I've been traveling quite a bit lately, which I guess is also a partial explanation for the obscene amounts of money I've been spending. But alas, alack, life has caught up with me. With the holidays behind us, and with no further adventures on the horizon (save a trial in late March, which should be pretty fun), time has come to pause and look back, and jot some notes down here about places I've been, before such details are lots.
Spent quite a lot of time in New England lately, and I have to say that, but for the winter thing, I like it. Winter is probably a deal breaker against me ever living there, but weather didn't impinge much on me seeing New England as a tourist. Winter might even added to the experience, since it's been I while since I've been in the snow. In any rate, my defining memory of the cold weather there is not focused on shivering my ass off (through the warmest coat I own) while stomping through a snowy movie-theater parking lot (AVATAR is spectacular in 3D IMAX, by the way; spend the extra money). Rather, when I think of New England winter, I tend to recall watching the wind blowing snowdrifts down from the branches of the pine trees outside the windows, as I sat in the hot-tub at the Foxwoods resort spa, between steam baths.
Yeah, that was a rough day. Let the record reflect: anyone using the term "dream home" better be imagining something with a steam bath and a whirlpool. Short of that standard, houses can be way up there, even running past "very nice," and into "spectacular." But if you use the term "dream house," there better be acceptable spa facilities.
Winter aside, New England summers are pleasantly cool and green, and the fall really does bring all those colors out on the trees. For west-coasters: you know how people from the east never seem to believe that the paintings and photos of desert sunsets really do reflect the range of colors in the reality? Same way: the trees and plants in New England really do show all those colors you see in pics and paintings.
As for specific locales, I've decided that I love Boston, and have even considered LLM programs there. The winter thing is potentially problematic, but I think spending winters in city-life is easier than any suburb-based existence. Moreso in Boston, since if I lived there, I probably wouldn't have a car.
Great town, with character all it's own, and character based not just on the truly astounding numbers of both churches and dive bars. San Francisco has vibe that you can't explain, but that everyone feels. New York is the same, but instead of a vibe, has almost electric energy. Boston has HISTORY you can feel. Between the architecture, the cemetaries, and the living tradition, Boston's accumulated centuries are tangible as you walk from the Common to Faneuil Hall, and it's not a looming uncomfortable feeling. The substantial completion of the Big Dig means there's no longer a freeway running along the waterfront, but instead a series of parks, so Boston is a GREAT town for a walking tour, and the smells of the place are spectacular. Wet stone. Unhealthy cooking. Overtones of pipe tobacco. Add in the fact that you literally cannot walk a block without passing a Dunkin Donuts or a Bank of America, and I can see that it's an easy city to live in, so long as you didn't have to drive, since that city was CLEARLY never intended to deal with vehicular traffic.
I would honestly consider living in Boston, if it could bring itself to raze the City Hall and government center, which is by far the UGLIEST expanse of architecture I have ever seen. Old City Hall, a few blocks away - which is now a Ruth's Chris steakhouse - is gorgeous. Likewise the State House (the golden dome on the hill at the corner of the Common). South Station. Feneuil Hall. Anything along Newbury Street. SO much beauty in that city. So it's amazing that the City managed to saddle itself with perhaps the ugliest municipal center known to man. I understand that this is something that Bostonians are generally embarassed about. Honestly speaking, they should be, especially if they lived there in the late 60's, and might have done something about it.
But all in all, I like Boston, and will go there again. I have no doubt that Boston will continue to be a healthy bustling city into perpetuity.
Hartford, on the other hand, is pretty clearly a city that's dying. With the insurance industry scattering its workforce out to whatever cheap office space can be found fronting on the information superhighway, the city that was the industry's physical epicenter seems to have a lot of empty buildings and broken windows. Despite being almost 400 years old, Hartford put all its eggs in one basket, and most of those eggs have been lost or gone rotten. All in all, Hartford seems to be deluding itself about how things are going to go from here, since the city focus is on more housing, instead of on more middle-class jobs.
With the top of the economic food chain drying up, there's not a whole lot of trickle down, which seems to be causing some pretty impressive gentrification. The Old Money still distinctly has their enclaves (NOBODY carries their nose higher in the air than a CT Blueblood), but there is not much in the way of a middle class. Even the insurance carriers and businesses that still maintain offices in the city have realized that it's cheaper to use generic commercial space in the suburbs and do business electronically, and I gotta believe that the number of empty offices in the downtown buildings is growing steadily. With the middle-class workforce (and related businesses and industries) fleeing for greener pastures, the city as a whole is in danger of turning into Detroit and forming burbclaves: small armed camps of the wealthy "elite," separated only by a fence from miles and miles of housing projects and neighborhoods where you can't walk the streets at night. Barring some major renaissance, I think the only real hope for Hartford is New York growing big enough and close enough to shine some light on it.
Which is a shame, since as an old city, Hartford is beautiful. I couldn't help but look at some of the (empty, falling down) red brick buildings and think that if that building was ANYWHERE in, e.g., San Diego, the building itself would be reason enough for an artists' community and a farmers market to spring up around it. What is a broken-down wreck in a Hartford suburb would be a landmark in any San Diego suburb. But San Diego is healthy and diversified, with 3 major universities, a dozen major industries, and only a minimum of cultural pretense or snobbery to weigh it down. At this point Hartford has healthy and diversified pretension and snobbery, but only a minimum of institutions and industries. I hope I'm wrong about this, but I don't think I am, and wonder what's going to happen to the city should Pratt have any sort of necking-down.
In terms of other Connecticut locations, Foxwoods is nice, especially in winter. But it's got nothing on Vegas, which is also a hell of a lot easier to get into and out of. Seriously; even if you're coming from New York, it's not all that much extra travel effort to get to Vegas.
All in all, I've decided that I really like New England as a tourist, regardless of the season. But barring a few years study at some Boston university, I will almost certainly never live there.
Turning to other locales, my other notable trip in recent months was to Nassau. Specifically, to Paradise Island. Which these days is just another way of saying "The Atlantis Resort and Casino," which takes up about 90% of the island, with notable exceptions being Nicholas Cage's house, a yoga retreat, and the hole-in-the-wall hotel I stayed at. (Club Land'Or. Was funny: for a lost kingdom, Atlantis was pretty distinct, but everybody - especially at Atlantis - seemed to be telling themselves that Club Land'Or didn't really exist at all.) You can count on your fingers the number of properties on Paradise Island that are NOT part of Atlantis.
This is neither a good thing nor a bad thing, although I gotta believe that on the whole, Atlantis has done vast damage to the economy of Nassau. Aside from Paradise/Atlantis and a surprisingly small downtown area catering to the cruise-ship port, Nassau is pretty clearly a third-world country. Most of the small shops, bars, and so forth outside those areas have closed, which is a bad sign for an island nation who's primary industry is tourism. The fact is that Atlantis has pushed out everything else. This is a problem since Atlantis is really not an every-mans' travel destination. Too expensive. Rooms are hundreds of dollars a night. A cocktail costs $12. Don't ask about food prices. Nearly the entire tourism market is under Atlantis' thumb, and they've set prices high.
Which is not such a good thing in these economic times. The marina is packed with million-dollar mega-yachts, and the Elton John and Michael Jackson suites (each $25,000 a night) are booked for the next five years. But there are lots of empty rooms in the hotel towers, and not a lot of people wandering the shops and restaurants. With Atlantis clearly catering to people with fuck-you money, and with Atlantis pushing out everything that's NOT Atlantis, I expect more and more middle-money people who might be going to Nassau will be headed instead to Freeport, Kingston, or the BVIs. This will not be a good thing for the Bahamas as a whole. If nothing else there's not a whole lot of local color left to enjoy; it's been commercialized and centralized, at Atlantis. Most or all of Nassau's restaurants, clubs, bars, taco stands, or what have you are closed down, boarded up, and places you'd worry about walking through the neighborhood after dark. We didn't make it to Cable Beach, so there might be signs of life there, but otherwise, luxury facilities at luxury prices was pretty much the name of the game.
All that having been said, Paradise Island was a GREAT place to spend a week hanging around and celebrating birthdays with friends. Beach weather was acceptable-to-good in the middle of January. Food was expensive, but had large portions. Drinks were expensive, but high in alcohol content. If what you're looking for is casual, low-speed relaxation, and can bring yourself to not fret about costs, Atlantis and its environs are the place to be.
And if you feel the need for an adventure, you can find that in Nassau as well: just take a ride with Bahama John (Cell: 242-477-2716) (Yes, I got his card; only one I kept from the trip). He was our cab driver from the hotel back to the airport, which means he essentially drove us the length of the island. HO-LEE SHIT what a ride. First of all, the Bahamas is one of those places where "lane lines" are really just "guidelines." Since it's a two-lane road for most of the way from Paradise to the airport, and since it's fairly common to get stuck behind, e.g., a backhoe or other piece of heavy machinery, it's completely routine for cabdrivers to swerve suddenly in front of other drivers, pass on the wrong side, pass on the right side in the face of oncoming traffic, and so forth.
Now. Imagine if Mad Max had a psychotic, rum-soaked, Caribbean cab-driver uncle. That's Bahamma John. To his credit, we made if from Land'Or Resort to the International Terminal in absolutely astounding time, notwithstanding fairly heavy traffic, and without a single instance of physical contact with another vehicle or stationary object. You could at least slide a piece of paper between John's minivan and our closest passage to whatever the other object might be. There were a few times where there might not have been enough room for TWO sheets of paper, but we did emerge from the ride unscathed, as our driver's skill somehow balanced out his driving style, at least for the limited duration of that trip. Severe damage to parts of the vehicle suggested that this was not always the case, but while he was under our employ, the guy was a true road warrior. And I say that even though my usual mind-set is that cab-drivers are nominally tied with mimes and performance artists for the title of "lowest form of life on earth."
