One, Two, Three and You're Out

Restarting Sports in Virus-Deep Florida was the Worst of Miscalculations;
Sports leagues should have ignored the welcome mat offered by the Sunshine State

Jim Souhan
Minneapolis Star Tribune, July 5, 2020 You can subscribe to the online Minneapolis Star Tribune for only $3.79/week (99c/week for first four weeks).

[This column was announced in my morning [July 6] Facebook post as follows:

Searching for threads of stand-up funny under a shroud of deadly serious can be as dangerous as it is difficult. But when dissenting from my FCC colleagues' opinions satire was often the only effective response to the outrageous and absurd. (See opinions in my book, Catfish Solution, https://tinyurl.com/y4m9rqop )

One skilled sports reporter found himself in a comparable position regarding COVID-19 and sports in Florida.]

A bunch of sports leagues have decided to stage their return this summer in Florida. Apparently Hades was booked for a coronavirus party. [Photo credit: Wikimedia Creative Commons]

Maybe the better way to think of it is that Florida is a corona­virus party. And the party promises to never stop.

The United States might have handled the pandemic worse than any other developed country, and Florida might have handled it worse than any other state. Sending thousands of athletes and staffers to Florida right now is like asking them to jump from the frying pan into the sun.

Restarting in Florida might be the worst idea in sports since the White Sox wore shorts. FC Dallas, in Orlando for the MLS tournament, had its Thursday game vs. Vancouver postponed because of eight positive tests. One NWSL team, the Orlando Pride, withdrew from that league’s comeback tournament after a handful of young players went to a Florida bar and later tested positive.

This is how badly these sports have miscalculated: They are getting outsmarted by Gary Bettman and Rob Manfred, the Ren & Stimpy of sports commissioners.

Bettman, who runs the NHL, took a look at the United States’ handling of the pandemic and crossed it off his list. He is expected to move the rest of his season to Toronto and Edmonton, just to be based in a country that understands that science is real whether you believe in it or not.

Manfred — a memorable figure from this summer’s disingenuous baseball negotiations — months ago considered restarting in Arizona, Texas and Florida. Then MLB must have hired someone with internet access, because he scrapped that plan.

Arizona, Florida and Texas are the Moe, Larry and Curly of the pandemic. Only recently has one of those states’ leaders begun acting like an adult. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, after watching the virus sweep through his state and overwhelm even the massive medical centers in Houston, finally mandated the wearing of masks statewide.

As a former Texas resident, I recognize this strategy. It’s known as closing the barn door after a lot of people died.

The NBA plans to return to action in Orlando. This decision was made for obvious and cynical reasons. ESPN, which has a close financial relationship with the league, is owned by Disney. Orlando is an NBA city and can offer large, entertaining bubbles in which athletes can live.

This all would make great sense if Orlando wasn’t located in Florida, and if this didn’t seem like a pure money play by Disney and ESPN, rather than a decision made in the best interests of players’ health.

Four NBA teams were recently forced to close their home workout facilities because of the virus. Are we supposed to believe that the virus will respect the borders of teams’ bubbles in Orlando, home to international tourism and many residents who think of the virus as some worldwide hoax designed to make mask manufacturers rich?

The first American pro sports league to reopen was the National Women’s Soccer League. A few younger players from the Orlando Pride went drinking in a Florida bar. Subsequently, six players and four staff members tested positive for the virus, and the team withdrew from the league’s comeback tournament, which is being played in Utah.

The WNBA is set to return at the IMG Academy in Bradenton, Fla. The Miami Marlins and Tampa Bay Rays have started their summer training camps. The Tampa Bay Lightning and Florida Panthers have resumed workouts. Minnesota United and most MLS teams are practicing in Orlando, with the Loons scheduled to return to play next Sunday.

What makes anyone think any of this will work?

The most hopeful answer available is that athletes, disciplined by nature, will understand just how dangerous Florida is, and take all precautions.

For months, we’ve been wondering how basketball or soccer players can expect to sweat and breathe on each other and avoid the virus, but at least in practices and in games they are interacting with other athletes who have been tested and who have reason to be vigilant about their health.

Where their discipline will be tested is in the Florida wilds. The bars and beaches, the theme parks, the restaurants in which some of the patrons literally wouldn’t wear a mask to save your life.

