. . . because much of the content relates both to Washington, D.C., and "outside the beltway" -- the heartland, specifically Iowa -- and because after going from Iowa to Washington via Texas and California I subsequently returned, From DC 2 Iowa.
"ONE world, ONE pain, ONE humanity, ONE hope!" (bought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
This evening I want to share with you a message from Cairo that you need to see, but may not run across elsewhere.
It is from a young Egyptian engineer who does not precisely identify himself. He runs a WordPress blog he calls "Politirature." As he explains it, "Politirature is a word invented by Me, it’s the mix of Politics and Literature. Me is an Egyptian young man, engineering student & activist seeking freedom and fighting oppression everywhere." But he goes on to provide an email address (politirature@hotmail.com), and adds, "You can also follow me on Twitter: M_Nusair."
Dear activists, protesters & workers from Wisconsin, Ohio and other states,
I was truly touched by your hundreds of thoughts and comments on my photos from Tahrir holding that sign. I thank each and everyone of you, even those who thought the photos were shopped, but I have few things to say.
I’m an Egyptian ordinary young man, activist and Engineering student. I turned 21 years old last December, I love to read and write using both Arabic and English (although my English is kind of weak). and like other thousands, or even millions of Egyptians, I was very busy since Jan25 with our revolution in Tahrir square and all Egypt. we spent very hard days in that square waiting for death to come anytime from air or ground. anyway, what happened in Tahrir is not our subject now, everyone knows what happened there. the point is that I was too busy to know full details of what’s going on in other parts of the world. I knew that people protested in Wisconsin for their rights but didn’t know more details till Thursday, the 17th of February and it was by luck through a wall post of an American friend on Facebook, then I immediately began to search it and read more, then I decided to show support! decided to make the sign and take it with me to Tahrir next morning (Friday).
Many people thought it’s something extraordinary or something that stands out. but I really want to say that me, and many other people, were raised this way. were taught that all human beings are brothers and sisters, were taught that we live in ONE world and under the same sky, so I don’t see what I did as something “abnormal” or “super cool”.
again, as I told many of you, we are all human beings. we shouldn’t let borders and differences separate us, we were made different to complete each other, to integrate and live together. If a human being doesn’t feel the pain of his fellow human beings then everything man created and established since the very beginning of his existence is in great danger.
So…again & again . . . ONE world, ONE pain, ONE humanity, ONE hope!
Now I will leave you with this SUPER FUNNY video
[The song (but not the video) is a creation of the famously hilarious "Capitol Steps" group in Washington, D.C. Here's a link to the group's Web page, where you'll be able to find the way to order their albums and learn about their forthcoming concerts near you. Unfortunately, the video has been taken down from our Egyptian engineer's Web site. I hope my posting of it will remain -- because if not, I'll need to take down this ad for the Capitol Steps as well, and I'd really like for you to become more familiar with them.]
Three years ago I saw revolution coming. I blogged here about it in an eight-part series, "Golden Rules & Revolutions: A Series." The final entry, part VIII, has links to each entry. In that final blog I summarized the others, including, "Part I of this series noted not just the gap in income between the rich and the poor, but the fact that this gap is continuing to grow ever wider, and that history -- as well as the daily news -- provides ample warning that this condition often produces revolution." "Golden Rules & Revolutions: A Series - VIII," April 19, 2008.
As this young engineer reminds all of us, the oppression, and the ultimate popular resistance, know no national boundaries -- from Cairo to Madison.
We are, as he reminds us, "ONE world, ONE pain, ONE humanity, ONE hope!"
[My thanks to my colleague Burns Weston for alerting me to this story.] _______________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
Legislators Selling Pollock Thinking Too Small (bought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
"Elections have consequences," it is said.
One of those consequences for Iowans, it appears, is the Republicans' proposal to sell off the University of Iowa's Jackson Pollock painting (a 1951 gift from Peggy Guggenheim). William Petroski, "House Panel Favors Selling Pollock Art,"Des Moines Register, February 16, 2011 ("An Iowa House subcommittee Wednesday supported the sale of a famed Jackson Pollock painting in the University of Iowa's art collection, saying the proceeds could fund thousands of student scholarships. Rep. Ralph Watts, R-Adel, who was chairman of the three-member panel, said an amended bill requiring the Iowa Board of Regents to sell the world-class Pollock painting, 'Mural,' will set a minimum price, probably about $120 million. The painting had an estimated value of $150 million in 2008.")
Critics of the suggestion point out a number of problems with the sale, including the lost trust (and money) from formerly potential donors, and the UI Art Museum's loss of accreditation.
The more serious problem is that legislators and their critics alike are thinking too small.
It's like their counterparts in Washington, attacking a $14 trillion debt by eliminating $60 billion worth of social programs while increasing the near-$1 trillion Defense Department budget.
Iowa's economic and budget challenges, like those of other states, require the most creative ideas from all its citizens -- not just the little bit produced by selling a painting. Besides, one of my ideas is a win-win, where we virtually double what the Pollock can produce while retaining title -- sort of.
(1) Naming Rights. We have sold off naming rights for most of our buildings and colleges. Once named for academics, scholars and scientific researchers, they now reflect our basic values through the names of their wealthy donors. But the one opportunity we've held in reserve is naming rights for the University itself.
Larry Flynt is rumored to be interested in this possibility. Plus, he's more flexible than some potential donors, both as to the name and the amount. While I've heard $100 million mentioned, my understanding is that's just for starters, and that he might be willing to go as much as twice that. He's apparently even willing for us to keep Iowa in the name. That is, he would be willing for us to be called "The Larry Flynt University of Iowa," or "The Hustler Magazine University of Iowa" (not just "Larry Flynt University" or "Hustler University").
This sort of thing is not unprecedented. "Duke University" -- certainly a respected institution (ranked 9th nationally by U.S.News) -- is named for a benefactor whose money came from the tobacco sales that today contribute to some 400,000 deaths annually, James Buchanan "Buck" Duke. Not only that, but his business practices were so illegal that his company was ultimately busted up as an antitrust violation in 1906 into the three companies American Tobacco Company, Liggett and Myers, and the P. Lorillard Company. I don't see Duke taking a lot of heat these days for that association, and I don't see why we should be concerned about Hustler Magazine. Hustler may not be my taste in magazines, but so far as I know, no one ever died from reading it (which is more than you can say for Duke's product).
(2) Iowa's Most Valuable Asset. As long as we're looking around for state assets that we might auction off, why start with something that will produce so little revenue as a Pollock painting?
What's our most valuable physical asset? Think about it. Right. Our topsoil. OK, I know that most of it is by now in Louisiana. And how much money did we get for that? Nada, zero. We just flushed it down the river. Gave it away. How much sense does that make when we need a way to fund the Legislature's proposed 20% tax cut for Iowa's wealthy? William Petroski, "Iowa House Passes 20% Tax Cut in All Brackets,"Des Moines Register, February 16, 2011.
Moreover, I think I've found a buyer. Who owns the most land in the United States, almost all of which is devoid of Iowa-quality topsoil? That's right, Ted Turner. I don't know Ted well, but I've met with him on a number of occasions and I think we have a mutual respect for one another.
With approximately two million acres of personal and ranch land, Ted Turner is the largest individual landholder in North America. Turner lands are innovatively managed and work to partner economic viability with ecological sustainability. All Turner ranches operate as working businesses, relying on bison and outfitting as principal enterprises. In addition, Turner ranches support many progressive environmental projects including water resource management, reforestation and the reintroduction of native species to the land.
Here's a public spirited guy who can sit down and write a check for $1billion to help fund the United Nations, who's clearly interested in the land, but hasn't really been involved in agriculture as such at a time when the world's people are confronting an impending food crisis.
Right now we're just paving over what remains of this largely eroded valuable asset, with suburban housing, malls, highways, and industrial parks. How much sense does that make? Let's remove our most valuable asset first, sell it to the highest bidder, and then build on top of the clay that makes for a better foundation anyway.
You'll be the first to know if I get an offer from him.
(3) Most Innovative, Most Remunerative. Unfortunately, I can't give you the name of the next source of budget money for the State Legislature (and University), because he wishes to remain anonymous for now. But there are some Las Vegas individuals who have expressed an interest in the Old Capitol.
I once had a friend whose father bought a European castle for her, brought it back to America stone-by-stone, and reassembled it here. It really was quite grand.