Still. Imagine being confronted with the World's Greatest Taxidermist. You find him a bit odd, or even disturbing personally. His profession seems unquestionably distasteful. But you can't help but appreciate his ability as a master within his field. Notwithstanding any terror inspired by the ride, and notwithstanding cold sweats at even the idea of sharing the road with the bastard, I have total respect for Bahama John as a cab driver, and he definitely provided a lively ride, well worth the ticket price.
Highlights of our trip included at at least 17 major cuttings-off of other drivers (memorably including swerving from a turn-lane into the #1 position at a stop-light, pulling ahead of and bypassing seven cars already waiting in the que at that light), nearly getting run off the road by a semi-truck while passing on the wrong side, John pointing out where his brother had been killed in (surprise!) a car accident, several instances of passing by "making space" in the middle of a two-lane road, with traffic coming at 55 mph in the other direction, and any number of slamming on the brakes to avoid any number of eminent collisions with other vehicles. And never once did any of this interrupt his ongoing narration of notable points of Nassau's history and geography, save only for sparking supplemental commentary about how other people on the roads were all assholes and shitty drivers.
It was AWESOME, in a choose-now-whether-to-laugh-or-cry, fingernails-dug-into-the-dashboard kind of way, where terror somehow turns into hilarity, based on nothing more than the driver's "business as usual" demeanor.
So all in all, it's been an interesting few months, and I'm looking forward to where the next few months might take me. Might even find a little more time to write between now and then. Which is always helped by people prodding and poking me to get off my ass and produce something, by the way. Hint hint.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Friday, December 11, 2009
Team Ownership
Reading through the morning's headlines, and having gotten past the obituaries (where I usually start, in the hopes of reading something that might make my day) and back to the headlines, I observed that Mr. Most High, through his various underlings, commenced with placing limitations on the salaries that Americans are allowed to earn. Salary Czar Ken Feinberg has established that the maximum salary that can be earned by most workers at what are now government-subsidized banks and automakers (notably GM, AIG, and Citigroup) can no longer receive cash compensation exceeding $500,000 a year.
This is not really that surprising, as capping salaries is the dark underbelly of entitlement culture.
Generally speaking, salaries are what they are based on demands of the market: cheap labor is cheap for a reason, and professional help is expensive because it requires a skilled professional. Real easy to decide to place limits on what a person can earn when you've never met them, don't know how hard they've worked to get to where they are, and never-mind that you yourself would probably be incapable of understanding what they do, much less do it yourself. Take professional athletes as the halcyon example. Alex Rodriquez really doesn't seem to work all that hard for his millions, does he? But that fact that he doesn't seem to work hard is irrelevant in light of a simple supply and demand consideration: there is only one guy on the planet that can do the things he can do, and that guy's name is Alex Rodriquez. The market has set a price for retaining his skill-set, based on levels of demand. By doing what he does - which nobody else can do - he EARNS his money, with his own skill and industry.
That's how a free market works: prices are set by market considerations, with demand establishing price, and where skilled, industrious, capable workers earn more and move up by dint of being better, and in more demand than their fellows. Where earning and lifestyle are based on the capability of the worker, such worker's earnings and lifestyle are limited only the capabilities of the worker.
But when lifestyle is dictated from On High based on 'entitlement,' those pesky groundings in reality go away. Rather, we profess morality and arbitrary determinations dressed as 'fairness,' where the expressed goal is to provide a 'minimum standard' of living. To 'balance the playing field.' Which is a total crock of shit socially and realistically, since no amount of boosts and reassurances can make different people equal. Yes, God and the law weigh us all equally. But bosses don't, and with good reason: all employees are not equal. This is a point which the Left feels it tantamount to blasphemy to express, since it's 'unfair' and 'immoral.' But the bottom line is that disparate salaries exist for a reason, and that reason is economic, not political. The failure to recognize the primacy of economics over idealism has always been, and will always be, the greatest shortcoming of the liberal mind.
This placing of salary caps is the backlash of this divorcing decisions from economics. Of course the government feels entitled to place these caps. They have the right because the government effectively owns these companies. And they have no problems justifying the decision as made in the interest of 'fairness.' What is it that those people do that really entitles them to more than $500,000 a year? Their work can't be that difficult! Not only is it justifiable to cut those salaries, it's practically a moral imperative!
Perfectly reasonable to a liberal. Again, when lifestyle is dictated from On High based on morality and arbitrary determinations dressed as 'fairness,' the expressed goal is to provide a 'minimum standard' of living. To 'balance the playing field. But when lifestyle is dictated from On High based on morality and arbitrary determinations dresses as 'fairness,' salaries no longer need have any relation to the skill, expertise, or industry of the job or the person doing the job. The end result is salaries being divorced from the capabilities of the worker, which is after all the goal of the entitlement mindset.
But raise your hand if you think this represents a sound economic precedent?
What this salary cap means is that the best and the brightest at these business - where there is no longer even the pretense that they are separate from the Federal government - are going to leave and go work for the competition. The chairs they fill at GM and Citigroup also exist at competing businesses, and it's only the government-owned ones that have these restrictions. This will necessarily create an economic trend: the best and the brightest will follow the higher salaries to other companies. The government-owned companies will then need to fill the chairs with the relative dregs of the candidates. They will lose their best employees to the competition, from whom they will inherit the worst employees. With the end result that the government-owned industries will have a substantial talent deficit in relation to their business competition.
Take the Baltimore Orioles, for instance. They get whipped on EVERY YEAR. Why? Because the teams they compete against (Yankess, Red Sox, etc.) spend a lot more on salaries, both on management and in filling the worker positions. The competition therefor has a hell of a lot more talent. From the top down, Baltimore is second-rate as a business entity. Feel free to substitute any of the Oakland Raiders, the Golden State Warriors, or the Minnesota Wild in place of the Orioles, but the ends result is simple: Congratulations, citizens, your taxdollars were and are being spent to subsidize the Baltimore Orioles of the banking and automotive markets.
The really funny part about all this is that the salary caps are not universal, as they do not apply to the top-25 earners, either at GM or at Citigroup. Merely to the 26th on down. Those at the top can still make millions. Which should surprise nobody who has been paying attention. If you have even the slightest doubt about Barack Obama having sold his soul and this country out to the benefit of his personal friends (not businesses or special interests, but INDIVIDUALS), read this article. Because all those guys in the (salary-cap exempt) top 25 at the big firms? Those are the limousine liberals that are playing the Obama administration like a harp.
Makes you proud to be an American, doesn't it?
This is not really that surprising, as capping salaries is the dark underbelly of entitlement culture.
Generally speaking, salaries are what they are based on demands of the market: cheap labor is cheap for a reason, and professional help is expensive because it requires a skilled professional. Real easy to decide to place limits on what a person can earn when you've never met them, don't know how hard they've worked to get to where they are, and never-mind that you yourself would probably be incapable of understanding what they do, much less do it yourself. Take professional athletes as the halcyon example. Alex Rodriquez really doesn't seem to work all that hard for his millions, does he? But that fact that he doesn't seem to work hard is irrelevant in light of a simple supply and demand consideration: there is only one guy on the planet that can do the things he can do, and that guy's name is Alex Rodriquez. The market has set a price for retaining his skill-set, based on levels of demand. By doing what he does - which nobody else can do - he EARNS his money, with his own skill and industry.
That's how a free market works: prices are set by market considerations, with demand establishing price, and where skilled, industrious, capable workers earn more and move up by dint of being better, and in more demand than their fellows. Where earning and lifestyle are based on the capability of the worker, such worker's earnings and lifestyle are limited only the capabilities of the worker.
But when lifestyle is dictated from On High based on 'entitlement,' those pesky groundings in reality go away. Rather, we profess morality and arbitrary determinations dressed as 'fairness,' where the expressed goal is to provide a 'minimum standard' of living. To 'balance the playing field.' Which is a total crock of shit socially and realistically, since no amount of boosts and reassurances can make different people equal. Yes, God and the law weigh us all equally. But bosses don't, and with good reason: all employees are not equal. This is a point which the Left feels it tantamount to blasphemy to express, since it's 'unfair' and 'immoral.' But the bottom line is that disparate salaries exist for a reason, and that reason is economic, not political. The failure to recognize the primacy of economics over idealism has always been, and will always be, the greatest shortcoming of the liberal mind.
This placing of salary caps is the backlash of this divorcing decisions from economics. Of course the government feels entitled to place these caps. They have the right because the government effectively owns these companies. And they have no problems justifying the decision as made in the interest of 'fairness.' What is it that those people do that really entitles them to more than $500,000 a year? Their work can't be that difficult! Not only is it justifiable to cut those salaries, it's practically a moral imperative!
Perfectly reasonable to a liberal. Again, when lifestyle is dictated from On High based on morality and arbitrary determinations dressed as 'fairness,' the expressed goal is to provide a 'minimum standard' of living. To 'balance the playing field. But when lifestyle is dictated from On High based on morality and arbitrary determinations dresses as 'fairness,' salaries no longer need have any relation to the skill, expertise, or industry of the job or the person doing the job. The end result is salaries being divorced from the capabilities of the worker, which is after all the goal of the entitlement mindset.
But raise your hand if you think this represents a sound economic precedent?
What this salary cap means is that the best and the brightest at these business - where there is no longer even the pretense that they are separate from the Federal government - are going to leave and go work for the competition. The chairs they fill at GM and Citigroup also exist at competing businesses, and it's only the government-owned ones that have these restrictions. This will necessarily create an economic trend: the best and the brightest will follow the higher salaries to other companies. The government-owned companies will then need to fill the chairs with the relative dregs of the candidates. They will lose their best employees to the competition, from whom they will inherit the worst employees. With the end result that the government-owned industries will have a substantial talent deficit in relation to their business competition.