Good luck with that, athletes. All you have to do is wear a mask, stay off Space Mountain, avoid the bars and shun the beaches. In other words, you might as well be in Edmonton.

_______________
[Footnote. I believe this promotion of the Minneapolis Star Tribune, and praise of its sports reporter, Jim Souhan, is within the category of "Fair Use." (It is a "noncommercial" use of no financial benefit whatsoever to me; it relates to news and public policy regarding a global pandemic, the free dissemination of which to the public is of the highest public interest; its reproduction in this blog will enhance, however minutely (rather than diminish) the financial value of this material for the Star Tribune and author. Nonetheless, if either the Star Tribune or the author requests I remove this blog post I will be happy to do so.
Email: mailbox@nicholasjohnson.org]

# # #

Iowa's Everglades

June 25, 2008

Hold the Raindrop Where it Falls
Des Moines Register joined the chorus of thoughtful Iowans who are calling for Greenbelts, Greenways, and other water and soil conservation approaches to flood control. Yesterday Florida Governor Charlie Crist announced a $1.7 billion purchase of 187,000 acres of sugar fields. We have a lot to learn from the Florida Everglades preservation efforts -- and the Register.

The Register notes that today's emphasis on turning floodplains into parks that can withstand flooding, rather than condo and business developments that cannot, is . . .

a reminder of the simple advice shared many years ago by former Register cartoonist Ding Darling, a renowned conservationist: "Hold the raindrop where it falls."

Beyond battling Mother Nature with man-made structures to control her rivers and streams, Iowa must work with Mother Nature to help her keep the raindrops where they fall.

That will require a change in how Iowans collectively view our water, not as a hindrance - to be drained off fields and parking lots as quickly as possible, often carrying animal waste, fertilizer and street runoff downstream - but as a natural resource to soak up and savor.

It also will require a collective commitment from everyone in a watershed, everywhere the raindrop falls.

Commit to conservation

That means stepping up farm conservation efforts. If Iowa's rolling hills include more trees and swamps, excess water is more likely to be sponged up and slowed.

Curbing flooding downstream means working upstream to restore wetlands, prairies and natural barriers to control water.

Editorial, "Embrace a New Water Ethic for Iowa," Des Moines Register, June 22, 2008.

Imagine Iowa 1000 years ago, with its prairies and river systems. Look at a map of Iowa that highlights our vast network of rivers. And then look at, and learn about, the Florida Everglades -- the so-called "River of Grass."

No, I'm not suggesting what Iowa tourism needs is more alligators.

What I am suggesting is that we have some problems, and opportunities, in common with Florida.

Here's a brief excerpt from Wikipedia's detailed entry on the Everglades:

The Everglades are a subtropical wetland located in the southern portion of the U.S. state of Florida, comprising the southern half of a large watershed. The entire system begins in the vicinity of Orlando with the Kissimmee River. The Everglades includes the region that spans from Lake Okeechobee south to Florida Bay, as well as the interconnected ecosystems within the boundary. The Kissimmee River discharges into Lake Okeechobee, a vast shallow fresh water lake. Water leaving Lake Okeechobee in the wet season forms the Everglades, a slow-moving river 60 miles (97 km) wide and over 100 miles (160 km) long, flowing southward across a slightly angled limestone shelf to Florida Bay at the southern end of the state. It is such a unique convergence of land, water, and climate that the use of singular and plural to refer to the Everglades is appropriate.[1] Characteristics of the climate of South Florida include annual wet and dry seasons, and the region has a history of recurring flooding and drought that has shaped the natural environment.

"Everglades," Wikipedia. The piece goes on to provide details about the variety and extent of water plans and projects from the past and for the future.

The Everglades is one very wide River of Grass, covering much of the state. The Iowa rivers system is one vast river system covering all of the "State of Grass" -- or what once was a prairie state.

The Everglades has become polluted from, among other things, fertilizer. Development is encroaching. That creates rapid runoff and flooding.

Sound familiar?

Iowa ranks near the bottom of all states in terms of public lands, park and forest lands, wetlands and prairies. Some of our rivers are the most polluted in the country.

What is Florida doing about its problems? Read on.

