Pages Menu
TwitterFacebooklogin
Categories Menu

Posted by on Jan 29, 2020 in Blog, Essays, Politics, What's Left | 2 comments

How Socialism Made the NFL America’s National Pastime

 

History calls those men the greatest who have ennobled themselves by working for the common good; experience acclaims as happiest the man who has made the greatest number of people happy.

— Karl Marx, Reflections of a Young Man (1835)

 

karl marx

 

Who is most responsible for making the National Football League into the world’s richest and most successful sporting league?

George Halas, the NFL’s founder?  Vince Lombardi, the great coach?  Pete Rozelle, the pioneer commissioner?  Joe Namath?  Joe Montana?  Tom Brady?

Try again.

The correct answer is Karl Marx.

That’s right, Karl Marx — otherwise known as the patriarch of the global and contemporary movement known as “socialism.” [*see footnote below]

Next Sunday, more than 100 million viewers will tune in to the Super Bowl.  Many of those watching will be red-meat ravishing red-staters and stalwart conservatives, their minds chained to some Dystopian philosophical mantle falsely asserting that fierce competition between businesses and among individuals combined with the prioritization of profits breeds two certain outcomes:  (1) strength and (2) prosperity.

But this isn’t true.  It’s certainly not true in professional sports.  In fact, it’s just the opposite.

Fact:  The NFL has enjoyed unparalleled national success over more than a half-century because it adopted virtually all of the principles of SOCIALISM.

Indeed, the NFL is a socialist enterprise.  Socialism works.  And the best example of this is American professional football.

Gather your jaws off the floor, and open your minds, my fellow football fanatics.

Read on.

*****

The NFL is a monster.

It’s the richest and most successful sporting institution in the history of the world.  It’s America’s true national pastime.  Forget Major League Baseball — which slipped off the pedestal as the nation’s premier spectator sport 60 years ago because of its rejection of socialism and embrace of me-first/fuck-everybody-else capitalism.

Football initially surpassed and eventually supplanted baseball as the national pastime in the early 1960s, when television became the new barometer of popularity.  Now, both college and professional football demolishes baseball in ratings to the point where Major League Baseball avoids scheduling post-season games against the NFL regular season.  Want proof?  Consider that nine of the top ten most-watched television programs of all time are Super Bowls.  Not baseball.  Football.  By contrast, the World Series of Baseball’s highest-rated game ever in history (played in 1986) drew about a third of what an average Super Bowl attracts.

How did this remarkable transformation come about?  Two words — revenue sharing.  In other words, the governing body redistributing wealth.

Earlier, I alluded to Pete Rozelle, who really is the most important figure in the history of professional football.  If the game has a Karl Marx figure, it’s most certainly Rozelle, who ran the NFL for nearly 30 years and was the architect of the NFL-AFL- merger in 1970.  I suppose it’s Friederik Engels would then be Dallas’ Lamar Hunt, who held the same power over in the American Football League (AFL).  When the two pro football leagues signed huge national television contracts, Rozelle and Hunt had the tremendous foresight to divide profits and share the millions in revenue equally between all teams.  That meant money from CBS, ABC, NBC (and later FOX and ESPN) would be divided into equal shares between New York, Chicago, Los Angeles — and much smaller cities like Green Bay.  Despite the big market teams enjoying significantly greater numbers of fans and viewers, Rozelle and Hunt (along with team owners) understood that the overall game — the COLLECTIVE (remember our Marxism, classmates) — would be much better off if all teams were given an equal chance to compete, win, and prosper.  In 1970, the two leagues merged and adopted this same policy for all teams.

Wow, talk about a chapter straight out of Das Capital.

Today, all NFL teams receive an equal share of the profits generated from the league’s coffers.  For this reason, Green Bay (population 70,000) can compete with New York (population 8,000,000).  Both teams can also be just as profitable.

By contrast, baseball maintains an economic system reminiscent of the robber baron days, an area of “haves” and “have nots.”  In baseball, big market teams reap and keep the lion’s share of their television money and horde their profits from merchandising.  Accordingly, big and powerful teams like the Yankees, Mets, Cubs, Angels, and Dodgers can buy up all the talent every year when players around the league become free agents.  Smaller cities like Kansas City and Pittsburgh and Tampa Bay — with far less money to spend on good players — can not compete.  The competitive imbalance causes fans in some cities to lose interest.  The entire league suffers.  That’s one reason why baseball’s TV ratings are in the shitter.