Take the Baltimore Orioles, for instance. They get whipped on EVERY YEAR. Why? Because the teams they compete against (Yankess, Red Sox, etc.) spend a lot more on salaries, both on management and in filling the worker positions. The competition therefor has a hell of a lot more talent. From the top down, Baltimore is second-rate as a business entity. Feel free to substitute any of the Oakland Raiders, the Golden State Warriors, or the Minnesota Wild in place of the Orioles, but the ends result is simple: Congratulations, citizens, your taxdollars were and are being spent to subsidize the Baltimore Orioles of the banking and automotive markets.
The really funny part about all this is that the salary caps are not universal, as they do not apply to the top-25 earners, either at GM or at Citigroup. Merely to the 26th on down. Those at the top can still make millions. Which should surprise nobody who has been paying attention. If you have even the slightest doubt about Barack Obama having sold his soul and this country out to the benefit of his personal friends (not businesses or special interests, but INDIVIDUALS), read this article. Because all those guys in the (salary-cap exempt) top 25 at the big firms? Those are the limousine liberals that are playing the Obama administration like a harp.
Makes you proud to be an American, doesn't it?
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Bureaucracy
My brother Sneaky Weasel ('SW' hereinafter; as mentioned, we all have code-names) lives in a small town in the pacific northwest. It's nice up there. Green. I don't think I could ever live there (the nearest "civilization" is Eugene, OR, and if you have to ask, you wouldn't understand), but it's good for his outdoorsy lifestyle, and only moderately damaging to his kids. This way, he can be fairly sure that his kids are fucked up because of their family and upbringing, instead of their friends, school, or other societal factors. But it's good having him up there, since visiting is essentially a vacation in the woods, and about as stark a change from the Las Vegas deserts as can be imagined. It's fun sledding over the winter visits, and paintballing over of the summer visits. While it's (VERY) far from perfect, it does okay for SW and his family.
But at some point along the way, SW got volunteered or otherwise talked in to being a city councilman. For my other brother (GL), a government position would be endless schmoozing and having a good time, devoid of actual responsibility. But not so much for SW, who kinda likes to get things done expediently. Here's a little anecdote.
There is a cracked water main beneath one of the streets in SW's very small town. Not a gusher mind you, but still serious enough that there are standing puddles in the area, and as might eventually lead to some sort of subsidence, which is never a good thing in a downtown area. For most rational people, including SW, this seems like a pretty clear issue with a pretty clear solution. Unfortunately, it turns out that Oregon is essentially Massachusetts West in it's political leanings: SO FAR TO THE LEFT, THEY'RE BACK AROUND TO THE RIGHT. After all, this is the place where the modern tree-hugger was born. With such liberals calling the shots and making the laws, it is pretty much impossible to get anything done. Here's a dramatized account:
SW: "Hey, how about if we get someone to fix that cracked water main? We're losing money, and it would be good if we dealt with it before it gets worse."
Drone(s): "We'll need to get a licensed contractor."
SW: "Okay. How about if we get a licensed contractor to fix that cracked water main? We're losing money, and it would be good if we dealt with if before it gets worse."
Drone(s): "Well, to pick a contractor, we need to put the job out for bidding. Then we have to wait a period while bids are submitted. Then there's a review period for for the bids, and a vetting process. Then we'll have to address the bids and bid selection in a publicly noticed City Council meeting, so the public has a chance to comment and express their concerns. In the meantime we can get started on requesting the construction permits from the county and the state. Also get started on an environmental impact report, which we'll need to farm out to a state-certified inspector. Once we have a contractor selected, we can get in touch with OSHA so they can come out and look at the site for safety reasons, since the leak is beneath a public street..."
SW: "The city is losing money EVERY day from water just seeping into the ground. How long is all this going to take?"
Drone(s): "About three or four months to select a contractor. That should be long enough to get the permits lined up as well, so long as we pay the 'rush' fees in addition to the usual rates. I don't know how long the OSHA waiting list is at the moment. They won't even talk to us until we have a contractor selected."
SW: "And I guess that OSHA is not going to do their part for free, are they?"
Drone(s): "Nope."
SW: "Okay. So we have to pay peoples' tax-dollars to have all this contractor selection process. We have to pay more to get the permits. Then pay for the environmental impact study. Then pay OSHA for them to rubber-stamp the project. Probably a few other people to pay for rubber-stamps. We also have to pay for all the water we're losing while all this is happening. Then, of course, we still have to pay to get the work done."
Drone(s): "By a licensed contractor, yes."
(Several seconds of silence.)
SW: "How about if we just ignored all that shit. Have somebody go out there some night, dig up the street and fix the pipe?"
Drone(s): "That's illegal. The state would fine us."
SW: "How much is the fine? Is it less than the cost of doing it legally? Crunch the numbers. Be sure to include the value of the lost 300,000 gallons we'll have to pay for if we wait four months to start digging."
Our government bureaucracy has actually reached the point where corruption and blatant disregard for the law is the only way to get things done efficiently and cost effectively. Every lawyer in the country gets taught in law school about the theory of "efficient breach," which is the idea that sometimes it's more efficient to ignore a legal obligation (and bear the consequences) than it is to adhere to the obligation. That's what happens when a pro sports team fires a coach who is under contract: the team is still bound to the contract terms requiring them to pay the coach, which contractual obligation is unaffected by the firing. But when a coach really is that bad, and you're already on the hook for his salary anyway, sometimes it's better to just eat the loss of his ongoing salary and go in a different direction than it is to continue to let the guy 'work.' In situations like that, "efficient breach" has a long-standing tradition.
But it depresses the hell out of me that municipalities in this country are considering "efficient breach" arguments regarding the laws that theoretically govern their own actions and functions. Because things should not reach the point where those sort of de facto insurrections should be necessary just to repair a fucking leaking pipe.
But don't worry. Barack is going to fix everything. He's going to pass some legislation. Call for reform. Appoint a Czar and commission a special committee to perform a six-month study of the matter, and make recommendations. Don't worry. The matter is being addressed, but you really can't expect results overnight. Just give us time. Don't call us, we'll call you.
And that health care thing? Don't worry about that. Once that's under government control, it will be model of efficiency...
But at some point along the way, SW got volunteered or otherwise talked in to being a city councilman. For my other brother (GL), a government position would be endless schmoozing and having a good time, devoid of actual responsibility. But not so much for SW, who kinda likes to get things done expediently. Here's a little anecdote.
There is a cracked water main beneath one of the streets in SW's very small town. Not a gusher mind you, but still serious enough that there are standing puddles in the area, and as might eventually lead to some sort of subsidence, which is never a good thing in a downtown area. For most rational people, including SW, this seems like a pretty clear issue with a pretty clear solution. Unfortunately, it turns out that Oregon is essentially Massachusetts West in it's political leanings: SO FAR TO THE LEFT, THEY'RE BACK AROUND TO THE RIGHT. After all, this is the place where the modern tree-hugger was born. With such liberals calling the shots and making the laws, it is pretty much impossible to get anything done. Here's a dramatized account:
SW: "Hey, how about if we get someone to fix that cracked water main? We're losing money, and it would be good if we dealt with it before it gets worse."
Drone(s): "We'll need to get a licensed contractor."
SW: "Okay. How about if we get a licensed contractor to fix that cracked water main? We're losing money, and it would be good if we dealt with if before it gets worse."
Drone(s): "Well, to pick a contractor, we need to put the job out for bidding. Then we have to wait a period while bids are submitted. Then there's a review period for for the bids, and a vetting process. Then we'll have to address the bids and bid selection in a publicly noticed City Council meeting, so the public has a chance to comment and express their concerns. In the meantime we can get started on requesting the construction permits from the county and the state. Also get started on an environmental impact report, which we'll need to farm out to a state-certified inspector. Once we have a contractor selected, we can get in touch with OSHA so they can come out and look at the site for safety reasons, since the leak is beneath a public street..."
SW: "The city is losing money EVERY day from water just seeping into the ground. How long is all this going to take?"
Drone(s): "About three or four months to select a contractor. That should be long enough to get the permits lined up as well, so long as we pay the 'rush' fees in addition to the usual rates. I don't know how long the OSHA waiting list is at the moment. They won't even talk to us until we have a contractor selected."
SW: "And I guess that OSHA is not going to do their part for free, are they?"
Drone(s): "Nope."
SW: "Okay. So we have to pay peoples' tax-dollars to have all this contractor selection process. We have to pay more to get the permits. Then pay for the environmental impact study. Then pay OSHA for them to rubber-stamp the project. Probably a few other people to pay for rubber-stamps. We also have to pay for all the water we're losing while all this is happening. Then, of course, we still have to pay to get the work done."
Drone(s): "By a licensed contractor, yes."
(Several seconds of silence.)
SW: "How about if we just ignored all that shit. Have somebody go out there some night, dig up the street and fix the pipe?"
Drone(s): "That's illegal. The state would fine us."
SW: "How much is the fine? Is it less than the cost of doing it legally? Crunch the numbers. Be sure to include the value of the lost 300,000 gallons we'll have to pay for if we wait four months to start digging."
Our government bureaucracy has actually reached the point where corruption and blatant disregard for the law is the only way to get things done efficiently and cost effectively. Every lawyer in the country gets taught in law school about the theory of "efficient breach," which is the idea that sometimes it's more efficient to ignore a legal obligation (and bear the consequences) than it is to adhere to the obligation. That's what happens when a pro sports team fires a coach who is under contract: the team is still bound to the contract terms requiring them to pay the coach, which contractual obligation is unaffected by the firing. But when a coach really is that bad, and you're already on the hook for his salary anyway, sometimes it's better to just eat the loss of his ongoing salary and go in a different direction than it is to continue to let the guy 'work.' In situations like that, "efficient breach" has a long-standing tradition.
But it depresses the hell out of me that municipalities in this country are considering "efficient breach" arguments regarding the laws that theoretically govern their own actions and functions. Because things should not reach the point where those sort of de facto insurrections should be necessary just to repair a fucking leaking pipe.
