don't really care about the PED use, for several reasons: I was never that into cycling in general, I never put much stock in the "Lance Armstrong is a hero" story, and I'm rapidly moving in a libertarian direction on PEDs --  let's just legalize and regulate them.  Enforcement is causing more problems than it's solving, and the deleterious health effects of PEDs, if used in a medically supervised manner, are probably overstated.  You could argue its not the actual PEDs that matters, but rather that he "cheated", but everybody was cheating.  If you didn't cheat you literally couldn't keep up with the competition.  Maybe that's not the world's greatest defense, but clearly not all cheating is equal.  Surreptitiously rubbing some pine tar on a baseball isn't the same as hiring somebody to club your opponent in the knee.  I put what Lance did much more in the former category than the latter.


I also don't really care about the lying, per se.  If he was just lying to protect his own privacy and his own self-image, then whatever.  Again, I would file this under kinda shady behavior, but not a mortal sin.  But -- and this is the key -- Lance's lying wasn't just about protecting himself, it was also about harming others.  He very aggressively went after people who linked him to PEDs -- people who, whatever their motives, mostly were telling the truth.  He sued, he bullied, he showed almost no compunction in attempting to discredit innocent people, even if it meant ruining their careers and, not to be too dramatic about it, their lives.  To me there is no justification for this.  None.  Not the money he raised for cancer research, not the people he's inspired.  None.  Frankly, it's borderline psychopathic behavior.  At the very least it's megalomanaical, and it shows that Lance Armstrong simply isn't a very good person.

Now, one thing I wonder is what Lance should do from here.  I have two suggestions: 1) He should stop being such a hypocritical, self-serving dick, 2) He should change his name to Lancelot Livestrong, that's an awesome name, and I think a "rebranding" would do him some good.


[Lancelot Livestrong and his former handmaiden and lover Sheryleth Crow.]

In other sporting news, this Manti Te'o story is more bizarre, if less nefarious, than the Lance Armstrong story.  If you're not familiar with the Te'o fake girlfriend story you can read about it on Deadspin who broke the story.  (As I heard Bald Bryan of the Adam Carolla Show point out, this could be a watershed moment in online journalism.  Traditional mainstream media outlets completely missed the boat on this one.  Many major news providers did stories on Te'o's supposed girlfriend, and yet the inconsistencies uncovered by Deadspin never came to light, even though they should have through some basic fact checking.)  The big question is "What did Manti know and when?  Is he a hoaxer or a victim?".  It's all pretty confusing, but I think I've got this one figured out.  Here's the narrative that makes the most sense to me base on what I've read so far.

 [Notre Dame linebacker Manti Te'o]

At first, Te'o doesn't know his "girlfriend", Lennay Kekua, isn't real.  It's a hoax perpetrated by this Ronaiah Tuiasosopo fellow (it's weird seeing that last name in this story as a Seattle sports fan), perhaps it's meant to be malicious, perhaps it's meant to be a practical joke.  Either way, Te'o just thinks there's this girl who's kinda into him, and he's slightly intrigued, so he starts conversing with her via social media, establishing a connection.  Then, for some reason, he really wants people to think this girl is his girlfriend (it's been floated that he's secretly gay, but I suspect he just liked the attention that came with her), so he starts embellishing their relationship a little bit, and then a little bit more, and then a little bit more.  Essentially, he's faking a relationship with a fake girl whom he thinks is real.  Pretty soon it gets to be huge news, and now either he's stuck and can't back out, or he's enjoying the attention, so it just goes on.  At some point before Deadspin breaks the story, he finds out the truth, Kekua isn't real, but he's embarrassed and/or scared that he'll be found out, so he keeps up the charade until the whole thing completely blows up.  This explains why many people with inside knowledge say he had no idea that Kekua wasn't real (he really didn't know), and why Notre Dame is so adamant about him being a "victim" (he is, in a way), but it also explains why there are so many red flags and inconsistencies in his actions and words (he didn't want it to come out that he fabricated the extent of his relationship with Kekua).

That's my guess on it anyway.  We shall see.*

OK, that's all for this week.  Until next time...

*Update: Te'o admits to having "tailored" his relationship with Kekua, giving support to my theory.

Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Entry 154: New Format, Take One (The Trillion Dollar Coin)

So I'm trying something new with this blog.  Instead of my single weekly entry, I'm going to try to put up a few shorter entries throughout the week.  The catalyst for this format change is S's annoyance with me for spending too much time on Saturday afternoon on my computer.  But it's not a strictly a move of appeasement; S has a point: the weekend days are the only chance we really have for extended family time, so using them to blog and do crossword puzzles -- things I could do at night when I'm by myself -- is an inefficient allocation of resources.  It's a point I cannot refute.

So, now I'll be blogging at night, but this presents some problems, because I never have long stretches of time at night and I get tired.  My solution: shorter and more frequent entries.  Well, that's the plan anyway.  We'll see how it goes.  This new format could last as long as my ill-fated idea to end each entry with five jokes (I stand by it though, my rape joke is money).  Anyway, just a heads up to you, one of my five beloved readers, if you were wondering why I'm putting up a post midweek.



Now, I'd like to move on to my topic: the trillion dollar coin and the petty snit between perhaps the unlikeliest duo of snitters, Paul Krugman and Jon Stewart.

If you're not familiar with the trillion dollar coin, I found this great new site called wikipedia.  Basically it's a legal loophole that would allow the president to avoid defaulting on government debt without congressional approval to raise the debt ceiling.  Republicans are indicating they won't vote to raise the debt ceiling without major spending concessions, thus possibly necessitating the need for such a bypass.

Everything about the trillion dollar coin is farcical -- the law allowing it was enacted with commemorative coins in mind, it must be made of platinum, the guy who first suggested it is a blog commenter named "beowulf", and it's (almost) literally something straight out of The Simpsons -- but there is actually a very strong argument that it's something the president should consider; the main reason being, the debt ceiling itself is something of a farce.

 
As I understand it, congress first determines our spending obligations through legislature, but then it separately has to give the president the power to actually pay for these obligations by raising the debt ceiling.  Therein lies the absurdity, why does a vote have to take place to actually allocate funds to pay for things you've already agreed to pay for?  An apt analogy (I think) is if you had a company credit card, and the company's management board voted to buy a bunch of things, and then had to hold another vote to determine whether or not they should actually make their payments.  It doesn't make much sense. 

But the typical Republican crazies are seizing on this to try to pass spending cuts that they don't have support to pass under normal circumstances, as apparently defaulting would be really, really bad for our economy, thus giving them some perceived leverage.  Basically, the Rep nutjobs are saying, "Give us what we want or the whole economy is going down."  The trillion dollar coin would be a way to bypass this extortion.* 

Enter Paul Krugman who advocated for the coin as an option the president should consider and Jon Stewart who mocked the idea.  Krugman then called out Stewart as being "lazy" because Stewart clearly didn't know what he was talking about with respect to the coin.  Stewart then made fun of Krugman, because he's a comedian and that's just what he does.  You can watch the clip here.  (I can't find an embed-able version.)


I see Krugman's point -- Jon Stewart is a smart guy and the premise of his jokes are usually based in fact (that's why they're funny), so it's pretty lame to do such an uninformed bit -- but I don't think you should ever really call out a comedian for not being serious or professional enough, not being serious and being unprofessional is the whole point of being a comedian.  Plus, it makes you look like the world's biggest fuddy-duddy, and it strikes me as a waste of time and energy.  That's my take on it anyway.

And with that, I'm out.  Hmm, this ended up being longer than I thought.  Oh well.  Until next time....

*By the way, the White House has said that he won't resort to gimmicks to raise the debt ceiling, but he's also said he won't negotiate on it.  It's an interesting game theory move by the president.  He wants to put the weight of the economy's failure if we do indeed default on the shoulders of the Republicans (where it should be).  I don't dislike this move, but with midterm elections still nearly two years away, I'm not sure about the timing.  If I were him I'd be saying the same thing, but then I'd have an alternative plan in mind to avoid default if it came down to it.  And maybe he does.  We don't know.  Hopefully we never will.  


