Bud Selig (quite possibly the worst commissioner of any professional sports league in the history of organized sports) recently commented that he is happy with the current economic system in Major League Baseball. For those of you who don't know, baseball is different from all the other pro leagues in America. Instead of a salary cap, MLB uses revenue sharing to bring competitive balance to the game.
In theory, larger-market teams kick millions of dollars back to smaller-market teams so that these also-rans can sign better players and invest more in their player development programs.
This sounds pretty nice, doesn't it? Everybody (at least nowadays) likes parity in professional sports.
The problem is that small-market teams have figured out that, like Max and Leo in The Producers, it pays to lose. Why spend the revenue-sharing money on better players or facilities when you can basically pocket the money (which is a gross misappropriation of these funds per MLB), put a terrible team on the field, play in front of 3000 fans, and make a pretty penny?
Here are a few examples from the 2006 Forbes report on the business of baseball:
The Devil Rays (my AL team) finished 61-101 (36 games behind first place) last year. They made a profit of $20.3 million.
The Nationals finished 71-91 (26 GB) last year. They made $27.9 million.
The Royals finished 62-100 (34 GB) last year. They made $20.8 million.
In essence, teams like the Yankees and Dodgers are subsidizing the premeditated (and quite profitable) failure of teams like the Devil Rays and Royals. This is out and out fraud and something must be done to force small-market teams to use these funds to put a better product on the field.
Saturday, July 14, 2007
Monday, July 9, 2007
Calling Out a Liberal
A theology professor at Southern Methodist University recently sent out a mass email imploring faculty members from across the country to a sign an attached petition in opposition to President George W. Bush's decision to locate his presidential library complex at her school. The email read in part:
"A group of 130 faculty members at Southern Methodist University (SMU), Dallas, TX, recently signed and launched an online petition, formulated as an Open Letter, asking the President and Trustees to turn down the politically partisan institute that George W. Bush seeks to include in his presidential library complex on the SMU campus.
"A political partisan think tank located at any school, college, or university is contradictory to education as approached within free and democratic societies. The precedent set by it would put academic freedom at risk at all educational institutions, as well as SMU.
"Researchers hired by the institute to pursue the partisan agenda set by George W. Bush borrow on SMU's credibility in the Academy, while remaining completely unaccountable for their scholarly activity. . . ."
After reading the professor's email and the attached petition, I was suspicious that the petition organizers were not motivated by concerns over academic freedom and integrity; instead, I believed their efforts against the library were politically motivated. The petition and email contained coded language ("politically partisan think tank," "partisan agenda"), a favorite liberal trick to discredit conservatives. Moreover, as a teacher myself, I know that the academy is overrun by liberals who hate--yes, hate--George W. Bush. I couldn't help but have doubts
I wrote the petition organizer explaining that I chose not to sign because I believed the wording of the petition indicated it was politically driven. I also asked her why she opposed this particular "politically partisan think tank" when colleges and universities are already consumed by them. Except in this case they are called academic departments, which are overrun by effete, snobbish liberals who tolerate dissenting opinions about as well as Joseph Stalin.
The professor replied with several ranting, boiling-mad emails; I had obviously gotten her goat. She said that I imputed to her values that were simply not in the email or petition. There was no way I could deduce she was a liberal, she stated. Then she unloaded her verbal guns on me: "Perhaps you simply do not like the Perkins School of Theology of Southern Methodist University. Perhaps you don't like Southern Methodists. Plain and simple, you're predisposed to dislike me, and to see things that aren't there, and that's called stereotyping and prejudice."
This unhinged ad hominem attack left me flabbergasted, to say the least. I never attacked her personally. I merely questioned the wording of the letter and asked why she was so concerned about one conservative think tank when the academy as a whole is dominated by liberal ones.
I had obviously struck a raw nerve, which reinforced in my mind that I had been right about the petition all along. Liberals tend to lash out and sling mud when they are caught redhanded. But I had to know for sure. Could I have been wrong? Could I have read too much into the petition? Well, I did research and found an article written by the same professor about the library. The article clearly indicates, as I suspected all along, that the professor circulated the petition due to her personal animus toward Bush. Her gibberish about academic freedom was nothing more than a cloak for her true agenda--preserving the academy as a bastion of liberalism. Here are the telling passages:
"What moral justification supports SMU’s providing a haven for a legacy of environmental predation and denial of global warming, shameful exploitation of gay rights and the most critical erosion of habeas corpus in memory?
"Given the secrecy of the Bush administration and its virtual refusal to engage with those holding contrary opinions, what confidence could be had in the selection of presidential papers made available to the library? Unless the Bush library philosophy is radically different from the already proven track record of isolation, the library will be little more than a center for the preservation and protection of privileged presidential papers."
And the petition had nothing to do with politics? As a famous judge is prone to say, don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.
"A group of 130 faculty members at Southern Methodist University (SMU), Dallas, TX, recently signed and launched an online petition, formulated as an Open Letter, asking the President and Trustees to turn down the politically partisan institute that George W. Bush seeks to include in his presidential library complex on the SMU campus.
"A political partisan think tank located at any school, college, or university is contradictory to education as approached within free and democratic societies. The precedent set by it would put academic freedom at risk at all educational institutions, as well as SMU.