But don't worry. Barack is going to fix everything. He's going to pass some legislation. Call for reform. Appoint a Czar and commission a special committee to perform a six-month study of the matter, and make recommendations. Don't worry. The matter is being addressed, but you really can't expect results overnight. Just give us time. Don't call us, we'll call you.
And that health care thing? Don't worry about that. Once that's under government control, it will be model of efficiency...
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Dilemmas
As I trust is clear from various prior posts, I'm neither shy nor even a little apologetic that I own and enjoy shooting firearms. I think being an avid shooter goes a long way towards enjoying American heritage, as well as being a good skill to have when the undead start climbing from their graves. That was a joke. But a joke with a point: I will almost certainly never be in a position where being able to shoot is important, but if shooting is ever important, it's probably going to be REALLY important. And is a fun hobby in the meantime.
Since my own firearm aspirations are pretty much satisfied (with one exception), the only firearm shopping I really do these days is with (or for) other people, with varying results, and with the best results occasionally coming when people ignore my advice. But whatever. Then this morning, an old friend asked me about the merits of 9mm vs. 45.
Oh boy.
This is a subject that sees extended debate. Seriously; you would not believe the amount of discussion and arguments (which often devolve into flame-wars) online over something as simple as one-tenth of an inch of slug diameter. But there is heated debate, with the semi-traditionalists extolling the virtues of the Most Holy .45 to young whippersnappers in the 9mm mafia, who retort by criticizing weight, recoil, and ammunition capacity.
To be fair, both sides have their points. The generally accepted .45 gold standard is the .45 ACP (Automatic Colt Pistol) round, fired by the universally recognized Colt .45 automatic pistol. Which is actually called the Model 1911, after the year of first production. Yes, the Colt .45 design is about a hundred years old, and is still in MASSIVE production by at least six major manufacturers.
The design was created in response to a specific challenge that was being faced by the United States Army, which was at the time in the process of "pacifying" various islands in the South Pacific, notably including the Philippines. The problem was that GIs were getting killed by crazed Philippino freedom fighters, who would charge the GIs through a hail of pistol fire to attack with machetes. At the time, the standard US Army pistol was a .38 caliber revolver. Although the .38 was fully capable of killing people, it sometimes took people minutes or hours to die from the fairly small holes it made in them. This just didn't work for the soldiers who, for machete-attack based reasons, really couldn't wait that long for results to come through. They kinda needed the 'bad guys' to go down as soon as they were shot.
Enter the Colt .45. Although there are some semi-exotic rounds in circulation (.454 Casull, .50 AE, etc.) the .45 ACP is by far the most common large-caliber pistol in the world. For day to day use by The Common Man, it is simply as big as it gets. This means several things. First, ammo capacity tends to be limited, since the cartridges are big, and the main design (the Colt 1911) pre-dates double-stack magazine designs. A 1911 will only hold 8 rounds in the magazine (but newer designs like the Glock 21 will hold 13). Second, both the ammo and the pistol firing it are fairly heavy. A 1911 weighs 2.5 pounds empty. Third, despite the heavy platform, recoil is fairly fierce, and even a guy my size can have problems keeping the thing reigned in, in event that several shots need to be fired in rapid succession. It is a fucking beast of a pistol. Finally, and most importantly, a center-mass hit with a .45 will in fact stop a crazed guy who's charging at you with a machete, whereas history indicates that a smaller round might serve only to further annoy him.
There is absolutely nothing subtle about .45 pistols, much the same way there's nothing subtle about a Harley, or a '69 Camaro. And in a similar vein, all of those things have an intrinsic amount of class and/or sexiness, regardless of age or circumstance.
Turning to the 9mm, it is first important to point out that the modern 9mm Parabellum round (the universally accepted "9mm," although there are actually a few different chamberings of 9mm) is ballistically very similar to the .38 US Army round that was replaced by the .45. The 9mm round does have a lot going for, primarily that it is a lot smaller and lighter than a .45. Whereas a .45 is a beast of a handgun, which places sizable physical demands on the shooter, a 9mm can be managed by just about anyone. Being much more user-friendly, it takes less strength, less practice, and thus less training time to learn to use a 9mm, all of which are important.
Whereas you need to practice at least occasionally to get and maintain the ability to really use a .45 (especially if you plan on firing more than one shot), even a casual shooter can reliably get good results with a 9mm. The US Army's switch to the M9 (the current-issue U.S. service pistol, which is essentially a 9mm Beretta 92F - think Mel Gibson in 'Lethal Weapon') was based at least in part on the fact that lots of soldiers (including many women, in the modern Army) don't have the physical strength to qualify with the 1911. Incidentally, this was not a new problem with the 1911; one of the reasons for the WWII-era development of the M1 Carbine to compliment the M1 Garard rifle was that officers and support personnel who didn't need a Garand and who couldn't qualify with the 1911 still needed a weapon to carry.
While the 9mm lacks the raw power of the .45, it is still fully capable of killing people, as evidenced by the fact that it is historically the most common combat pistol caliber in the world. While it might not stop a man in his tracks with a single pull of the trigger, it absolutely has the power to kill. And that acceptable killing power (while less than the .45) is compounded by the fact that the 9mm is easy to shoot. This means that a lot of people can shoot it, which means a lot of manufacturers build them, which in turn means that most modern pistol-design improvements are centered on the caliber. A lot of people believe (with good justification) that the best overall handguns in the world are made by Glock, which got its start by satisfying an early-80s German military design contract for a combat pistol to replace the WWII-era P38. Since that time, the original production model (the Glock 17) has become standard issue for many NATO armies, and is also the most widely used police pistol in the world. Glock has spun off multiple (mechanically identical) pistols in all sorts of other calibers, incidentally including the .45 caliber Glock 21, 37, and 38. (They're great guns; do a search on youtube for 'Glock torture test.' Fun stuff.) But in keeping with discussion of the 9mm, there is no denying that it is much MUCH more mainstream than the .45, especially in the global market, for ergonomic reasons. Besides being easier to shoot, the smaller round also leads to big benefits like a lighter pistol that will hold more bullets. A Glock 17, for example, weighs about 22 oz. empty, and will fit 17 rounds in the standard magazine. That's more than twice the ammo that a 1911 holds. If you have to shoot a lot, 9mm is definitely the way to go.
But this doesn't change the inherent problem that was faced back in 1911: small caliber handguns are easy to use, and fully capable of killing people. But if you're facing crazed people charging at you with sharp instruments (or similar dire circumstances), you will probably wish you had something bigger to shoot them with. (There's really no such thing as a 'minor wound' from a .45.) Unfortunately, larger bullets means fewer bullets, and a heavier, harder-to-use-well handgun. Like any other highly evolved field, choosing one or the other comes down to which design compromise works best for you. So maybe it's time to consult some experts, of which there are plenty, it turns out.
The modern structure of warfighting means that, in addition to the regular grunts who go out in the field with equipment that is issued to them whether they like it or not, there are now all sorts of people who go into battle with their own choices of weapons. Besides semi-mercenaries attached to NGOs, high-end special forces guys like SEALS and related units have broad discretion to choose for themselves what gear they are going to use. This actually leads to all sorts of interesting points. Take for example, vehicles. A SEAL team headed across the desert to blow some shit up can choose anything they want to get the job done. The standard U.S. military vehicle is the ubiquitous Hummer. But when they have their own druthers, SEAL teams tend to ride into combat not in Hummers, but in 4-door V8 Toyota Tundra pickups. They don't break, a little work gets AMAZING performance out the V8 engines, and the air-conditioning is much MUCH better than in a Hummer. Toyota cannot BUY press like that, which essentially asserts that the top-shelf special-ops truck in the world today is in fact a Toyota.
But the point is that if you really want to know what the best overall gear in the world it, the wonders of the internet means that you can just simply ask the best guys in the world what they use. They're not shy; they'll tell you. And, having looked into the matter, it strikes me that a lot of those guys carry 9mm Glocks, with the semi-compact Glock-19 at or near the top of the list. Likewise USAF pilots; they can choose what pistol to pack as a survival weapon, should they get shot down. The Glock 19 is the overwhelming favorite. I'm really not a Glock fanboy, since they just feel wrong in my hand. But I have recently partaken of the Glock Kool-Aid, and honestly speaking, if you're going to own just one handgun, it should probably be a 9mm Glock.
Unless, of course, you live in California. In which case, you'll need to go to a gunstore, and find out the current state of the law in that State, especially since there are all new laws restricting firearm sales. Those new laws - IIRC - mean that you can't own a 1911 OR a Glock 19. In terms of caliber choice, one of the principal high points of the 9mm round is that you can carry a lot of ammo. But California bans magazines which carry more than 10 rounds, thus obviating one of the biggest benefits of 9mm. Absent a lot of ammo, it's probably a good idea to make the ammo you have count, and lean towards a larger slug. With California's laws taking away most of the benefit of 9mm pistols, anyone living there would probably do better with something larger, meaning a .45. It's much more powerful, can carry about as many rounds as a CA-legal 9mm, and ammo is only slightly more expensive these days. It is absolutely NOT as easy and user-friendly to shoot, but is still quite manageable, and even fun to shoot.
So, if you're allowed to have one, get yourself a Glock 19. If you live in California, see if you can find a Glock 37 or 38.
Since my own firearm aspirations are pretty much satisfied (with one exception), the only firearm shopping I really do these days is with (or for) other people, with varying results, and with the best results occasionally coming when people ignore my advice. But whatever. Then this morning, an old friend asked me about the merits of 9mm vs. 45.
Oh boy.
This is a subject that sees extended debate. Seriously; you would not believe the amount of discussion and arguments (which often devolve into flame-wars) online over something as simple as one-tenth of an inch of slug diameter. But there is heated debate, with the semi-traditionalists extolling the virtues of the Most Holy .45 to young whippersnappers in the 9mm mafia, who retort by criticizing weight, recoil, and ammunition capacity.