Saturday, January 12, 2013

Entry 153: On the Clock

I'm on the clock with this entry.  I only have an hour to crank it out, let's see how I do.  S wants to actually spend some time as a family today (in lieu of taking turns being absorbed on our laptops while the other one entertains Lil' S, as is our usual Saturday afternoon routine), so we're going to walk down to a local cafe and have some lunch.  It's a beautiful day (global warming rocks!), and it will force me to do a modicum of exercise (I've been skipping the gym lately because I hurt my wrist), some I'm down, but it really puts a time crunch on my blogging. 

Anyway, let's hit a few topics before I have to go.

The first thing is that there's a lot of buzz that the Sonics might be coming back to Seattle.  Well, not the actual Sonics who are now in Oklahoma City, but the Sacramento Kings might move to Seattle and become the Sonics redux.  In fact early yesterday it looked like the deal was done -- the Kings would be sold to a Seattle-based ownership group -- but since then a prospective buyer has stepped forward who's interested in trying to keep the team in NoCal.  The mayor of Sacramento just so happens to be a former NBA player, the great point guard Kevin Johnson (who incidentally is married to the controversial former chancellor of D.C. public schools Michelle Rhee), so he obviously wants to keep the team in the city.  We shall see how it all plays out.



I'm ambivalent to the Sonics coming back.  It definitely would be cool to see them again.  They are still the only major Seattle sports team to win a championship*.  I don't remember it -- I was only 1 when it happened (1979) after all, but I grew up watching the solid Sonics teams of the late-'80s with Xavier McDaniel, Dale Ellis, and Tom Chambers, and the really good mid-'90s teams with GP, Detlef Schrempf, and Shawn Kemp.  So yeah, it'd be kinda cool.  On the other hand it sucks for the fans of Sacramento**, and as I talked about in my last entry, new sports teams and arenas (if this deal goes through a new arena would be built in Seattle, funded in part by tax dollars), simply aren't good financial investments for cities.



Plus, it's fun to hate the NBA.  Ever since the Sonics were stolen I vowed to actively root for the misfortune of the OKC team and for the demise of the NBA.  It's not always easy -- OKC is one of the best teams in the league, and the NBA is thriving with a new batch of young, marketable stars -- but it's fun.  The farce that was NBA lockout last season was fantastic for haters, and I got to watch OKC be denied the championship which was quite satisfying.  I'm not sure I'm ready to embrace the NBA again.  Hating on it is too enjoyable.

Switching topics... Wow, I don't have time to write about anything else.  That was an hour.  I can't believe it.  Only four paragraphs and a sentence in an hour?  No wonder S gets on my case for spending too much time writing my blog.  Well, I guess that's it.  I was going to give my thoughts on this despicable case in Steubenville, Ohio that has attracted the attention of the "hackivist" group Anonymous, and on the prospect of an actual trillion-dollar coin being minted, but I guess I'll have to save those for another entry... or not... we will see how it goes.

Until next time...


    
*Unless you count the Seattle Metropolitans' Stanley Cup in 1917, the Washington Huskies' kinda National Championships in 1960 and 1991, or the Seattle Storms' 2004 and 2010 WNBA titles.  I don't.

**The Kings leaving Sacramento would not be just as bad as the Sonics leaving Seattle for two reasons: 1)  The Kings aren't originally a California team.  They came over from Kansas City in the late-'80s, so it's not like they're a storied franchise being uprooted.  They haven't even been there for 30 years.
2)  The ownership group in Seattle is not making it any secret that they will relocate the team.  This is quite different from the shady way the Sonics were moved.

Saturday, January 5, 2013

Entry 152: Field of Schemes (Can I Still Enjoy the Seahawks Game?)

I've been reading a really good book these days -- Field of Schemes: How the Great Stadium Swindle Turns Public Money into Private ProfitIt's a slow go -- I can only sneak in about fifteen minutes before bed and a few other moments here and there -- but I'm really enjoying it so far.  Well, "enjoying" is not the right word, because it's not the type of book you can enjoy (unless you're a sports franchise-owning robber baron), but it's a terrific read.  As you can guess from the title, it's all about what a ripoff publicly-funded sports stadiums and arenas are for the communities that pay for them.  The promised benefits, by and large, never materialize.  The direct revenues the facilities generate are pocketed almost entirely by the team owners; they don't generate anything in taxes, because they get sweetheart tax-free deals; and the economic side-benefits (jobs, tourist money, neighborhood rejuvenation, etc.) are generally way, way overstated.  They're just bad deals -- plain and simple.