Indeed, while professional football is based on the principles of socialism, baseball remains very much wielded to the principles of capitalism.  And based on any tangible metric, the evidence is abundantly clear as to which system is more successful.

*****

Socialism’s intent is sharing resources and encouraging cooperation.

Let’s examine how the NFL operates as a business model.  Consider the following:

REVENUE SHARING — All 32 NFL teams share television money in equal shares.  “From each according to his ability; to each according to his need.”  Sound familiar?

MERCHANDISING PROFIT — Until 2010, NFL teams shared most of the royalties earned from merchandise sales.  However, courts ruled that this policy violated anti-trust laws.  Now, the 32 teams will be able to make their own deals, which ruins a system that has worked well for the past fifty years.  So, Jerry Jones becomes the owner of the NFL’s most valuable franchise, despite not winning a championship in a quarter-century (admit it — you knew the attack on Jones was coming).

THE NFL DRAFT — Every year, the weakest teams are given an advantage.  Sorta’ like the poor.  Losing teams are given the opportunity to make the first picks when drafting new players.  This gives bad teams a greater opportunity to improve and perhaps become better.  By contrast, the best teams must pick last in the draft.  This is the way taxation should work, according to the principles of socialism.  Tax the wealthy — they’ll still do fine.  At least the poor teams have the chance to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

SCHEDULING — The teams at the top get penalized.  They are required to play tougher schedules the following year.  The worst teams play a weaker schedule.  Whatever you think about this system, it works.  Chalk up another win for NFL socialism.

GAME DAY — All NFL teams play games on the same day at the same time (in rotation).  They are equals.  No team gets special treatment.  It’s not like baseball in which teams can play pretty much whenever they want.  No NFL team is permitted to schedule its games apart from the rest of the league.  The league strictly dictates pro football’s regular-season schedule and game times are known and expected by fans.  No outlier competition.  Total cooperation.  More socialism.

And so, virtually everything the NFL does is patterned on the principles of sharing and cooperation.  Profits are divided equally.  Teams needing help are given competitive advantages.  And teams that consistently perform well are asked to sacrifice more.

Conclusion:  The NFL is the best illustration of the success of socialism.

Footnote:  Okay, so this isn’t totally true.  But “Karl Marx” rolls off the tongue easier than Auguste Comte or Saul Alinsky.

__________

 

Read More

Posted by on Jan 28, 2020 in Blog, Essays, Politics | 1 comment

Busting the Myth of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

 

 

Let’s destroy a myth right here and now.

“They’ve been fighting over there for centuries.”

We read and hear this canard all the time. Today, I’ve seen versions of the falsehood splattered all over social media. The saying goes — the Israelis and Palestinians have been fighting ever since biblical times.

Fact: No they haven’t.

The region was relatively peaceful until the creation of Israel in 1948 (actually the British mandate period after WW1 would be more technically accurate). Whatever one’s opinion of Israel and its “right to exist,” the territory today commonly known as Israel/Palestine was devoid of conflict from circa 1500 when the Ottomans ruled the land and peoples over four centuries until the 20th Century. While most of the world was engulfed in various land invasions and massacres, Palestinian and Jews lived and worked together side by side.

Pan-nationalist movements and religious extremism began to boil in the late 19th Century, coming to a neo-colonial “solution” with the Isreali state’s creation following WW2.

Sadly, the region has been a powder keg for nearly 70 years. I think most people, regardless of religion or politics or nationality would like to see peace. But let’s start the discussion with some facts and an understanding of actual history.

Next time you read some idiotic comment that goes: “They’ve been fighting over there for centuries” ……

…..perhaps you should mention they must be referring to EUROPE, which has been fighting for centuries, resulting in the deaths of tens of millions ever since the Crusades.

Yeah, I’m getting a little sick here of morally-superior acting Americans with absolutely zero knowledge of world history playing the “fighting for centuries” card when: (1) that is factually incorrect, and (2) most of our own origins have wallowed in bloodshed since the days of the Romans.