To be fair, both sides have their points. The generally accepted .45 gold standard is the .45 ACP (Automatic Colt Pistol) round, fired by the universally recognized Colt .45 automatic pistol. Which is actually called the Model 1911, after the year of first production. Yes, the Colt .45 design is about a hundred years old, and is still in MASSIVE production by at least six major manufacturers.
The design was created in response to a specific challenge that was being faced by the United States Army, which was at the time in the process of "pacifying" various islands in the South Pacific, notably including the Philippines. The problem was that GIs were getting killed by crazed Philippino freedom fighters, who would charge the GIs through a hail of pistol fire to attack with machetes. At the time, the standard US Army pistol was a .38 caliber revolver. Although the .38 was fully capable of killing people, it sometimes took people minutes or hours to die from the fairly small holes it made in them. This just didn't work for the soldiers who, for machete-attack based reasons, really couldn't wait that long for results to come through. They kinda needed the 'bad guys' to go down as soon as they were shot.
Enter the Colt .45. Although there are some semi-exotic rounds in circulation (.454 Casull, .50 AE, etc.) the .45 ACP is by far the most common large-caliber pistol in the world. For day to day use by The Common Man, it is simply as big as it gets. This means several things. First, ammo capacity tends to be limited, since the cartridges are big, and the main design (the Colt 1911) pre-dates double-stack magazine designs. A 1911 will only hold 8 rounds in the magazine (but newer designs like the Glock 21 will hold 13). Second, both the ammo and the pistol firing it are fairly heavy. A 1911 weighs 2.5 pounds empty. Third, despite the heavy platform, recoil is fairly fierce, and even a guy my size can have problems keeping the thing reigned in, in event that several shots need to be fired in rapid succession. It is a fucking beast of a pistol. Finally, and most importantly, a center-mass hit with a .45 will in fact stop a crazed guy who's charging at you with a machete, whereas history indicates that a smaller round might serve only to further annoy him.
There is absolutely nothing subtle about .45 pistols, much the same way there's nothing subtle about a Harley, or a '69 Camaro. And in a similar vein, all of those things have an intrinsic amount of class and/or sexiness, regardless of age or circumstance.
Turning to the 9mm, it is first important to point out that the modern 9mm Parabellum round (the universally accepted "9mm," although there are actually a few different chamberings of 9mm) is ballistically very similar to the .38 US Army round that was replaced by the .45. The 9mm round does have a lot going for, primarily that it is a lot smaller and lighter than a .45. Whereas a .45 is a beast of a handgun, which places sizable physical demands on the shooter, a 9mm can be managed by just about anyone. Being much more user-friendly, it takes less strength, less practice, and thus less training time to learn to use a 9mm, all of which are important.
Whereas you need to practice at least occasionally to get and maintain the ability to really use a .45 (especially if you plan on firing more than one shot), even a casual shooter can reliably get good results with a 9mm. The US Army's switch to the M9 (the current-issue U.S. service pistol, which is essentially a 9mm Beretta 92F - think Mel Gibson in 'Lethal Weapon') was based at least in part on the fact that lots of soldiers (including many women, in the modern Army) don't have the physical strength to qualify with the 1911. Incidentally, this was not a new problem with the 1911; one of the reasons for the WWII-era development of the M1 Carbine to compliment the M1 Garard rifle was that officers and support personnel who didn't need a Garand and who couldn't qualify with the 1911 still needed a weapon to carry.
While the 9mm lacks the raw power of the .45, it is still fully capable of killing people, as evidenced by the fact that it is historically the most common combat pistol caliber in the world. While it might not stop a man in his tracks with a single pull of the trigger, it absolutely has the power to kill. And that acceptable killing power (while less than the .45) is compounded by the fact that the 9mm is easy to shoot. This means that a lot of people can shoot it, which means a lot of manufacturers build them, which in turn means that most modern pistol-design improvements are centered on the caliber. A lot of people believe (with good justification) that the best overall handguns in the world are made by Glock, which got its start by satisfying an early-80s German military design contract for a combat pistol to replace the WWII-era P38. Since that time, the original production model (the Glock 17) has become standard issue for many NATO armies, and is also the most widely used police pistol in the world. Glock has spun off multiple (mechanically identical) pistols in all sorts of other calibers, incidentally including the .45 caliber Glock 21, 37, and 38. (They're great guns; do a search on youtube for 'Glock torture test.' Fun stuff.) But in keeping with discussion of the 9mm, there is no denying that it is much MUCH more mainstream than the .45, especially in the global market, for ergonomic reasons. Besides being easier to shoot, the smaller round also leads to big benefits like a lighter pistol that will hold more bullets. A Glock 17, for example, weighs about 22 oz. empty, and will fit 17 rounds in the standard magazine. That's more than twice the ammo that a 1911 holds. If you have to shoot a lot, 9mm is definitely the way to go.
But this doesn't change the inherent problem that was faced back in 1911: small caliber handguns are easy to use, and fully capable of killing people. But if you're facing crazed people charging at you with sharp instruments (or similar dire circumstances), you will probably wish you had something bigger to shoot them with. (There's really no such thing as a 'minor wound' from a .45.) Unfortunately, larger bullets means fewer bullets, and a heavier, harder-to-use-well handgun. Like any other highly evolved field, choosing one or the other comes down to which design compromise works best for you. So maybe it's time to consult some experts, of which there are plenty, it turns out.
The modern structure of warfighting means that, in addition to the regular grunts who go out in the field with equipment that is issued to them whether they like it or not, there are now all sorts of people who go into battle with their own choices of weapons. Besides semi-mercenaries attached to NGOs, high-end special forces guys like SEALS and related units have broad discretion to choose for themselves what gear they are going to use. This actually leads to all sorts of interesting points. Take for example, vehicles. A SEAL team headed across the desert to blow some shit up can choose anything they want to get the job done. The standard U.S. military vehicle is the ubiquitous Hummer. But when they have their own druthers, SEAL teams tend to ride into combat not in Hummers, but in 4-door V8 Toyota Tundra pickups. They don't break, a little work gets AMAZING performance out the V8 engines, and the air-conditioning is much MUCH better than in a Hummer. Toyota cannot BUY press like that, which essentially asserts that the top-shelf special-ops truck in the world today is in fact a Toyota.
But the point is that if you really want to know what the best overall gear in the world it, the wonders of the internet means that you can just simply ask the best guys in the world what they use. They're not shy; they'll tell you. And, having looked into the matter, it strikes me that a lot of those guys carry 9mm Glocks, with the semi-compact Glock-19 at or near the top of the list. Likewise USAF pilots; they can choose what pistol to pack as a survival weapon, should they get shot down. The Glock 19 is the overwhelming favorite. I'm really not a Glock fanboy, since they just feel wrong in my hand. But I have recently partaken of the Glock Kool-Aid, and honestly speaking, if you're going to own just one handgun, it should probably be a 9mm Glock.
Unless, of course, you live in California. In which case, you'll need to go to a gunstore, and find out the current state of the law in that State, especially since there are all new laws restricting firearm sales. Those new laws - IIRC - mean that you can't own a 1911 OR a Glock 19. In terms of caliber choice, one of the principal high points of the 9mm round is that you can carry a lot of ammo. But California bans magazines which carry more than 10 rounds, thus obviating one of the biggest benefits of 9mm. Absent a lot of ammo, it's probably a good idea to make the ammo you have count, and lean towards a larger slug. With California's laws taking away most of the benefit of 9mm pistols, anyone living there would probably do better with something larger, meaning a .45. It's much more powerful, can carry about as many rounds as a CA-legal 9mm, and ammo is only slightly more expensive these days. It is absolutely NOT as easy and user-friendly to shoot, but is still quite manageable, and even fun to shoot.
So, if you're allowed to have one, get yourself a Glock 19. If you live in California, see if you can find a Glock 37 or 38.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Pride and Prejudice and Zombies
Recently, I was given a copy of the infamous 'Pride and Prejudice and Zombies,' (hereinafter 'PPZ') and I'm most of the way through it, which is probably the reason for my recent zombie comments. For those who have never heard of the book (PPZ), it's a revision of the classic Jane Austen novel, with added fight scenes and plot-line based on a nationwide zombie-uprising in 18th century England. It is essentially the same story Austen wrote, with the same female lead and her four sisters (and other family) pursing love in rural England. Except material has been added and changed, to reflect the aforementioned story-line of an ongoing zombie apocalypse surrounding the same central plot events written by Austen. Notably, Liz and her sisters are all Shaolin-trained (think Kane from Kung Fu) zombie hunters.
I read 'Pride and Prejudice' (and some other Jane Austen stuff) back in the dark drunk days in Davis, and suffice to say that I'm NOT a fan. One of Austen's contemporaries called her writing "the glorification of the trivial," which fits EXACTLY. That's also the reason that I can't stand Jerry Seinfeld or (to a lesser degree) shows like 'Friends.' No matter what spin you put on it, and no matter how you try to dress it up, what it comes down to is people over-reacting to every-day events, and trying to sell it as drama. Not passing judgment on people who are fans, but I live all day every day in the same world as those characters (except that I have to occasionally leave the coffee shop and go to work), and when I want entertainment, I'm really not interested in a recap of trivial events we all face, no matter what spin and commentary are attached. Seriously, isn't entertainment supposed to be ENTERTAINING?!
So Austen has never held much interest for me, and I think it moderately amazing that 'Pride and Prejudice' was in 2003 judged by a BBC survey to be England's second-best-loved book (behind only 'Lord of the Rings'). WTF? Don't people read Bram Stoker any more? Or Shakespeare? England has shit-bags of great books to it's credit before you get to Austen. My theory is that it was a multiple-choice poll, with options arranged alphabetically by author, administered to people who were in too much of a hurry to read the whole list of options and really think about their selections. Hell, even the modern works of Rowling and Terry Pratchett beat the hell out of Austen's 'classic' stuff.