Two sides that rarely agree on anything celebrated Tuesday a "monumental" but still tentative $1.7 billion buyout that would put the nation's largest sugar grower out of business in six years but fill a gaping hole in Florida's long-stalled Everglades restoration.

The deal, expected to be final by Nov. 30, is good for the environment -- the nearly 300 square miles of sugar land is "the holy grail," one Everglades advocate said. And it's good for U.S. Sugar Corp., which will get $1.7 billion and six years of rent-free operations with the state as its landlord.

In return, Florida gets a chance to reinvigorate the stalled restoration of the Everglades, end years of bickering over pollution by "Big Sugar" and -- years from now -- get more much-needed clean water flowing into the River of Grass.

"I can envision no better gift to the Everglades, or the people of Florida, than to place in public ownership this missing link that represents the key to true restoration," Gov. Charlie Crist said Tuesday, likening the announcement to the creation of America's first national park, Yellowstone. . . .

No one has drawn up specific plans yet, but a likely scenario involves massively expanding reservoirs and the 44,000 acres of treatment marshes that the state is building, at a cost of more than $1.2 billion.

The marshes scrub farm runoff to the pristine water quality level needed to protect the sensitive Everglades system. . . .

Michael Sole, the secretary of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, . . . said the deal would have the added benefit of easing pressure to pump polluted water out of Lake Okeechobee to protect its deteriorating dike, discharges that have choked estuaries on both coasts in the Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie rivers with repeated, damaging algae blooms.

Curtis Morgan and Scott Hiaasen, "Sugar buyout hailed as Glades `gift,'" Miami Herald, June 25, 2008.

There is no shortage of ideas that simultaneously eliminate or reduce flooding, purify our rivers and streams, encourage wildlife, reduce greenhouse gases, minimize the pollution from runoff, increase recreational opportunities, promote tourism, and stimulate economic growth.

Florida has just invested $1.7 billion in one such effort. Johnson County residents will be given the opportunity to provide roughly 1% of that amount to produce similar benefits here.

If we continue to re-build in floodplains, if we refuse to change our water runoff practices where we can, and fail to build Greenbelts and Greenways where we can't, if we fail to demonstrate the political courage to put in place the solutions that have already been worked out by others, we will deserve what we get in future flood losses -- and don't get in future benefits.

Its our grandchildren and great grandchildren who don't deserve the former, and do deserve the latter.

# # #

"Least-Worst" Florida, Michigan Solution

March 15, 2008, 7:15 a.m.

Here's a 'Least-Worst' Solution for Florida, Michigan

Nicholas Johnson

Des Moines Register

March 15, 2008, p. A11
As president, Bill Clinton used to talk about those who "work hard and play by the rules." He and his wife are still working hard. They just don't want to play by the rules.

The Democratic National Committee's rules for this primary season -- agreed to by all -- were that the penalty for additional states moving their primaries earlier would be the inability to have their delegates seated at the party's national convention. Candidates were not to campaign or otherwise participate in such states' primaries. The nominee would be whoever got the most delegates (elected and super) from rules-abiding states.

Florida and Michigan gambled that their ultimate role in candidate selection would be greatest by violating the rules, thereby gaining the impact of earlier primary results in exchange for sacrificing the ability to seat their delegates.

Like the choice of "buy, sell or hold" in the stock market, it turned out they sold when they should have held. Their originally scheduled times would have given them real leverage. Now they're left raking through the rubble, searching for the "least-worst" way out.

If any delegates from those states are seated, it will render the Democratic National Committee and its rules toothless. But political opportunists don't find that troubling.

Sen. Hillary Clinton also violated the rules, by keeping her name on the Florida and Michigan ballots. (Even without Sen. Barack Obama on the Michigan ballot, 40 percent of the Democratic Party voters preferred "uncommitted" to voting for her.) She now insists "her delegates" from these uncontested primaries be seated. At a minimum, she wants a mulligan: "do-over" primaries.

But even those who consider politics a game acknowledge it's not golf. You don't take your mulligan six months later on a different golf course. Like trying to make a soufflé rise twice, asking voters to make a second trek to the polls cannot possibly re-create what would have happened had both states played by the rules.

And wouldn't it be a little odd if the "penalty" for violating their party's rules would not only permit Florida and Michigan to seat the delegates they expressly sacrificed, but to choose them in a do-over when the results will have the maximum possible impact on candidate selection?