That's the idea. The Old Capitol would be very carefully taken down, with each stone carefully preserved, and shipped to Vegas, where the building would be reassembled and incorporated into a new casino complex that will be the largest and grandest in the city.
There are variants on this idea that are still on the table.
Because the investors are also interested in the Pollock, and understand the University's reluctance in selling it, they have approached the Nevada governor and legislative leaders with this idea. Just as an American embassy in a foreign country is treated as "U.S. territory," so the land on which the reconstructed Old Capitol would stand would be declared to be property of the State of Iowa (requiring, of course, Iowa Legislative approval). One of the advantages of this approach is that the Pollock could hang in the Old Capitol, which would continue to be a part of the University of Iowa, thus complying with the donor's conditions.
Apparently an Iowa alum, who is also a part of the Vegas group and a big Hawkeyes fan, has proposed that the Nile Kinnick statue also be included in the deal.
It's a win-win, where the whole is much greater than the sum of the parts. By making a package of the Old Capitol, with the Pollock, with the Kinnick statue, the Legislature will have access to far more revenue than anyone ever dreamed of getting for the Pollock alone.
Oh, yes, and they're also willing to pay for the construction of a gambling casino on the Pentacrest where the Old Capitol now stands that would be called "The Old Capitol Casino."
Of course, that's far from a done deal because the Riverside Casino fears the competition and is strongly opposed. Given the revenue the gambling industry provides the athletic program with advertising on the football scoreboard, transporting fans to the games, and its skybox, among other things, that is obviously something that would have to be considered.
We can make it through these financial times, fellow Iowans. All we need is just a little more creative thought. _______________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
February 14, 2011, 8:00 a.m.; February 23, 2011, 7:30 a.m.
There Are Three Steps (bought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
[Update, Feb. 23: An important addition to this Feb. 14 blog commentary regarding the University's overlooking the lessons in the "crisis communications playbook" when handling the hospitalization of 13 Hawkeye football players on Jan. 25, headlines all the local papers this morning [Feb. 23].
I closed the Feb. 14 commentary with:
It's UI President Sally Mason's call as to how, when, and with whom to draw on what I call the "crisis communications playbook." But Heldt reports that "When asked if athletics crisis communications might be moved to the office of the UI's vice president for strategic communications, Tysen Kendig, Mason said it doesn't matter who reports to whom."
That's one call for which I'd recommend a challenge and instant replay.
It now turns out I was right to call for an instant replay. What the replay shows is that "who reports to whom" was a major part of the problem.
The Des Moines Register got hold of the emails that were flying around the campus in late January -- they are "public records" under Iowa law -- and all the papers are reporting on what those emails reveal about the Iowa's "chaos in crisis communications."
Last Wednesday [Feb. 9] The Daily Iowan's Alison Sullivan reported the University of Iowa's Athletic Director, Gary Barta's analysis of the University's recent bad national press over the hospitalization of 13 football players -- the "negative attention directed at the University of Iowa football program."
"He [said] the national media and the public reacted too quickly to the recent hospitalization of 13 football players. The instant negative publicity resulted from what he described as the media’s mentality of getting information fast in the Internet era, even if 'facts be damned.'” Alison Sullivan, "Barta: Football media attention has been difficult,"The Daily Iowan, February 9, 2011.
The paper maintains an online edition where readers can post comments. I contributed the following:
"The national media and the public reacted too quickly to the recent hospitalization." The other possibility? Maybe the AD [Athletic Director Gary Barta] and [football] Coach [Kirk Ferentz] reacted too slowly.
There's a public relations playbook for "crisis management" that's seldom read and less often followed -- whether any president's White House, corporate CEO, or athletic team -- and was ignored in this crisis as well.
As Ferentz acknowledged: "Ferentz . . . acknowledged he erred by leaving campus to recruit while the players were hospitalized." HawkCentral, Feb. 2. [Andy Hamilton, "Ferentz Says He Erred, but Defends Program,"HawkCentral, February 2, 2011.]
Had he briefly returned, expressed the concern, announced an investigation, and made the statements he made later, that "negative attention directed at the University of Iowa football program" would not have been eliminated, but it sure would have been significantly balanced and softened.
Admittedly, some journalists jumped without facts. I've deliberately not blogged about the hospitalization because I don't have the facts either.
But focusing on the media's faults may not be the most constructive or efficient way to identify, and respond to, "the problem."
This morning [Feb. 14], The Gazette's Diane Heldt reports the University may now be digging out and dusting off that "crisis management" playbook. Diane Heldt, "UI considers changes to crisis communication; experts offer tips,"The Gazette, February 14, 2011, p. A1: "University of Iowa officials are discussing ways to improve how they communicate in a crisis, after the university’s response to the recent hospitalization of football players garnered bad press across the nation."
My son, Gregory, calms his computer customers' frayed nerves by beginning virtually every instruction for them with the line, "There are three steps" -- which he then proceeds to reveal.
So it is with Crisis Communications 101. Heldt reports, "Experts in image consulting and communications say immediacy, transparency, honesty and empathy are key when an organization is hit with a crisis and the public and media are demanding information. 'When you let there be a lag time, that can be perceived as lack of concern or avoidance,' said Kate Loor, vice president with Frank Magid Associates, speaking about crisis communication in general."
OK, four steps. But it's pretty much what I was saying in my little comment on the DI's story. It's not rocket science. It's kind of common sense.
According to Heldt, Barta is still focused on medical details instead of PR basics. "UI Athletics Director Gary Barta said when news first broke of the 13 hospitalized football players, UI officials didn’t have a lot of information and their No. 1 concern was for the players’ safety. 'We felt that was all the information we had at the time,' Barta said of the initial UI response. 'In hindsight, maybe I would have done things differently, but we went with what we knew at the time.'”
So, you don't know the medical details. OK. The "four steps" -- immediacy, transparency, honesty and empathy -- still leave you with a lot of things you can say and do (rather than saying nothing while playing golf in Florida).
Heldt reminds readers that Coach Ferentz acknowledged on Feb. 2 that "it was 'bad judgment on my part' to not return immediately to Iowa City to be with his hospitalized players or take part in the news conference" (which neither he nor Barta attended). (Coach Ferentz was tending to one of his top priority responsibilities: recruiting players for next season's team, with national "signing day" looming before him in 10 days.) That's the confession of someone who "gets it." That's class. We all make mistakes; we don't all acknowledge and take personal responsibility for them, without excuses and blaming others. (He's displayed equal character on occasion when blaming himself, rather than his players, for the loss of a game.)
It's UI President Sally Mason's call as to how, when, and with whom to draw on what I call the "crisis communications playbook." But Heldt reports that "When asked if athletics crisis communications might be moved to the office of the UI's vice president for strategic communications, Tysen Kendig, Mason said it doesn't matter who reports to whom."
That's one call for which I'd recommend a challenge and instant replay.
# # #
Addendum, For the Record.
I subsequently elaborated on my first comment on the DI's page.
Following my original comment, an "Ed S" said, "Nick 52 is right on the money with his comments. If the AD does not understand the problem he has created than who in the world does? . . .."
This prompted an "FlSven" to come to the AD's defense. In the spirit of the FCC's repealed "Fairness Doctrine," I reproduce his comment in its entirety:
All way off base, this truely is the result of the "instant news, screw the facts, just tell me something, anything" culture and mentality we've slipped into.
Can you imagine the 'outrage' by these analyzing experts if quick, inaccurate statements were made by Coack Ferentz .. omg!!
All these University individuals are very honorable Gentlemen and this has been validated by the new recruits and their families who didn't waver in their committments and the existing players who are all looking forward to more HAWKEYE football.
I'd suggest getting over yourselves and recognizing the hype and exaggeration that the media and some fans of other teams have blown up over this accidental event that was handled professionaly by the University.
Please let go of the jealousy that surrounds the monies made by successful individuals discussed, it's not very attractive and is often the vehicle of the wannabies and unsuccessful.
In response, I commented:
Seldom would I respond to a comment here. Such 'tis-'tain't exchanges too often escalate into dialogues neither constructive nor civil. And I'm not even sure FISven had my earlier comment in mind. But to remove any possible ambiguity as to what I was trying to say:
- I also noted "some journalists jumped without facts" and that "I've deliberately not blogged about the hospitalization." Of course the media bears much of the blame for how the media handled the hospitalization.