In any rate, Jane Austen's works were essentially the forerunners of modern mindless soap-operas, albeit presented with the literary skill of someone who should have been able to come up with a better storyline. The end result is that the writing is good, yes, but the plotline is UNBEARABLE. It's easy to APPRECIATE Austen's works as art, but boring as hell to actually read them.
So enter co-author Seth Grahame-Smith, who wrote the zombie portions of PPZ, while at the same time leaving Austen's general writing and story-line largely intact. He's an author I'd acutally like to meet, for a few reasons. First of all, the portions of the book written by him might have been written by a 15-year old boy who's knowledge of weapons, fighting, and martial arts is drawn solely from comic-books and anime graphic novels. It really is pretty bad, complete with all sorts of comments that even a passing knowledge of military history would have prevented. The Brown Bess was a single-shot muzzle-loader, Seth; they kinda can't manage a hail of bullets. And if you're going to make your main characters Chinese-trained - and then highlight a rivalry between Chinese and Japanese martial arts - you DON'T give your main (Chinese-trained) characters distinctively Japanese weapons. Maybe I'm just demonstrating my super-geek status, but still. I half expected to read that the handle of Liz's katana was wrapped in telephone cord. (A case of beer to anyone who knows this reference.) So I'd like to meet Grahame-Smith, to try to get a feel for whether the comic-book errors were intentional as part of the over-the-top outlandishness of the zombie theme, or included because he really didn't know any better.
Regardless of being intentional or incidental, the additions made by the 21st century co-author are - from a high literature perspective - really, REALLY bad. Again, we're talking cheap comic-book scenes and ideas, presented in cheap comic-book fashion. Aside from pure entertainment value, there is NOTHING redeeming about the additions made to the book, and everything between the covers that might legitimately be called 'art' or 'literature' come from the parts written by Jane Austen, circa 1815 (iirc). So I think it's hugely ironic that all the quality, admirable, tip-of-the-hat worthy ART of PPZ is from the original Austen book, which was TOTALLY unreadable until it included outlandish and amateurishly written battles with the undead, and mis-citations to Japanese and Chinese systems of honor and combat.
Go figure, but everything GOOD is from Austen, who's writing is not at all entertaining. But everything ENTERTAINING is from Grahame-Smith, who's work is not only not 'good,' but is downright BAD. Not sure what it says about me that I plan on getting the other collaborative work between these two authors: 'Sense and Sensibility and Sea-Monsters.' And no, I did not just make that up.
But it does suggest that there's money to be made by revising the classics (which are legally in the public domain) with addition of lowest-common-denominator action scenes, without even bothering to overmuch change the title of the book. That might be something worth looking in to, although I don't think I'd be able to pull off the over-the-top outlandishness of Grahame-Smith. He's got that market pretty well cornered. But maybe there's a middle-ground to be exploited...
I read 'Pride and Prejudice' (and some other Jane Austen stuff) back in the dark drunk days in Davis, and suffice to say that I'm NOT a fan. One of Austen's contemporaries called her writing "the glorification of the trivial," which fits EXACTLY. That's also the reason that I can't stand Jerry Seinfeld or (to a lesser degree) shows like 'Friends.' No matter what spin you put on it, and no matter how you try to dress it up, what it comes down to is people over-reacting to every-day events, and trying to sell it as drama. Not passing judgment on people who are fans, but I live all day every day in the same world as those characters (except that I have to occasionally leave the coffee shop and go to work), and when I want entertainment, I'm really not interested in a recap of trivial events we all face, no matter what spin and commentary are attached. Seriously, isn't entertainment supposed to be ENTERTAINING?!
So Austen has never held much interest for me, and I think it moderately amazing that 'Pride and Prejudice' was in 2003 judged by a BBC survey to be England's second-best-loved book (behind only 'Lord of the Rings'). WTF? Don't people read Bram Stoker any more? Or Shakespeare? England has shit-bags of great books to it's credit before you get to Austen. My theory is that it was a multiple-choice poll, with options arranged alphabetically by author, administered to people who were in too much of a hurry to read the whole list of options and really think about their selections. Hell, even the modern works of Rowling and Terry Pratchett beat the hell out of Austen's 'classic' stuff.
In any rate, Jane Austen's works were essentially the forerunners of modern mindless soap-operas, albeit presented with the literary skill of someone who should have been able to come up with a better storyline. The end result is that the writing is good, yes, but the plotline is UNBEARABLE. It's easy to APPRECIATE Austen's works as art, but boring as hell to actually read them.
So enter co-author Seth Grahame-Smith, who wrote the zombie portions of PPZ, while at the same time leaving Austen's general writing and story-line largely intact. He's an author I'd acutally like to meet, for a few reasons. First of all, the portions of the book written by him might have been written by a 15-year old boy who's knowledge of weapons, fighting, and martial arts is drawn solely from comic-books and anime graphic novels. It really is pretty bad, complete with all sorts of comments that even a passing knowledge of military history would have prevented. The Brown Bess was a single-shot muzzle-loader, Seth; they kinda can't manage a hail of bullets. And if you're going to make your main characters Chinese-trained - and then highlight a rivalry between Chinese and Japanese martial arts - you DON'T give your main (Chinese-trained) characters distinctively Japanese weapons. Maybe I'm just demonstrating my super-geek status, but still. I half expected to read that the handle of Liz's katana was wrapped in telephone cord. (A case of beer to anyone who knows this reference.) So I'd like to meet Grahame-Smith, to try to get a feel for whether the comic-book errors were intentional as part of the over-the-top outlandishness of the zombie theme, or included because he really didn't know any better.
Regardless of being intentional or incidental, the additions made by the 21st century co-author are - from a high literature perspective - really, REALLY bad. Again, we're talking cheap comic-book scenes and ideas, presented in cheap comic-book fashion. Aside from pure entertainment value, there is NOTHING redeeming about the additions made to the book, and everything between the covers that might legitimately be called 'art' or 'literature' come from the parts written by Jane Austen, circa 1815 (iirc). So I think it's hugely ironic that all the quality, admirable, tip-of-the-hat worthy ART of PPZ is from the original Austen book, which was TOTALLY unreadable until it included outlandish and amateurishly written battles with the undead, and mis-citations to Japanese and Chinese systems of honor and combat.
Go figure, but everything GOOD is from Austen, who's writing is not at all entertaining. But everything ENTERTAINING is from Grahame-Smith, who's work is not only not 'good,' but is downright BAD. Not sure what it says about me that I plan on getting the other collaborative work between these two authors: 'Sense and Sensibility and Sea-Monsters.' And no, I did not just make that up.
But it does suggest that there's money to be made by revising the classics (which are legally in the public domain) with addition of lowest-common-denominator action scenes, without even bothering to overmuch change the title of the book. That might be something worth looking in to, although I don't think I'd be able to pull off the over-the-top outlandishness of Grahame-Smith. He's got that market pretty well cornered. But maybe there's a middle-ground to be exploited...
Friday, November 6, 2009
Smokin' the Ganj
As I sat down at my desk today, tacitly to do some work, I happened to glance at ESPN online, where I noticed that Giant's ace (and 2008 Cy Young Award winner) Tim Lincecum had been busted for pot possession.
For me, the only real surprise this held was that anyone was surprised.
He's a career west-coast guy, grew up in pot-country, and went to UW as an undergrad. Besides which, have you seen the guy? Long hair. Squinty eyes. Fairly consistent goofy smile. He reminds me of That Guy from high school. You know; the guy who had been high since the 7th grade? He was probably at your school, too. He got around.
I'm not a huge believer one way or the other on the whole lets-legalize-marijuana thing, much the same way that I'm not a big believer one way or the other about the Jets vs. the Dolphins thing. Both sides have their attractions and selling points. Both sides have more than their fair share of zealous adherents. Both sides sometimes care more about hating the people on the other side than they care about the actual dispute, but I guess that's just human nature. And in the long run, I don't think either side of the argument is as strong as the proponents state. So I understand and accept that people are going to smoke the ganja in pursuit of a good time, and I think that such people should understand and accept that doing so is, in fact, still illegal, and that getting caught having such a good time means a criminal record, fines, and jail time. Or at the very least that the guys who caught you are going to give you a stern talking to, and a warning not to do it again as they confiscate your greenery for their own use.
All that having been said, I do think that the way this country handles the Mary Jane issue is nothing short of idiotic, based primarily on inter-/intra-governmental bullshit.
Generally speaking, enforcement of criminal codes within their jurisdiction is the exclusive purview of the individual states. States are free to make their own laws about personal conduct, and to enforce those laws, and are not bound by standards employed in other jurisdictions. For example: in California, it is possible to legally be a pothead, but you cannot legally purchase most firearms. In contrast, Arizona takes a hard line on the ganja, but you can legally own pretty much any firearm you want. Those states, as is their prerogative, take different stances on those issues, and within their boundaries, set their own laws accordingly, as they see fit.
But then, enter the Federal government. Historically speaking, the Federal government had almost no authority to prosecute criminal activity whatsoever, because the Consitution and Amendments thereto left the Federal government virtually no jurisdiction in which to exercise that authority. The Federal government's job was primarily to regulate trade and interaction between states, NOT within states, and so the primary job of the Fed's law-enforcement arm (the FBI), was to address crimes which crossed state lines: chasing criminals who moved from state to state either in the course of, or in between commissions of, their criminal endeavors.
Of course, history and human nature dictated that the Federal government therefor would be taking the lead in substance control, since their broad, multi-state purview placed on the Federal Government the burden of stopping interstate bootlegging and other smuggling operations. Necessarily so. As a matter of law, local cops cannot follow a criminal over state lines: their authority is limited to laws they enforce, which in turn are limited to the bounds of their own jurisdiction. It takes legal process (extradition) to forcibly move a person from one state to another, since neither state has authority within, or even jointly with, any other state. Cops have no jurisdiction across state lines. The jurisdiction of the Feds, on the other hand, is entered specifically BECAUSE state lines are crossed.