And yet they're ubiquitous now in the sports landscape.  Part of this is just normal crony capitalism.  If you have money and lack scruples, you can get the government to give you money in some form.  I suspect this goes on in just about every industry, not just sports (Field of Schemes mentions an airline, Delta, I believe, completely screwing over a city in Minnesota).  But sports has the added element of a "community" product.  People get attached to their local sports teams.  The Space Needle is flying the Seahawks "12th Man" flag as I write this.  A sports team becomes part of a city's identity.  Ownership is communal.


Except it's not.  It's a completely one-sided relationship.  To the team owners it's their business, to the fans it's supposed to be a partnership.  A local team is only "your" team when it's in the owners best interest for it to be your team.  It's like paying money for a stripper and thinking it's love.  (I can't claim credit for this analogy.  I lifted it from this story.)  And when it comes time to push for a new stadium -- when the "economics" of the sport (as fabricated by the owners) dictate that a team simply cannot survive without an expensive new stadium built on the public dime -- the owners have no problem exploiting this asymmetrical relationship, by threatening, sometimes overtly, sometimes subtly, to relocate to a city far, far away.  (It's a threat, I might add, that's probably more of a bluff than a reality.*)  My Johnny Cochrane-esque line for this: The fans get played, the owners get paid

Although to be fair to the fans, a lot of times it's not them.  Frequently stadium deals that are rejected by the voters still end up being built through political finagling (ahem... Safeco Field).  That's the most amazing (and amazingly corrupt) part about all this.  Stadium deals are almost never favored by the public that pay for them.  It's the owners and their buddy-buddy politicians who push these things through.  It's messed up, and it's a sham, and it's not easy to stop.**

[Voted down, yet still built.]

On a related note, the Seahawks play the Redskins tomorrow in the first round of the playoffs.  This presents a small conflict in me, because I really want the Seahawks to win -- I still care about this game even though I know what a ripoff pro sports are on the whole, and even though I know how dumb it is for me, a grown man, to care about a franchise that, when it comes down to it, ultimately doesn't care about me.  Sal Iacono, a writer on Jimmy Kimmel's show (and Jimmy's cousin), said it well in his weekly gambling column.  (He's talking about his emotional state after his favorite team, the Cowboys, lost a crucial game.)

A normal person would step back and realize that the sadness/frustration that goes with rooting for a game played by mostly thuggish multimillionaires who couldn't give a crap about you should fall somewhere between getting a parking ticket and not being able to guess someone's offering on Draw Something. That's it. No more demoralizing, no less.

So what if Tony Romo came up short again? Why, after 41 years on this planet, why should I care? If I were still 7 years old, fine — but 41? The fact that I can't outgrow this is grotesque. 

So true, so true.  But I guess you can justify it by saying it's no more or less silly than what anybody else does for entertainment.  I mean, is caring about a sports team any more pathetic than caring about, say, a TV show?  I don't think so.  (I used to read a weekly column about the show Homeland, because S and I were watching it regularly, and some of the reader comments... geez... people act as if a plot hole is an attack on their civil liberties.)  I guess the answer is, like a team, follow a team, root for a team, but just know -- know what the score really is.        

That's it for this week.  Until next time...



*The Sonics did move after failing to secure public funds for a new arena, but, it's become pretty clear since then, that the owners had their hearts set on moving to OKC from the get-go.  The fact of the matter is most teams that threaten to move don't actually move due to simple mathematics; there are at least 30 teams in each major American sports league, and at any given moment there are only about 2 or 3 possible places to relocate to, if that.         

**One obvious solution is to have the public start buying their city's sports teams.  The problem is that the other owners won't allow this.  Joan Kroc tried to give the San Diego Padres to the city and Major League Baseball forbade it.  Given this, the only solution I see is for people to just absolutely refuse to give in on stadium deals (and demand politicians do the same) even if it means losing the team.  Maybe I'm being Pollyannaish, but I think this could happen someday soon.  It might be a silver-lining of the economic recession and the rise of the Tea Baggers.