- No one's suggesting that Ferentz should have, or would have, made "quick, inaccurate statements." What I suggested was that had he "expressed the concern, announced an investigation, and made the statements he made later" the "outrage" FISven (and I) wish to avoid "would have been significantly balanced and softened." His choices were not limited to (1) delaying saying anything, and (2) making "quick, inaccurate statements."
- I absolutely agree with FISven that "all these University individuals are very honorable Gentlemen." I've described Coach Ferentz as perhaps the best coach in the country -- pro and intercollegiate -- who runs a class program.
- However, both Coach Ferentz and I seem to disagree with FISven's characterization that the public relations and media relations aspects of this event were "handled professionally by the University." He's publicly acknowledged as much -- being the classy guy that he is. I agree; and because of my affection for the University of Iowa, offered the suggestion that it might be institutionally advantageous for the University -- and its major programs in the spotlight, UIHC and athletics -- to anticipate, and give a little more attention to, what I called the "public relations playbook for 'crisis management.'"
_______________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
February 9, 2011, 9:00 a.m. [As you may have noticed, while I'm teaching Sports Law, the blogging has had to be cut back to something more like once a week than once a day. But there may be occasional exceptions. This is one.]
Progressives and Conservatives Take Note: Palin's Going Populist (bought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
Sarah Palin had some things to say at the President Reagan Tribute the other day that deserve more attention and reflection than they've received so far -- by those of every political persuasion in America, whether Palin normally causes them to swoon or to sputter incoherently.
New York's Boss Tweed used to say, "I don't care who does the electing, just so long as I do the nominating." It ought to be a motivator to your active participation in the caucuses and primaries of your party of choice.
In my case, it causes me to think carefully about the least worst candidates of both major political parties. One will win. If it's not going to be my favorite, I can at least hope, and work to ensure, that both of the nominees are competent enough to function as President.
To remove any possible question in your mind, Sarah Palin is not now my first choice among the possible Republican nominees. Most of her positions I disagree with, many I find uninformed, and -- as many conservatives also believe -- I don't think she now has what it takes to function effectively as President.
But I hope it is true that I have never been one to dismiss entirely all of anyone's views with ad hominem comments. I find life more interesting and rewarding when I look for agreements with, and new ideas from, those individuals my acquaintances and colleagues may be rejecting out of hand.
And so it was that when I heard a quote from Sarah Palin the other day I made a mental note to try to track down the source sometime. It wasn't easy to find, but I came upon it this morning.
It was from a talk she gave at a dinner tribute to President Reagan at the Reagan Ranch Center museum in Santa Barbara, Friday evening [Feb. 4, 2011], sponsored by Young America’s Foundation (unaffiliated with the Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley). Jeff Zeleny, "Palin Keeps Position Clear and Intentions Vague,"The Caucus/New York Times, February 5, 2011. (The date marks the occasion of what would have been Reagan's 100th birthday.) And see, Jeff Zeny, "Palin, Rallying Base, Paints Dark Picture of Obama’s Policies," February 6, 2011, p. A19.
Her speech contained much with which I would disagree, expressions I would not have used, and conclusions that I might think don't logically follow. But that does not surprise me, and should not surprise you.
What did surprise me was what she said with which I totally agree.
By way of introduction, background and glossary, here are my definitions of some relevant terms:
Words like "socialism," "communism" and "fascism" are seldom used anymore in their original, technical, literal sense. They are swear words, words of derision carelessly thrown at anything one does not like.
That's too bad.
"From each according to ability; to each according to need" [Karl Marx, "Critique of the Gotha Program" (1875)] -- "communism" -- can be applied to professional sports' revenue-sharing schemes designed to keep the teams more or less competitive, and the games more interesting. It also applies to the "negative income tax" proposals of conservative economist Milton Friedman and conservative President Richard Nixon.
"Socialism" -- government owned and operated enterprises, such as the Interstate Highway system, public schools, libraries and parks (among other things) -- also works pretty well for us.
"Capitalism" -- free private enterprise, the marketplace -- rewards the successful entrepreneur (sometimes, as with a Bill Gates, overwhelmingly so), and leaves those who fail to the bankruptcy courts, with nothing but the opportunity to start all over again.
What do you call a system of joint government-corporate partnerships -- "heads I win, tails you lose;" "If I make a profit I get to keep it; if I have big losses the taxpayers will give me a bailout"? Subsidies, tax breaks, government contracts, tariffs, bailouts, price supports are often just rewards for major campaign contributions. Those who remember World War II will identify government by interlocking relationships between corporate and government interests as what we then called "fascism." (If the government owns and operates an automobile manufacturing company that's "socialism"; if it provides a private, for-profit car company a "bailout," that's "fascism.")
Enough of the definitions.
The point is, I am a fan of both capitalism and socialism -- as I have defined both, above. I am not a fan of fascism.
More significant for purposes of this blog entry, it turns out that Sarah Palin is not a fan of fascism either. So on that proposition we agree.
This is not an economic policy. . . . It is the road to ruin. It’s crony capitalism, too, on steroids. The corporatist agenda — big government, big business collaboration, with powerful friends in DC who can afford to hire the lobbyists to grease the wheels of government in their favor for these investments.
In the interest of certain special interests, the government invests our money in technologies, in industries that venture capitalists tell us ‘no, those are nonstarters.’ but they’ll provide lucrative returns for favored corporate interests with major stakes in these areas. . . .
This collusion, this isn’t competition. It’s crony capitalism and it stifles our economy. It stifles the free market . . .. Government makes it increasingly impossible for anyone but cronies to get ahead. . . .
And ["the little guy"] that’s who is left out in the cold today. Big business, big labor, big finance — they have seats at the table. The little guy doesn’t. But we’re the ones left holding the tab. We’re paying the bill. This is not the way it’s supposed to be. This is not the way that it must be. American exceptionalism is not exceptionally big government with a command and control industrial policy. . . .
History has proven again and again when government picks the winners and losers, we are stuck with the losers. And we the taxpayers subsidize the failures. . . .
Do we still believe in . . . free-market capitalism?
Or do we surrender to big government and a corporatism agenda?. . .
We must be as motivated and optimistic as our parents and our grandparents were, many of whom started off with nothing and yet they were able to build a fulfilled life by the sweat of their brow. . . .
So why are these excerpts from this transcript of her talk of vital importance to what I described, above, as "those of every political persuasion in America, whether Palin normally causes them to swoon or to sputter incoherently"?
Thomas Frank, What's the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America (2004), posits the thesis that the big business wing of the conservatives (those who advocate and practice what I have defined, above, as "fascism") have managed to bring along millions of voters, willing to vote against their own best interests (the funding of social programs and regulations designed to protect them), by talking about (while doing little or nothing about) "God, guns and gays" (opposition to abortion, gay marriage, immigration, and handgun control).
This has been accomplished, in part, by attacking "big government" and "taxation" while remaining eerily silent about the very linkage that big business has with that "big government," and the cash transfers it receives from the taxpayers who pay that "taxation."
So the big business, big money, funders of the conservative coalition should be (and probably are already, as they watch the events in Cairo unfold) a trifle concerned about Palin's turn toward an anti-fascism populism.
Similarly, the Palin-haters -- and progressives concerned about the rest of what she says, and might do in office -- should be wary of the consequences that might flow from a Palin-as-Populist campaign. It wouldn't take that much to expand the Tea Party's appeal to those who ought to have been a solid part of the Democratic Party's base (e.g., the poor, working poor, working class) -- and were, until the Party turned its back on them in its own search for corporate dollars.
It's something to think about. _______________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
Champions' Wins Can Be Taxpayers' Losses; Lessons for Iowa (bought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
There is at least one significant way in which Super Bowls are far less super than the claims in its super boosters' hype.
Sunday's [Feb. 6, 2011] game between the Pittsburgh Steelers and the community-owned Green Bay Packers was by many measures a truly "super" bowl game. It was a great game to watch; which a record 111 million did in front of TV screens and an almost-record 110 thousand did in the Texas-sized and styled super stadium in Arlington. Whether the TV commercials will have a super impact on increasing sales remains to be seen, but they produced some super laughs for the audience, potential super awards for the creators, and at $3 million for each 30 seconds some super revenue for the broadcasters.