Slippery slopes being what they are, we progressed over the years to where Feds are now prosecuting all sorts of criminal conduct, which - in theory at least - should be the responsibility of individual states. Since the Fed and the states occasionally have different agendas, this leads to conflict. For example: so long as you have the right paperwork filled out and have gained all the right approvals and certifications, you can legally operate a pot plantation in California and under California law. Or Nevada. Or some other states as well. You can grow it, you can smoke it, you can sell it, and local law enforcement will leave you alone, even if they don't have anything else to do. The state - which is the primary doer when it comes to law enforcement - has decreed that so long as formalities are observed and taxes are paid, you are within the bounds of the law.
Of course, should you engage in that sort of behavior (or even substantially less offensive behavior, like smoking a doobie in your living room), your door might be kicked in at any moment by guys with guns coming to arrest you. Because even though California (or Nevada, or where ever) says it's okay, the Federal government says that what you are doing is illegal, and has it's very own branch of law enforcement to get you: the DEA.
So we have an interesting situation: local law says conduct is legal, while national law says that the same conduct is illegal. Federal cops will drag you away, while local cops are offended only insofar as you being busted means they will need to find someone else to buy from. But where the problem really arises is in the operation of the prosecutorial and punitive stages.
The Federal government has courts and prisons completely independent of the states. If you are busted by the DEA, you don't go in front of a state judge and then into a state prison, you go in front of a Federal judge, and into a Federal prison. And the Federal institutions are MILITANT. They were built to deal with serious interstate criminals: kidnappers, bank-robbers, serial killers, major drug traffickers, and so forth. The purview of the Federal criminal system was apprehension of interstate offenders, and interstate offenders tended to be Big Time. The Courts are strict, because they are used to dealing with serious crimes. The prisons are rough, because they are meant for and filled with serious criminals.
Now then. Federal efforts to police relatively minor drug crimes means that this same militant criminal system is being employed on less-than-hardened criminals. Think back to That Guy from high school; the one who had been blazing daily for the last three years, at least. Imagine him thrown into the shark-tank of a Federal prison. Or, more germane to today's discussion, rest assured that even a few grams' possession in front of a Federal judge would have landed Tim Lincecum a bit more than a $622 fine and a speeding ticket.
That's the part that I kind of have a problem with. Don't get me wrong; like I said above, I'm a believer that the laws are the laws, that people break them at their own peril, and having broken them and gotten caught, lawbreakers are not really allowed to complain at having been caught. But still. Besides that fact that That Guy probably doesn't deserve Federal levels of incarceration (or even any incarceration, depending on whether he was busted with an eighth of kush instead of an acre of clones), I really don't see the need to spend millions of taxdollars keeping mostly-harmless potsmokers in Federal levels of incarceration.
But what can you do. I like to think that the situation is going to resolve itself with time (which is probably going to mean eventual national legalization, although probably not in my lifetime), and expect that we'll just plod along in the meantime, doing the same stupid shit we've always done. Just like healthcare, pollution control, and the finance industry, I guess we just don't have time for a rational solution.
For me, the only real surprise this held was that anyone was surprised.
He's a career west-coast guy, grew up in pot-country, and went to UW as an undergrad. Besides which, have you seen the guy? Long hair. Squinty eyes. Fairly consistent goofy smile. He reminds me of That Guy from high school. You know; the guy who had been high since the 7th grade? He was probably at your school, too. He got around.
I'm not a huge believer one way or the other on the whole lets-legalize-marijuana thing, much the same way that I'm not a big believer one way or the other about the Jets vs. the Dolphins thing. Both sides have their attractions and selling points. Both sides have more than their fair share of zealous adherents. Both sides sometimes care more about hating the people on the other side than they care about the actual dispute, but I guess that's just human nature. And in the long run, I don't think either side of the argument is as strong as the proponents state. So I understand and accept that people are going to smoke the ganja in pursuit of a good time, and I think that such people should understand and accept that doing so is, in fact, still illegal, and that getting caught having such a good time means a criminal record, fines, and jail time. Or at the very least that the guys who caught you are going to give you a stern talking to, and a warning not to do it again as they confiscate your greenery for their own use.
All that having been said, I do think that the way this country handles the Mary Jane issue is nothing short of idiotic, based primarily on inter-/intra-governmental bullshit.
Generally speaking, enforcement of criminal codes within their jurisdiction is the exclusive purview of the individual states. States are free to make their own laws about personal conduct, and to enforce those laws, and are not bound by standards employed in other jurisdictions. For example: in California, it is possible to legally be a pothead, but you cannot legally purchase most firearms. In contrast, Arizona takes a hard line on the ganja, but you can legally own pretty much any firearm you want. Those states, as is their prerogative, take different stances on those issues, and within their boundaries, set their own laws accordingly, as they see fit.
But then, enter the Federal government. Historically speaking, the Federal government had almost no authority to prosecute criminal activity whatsoever, because the Consitution and Amendments thereto left the Federal government virtually no jurisdiction in which to exercise that authority. The Federal government's job was primarily to regulate trade and interaction between states, NOT within states, and so the primary job of the Fed's law-enforcement arm (the FBI), was to address crimes which crossed state lines: chasing criminals who moved from state to state either in the course of, or in between commissions of, their criminal endeavors.
Of course, history and human nature dictated that the Federal government therefor would be taking the lead in substance control, since their broad, multi-state purview placed on the Federal Government the burden of stopping interstate bootlegging and other smuggling operations. Necessarily so. As a matter of law, local cops cannot follow a criminal over state lines: their authority is limited to laws they enforce, which in turn are limited to the bounds of their own jurisdiction. It takes legal process (extradition) to forcibly move a person from one state to another, since neither state has authority within, or even jointly with, any other state. Cops have no jurisdiction across state lines. The jurisdiction of the Feds, on the other hand, is entered specifically BECAUSE state lines are crossed.
Slippery slopes being what they are, we progressed over the years to where Feds are now prosecuting all sorts of criminal conduct, which - in theory at least - should be the responsibility of individual states. Since the Fed and the states occasionally have different agendas, this leads to conflict. For example: so long as you have the right paperwork filled out and have gained all the right approvals and certifications, you can legally operate a pot plantation in California and under California law. Or Nevada. Or some other states as well. You can grow it, you can smoke it, you can sell it, and local law enforcement will leave you alone, even if they don't have anything else to do. The state - which is the primary doer when it comes to law enforcement - has decreed that so long as formalities are observed and taxes are paid, you are within the bounds of the law.
Of course, should you engage in that sort of behavior (or even substantially less offensive behavior, like smoking a doobie in your living room), your door might be kicked in at any moment by guys with guns coming to arrest you. Because even though California (or Nevada, or where ever) says it's okay, the Federal government says that what you are doing is illegal, and has it's very own branch of law enforcement to get you: the DEA.
So we have an interesting situation: local law says conduct is legal, while national law says that the same conduct is illegal. Federal cops will drag you away, while local cops are offended only insofar as you being busted means they will need to find someone else to buy from. But where the problem really arises is in the operation of the prosecutorial and punitive stages.
The Federal government has courts and prisons completely independent of the states. If you are busted by the DEA, you don't go in front of a state judge and then into a state prison, you go in front of a Federal judge, and into a Federal prison. And the Federal institutions are MILITANT. They were built to deal with serious interstate criminals: kidnappers, bank-robbers, serial killers, major drug traffickers, and so forth. The purview of the Federal criminal system was apprehension of interstate offenders, and interstate offenders tended to be Big Time. The Courts are strict, because they are used to dealing with serious crimes. The prisons are rough, because they are meant for and filled with serious criminals.
Now then. Federal efforts to police relatively minor drug crimes means that this same militant criminal system is being employed on less-than-hardened criminals. Think back to That Guy from high school; the one who had been blazing daily for the last three years, at least. Imagine him thrown into the shark-tank of a Federal prison. Or, more germane to today's discussion, rest assured that even a few grams' possession in front of a Federal judge would have landed Tim Lincecum a bit more than a $622 fine and a speeding ticket.
That's the part that I kind of have a problem with. Don't get me wrong; like I said above, I'm a believer that the laws are the laws, that people break them at their own peril, and having broken them and gotten caught, lawbreakers are not really allowed to complain at having been caught. But still. Besides that fact that That Guy probably doesn't deserve Federal levels of incarceration (or even any incarceration, depending on whether he was busted with an eighth of kush instead of an acre of clones), I really don't see the need to spend millions of taxdollars keeping mostly-harmless potsmokers in Federal levels of incarceration.
But what can you do. I like to think that the situation is going to resolve itself with time (which is probably going to mean eventual national legalization, although probably not in my lifetime), and expect that we'll just plod along in the meantime, doing the same stupid shit we've always done. Just like healthcare, pollution control, and the finance industry, I guess we just don't have time for a rational solution.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Balance and Parity
I'm not a big believer in parity, whether you're talking about sports, or about life in general. For all the altruistic discussions (and intentions) about every man being equal, that is NOT the reality of our world. While we may all be (and for a just society, we reasonably MUST be) equal in the eyes of the law and the Lord (assuming you believe in such things) that philosophical equality not only is the end of it, but MUST BE the end of it.
The capable must be allowed the freedom to excel, and to reap the benefit of their efforts. Attempts to 'fix' things so as to grant opportunity and benefit to all people equally has the end result not of raising the weak to the levels of the strong, but instead of handicapping the strong, to the detriment of all. It is admirable for a society to wish all to succeed. But efforts to disperse success among all is a recipe for disaster. There must be a direct connection between capability and success, for if the incompetent are given a full share of the spoils of the competent, what then is the incentive to strive for victory? Life is not like little league. Kids can expect a shiny trophy just for showing up, but in Big Boy land, the only people who win trophies are the ones who earn them.