Fair play aside, what would be gained by do-overs? If they only add to Obama's elected delegate lead, they'd change nothing. If they narrow, or reverse, his lead such that, with the super delegates, Clinton is able to snatch the party's nomination, it will be seen as unfair, old-style politics of the worst kind.

This would be precisely the sort of special-interest-funded, manipulative, do-anything-to-win politics Obama and his supporters advocate be changed.

How will the newly found independents and youthful Obama enthusiasts he has managed to turn out by the tens of thousands at rallies, and million-plus in caucuses and primaries, respond to such a result? They may vote Republican, third party, or just stay home. Undoubtedly, some will leave politics sufficiently disillusioned never to return.

Many, including me, believe the "least-worst" solution would be to go ahead and violate the party's rules, seat delegations from Florida and Michigan, but allocate those states' delegates' votes according to the percentages of total elected delegates each candidate has earned nationally in rule-abiding states.

Although this weakens the Democratic National Committee's rule-making ability, it welcomes the prodigal son-shine state and Michigan -- fourth- and eighth-largest in the United States -- back into the fold of the faithful. It avoids giving Clinton a second bite of an apple she never should have initially tasted. It is fair to both candidates, increasing the delegate count of each by the margins they actually earned.

And, not incidentally, it saves for the general election the $10 million to $20 million or more the party and its contributors will otherwise have to spend to conduct these additional primaries.
_______________
NICHOLAS JOHNSON, a native Iowan, former Federal Communications Commission member and congressional candidate, writes about Iowa and Washington in his blog, FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com.

# # #

Primary Thoughts: Gingham Dogs & Calico Cats

March 6, 2008, 12:30 p.m.

Nobody "Wins States"
Following Super Tuesday I commented here about what seemed to me the media's misrepresentation of the story. Nicholas Johnson, "The Meaning of 'Win,'" February 6, 2008.

To borrow and play on James Carville's wall poster for Bill Clinton, "It's the delegates, stupid!"

Once again the media talks of state "wins." Obama has "won" 12 straight primary and caucus states. Clinton "won" three out of the four states March 4 (Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island); Obama "won" Vermont.

Of course, the only reason "winning states" is of any consequence at all is because the media says it is. It represents "momentum" for the same reason -- the media bestows it on the "winner."

But the fact remains that what determines who gets the Democratic Party's nomination for president is not who "won" the most states -- or, for that matter, who gets the largest total popular vote.

It's who gets the most national convention delegates -- a calculation admittedly complicated by the so-called "super-delegates" -- but nonetheless a matter of delegates.

So by that standard -- the only standard that really counts -- Obama had over 100 more delegates than Clinton before March 4, and still had over 100 delegates more than Clinton on March 5. Once the delegates awarded that evening were sorted out and allocated she ended up with 12 more than he did -- by some counts. That's what she "won" -- not "three states."

By other counts (namely, those of the Obama camp) the results were even less decisive. There were 370 delegates up for grabs in the four states. Clinton's net gain, they say, was four delegates -- roughly 1 percent of the 370. Her "win" in Texas -- after the caucus delegates are tallied -- may be no more than one delegate more than those Texas delegates now aligned with Obama.

To put this in perspective, Obama had net gains from prior primaries as follows: Georgia, 33; Washington state, 12; Nebraska, 8; and District of Columbia, 9.

After next week (Wyoming and Mississippi, 45 delegates total, and both states in which Obama should do well) there will be no more than 566 pledged delegates. The Obama folks say they now have a 150 pledged delegates lead. If true, that would mean for Clinton to tie she would need to win 358 (566 less 150; divided by 2; plus 150), or roughly 63% of all the remaining delegates -- something somewhere between impossible and extraordinarily unlikely.

In addition to the moral and political force of these numbers ("pledged delegates") for a political party's selection of its nominee, there are also the "super-delegates" -- who also gradually seem to be moving toward Obama as well.

[RealClearPolitics.com (drawing on the AP and other sources) reports:

Of the 795 super delegates, 207 have indicated support for Obama; 242 for Clinton (a 35-vote lead). Among pledged delegates, 1366 are Obama's, 1222 are Clinton's (a 144-vote lead for Obama -- which, even after subtracting Clinton's 35-vote lead among the super delegates, still leaves him with 109 delegates more than Clinton).