The two-year-old Dallas Cowboys' stadium used for the event, Cowboys owner Jerry Jones' three-million-square-foot "Palace in Dallas," the world's largest domed stadium, cost $1.15 billion to build -- of which the taxpayers of Arlington contributed $325 million.
However, its likely impact on the economy of Arlington, Texas (and its Dallas-Ft.Worth environs), is going to be far less super than Super Bowl boosters and promoters routinely claim when their billionaire owners approach local taxpayers, hat in hand, begging for their equivalent of public housing.
With no pro teams in Iowa, and open stadiums during Iowa winters, it's unlikely there will ever be a Super Bowl game played in an Iowa town. Nonetheless, there are still lessons here for Iowans -- for the Iowa City City Council's love affair with the corporate benefits from local taxpayers called "TIFs," and Governor Branstad's apparent belief that transferring taxpayers' money to the bottom line of for-profit corporations (and campaign contributors) is ideologically consistent with "free private enterprise" and an efficient way to "create jobs."
The Super Bowl host committee commissioned a report that says the region will see a $611-million windfall as a result of Sunday’s game. . . . Robert Baade, a sports economist at Lake Forest College, . . . says host committees forget to factor in things like tourists and convention goers who are crowded out during mega-events like the Super Bowl, money that goes home with the players, team owners, and national hotel chains, and costs the city bears in clean-up and safety. 'If you move that decimal point one place to the left, you’re much closer to reality,' Baade says. '[T]he $60 million figure is likely to be far more representative of what we’ll see.' And, Baade says, the real figure might be closer to $30 million. . . . [Do pro teams and Super Bowls bring new businesses to town?] Professor Baade says, corporate sponsors and business executives have much more tangible things to think about . . .. '[T]hey’re going to consider things like: "Is there a skilled labor force?," Baade said. ' . . . the tax environment . . . the school system. . . . [O]ther factors . . . are far, far more important for the bottom line than a Super Bowl or even the presence of a pro sports team.'
The $600 million benefit claimed this year is 50% more than last year's NFL estimate of $400 million -- when economists found the League's math equally flawed.
"'All they do is add and multiply,' [University of South Florida economist Phil] Porter said. 'They never subtract and divide.' . . .
Economists say the NFL-sponsored studies look at the 'gross' spending by Super Bowl visitors but not the 'net' effect.
Some tourists, economists say, may intend to visit South Florida for vacation, but will avoid the area because of the Super Bowl. Also, with Super Bowl attendees spending much of their money with national hotel and rental-car chains, most of the influx is going to corporations headquartered elsewhere, such as Hilton, Marriott, Hertz and Avis.
'The airfare being spent on American Airlines isn't ending up in Miami,' said Craig Depken of the University of North Carolina-Charlotte. 'A lot of it is being repatriated to Dallas.' . . .
'I'm estimating north of $400 million,' said Rodney Barreto, chairman of the host committee. 'This is a huge event.' . . .
But independent economists have tossed the challenge flag and demanded a closer look at what they consider the puffery behind the big game's economic effect.
'If you can move the decimal point one digit to the left, you would get a more realistic estimate,' said Andrew Zimbalist, a prominent sports economist at Smith College. 'If they were arguing $40 million, I would say that's a realistic impact; $400 million is not.'
Victor Matheson, an economist at the College of the Holy Cross, said Super Bowls generate a boost of $30 million to $90 million.
'Absolutely, you'll take it,' he said. 'But on the other hand, it's one-quarter to one-tenth of the figure the NFL is publicizing.'
Economists from the University of Chicago, the University of North Carolina-Charlotte and the University of South Florida have reached similar conclusions.
Phil Porter of the University of South Florida sees a link between the NFL's optimistic economic impact estimates and team owners' lobbying for public money for stadiums.
'The NFL is not in the business of giving us $400 million every year,' Porter said. 'They're in the business of telling us they're giving us $400 million every year so we'll give them things.' . . .
[I]t's unclear when the Super Bowl and Pro Bowl will come back to South Florida. NFL executives say the Super Bowl might not return for an 11th visit without $250 million in improvements to the Miami Gardens facility now known as Sun Life Stadium."
For years I wrote in a similar vein about Senator Grassley's belief that spending $50 million of federal taxpayers' money on an indoor rainforest in an Iowa cornfield could somehow pass the laugh test and make any economic sense. See, e.g., the entire Web site I devoted to the subject: "Earthpark."
More recently I've addressed the triumph of boosterism over economic analysis in some blog entries and Press-Citizen columns.
Nicholas Johnson, "Making 'Shop Locally' a Meaningful Suggestion," Iowa City Press-Citizen, December 3, 2010, p. A9, embeded in "Downtowns' Future: 'Shop Locally' Column & Dialogue; Making "Shop Locally" a Meaningful Suggestion," December 7, 2010 ("[T]he Press-Citizen Editorial Board is urging us to 'shop locally.' But what does 'buy local' mean? [Money spent here doesn't necessarily stay here.] To analyze in detail what happens to each portion of the dollars we spend in Johnson County establishments would require more data and degrees in economics than most of us would ever have or want. . . . [But without it, 'buy locally'] is just a rousing bumper sticker of a slogan, and, as Tom Joad says to the filling station attendant in Grapes of Wrath: 'You're jus' singin' a kinda song.'").
"The $100 Million Hawkeyes' Football Team; Hawks: "How Do I Love Thee? Let Me Count the Dollars," August 28, 2010 ("The Iowa City/Coralville Area Convention and Visitors Bureau says the Hawkeyes' Football Team is about to bring $100 million to Johnson County this fall. . . . Really? $100 million? . . . [T]he only sales that can fairly be attributed to football would be those above and beyond those that would have occurred without a football game. What is the average Iowa City/Coralville revenue for . . . weekends from September through November -- excluding the weekends when there are home football games? What is the average during weekends when there are football games? It is that difference, that 'incremental increase,' that is relevant. Otherwise you're counting revenue that would have gone to local businesses even without the games. Second, how much of that incremental income would never have been earned 'but for' the football game, and how much is merely 'time-shifting'? . . . [Coralridge Mall shoppers who do not attend football games may have] contributed to increased retail income when there was a football game in town, that's true; but they have not contributed more income to merchants for the year in question than they would have contributed anyway without that coincidence. It's not 'but-for' incremental income.").
Nicholas Johnson, "Flying Video Screens, Stories and Tourism," Iowa City Press-Citizen, August 30, 2008, p. A15, embedded in "Tell Me a Story; The Stories Project," August 30, 2008 ("[A]n Iowa City monument to stories is certainly more appealing than 'a rain forest in a cornfield' -- the earlier proposal for Coralville. But good ideas are a dime a dozen. The challenge? Finding the next dime. Something rain forest promoters never found. Whether Stories makes sense requires the same analysis to which I subjected the rain forest. . . . In fairness, Stories’ promoters acknowledge their details aren’t nailed down – ‘"flying video screens" and holographic projections,' school, bookstore, restaurant? But it’s hard to be 'for' or 'against' a thing not knowing what the 'thing' is – the rain forest’s persistent problem. ('It’s a floor wax, it’s a desert topping; it’s whatever they want it to be.') So all I can offer is an all-purpose sampling of issues for any attraction.").
"Chicago Wins Olympics Bid; Why Chicago Won the Olympics Bid," October 5, 2009 ("The fact is that, most of the time, winning an Olympics bid, like many other efforts at local boosterism, turns out to be a Pyrrhic victory. . . . [M]ost community cheerleaders, like modern day George Babbitts [Sinclair Lewis, Babbitt (1922)], with confidence and pride in their town truly believe that their idea -- whether an indoor rain forest, the world's largest ball of string, or hosting an Olympic event -- really will 'put their city on the map,' while bringing tourists and their tourists' dollars to town. Who needs a business plan when 'everyone knows' what a great idea it is? . . . All too often the construction money can't be found, or the project is built but it turns out that 'build it and they will come' only works in the movies. Or enough public debt is incurred that it is, with the declining revenues that could have been predicted but weren't, the death knell for the project and then -- like paying for a dead horse -- takes years, if ever, to pay off. But there is no effort at community promotion for which there is a greater disparity between the promised economic benefits and the ultimate disappointment than Olympic venues.").
For more on our excessive focus on sports reaching from pro to college to high school to junior high and elementary schools, see "Fandom; Super Bowl, Super Mystery," January 30, 2011.