That having been said, there are ways to balance out inequities, to provide a level playing field, as it were. There are ways to do it right.
Take the NFL, for example. A while back, people On High decided that the Superbowl should be won by somebody other than San Francisco, Dallas, or Green Bay. So they instituted a salary cap. Which really wasn't a bad thing, since things really had reached the level where the strong just got stronger, and the weak just got weaker. Consider the 1994 NFC Championship game. Between the two teams playing that day, there were ELEVEN pro-bowlers in the game. A quarter of the NFC Pro Bowl roster came from just those two teams. Football was looking a lot like baseball, where championships were largely purchased in the free-agent market, and the best management and coaching in the world was not going to overcome the talent loaded at the top of the league. The capable were not succeeding, the wealthy were succeeding. So a salary cap was instituted.
Which I was not a believer in, because when you prevent the best from being the best, the usual result is not the worst catching up, but is instead the best being handicapped. When you say 'on any given Sunday, any team can beat any other team,' what you're really saying is that 'on any given Sunday, a BAD teams could lose to a WORSE team.' Rather then elevating the weak, the salary cap just limited the ability of the great teams to stay great.
But - wonder of wonders - it really did work out. A new status quo evolved, where the most capable teams steadily rose to prominence, beating out teams that were just very wealthy. New England, Pittsburgh, and Indianapolis came into prominence, while San Francisco and Dallas declined. That was because the former three teams did it right: good management, good coaching, good drafting. Built solidly from top to bottom, relatively small-market teams surpassed mighty DAL and SF, because the fact of the matter was that although DAL and SF could afford every big-free agent on the market, they were not strong throughout, starting with jackass ownership.
Under the new paradigm in the salary cap era, the capable prevail over the merely wealthy. Take Dan Synder's ownership in Washington. Snyder is among the wealthiest men in the world, and the Redskins are among the wealthiest teams in the league. But Snyder - who is not a career football guy - insists on calling all the shots, and has set up the organization with him at the top, surrounded by yes-men. The end result is that, despite great wealth, Washington is one of the worst teams in the league. There's a similar structure in Oakland, where Al Davis holds absolute power, handing down decrees to hand-picked yes-men. And Oakland doesn't even have the Snyder wealth to help, so the end result is that the team is a veritable garbage-can fire.
Both are trying to win with outdated models. Rather that building themselves into winners by getting good people and demanding good work from their good people, they look for quick-fixes and band-aids. WAS overpays for big-name free-agents, but draft poorly every year. In the rare circumstances that they do draft a good player, they are too busy paying free agents to hold on the home-grown talent. They make sweeping changes just about every year, usually to the coaching staff, but never fix the problem, which is not the players or personnel, but is the ownership. Without structure and continuity, no band-aid is going to make things work out. With caps on how much they can spend, they can't just buy their way into prominence. Meanwhile, the well-run franchises (NE, IND, PIT) continue to be successful, year after year, drafting well, coaching well, and winning, notwithstanding free-agent and front-office losses.
There are about five teams in the league that are not only cover-your eyes awful (WAS, OAK, KC, StL, TB), but also have no clear resurrection in sight. And none of them have anyone to blame but their own ownership, for a string of bad personnel and coaching decisions. They have nobody to blame because turnarounds can come as soon as the ownership of those teams start doing things right. SF finally built a good front office, started drafting well, and got a good coach. Hey, look at that: they're no longer an embarrassment. Likewise DET: after FAR too many years, they shit-canned Matt Millen, got quality management and coaching, and - surprise surprise - they're getting better. Miami was a laughing-stock not long ago. But add good management by career football professionals, and they're playing respectably in a very tough division WITHOUT A REAL QUARTERBACK.
The disparity between the haves and the have-nots is every bit as glaring in the NFL as it has ever been. But the difference between the haves and the have-nots is generally not wealth of ownership, strong markets, or a rabid fan base. The difference between the mighty and the meek is that the mighty DO IT RIGHT, year after year. Good drafting, good coaching, and good management add up to wins.
Rather than developing into a league of mediocrity, the NFL in the salary cap era is as strong as it has ever been, in large part BECAUSE wealthy teams and owners can no longer simply purchase a championship by splurging in the free-agent market. It has reached a point where the league is structured for the most diligent, best-run organizations to prevail over opponents who lack the talent and initiative to build themselves into winners, and who are now barred from simply buying victories.
As an American, it warms my heart. I don't like imposition of extrinsic limitations dictating results in dynamic systems. But when the goal of the extrinsic limitation is to limit the effect of extrinsic factors on the workings of such a dynamic system, that gets a big thumbs-up from HT.
The capable must be allowed the freedom to excel, and to reap the benefit of their efforts. Attempts to 'fix' things so as to grant opportunity and benefit to all people equally has the end result not of raising the weak to the levels of the strong, but instead of handicapping the strong, to the detriment of all. It is admirable for a society to wish all to succeed. But efforts to disperse success among all is a recipe for disaster. There must be a direct connection between capability and success, for if the incompetent are given a full share of the spoils of the competent, what then is the incentive to strive for victory? Life is not like little league. Kids can expect a shiny trophy just for showing up, but in Big Boy land, the only people who win trophies are the ones who earn them.
That having been said, there are ways to balance out inequities, to provide a level playing field, as it were. There are ways to do it right.
Take the NFL, for example. A while back, people On High decided that the Superbowl should be won by somebody other than San Francisco, Dallas, or Green Bay. So they instituted a salary cap. Which really wasn't a bad thing, since things really had reached the level where the strong just got stronger, and the weak just got weaker. Consider the 1994 NFC Championship game. Between the two teams playing that day, there were ELEVEN pro-bowlers in the game. A quarter of the NFC Pro Bowl roster came from just those two teams. Football was looking a lot like baseball, where championships were largely purchased in the free-agent market, and the best management and coaching in the world was not going to overcome the talent loaded at the top of the league. The capable were not succeeding, the wealthy were succeeding. So a salary cap was instituted.
Which I was not a believer in, because when you prevent the best from being the best, the usual result is not the worst catching up, but is instead the best being handicapped. When you say 'on any given Sunday, any team can beat any other team,' what you're really saying is that 'on any given Sunday, a BAD teams could lose to a WORSE team.' Rather then elevating the weak, the salary cap just limited the ability of the great teams to stay great.
But - wonder of wonders - it really did work out. A new status quo evolved, where the most capable teams steadily rose to prominence, beating out teams that were just very wealthy. New England, Pittsburgh, and Indianapolis came into prominence, while San Francisco and Dallas declined. That was because the former three teams did it right: good management, good coaching, good drafting. Built solidly from top to bottom, relatively small-market teams surpassed mighty DAL and SF, because the fact of the matter was that although DAL and SF could afford every big-free agent on the market, they were not strong throughout, starting with jackass ownership.
Under the new paradigm in the salary cap era, the capable prevail over the merely wealthy. Take Dan Synder's ownership in Washington. Snyder is among the wealthiest men in the world, and the Redskins are among the wealthiest teams in the league. But Snyder - who is not a career football guy - insists on calling all the shots, and has set up the organization with him at the top, surrounded by yes-men. The end result is that, despite great wealth, Washington is one of the worst teams in the league. There's a similar structure in Oakland, where Al Davis holds absolute power, handing down decrees to hand-picked yes-men. And Oakland doesn't even have the Snyder wealth to help, so the end result is that the team is a veritable garbage-can fire.
Both are trying to win with outdated models. Rather that building themselves into winners by getting good people and demanding good work from their good people, they look for quick-fixes and band-aids. WAS overpays for big-name free-agents, but draft poorly every year. In the rare circumstances that they do draft a good player, they are too busy paying free agents to hold on the home-grown talent. They make sweeping changes just about every year, usually to the coaching staff, but never fix the problem, which is not the players or personnel, but is the ownership. Without structure and continuity, no band-aid is going to make things work out. With caps on how much they can spend, they can't just buy their way into prominence. Meanwhile, the well-run franchises (NE, IND, PIT) continue to be successful, year after year, drafting well, coaching well, and winning, notwithstanding free-agent and front-office losses.
There are about five teams in the league that are not only cover-your eyes awful (WAS, OAK, KC, StL, TB), but also have no clear resurrection in sight. And none of them have anyone to blame but their own ownership, for a string of bad personnel and coaching decisions. They have nobody to blame because turnarounds can come as soon as the ownership of those teams start doing things right. SF finally built a good front office, started drafting well, and got a good coach. Hey, look at that: they're no longer an embarrassment. Likewise DET: after FAR too many years, they shit-canned Matt Millen, got quality management and coaching, and - surprise surprise - they're getting better. Miami was a laughing-stock not long ago. But add good management by career football professionals, and they're playing respectably in a very tough division WITHOUT A REAL QUARTERBACK.
The disparity between the haves and the have-nots is every bit as glaring in the NFL as it has ever been. But the difference between the haves and the have-nots is generally not wealth of ownership, strong markets, or a rabid fan base. The difference between the mighty and the meek is that the mighty DO IT RIGHT, year after year. Good drafting, good coaching, and good management add up to wins.
Rather than developing into a league of mediocrity, the NFL in the salary cap era is as strong as it has ever been, in large part BECAUSE wealthy teams and owners can no longer simply purchase a championship by splurging in the free-agent market. It has reached a point where the league is structured for the most diligent, best-run organizations to prevail over opponents who lack the talent and initiative to build themselves into winners, and who are now barred from simply buying victories.
As an American, it warms my heart. I don't like imposition of extrinsic limitations dictating results in dynamic systems. But when the goal of the extrinsic limitation is to limit the effect of extrinsic factors on the workings of such a dynamic system, that gets a big thumbs-up from HT.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)