"Researchers hired by the institute to pursue the partisan agenda set by George W. Bush borrow on SMU's credibility in the Academy, while remaining completely unaccountable for their scholarly activity. . . ."
After reading the professor's email and the attached petition, I was suspicious that the petition organizers were not motivated by concerns over academic freedom and integrity; instead, I believed their efforts against the library were politically motivated. The petition and email contained coded language ("politically partisan think tank," "partisan agenda"), a favorite liberal trick to discredit conservatives. Moreover, as a teacher myself, I know that the academy is overrun by liberals who hate--yes, hate--George W. Bush. I couldn't help but have doubts
I wrote the petition organizer explaining that I chose not to sign because I believed the wording of the petition indicated it was politically driven. I also asked her why she opposed this particular "politically partisan think tank" when colleges and universities are already consumed by them. Except in this case they are called academic departments, which are overrun by effete, snobbish liberals who tolerate dissenting opinions about as well as Joseph Stalin.
The professor replied with several ranting, boiling-mad emails; I had obviously gotten her goat. She said that I imputed to her values that were simply not in the email or petition. There was no way I could deduce she was a liberal, she stated. Then she unloaded her verbal guns on me: "Perhaps you simply do not like the Perkins School of Theology of Southern Methodist University. Perhaps you don't like Southern Methodists. Plain and simple, you're predisposed to dislike me, and to see things that aren't there, and that's called stereotyping and prejudice."
This unhinged ad hominem attack left me flabbergasted, to say the least. I never attacked her personally. I merely questioned the wording of the letter and asked why she was so concerned about one conservative think tank when the academy as a whole is dominated by liberal ones.
I had obviously struck a raw nerve, which reinforced in my mind that I had been right about the petition all along. Liberals tend to lash out and sling mud when they are caught redhanded. But I had to know for sure. Could I have been wrong? Could I have read too much into the petition? Well, I did research and found an article written by the same professor about the library. The article clearly indicates, as I suspected all along, that the professor circulated the petition due to her personal animus toward Bush. Her gibberish about academic freedom was nothing more than a cloak for her true agenda--preserving the academy as a bastion of liberalism. Here are the telling passages:
"What moral justification supports SMU’s providing a haven for a legacy of environmental predation and denial of global warming, shameful exploitation of gay rights and the most critical erosion of habeas corpus in memory?
"Given the secrecy of the Bush administration and its virtual refusal to engage with those holding contrary opinions, what confidence could be had in the selection of presidential papers made available to the library? Unless the Bush library philosophy is radically different from the already proven track record of isolation, the library will be little more than a center for the preservation and protection of privileged presidential papers."
And the petition had nothing to do with politics? As a famous judge is prone to say, don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.
Monday, July 2, 2007
Open for Business!?!?
Governor Joe Manchin's flunkies are thumping their chests today over a one cent reduction of the state's FIVE cent food tax. That's right, the state of West Virginia taxes its citizens five cents per dollar...ON FOOD. This is just one example of the Mountain State's Massachusetts-like penchant for taxation.
What is remarkable about this and many other levies (including a possible Morgantown city "user fee" that would require citizens to pay an employment tax for working but not living in the city) is that, in spite of this almost unprecedented taxation, the state still sticks by its new slogan - "Open for Business". This is a joke at best and an out and out lie at worst.
While Manchin and others pathetically cling to this reassuring motto, businesses continue to skip West Virginia on their way to Ohio, Kentucky, Virginia, and even Maryland. Quite simply, it is impossible to do business in the state and darn near impossible to live in the state. There is a $6 tax (completely independent of tags) per dog in Morgantown!
Ironically, the only time that the Mountain State was actually open for business was when turn of the century state politicians allowed coal and gas operators to secure over half of the available land and systematically rape West Virginia's natural resources while giving almost nothing back.
Unfortunately, the only industry that seems willing and able to thrive in West Virginia's oppressive business climate (the racetracks and casinos) looks a lot like the robber barons of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries as they systematically redistribute even more money from the pockets of the poor and middle class into the coffers of the state via a 35% profit tax.
Oh well, that's what you get when you elect one party year after year after year.
What is remarkable about this and many other levies (including a possible Morgantown city "user fee" that would require citizens to pay an employment tax for working but not living in the city) is that, in spite of this almost unprecedented taxation, the state still sticks by its new slogan - "Open for Business". This is a joke at best and an out and out lie at worst.
While Manchin and others pathetically cling to this reassuring motto, businesses continue to skip West Virginia on their way to Ohio, Kentucky, Virginia, and even Maryland. Quite simply, it is impossible to do business in the state and darn near impossible to live in the state. There is a $6 tax (completely independent of tags) per dog in Morgantown!
Ironically, the only time that the Mountain State was actually open for business was when turn of the century state politicians allowed coal and gas operators to secure over half of the available land and systematically rape West Virginia's natural resources while giving almost nothing back.
Unfortunately, the only industry that seems willing and able to thrive in West Virginia's oppressive business climate (the racetracks and casinos) looks a lot like the robber barons of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries as they systematically redistribute even more money from the pockets of the poor and middle class into the coffers of the state via a 35% profit tax.
Oh well, that's what you get when you elect one party year after year after year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)