And for more on use of taxpayers' money for campaign contributors, see Nicholas Johnson, "Branstad and Public Transparency," Iowa City Press-Citizen, January 5, 2011, p. A7, embedded in "Governor Branstad's 'Transparency;' Making 'Transparency' in Government Meaningful," January 5, 2011. Accord, see Donnelle Eller, "Study Questions Branstad's Economic Proposal,"Des Moines Register, February 2, 2011 ("States that have switched to public-private partnerships like the one Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad has proposed have experienced misuse of taxpayer money, excessive executive bonuses and questionable awards, a national group [Good Jobs First, a Washington, D.C., research group] says. . . . [S]tates like Iowa that are considering public-private partnerships should focus on improving existing economic development efforts rather than seek to create agencies. 'Turning economic development over to public-private partnerships is fool's gold,' said Greg LeRoy, Good Jobs First executive director. 'What really matters is business basics: strategic public investments in skills, infrastructure and innovation - not privatized smokestack chasing.'"). See the similar observation of sports economist Robert Baade in the first major blocked quote in this blog entry, "Professor Baade says, corporate sponsors and business executives have much more tangible things to think about . . .. '[T]hey’re going to consider things like: "Is there a skilled labor force?,"' Baade said. ' . . . the tax environment . . . the school system.'"
_______________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
Super Bowl, Super Mystery (bought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
We are sports fans. We love being sports fans, and at times, we live to be sports fans. As loyal fans we empower ourselves to break free of the realities of everyday life by joining a greater cause. We gain access to a community of others like us, a nation of people energetically united by something powerful. The only requirements for membership in this family are loyalty and a belief in the cause.
If we’re fans of the Kansas City Chiefs, we don’t care if our starting running back is originally from Kansas City, Florida, or California—he is a Chief, he is one of us, and he’s in the family. It’s irrelevant that as fans we don’t actually play in the game. We jealously covet our season tickets. We stay focused and disciplined as we, along with 80,000 of our closest friends, show off our spelling and counting skills after every touchdown. We proudly display framed Sports Illustrated covers, faded pennants, and other relics as evidence of memories that we already know will last forever. Like the players, we fans are also in the family, and we know the potential for that family is limitless.
Sports and fandom give us hope. They give us a sense of belonging. They teach us to believe in ourselves and our ability to contribute to something special. Once that opening pitch is tossed, or that ball is tipped, or that kick is returned, the outside world and all its worries and pressures quietly fade away—for we and the rest of our family are busy transcending greatness.
-- Jim Mosimann
A week from today 100 million Americans (give or take) will be watching the Super Bowl game. It's one of television's highest rated shows.
I will be a part of that audience. I have enjoyed sports of all kinds, whether participating, in the stands, or watching a television or laptop computer screen -- the skill of the athletes, the thrill of the last minutes of play that so often determine the outcome.
But I've always been a bit mystified by what I will call "extreme fandom" for the professional, commercial, TV performers (players) in the for-profit TV shows called, for example, "professional football." See Ken Belson, "Rapid Fans Put Dallas on Their Itinerary,"New York Times, January 31, 2011.
A family friend, now deceased, was such a Denver Broncos fan that he would stand, watching their every game on television -- for the entire game. I guess it was a gesture of respect. There are fans who travel to all of "their team's" games, like the Deadheads who used to follow the Grateful Dead from concert to concert. Fans dress in their team's colors, like the "bumblebees" who dress in Iowa's black and gold for Hawkeyes' football games.
They are willing to follow directions on what "uniform" they should wear to the game (for the benefit of, among others, the television cameras). At Iowa's last Homecoming game, all the fans seemed to have followed the instructions on their tickets regarding whether they should dress all in black or in gold. It made for striking TV coverage.
At Penn State they are all sometimes told to wear white -- and obediently do so. Penn State seems to have a formula for whipping up the fans' enthusiasm before and during the games. Here is what they call their "Penn State Football Crowd Pump Up Video" from 2008:
What is it I find so mysterious about this?
I can understand how one would be a "fan" of their high school, or even college, teams. After all, at that stage of your life the school is a major part of your community, your circle of friends; and the players are people you at least see regularly off the field, and may even have as acquaintances or friends.
Even so, some might suggest we're even carrying high school, and junior high, sports to extremes, as the New York Times reports this morning about a little town not that far from what will be the Super Bowl stadium next Sunday.
"The $60 million football stadium at Allen [Texas; population 650 in the 1960s, 85,000 now] High School, where [Steve] Williams is the athletic director, was starting to take shape. . . . To the residents, who voted 63 percent in favor of a $119 million bond in May 2009, this project, which includes the stadium, an auditorium for fine arts and a service center for the district, is designed to scale. Their scale just happens to be larger than most. . . . Chris Tripucka [owner of the souvenir shop, Eagle Designs, says] 'I’ve been around sports all my life. You can’t explain it to people who don’t live here. You have to experience it.' . . . The new stadium . . . will hold 18,000 spectators in a sunken bowl designed to improve sightlines . . . [and] include a two-tier press box, an indoor golf practice area, a high-definition video scoreboard, a practice room for wrestling, and enough parking for every car in Dallas . . .. 'Look, football has always been a big deal here,' Williams said."
A little over four years ago, Sports Illustrated's Frank Deford, who provides NPR's listeners a little sports insight every Wednesday morning, noticed this "big deal" seemed to be forcing its way into junior high schools as well.
"I've decided to rewrite my will. . . . [T]he bulk of my estate is going where it's really needed -- to . . . help renovate the weight room and build a 20,000-seat football stadium with a retractable roof for the disadvantaged little fourth and fifth grade student athletes at my alma mater. . . . [R]ather than correcting all the abuses of college athletics, we Americans are instead simply taking all that's wrong with college sports down to high school. . . . Just as colleges recruit high school players, now high schools scout middle schoolers. There are now newsletters which identify the best sixth grade prospects in the nation. . . . And given good old American know-how, I figure that by the time I'm pushing up daisies the same sins will have reached the elementary school level."
I spent much of the 1950s in Texas, a state for which I still have a great deal of fascination and affection. So it didn't surprise me that Greg Bishop was able to pick up on the fact that Texas is a "state where only football supersedes faith and family." But I have to admit that it surprised even me when he quoted the Allen High "fine arts director" saying, “It’s controlled chaos. There’s an energy you can’t describe. When they say football is like religion in Texas, it’s true." Knowing a little something about "religion in Texas," as well, that's not comforting.
Maybe finding an analogy for fandom in religion is helpful. After all, Mosimann mentioned "transcending greatness." Does a part of the explanation for fandom have something to do with being a part of a crowd of like believers, what he calls "a sense of belonging"? Are Mosimann's "80,000 closest friends" in the stadium, or the 18,000 Allen High fans in its new stadium, attracted to joining fandom for reasons related to the reasons those 24,000 Texans had for joining Houston's megachurch, Second Baptist?
Second Baptist is the second-largest "megachurch" in the U.S., a modern cathedral complex the size of an airport terminal. Inside "E Gym," where the congregation's "small" Saturday evening service is being held, two basketball courts full of believers in jeans and flip-flops rock out, sing along or just watch as a huge contemporary band jams to the song "Did You Feel the Mountains Tremble?" [Photo credit: Jessica Kourkounis, AP.]
White and yellow stage lights hit the rising smoke before the performance cools down for the opening prayer. The sermon stops for applause as the audience watches an video projected overhead of a Christian-gone-wild beach retreat, where the church baptized nearly 700 teenagers.
But it's not college -- or even junior high -- sports fans that I find so mysterious.
It's the fandom gone wild for the commercial pro teams.
I have a colleague who makes a practice of rooting for whichever team happens to be ahead at the time during the Super Bowl game, or other athletic contests. I am not quite that fickle. Green Bay has always fascinated me, primarily I suppose because of the community ownership of the team. ("The Packers are the only non-profit, community-owned franchise in American professional sports major leagues." Green Bay Packers, wikipedia.org.) Because Carroll Rosenbloom was a family friend, when he owned the Baltimore Colts, and I lived in Washington, I took a greater interest in that team.
But I've never become a rabid fan of any one professional team. Maybe it's because Iowa has none. If you live in Iowa and want to be a fan of a professional team, your only choices are at least a couple hundred miles away in another state.