“They’ve been fighting over there for centuries” = bullshit.

One Final Thought:  I’m not a cartoonist, but I have a great idea for a cartoon that brings home this point. Have a Jew talking to a Palestinian in 1945 at the end of World War 2 and pointing at a map of the world and seeing Europe and much of Asian in ruins, and then one says to the other: “There’s no chance for peace. They’ve been fighting over there for centuries.”

__________

Read More

Posted by on Jan 27, 2020 in Blog, Essays, Politics | 0 comments

Starrfucker

 

 

Who was that hookworm who wiggled himself into the mighty chamber of United States Senate today, arguing in defense of the dark, venal, and incurable metastasis that is the Trump criminal presidency?

Who was that anti-constitutional parasite who once spent three years and blew $70 million in tax dollars investigating a shady old Arkansas real estate deal from more than a decade earlier — and then thousands of witnesses, truckloads of documents, and tens of thousands of billable legal hours later — ended up with the high crime and misdemeanor of ONE blow job?

Who was that scandal-plagued ex-college prez who resigned in disgrace only a few years earlier who now has the audacity to claim:

“The Senate is being called to sit as the high court of impeachment all too frequently…Indeed, we are living in what I think can aptly be described as the age of impeachment.”

It’s Ken Starr!

Wow.  What a past from the blast.

Twenty years ago, Ken Starr tried to argue an inappropriate sexual affair was grounds of impeachment and a guilty verdict in the U.S. Senate.

Today, the same Ken Starr slinked his way to the defense table, telling America with a straight face there’s been too much impeachment lately. Yes, the very same Ken Starr intent to bury Bill Clinton is now utterly dismissive of dirty deeds by THIS criminal president.

If Whitewater + Blowjob = Impeachment in Ken Starr’s legal universe…..can someone please compute his similar math calculation as to how: Abuse of Power + Obstruction of Congress = No Impeachment?

Hey, Kenny — I got another equation for ‘ya:

John Bolton = Monica Lewinsky.

Now, let me enjoy watching you try to unroll enough legal duct tape to keep Bolton’s mouth shut.

 

Note 1:  I was in agreement then and still agree now that Clinton should have been impeached for committing perjury.

Note 2:  “Starfucker” is the title of a Rolling Stones song from the 1970s.

Photo Credit:  Rod Aydelotte/Waco Tribune-Herald, via AP, File

__________

 

Read More

Posted by on Jan 23, 2020 in Blog, Essays, Politics | 2 comments

I Just Sent a “Contribution” to the Republican National Committee

 

Republican National Committee

 

I dropped this envelope in today’s mail. Yeah, Trump — I got your “contribution” right here.

Whatever flunky Trump toad opens the envelope is in for one helluva’ surprise.

Here’s the Backstory: I presume it’s social media pranksters who sign me up for pro-Trump fundraising and other Republican schemes. I get this kinda’ shit all the time. Usually, this junk mail goes straight to the trash can. But since I was personally invited to become a member of the “President’s Advisory Board” — for a FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION, of course — well, I had to read the offer.

The RNC sent me a survey, with laughably loaded questions. Survey questions like “Do you believe the Democrats’ impeachment proceedings against President Trump, who was duly elected by the people and has made America great again, is a politically-driven witch hunt?” You get the idea.

I had the option of joining the “President’s Advisory Board” at various levels of commitment. $25 makes me an “Associate Member.” $50 makes me something higher. $75 is the next step. $100 gets me “Inner Circle” status. For $500 or more, my name gets personally seen by the president who will write me a personal “thank you” (done with autopen, no doubt). It all sounds like a giant casino rewards program. All that’s missing is $15 in free slot play and the 2 for 1 buffet coupon.

Well, I had my own idea of a contribution. I’ll just leave it at that. Nothing dangerous or illegal, mind you. But, I want to make sure the Trump Republican fundraisers know that I took their solicitation very seriously. The “$100” handwritten on the outside of the envelope should ensure it’s opened and read by an actual Trumpster.

Please, RNC — send me more surveys and offers. I’ve got plenty more “contributions” to make.