Politico.com, using the same general sources reports that -- including super delegates -- Obama has 1564 and Clinton 1463.]

Gingham Dogs and Calico Cats
As a result of these numbers, the perpetuation of the primary fights -- especially given the Clinton camp's effort to win them with "kitchen sink" negative attacks on Obama -- reminds me of Eugene Field's poem about the Gingham Dog and Calico Cat, containing this excerpt:

. . . [T]he gingham dog and calico cat
Wallowed this way and tumbled that,
Employing every tooth and claw
In the awfullest way you ever saw-
And, oh! how the gingham and calico flew!

. . .

Next morning where the two had sat
They found no trace of the dog or cat;

. . .

[T]he truth about the cat and pup
Is this: they ate each other up!

Eugene Field, "The Duel," Poets' Corner.

For Clinton and Obama to continue with attacks and counter attacks weakens the Democratic Party in general and both of them in particular. It consumes tens of millions of dollars that might otherwise have been available for the general election. It increases the difficulty of bringing the Party together around the ultimate nominee.

Polls have consistently shown Obama beating McCain by significantly larger percentages than Clinton. Moreover, she's starting off with relatively high negatives in the public's mind. If Clinton is ultimately successful -- notwithstanding the fact Obama won more pledged delegates -- because she narrowed the gap with the aid of negative campaigning, or because she wins the right to count "her delegates" from Michigan and Florida, or because enough super-delegates vote for her, or through some other manipulation perceived by party members and public alike as fundamentally unfair and "old school politics" -- the Democratic Party may once again succeed in demonstrating its magicians' uncanny ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of what would otherwise have been certain victory.

The sooner the Party can put all of this behind it -- as the Republicans, characteristically, have already succeeded in doing -- the better off it will be. Maybe this could be accomplished with some agreement between the two candidates. Maybe it could be done by large numbers of super delegates (who will be necessary for the ultimate nomination) talking with each other and agreeing to delare themselves now as either (a) supporting Obama, or (b) agreeing to support whoever ends up with the most pledged delegates. Neither option seems likely. But the Party fails to act at its peril -- thar is, if it wishes to avoid finding that its candidates, like the Gingham Dog and the Calico Cat, "ate each other up."

Florida and Michigan
All of which brings us to Florida and Michigan.

I'm fuzzy on the details, but the bottom line as I understand it is that the Democratic National Committee announced that any state that moved its primary or caucus earlier in the year would thereby forfeit its right to have its delegates seated at the national convention.

Notwithstanding this rule, Florida (via a Republican governor) and Michigan did so.

A part of the Party's rule was that candidates were not to campaign in those states. Most (there were more than just the two now left standing at that time) stayed out of those states and off of their ballots. Clinton, however, put her name on the ballot (and yet, even with no organized opposition, managed to get no more than about 54% of the votes in Michigan as I recall).

Now there is a movement on the part of Clinton supporters -- including those who voted for the rule excluding Florida and Michigan -- to either (a) count the delegates Clinton won in those two unauthorized primaries, or (b) have "do-over" primaries in which she would get to run a second time.

My own compromise preference -- sort of the "least worst option" -- would be to have delegates from both states, but require them to cast their states' votes at the convention in the same proportion as the proportion of total pledged delegates nationally for each candidate.

The Party will do itself great damage, in my opinion, if it is seen -- by public and Party members alike -- as having established a rule resulting in two states not having delegates, which it then changes with a sort of "oh, never mind" when objections to the rule are raised after the fact. Especially is this so if (a) it is done at the behest of supporters of one of two candidates in a close contest, and (b) doubly especially when, instead of having no delegates these two states are actually rewarded (by circumstance) with the opportunity to have their delegates determine who the nominee will be -- after all the other states (which complied with the rule) have voted.

Anyway you slice it, as Oliver Hardy used to say, "This is a fine mess you've gotten us into" Democrats.

But then there's always a slight change in the lyrics of Merle Haggard's "If We Can Make it Through December":

"If we can make it through November
Everything's going to be all right, I know . . ."

Unfortunately, whether we make it through November is going to turn in large measure on whether we make it through March and April.

# # #