Professional teams are not like school teams. College sports may be big business, but it's nothing like the multi-billion-dollar industry that is the TV show called "professional sports." When you're watching a pro football game you're watching 22 millionaires -- few, if any, of whom have any connection to your home town -- playing for two billionaires. (See this morning's AP column from Tim Dahlberg, "After This Super Bowl the Real Games Begin,"Associated Press/Yahoo! Sports, January 29, 2011 ("The billionaires believe they gave the farm away five years ago when they caved in to an agreement with the millionaires in Paul Tagliabue's last big act as commissioner. They seem determined to get it back, no matter what the cost."). Moreover, they're playing in a multi-hundred-million-dollar stadium most likely built at taxpayer expense for the billionaire -- who then charges ticket prices that many of those taxpayers can't afford to pay.
To become emotionally involved, to the point of cheering yourself hoarse, over such a corporation, while dressed in its colors and logos, always seemed to me somewhat analogous to arguments regarding the comparative merits of Ford and Chevy pickup trucks, or Coke and Pepsi.
Teaching Sports Law this semester has (so far) been rewarding from a number of perspectives -- mostly having to do with the quality, and enthusiasm, of the students. One day I shared with them my near-lifelong perplexity regarding fandom for professional teams. It produced a lively discussion -- including the essay/poem of Jim Mosimann's with which I led today's blog.
It seems to explain about as much as can be explained about the phenomenon called fandom. _______________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
Today [Jan. 24] Jared L. Loughner found himself in court for his January 8 attack on Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, an attack that took the lives of six others and left her with severe brain injury. Marc Lacey, "Suspect Pleads Not Guilty in Tucson Shooting,"New York Times, January 25, 2011.
America continues its struggle to find an explanation for such an act.
Meanwhile, Members of Congress struggle to find a "date" for the President's "State of the Union" address tomorrow night [Jan. 25], sitting with someone of the opposite party in their effort to find a symbolic way of distancing themselves from the two parties' hostile political bickering that some believe may have contributed to the fact Ms. Giffords will not be among them that evening.
The concern lingers that some talk shows' vitriol, thrown in the face of the President and the Democratic Party, day after day, hour after hour, may have played a role in the actions of Loughner and others.
It needs to be emphasized that there is not, as yet, any evidence of which I am aware that Loughner ever listened to or watched Glenn Beck. And clearly Loughner had a lot more going on in his head than broadcasting's bile -- enough so that his "insanity" defense seems plausible and may work.
But for those who are not Glenn Beck followers, a little taste of what Beck said on his June 9, 2010, show may be useful in getting a little more specific sense of the verbal environment in which Loughner -- and the rest of us, sane and insane, armed and unarmed -- now live.
In every single walk of life -- you want to know why TV doesn't reflect you? You want to know why Washington doesn't reflect you? Because they don't understand, from the radical revolutionaries . . . to the Tea Party movements.
Just because you in Washington and you who are so out of touch with life, in the media, just because you don't believe in anything doesn't mean nobody else does. We do. You know why you're confused by this show? It's because I believe in something. You don't.
Tea parties believe in small government. We believe in returning to the principles of our Founding Fathers. We respect them. We revere them. . . .
I will stand against you and so will millions of others. We believe in something. You in the media and most in Washington don't. The radicals that you and Washington have co-opted and brought in wearing sheep's clothing . . ..
You've been using them? They believe in communism. They believe and have called for a revolution. You're going to have to shoot them in the head. But warning, they may shoot you.
They are dangerous because they believe. Karl Marx is their George Washington. You will never change their mind. And if they feel you have lied to them -- they're revolutionaries! Nancy Pelosi, those are the people you should be worried about.
Here's the video.
Can't stand to watch all of it? Start at 5:20 into the piece; "You're going to have to shoot them in the head," comes at about 5:30. But the buildup regarding why you ought to shoot them in the head comes earlier.
In case you're wondering, apparently this meets the FCC's interpretation of the Congressional mandate that broadcasters are to operate "in the public interest, convenience and necessity."
_______________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
Presenting, and Responding to, a Blog Entry's Critics (bought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
A week ago I wrote about the carnage in Tucson, Arizona, and provided statistics about the number of gun deaths in America each year. "Guns Do Kill -- 30,000 Americans a Year; Just Americans Toasting Toast," January 10, 2011 ("Even in the lawless, wild west of old, Iowans had the sense to forbid six-shooters in bars and taverns. Iowa's legislators, yearning for the past, missed that nuance, and have provided that even those who can't walk and chew gum at the same time can legally drink and carry a gun at the same time.").
It's a subject I have written about before:
Related: Nicholas Johnson, "Branstad and Public Transparency," Iowa City Press-Citizen, January 5, 2011, p. A7, embedded in "Governor Branstad's 'Transparency,'" January 5, 2011 (urging more media stories that "associate those appropriations [of taxpayers' money to for-profit corporations] with the legislators who voted for them, and how much those legislators received in campaign contributions and lobbying expenses from the recipient of the appropriation.").
Nicholas Johnson, "Police Accidental Shootings -- Of Themselves; Additional Risks from Armed (Campus and Other) Police: Accidental Self-Inflicted Wounds," May 9, 2008 ("It was pointed out that those who keep handguns in their homes are 16 times more likely to have those guns used on family and friends than on criminal intruders (e.g., as a result of suicides, accidents, mis-identification, or the gun being stolen and used by the intruder). Accidental shootings of unarmed, innocent civilians by police officers sometimes occur -- including in Iowa City. It was noted that police are sometimes shot with their own guns as a result of losing them to an attacker in a scuffle. What was not discussed was the danger to the police themselves from . . . themselves. We were reassured that our police would be well trained. And I assume they are. But it turns out that isn't always enough. Indeed, some of the accidental, self-inflicted wounds (and death) occur during that very training.").
(And see this morning's [Jan. 18] New York Times: "The contention . . . is that the good guys can shoot back whenever the bad guys show up to do harm. An important study published in 2009 by researchers at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine estimated that people in possession of a gun at the time of an assault were 4.5 times more likely to be shot during the assault than someone in a comparable situation without a gun. . . . Monday was a national holiday celebrating the life of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. While the gun crazies are telling us that ever more Americans need to be walking around armed, we should keep in mind that more than a million people have died from gun violence — in murders, accidents and suicides — since Dr. King was shot to death in 1968. We need fewer . . .. That means stricter licensing and registration, more vigorous background checks and a ban on assault weapons. Start with that. Don’t tell me it’s too hard to achieve. Just get started." Bob Herbert, "How Many Deaths Are Enough?"New York Times, January 18, 2011, p. A25.)
The January 10 Giffords blog entry produced a significant number of hits -- and criticism.
And so, in an effort to provide the remedies of the First Amendment to this discussion about the Second Amendment, I'm going to reproduce some of it here.
Some were comments appended to the blog entry. One of the most impressive rational responses, I thought, came in the form of an email I'm reproducing at the bottom of this blog entry. First, the comments:
Jeff Morelock said...
You forgot some other info...
Tobacco 435,000 Poor Diet and Physical Inactivity 365,000 Alcohol 85,000 Microbial Agents 75,000 Toxic Agents 55,000 Motor Vehicle Crashes 26,347 Adverse Reactions to Prescription Drugs 32,000 Suicide 30,622 Incidents Involving Firearms 29,000 Homicide 20,308 Sexual Behaviors 20,000 All Illicit Drug Use, Direct and Indirect 17,000 Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs Such As Aspirin 7,600 Marijuana 0
So I guess cars, alcohol, Tobacco, sex, getting fat and a bunch of other stuff kills people too 1/10/2011 08:49:00 AM
He's got a point. It's a risk perception, risk assessment, point -- if what you're concerned about is death or serious injury. It's like being afraid to fly, but willing to smoke cigarettes and travel in automobiles -- both of which pose much greater risk of death than airplanes. My only reactions are two: (1) most of the deaths from "suicide," "incidents involving firearms," and "homicide" -- which he lists -- do involve deaths from guns. (2) Aside from them, the only other product on the list that, when used for the purpose for which intended, will cause death, is tobacco. Eliminating handguns (an impossibility, as the email writer explains) would at least eliminate deaths involving handguns -- a device manufactured for the purpose of creating violent trauma, whether to a fellow human, animal, or paper target. Automobiles, prescription drugs, and sex are seldom deliberately used to produce death, and at least have alternative purposes and uses.