__________

 

Read More

Posted by on Jan 20, 2020 in Blog, Essays, Politics, What's Left | 0 comments

My Thoughts on Alan Dershowitz

 

 

MY THOUGHTS ON ALAN DERSHOWITZ

Alan Dershowitz has been picked to be on Donald Trump’s legal team in the U.S. Senate’s upcoming impeachment trial. Here are my thoughts on this high-profile legal celebrity.

I keep on hearing that Alan Dershowitz is a great legal scholar. Yet, what I’ve observed over the past 25 years is an artfully-crafted illusion, the concatenation of a media-obsessed subterfuge of publicity willing to argue *any* side of *any* legal controversy, no matter how ridiculous, so long as he gets to appear on television and reinforce his own mythology. I haven’t seen nor heard Dershowitz argue *anything* convincingly since the Von Bulow trial, and that fabrication four decades ago was spun by a movie.

First, let’s get one thing out of the way. I have no issue with any attorney taking any case to provide the best legal defense possible. I need not explain that to readers. If you don’t understand it or disagree, then please stop reading. We have zero common ground. What I take exception to, and hereby question is Dershowitz’s presumed commitments to justice when he’s so often been on the opposite side of is own arguments.  Moreover, I’m not casting aspersion to the legal defense of murderers and scumbags, rather — I’m stating Dershowitz has demonstrated an appalling lack of ability to persuade and be effective, despite countless opportunities to argue in dozens of settings and cases.

Dershowitz’s willingness to play the provocateur of persuasion is certainly good for theatrics. He’s a master ringleader of any political circus once he enters the big tent. Yet, he’s become so soiled with personal and professional contradictions, it’s now impossible to take him seriously, on anything. Especially anything with a political connotation. Go back and watch Dershowitz’s commentary on the Clinton impeachment during the late 90s, or his countless appearances in defense of murderer O.J. Simpson. They’re cringeworthy.

Do you want a better example of Dershowitz as a legal and political failure? I’ll give you three, each off the top of my head:

1. Years ago, ESPN did a mock civil trial on Major League Baseball and the battle between big-market and small-market teams. The question was on baseball’s competitive balance. It was a bold three-hour experiment on live television. Dershowitz argued on behalf of small-market teams, a view which I was vociferously in agreement with. Yet, Dershowitz was destroyed by opposing counsel Bruce Cutler. It was a major league ass-kicking. I had several arguments swirling in my head while watching, which Dershowitz failed to bring up. It was an embarrassing performance and the first hint that Dershowitz wasn’t nearly as smart or gifted as we thought.

2. Following the 2000 presidential election debacle (the Florida results went to the Supreme Court), Dershowitz wrote a book titled How the High Court Hijacked Election 2000. Entirely sympathetic to Dershowitz’s argument, I was seeking supporting material on my own for Gore’s case. So, I bought and read the book. Rarely has any text ever swayed me in the opposite direction, but somehow this legal scholar managed to do exactly that. This book, written for laypeople (non-legal people like me, was an appalling misfire. How does an author manage to defeat his own argument within his own text? I vowed never to waste $25 on another Dershowitz book again.

3. A few years later, Dershowitz wrote The Case for Israel, supposedly a defense of the Jewish state. Eager to expose myself to opposite points of view, I cracked open the book at a Barnes and Noble and spent an entire afternoon suppressing disbelief at how poorly-constructed Dershowitz’s written arguments were, both morally and politically. Any contributor to Foreign Affairs could easily have deconstructed and destroyed Dershowitz’s so-called “defense” of Israel. Once again, he managed to move a reader *away* from his side of the argument.

In fairness to Dershowitz, I’ve seen him debate numerous times (twice in person). Once, he debated Alan Keyes on the topic of religion in government. Predictably, Dershowitz took the secular side and mopped the floor with Keyes, which wasn’t exactly saying much. More recently, Dershowitz (I thought) won a heated debate about BDS (sanctions against Israel) against Dr. Cornel West, who appeared woefully unprepared in the back and forth. Those are the only two moments of Dershowitz’s lengthy career when he advanced his case in any way, and both wins were softballs.

Now, Dershowitz somehow gets pegged for Trump’s legal defense. Call me unimpressed.

__________

 

Read More
css.php