Vinney B. said (in part),
Gun control in this country would only cause more problems than it would solve. Guns sold on the black market would create more crime and a deadly element worse than what we have now. Similar to our drug problem. Imagine the amount of our hard earned taxpayers money we would have to spend to fight it. It would be a losing battle. Similar to our drug problem. Criminals would still have guns knowing that most Americans may not. 1/10/2011 04:49:00 PM
He also has a point -- one expanded on by the email writer. But handgun injuries and deaths can be reduced, even if they cannot be eliminated -- any more than guns can be eliminated. Even the most avid "anti-gun control" advocates support the idea of education in gun safety and operation, and keeping guns out of the hands of psychopathic killers. There are more handgun deaths from suicide than homicide. There are suicide prevention programs that could help reduce those deaths and might be acceptable to gun owners. And most of those who want to regulate "guns" in some way or other make a distinction between the handguns that can be concealed and the rifles used for hunting -- although, as no less a person than the former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney demonstrated, they can also cause human injury (and death).
Finally, among those commenting is . . .
Anonymous said...
Pathetic. What happened to people taking responsibility for their own actions (something that you and other liberals do not believe in). Yes, believe it or not it is people who kill, not guns. You pose as an academic individual, but you seem to forget that murder predates firearms. Do you honestly believe that banning firearms will decrease violence? People who want to kill will always find a way. How about placing the blame where it needs to be placed: on the man who committed the crime. 1/16/2011 03:30:00 AM
My impression -- with no more data to support it than Anonymous offers -- is that almost everyone in my acquaintance I can think of (including "liberals," once there is a definition that enables one to identify who they are) believe that "people [should take] responsibility for their own actions" and support "placing the blame . . . on the man who committed the crime." (a) I don't believe that "banning firearms will decrease violence," but I do believe that, could it be done (which it can't) it would not only decrease handgun violence, it would eliminate it. (b) Even if "violence" cannot be reduced, violent fist fights, or knife attacks, are (again I'm guessing, without data) probably far less likely to cause death when they do occur, than the expression of violence with firearms.
And now for the thougtful email:
In almost all cases I agree with the liberal/progressive position on issues.
Gay marriage, living wage, single-payer national health care.
One of the few areas where I differ is gun control.
Of course "gun control" means different things to different people. Some NRA members (which I am not) would say that gun control means hitting the target. Others would say it means a policy similar to those in Canada, Japan, and many European countries where it is extremely difficult for a civilian to own any firearm, let alone a handgun.
A couple points:
1) As with most 'hot button' issues, most people have made up their minds on this and have dug in their heels, so there is no point in trying to "convert" anyone. That is certainly not my intent.
2) If the democrats want to win elections they will have to compromise on this issue. I really don't care one way or the other, just sayin'.
3) As mentioned above, there is a wide range of "gun control." I think requiring background checks, "cooling off periods," and gun safety courses is reasonable. Possibly even requiring that each gun be test fired, to allow law enforcement to have a record of the unique striations that each gun creates on the bullets that are fired from it. Beyond that, I think that the Second Amendment gives American citizens the right to own any gun that the police routinely use (i.e., not surface to air missiles or hand grenades). After all, what makes cops different from other humans? Only training. Gun owners could be required to have the same training.
4) It may sound trite, but it seems true that "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws would have guns." Very similar to our failed "war on drugs."
5) Personally, I think it's all but pointless to carry a gun for protection. Typically, a would-be mugger/rapist is going to point a gun at their victim and that person will not be able to draw their weapon without getting shot. However, I would not try to prevent people from carrying a gun if they want (again, assuming they go through a background check, gun safety course, etc).
6) It's too late for gun control if that means eliminating all guns. For better or worse, guns are a part of our society and have been from the very beginning. There are something like 200 million privately owned guns. Even if we could magically eliminate all new guns, it would be next to impossible to confiscate more that a small percentage of the guns already in private hands -- and then there's that pesky Second Amendment.
7) Beyond the number of guns a person can carry it doesn't matter how many guns a person owns. Why? Because they can only shoot one at a time -- the rest will be left in their basement or gun safe. We often hear that some criminal owns 50, 75, or 100-plus guns. As if that's supposed to be extra scary or something. It may indicate that the person was or is obsessed with guns. But it doesn't make them any more potentially dangerous that the guy who owns a couple semi-automatic handguns.
8) I have owned one gun since I was 14 years old. It it is a .22 caliber rifle. It is considered tame by most standards because of the small caliber and the fact that it is a long gun. It is the type of gun that would be the last to be outlawed even by the the most frothing at the mouth anti-gun fanatics. In actuality though, it could be very lethal in the hands of a lunatic. It holds 19 rounds and will fire them as fast as the trigger can be pulled. I have a high power scope on it which makes it extremely accurate from a long distance. I'm not a particularly good shot, yet I can hit push pins stuck in a tree at 150 feet. I suppose my point is that any gun, even a .22, can be used to kill people. John Hinkley used a .22 in his attempt to assassinate president Reagan.
9) People often refer to "assault weapons" and the repealed assault weapons ban. In actuality, most assault weapons are just "gussied up" hunting rifles. They just look scarier than a deer rifle. As a practical matter, banning them has very little effect. What is more important is the ammo. I remember seeing a demonstration on TV years ago of different types of bullets being shot from a common hunting rifle at watermelons. Some (the ones with a steel jacket) went right through the melons without much damage, others just blew them apart.
10) I rarely shoot my .22 and when I do it is just for fun -- target shooting. While the primary purpose of most guns is to hunt or for personal protection, target and skeet shooting is a legitimate (and fun) sport.
11) I'll end with one for the gun control folks. There are way too many people (mostly males) who think that if they just had a gun they would be able to protect themselves and their family in any situation. That's often not the case. In fact, the opposite may be true. If the criminal sees a gun they may start shooting when they otherwise wouldn't. Or, the criminal may get the person's gun. When under stress must people will not exactly have a steady hand like Clint Eastwood -- they will be shaking and trembling and not able to hit anything more than a few feet away. In the situations similar to that in Arizona this past Saturday [January 8, 2011], it will often be very difficult to shoot the criminal without hitting someone else. Also, lets suppose one or more people do start shooting at the criminal and a gunfight ensues. Then the cops show up and they have no idea who the good guys are. Or, other armed citizens join in and mistakenly shoot one of the good guys.
That said, there are definitely scenarios where an armed citizen could save lives -- the Long Island RR massacre comes to mind -- a crazy guy walking through a train randomly shooting people. But those situations are rare.
Bottom line, things rarely go down the way they do in the movies.
-- Sherman Johnson
_______________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
Just Americans Toasting Toast (bought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
America's flags are at half-staff. The country mourns the victims of six more handgun deaths. Those among them receiving the most media attention are the very popular Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, federal judge John M. Roll, and a nine-year-old girl, Christina Green, who played on the boys' baseball team, had just been elected to her student council, and came out to meet her member of Congress for the first time. E.g., Marc Lacey, "Federal Charges Cite Assassination Plan,"New York Times, January 10, 2011, p. A1.
Meanwhile, the munitions makers, gun manufacturers, handgun retail outlets and shows, and their very generous campaign contributor and powerful lobbying arm, the National Rifle Association, like to disassociate themselves from America's handgun homicides.
One of their favorite lines is, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." To which one of the popular rejoinders of sanity has been, "Yeah, and toasters don't toast toast, people toast toast."
They are hoping that the fallout from Saturday's events will soon blow over and handgun sales will not only return to normal, but may actually increase.
Sadly, although the memories of Saturday will gradually fade, the nation's deaths from handguns will not. Over 30,000 Americans will die from guns. Of the 18,000 homicide deaths, 68% will involve guns. Few if any Japanese will die from gunshot wounds; their rates of gun deaths are a minuscule fraction of ours.
According to the CDC's latest statistics, of 18,361 homicides 12,632 were death by handgun. "FastStats: Homicide," Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Of course, homicide is not the only cause of firearm deaths. The total death toll is closer to 31,000.
Firearm—In 2006, 30,896 persons died from firearm injuries in the United States (Tables 18–20), accounting for 17.3 percent of all injury deaths that year. Firearm suicide and homicide, the two major component causes, accounted for 54.6 and 41.4 percent, respectively, of all firearm injury deaths in 2006. In 2006, the age-adjusted death rate for firearm suicide decreased significantly from 2005 by 3.5 percent, from 5.7 deaths per 100,000 U.S. standard population to 5.5. However, the age-adjusted rate for all firearm injuries was the same in 2006 as in 2005—10.2 deaths per 100,000 U.S. standard population (Tables 18–20).
And for every firearm death there are twice as many firearm injuries.
Firearm injury in the United States has averaged 32,300 deaths annually between 1980 and 2006 (See Figure 1).2,3 It is the second leading cause of death from injury after motor vehicle crashes.4 An estimated two nonfatal injuries occur for every firearm death.5,6 The 2006 age adjusted death rate from firearm injury is 10.2/100,000 with an estimated nonfatal injury rate of 23.6.7 Firearms are involved in 68% of homicides, 52% of suicides, 43% of robberies, and 21% of aggravated assaults.8,7 Deaths peaked in 1993 at 40,000 in the early 1990s and fell below 30,000 in 1999. Yet even at these lower levels, firearm injury represents a significant public health impact, accounting for 6.6% of premature death in this country (Years of Potential Life Lost (YPLL) prior to age 65).9 The fatality rate of firearm violence is more than twice the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ “Healthy People” goal for the year 2010.
And so how has the Iowa Legislature responded to this carnage? Why by giving the NRA what it wants in exchange for its campaign contributions and members' votes -- an increase in gun sales as a result of a new law creating an ability for virtually all Iowans to carry concealed handguns, notwithstanding the judgment of their local sheriff that it's dangerous to give them a permit to carry. Tom Alex, "Iowans flock to sheriffs to apply for gun permits,"Des Moines Register, January 5, 2011 ("Several Iowa sheriffs' offices reported receiving 10 to 20 times as many weapons permit applications on Monday as they do most days. Monday was the first day government offices were open since Saturday, when a law took effect that requires sheriffs under most circumstances to issue permits to carry concealed weapons. Sheriffs previously had greater discretion to deny or restrict such permits.").
Even in the lawless, wild west of old, Iowans had the sense to forbid six-shooters in bars and taverns. Iowa's legislators, yearning for the past, missed that nuance, and have provided that even those who can't walk and chew gum at the same time can legally drink and carry a gun at the same time.
Of course, it doesn't help when politicians say "don't retreat, reload," or put gun sights over opponents congressional districts (as Sarah Palin did with Congresswoman Giffords' district), or talk show hosts speak of "Second Amendment solutions," or say that when ballots don't work there are always bullets. If America's largest corporations think what they say in their multi-billion-dollar advertising on radio and TV is powerful enough to manipulate human behavior, it's hard to believe that illusions to assassination are totally harmless. See, e.g., Paul Krugman, "Climate of Hate,"New York Times, January 10, 2011, p. A21; Froma Harrop, "Despite gunman's mental state, it was still a political attack,"Dallas Morning News, January 11, 2011.
Harrop writes,
House Speaker John Boehner['s] . . . contention that this was "an attack on all who serve" wasn't quite right. Jared Lee Loughner['s] . . . attack was not against "all who serve." It was on a Democrat who had been vilified by a gun-waving right wing that Boehner's party tolerates and feeds with self-pitying visions of oppression. Democrats have no Palin-like figure putting political opponents in the cross hairs of gun sights . . .. There is no Democratic version of Giffords' recent Republican opponent . . . "Get on Target for Victory in November. Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office. Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly." . . . Jeff McQueen, a tea party "leader" . . . told NPR: "We have a choice of four boxes if we want to make political change in this country. We can go to the soap box, we can go to the ballot box, or we can go to the jury box, and hopefully, we won't have to go to the bullet box." . . . Tom Ashbrook responded: "Bullet box! Are you talking about armed revolution?" McQueen answered . . ., "Have you seen ammunition sales in the last 12 months?" . . . [T]he Republican senatorial candidate in Nevada, Sharron Angle . . . added, "I hope we're not getting to Second Amendment remedies."
But however much debate there may be regarding the impact of speech, there should be very little debate regarding the impact of guns. The numbers are overwhelming.
Of course the real problem is all the frustration building up in those Americans who are still convinced they don't need a toaster to toast toast.
Related: Nicholas Johnson, "Branstad and Public Transparency," Iowa City Press-Citizen, January 5, 2011, p. A7, embedded in "Governor Branstad's 'Transparency,'" January 5, 2011 (urging more media stories that "associate those appropriations [of taxpayers' money to for-profit corporations] with the legislators who voted for them, and how much those legislators received in campaign contributions and lobbying expenses from the recipient of the appropriation.").
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
Making "Transparency" in Government Meaningful (bought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
The Press-Citizen has requested and run a series of 500-word op ed columns on "Issues to Watch: State Government." Here's mine from this morning's paper on Governor Terry Branstad's promises of "transparency."
Branstad and Public Transparency Nicholas Johnson Iowa City Press-Citizen January 5, 2011, p. A7
Governor-elect Terry Branstad thinks transparency in government is a good idea.
As a general proposition, most agree. Indeed, to borrow from the bumper sticker: "It's not just a good idea; it's the law."
The difficulties come, not from the generalization, but from the specific applications and exceptions. Moreover, many public officials are unaware of their obligations.
It's called the Freedom of "Information" Act. However, as communications scholars remind us, there are dramatic differences between data, information, knowledge and wisdom. Without raw data nothing more is possible. Wisdom may be too much to hope for, let alone legislate. But it's knowledge that we need.
Few citizens rummage through the yellowing paper records in all of Iowa's 99 county courthouses. We depend on the media to tell us what our public officials are up to -- from Congress in Washington, to agencies in Des Moines, to the local school board.
Too often, public records, even with the media's reporting, provide us little more than data.
Do Iowans really want government transparency, a "government in the sunshine"? If so, we need to follow the advice "Deep Throat" gave Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, the Washington Post's Watergate break-in reporters: "Follow the money."
Much of what governments do is transfer taxpayers' money to the bottom line of for-profit corporations. Indeed, my research indicates the payback on large campaign contributions can run 1,000-to-one, or more. In Washington that means, "Give a million, get a billion." What's the ratio in Des Moines?
Paybacks can take the form of government contracts, price supports, direct subsidies and earmarks, and fraudulently named "jobs" and "economic development" programs. One of the most invisible and invidious forms of payback are "tax breaks."
There are serious issues of political ideology, public policy and finance when officials hand over taxes to for-profit corporations. One would hope those who think "socialism" is a swear word, and insist a deregulated marketplace solves all social ills, would oppose such giveaways. One would hope in vain.
So let's put those issues aside, recognize the corruption will continue, and address what improvements might help.
• First, recognize that $100,000 not paid in taxes has the same private benefit and public cost as a $100,000 corporate subsidy.
• Second, without cutting a single dollar from the taxpayers' largess put all the money on the table. Start with the worst problem: the virtually invisible and untraceable tax breaks.
• Third, identify those that exist, however deeply buried in the Iowa tax code, and repeal them.
• Fourth, make the money available, to the same recipient in the same amount, but as an identifiable appropriation for a named corporation or individual.
• Fifth, require reports, and encourage media presentation of them, that associate those appropriations with the legislators who voted for them, and how much those legislators received in campaign contributions and lobbying expenses from the recipient of the appropriation.
That's how you turn data and information into knowledge.
It remains to be seen if that's what Branstad means by "transparency."
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
I’m an Egyptian ordinary young man, activist and Engineering student. I turned 21 years old last December, I love to read and write using both Arabic and English (although my English is kind of weak). and like other thousands, or even millions of Egyptians, I was very busy since Jan25 with our revolution in Tahrir square and all Egypt. we spent very hard days in that square waiting for death to come anytime from air or ground. anyway, what happened in Tahrir is not our subject now, everyone knows what happened there. the point is that I was too busy to know full details of what’s going on in other parts of the world. I knew that people protested in Wisconsin for their rights but didn’t know more details till Thursday, the 17th of February and it was by luck through a wall post of an American friend on Facebook, then I immediately began to search it and read more, then I decided to show support! decided to make the sign and take it with me to Tahrir next morning (Friday).
Many people thought it’s something extraordinary or something that stands out. but I really want to say that me, and many other people, were raised this way. were taught that all human beings are brothers and sisters, were taught that we live in ONE world and under the same sky, so I don’t see what I did as something “abnormal” or “super cool”.
