Thursday, August 28, 2003
Why I am no longer a big football fan.
These past couple of weeks of exhibition games have seen major injuries to Chad Pennington of the Jets and Michael Vick of the Falcons and probably many others to players whose names I no longer recognize. These injuries will have a major impact on the Jets and Falcons this season and may turn a Super Bowl or playoff season into a season as an also-ran. There is nothing that gnaws at a sports fan as much as "might have beens." As in "my team might have won if only for . . . " These can be due to bad calls by referees, bad decisions by managers, or injuries to key players.
Bad calls by referees or umpires occur in all sports. Last year's Giants-49ers playoff game serves to demonstrate that football is not immune from this problem. The same is clearly true of bad decisions by coaches or managers. However football far exceeds other major sports in the impact of injuries. In part this is due to the short schedule, missing 4 weeks in football is more significant than missing 4 weeks in baseball or basketball. But a bigger factor is the sheer brutality of the sport. As we have now produced 350 pound linemen who can run like sprinters, serious collisions and serious injuries are inevitable. And this, for me, severely compromises and the integrity of the results of a season. The best team doesn't win, the one that best withstands injuries does.
The other lesser factor in my gradual disengagement from football is the anonymity of the players. While a casual fan will recognize top baseball or basketball players, football players, with the exception of a few quarterbacks are hidden behind helmets. They have relatively short careers which gives one little time to build up loyalty and affection to them (there's the brutality of the sport again). Finally unlike other sports with the exception of basketball, they don't look like us. One looks at a baseball player or a hockey player or a tennis player and we have the illusion that they are not that different than we are. In football we have instead the aforementioned 350 pound powerhouses who if we met, we would be terrified and awed by. For me these three factors make it much harder to develop a rooting interest in football than in other sports.
I realize I am in a small minority on this since football is the most popular sport in the country. I also admit that football is one of the best sports to bet on (it was only once I stopped entering football pools on a weekly basis that I realized I didn't really like the sport). I'm willing to bet though that interest in football has peaked and we will see it decline over the next several decades. As George Will said, "Football combines the two worst trends of the 20th century, organized violence punctuated by committee meetings." The 21st century will bring another sport to the top.
Of course, with my luck, it will be (or already is) Nascar.
Bad calls by referees or umpires occur in all sports. Last year's Giants-49ers playoff game serves to demonstrate that football is not immune from this problem. The same is clearly true of bad decisions by coaches or managers. However football far exceeds other major sports in the impact of injuries. In part this is due to the short schedule, missing 4 weeks in football is more significant than missing 4 weeks in baseball or basketball. But a bigger factor is the sheer brutality of the sport. As we have now produced 350 pound linemen who can run like sprinters, serious collisions and serious injuries are inevitable. And this, for me, severely compromises and the integrity of the results of a season. The best team doesn't win, the one that best withstands injuries does.
The other lesser factor in my gradual disengagement from football is the anonymity of the players. While a casual fan will recognize top baseball or basketball players, football players, with the exception of a few quarterbacks are hidden behind helmets. They have relatively short careers which gives one little time to build up loyalty and affection to them (there's the brutality of the sport again). Finally unlike other sports with the exception of basketball, they don't look like us. One looks at a baseball player or a hockey player or a tennis player and we have the illusion that they are not that different than we are. In football we have instead the aforementioned 350 pound powerhouses who if we met, we would be terrified and awed by. For me these three factors make it much harder to develop a rooting interest in football than in other sports.
I realize I am in a small minority on this since football is the most popular sport in the country. I also admit that football is one of the best sports to bet on (it was only once I stopped entering football pools on a weekly basis that I realized I didn't really like the sport). I'm willing to bet though that interest in football has peaked and we will see it decline over the next several decades. As George Will said, "Football combines the two worst trends of the 20th century, organized violence punctuated by committee meetings." The 21st century will bring another sport to the top.
Of course, with my luck, it will be (or already is) Nascar.
Wednesday, August 27, 2003
California Craziness
As a native New Yorker and self confessed east-coastist, any opportunity to deride California as crazy and inferior to New York is a welcome one. You would therefore think that the 135 candidate scrum that is the race to replace Gray Davis would be the source of considerable enjoyment for me. Unfortunately it causes far more alarm than amusement. While I would like to get wrapped up in the political horse-race to beat all political horse-races, the whole affair raises deeply unsettling questions about the future of politics in California and possibly elsewhere.
I have no affection for Gray Davis. From what I have read about him, he seems to be an utterly political animal with few principles beyond his own career advancement. Sort of a Clinton without the charisma and the few principles the former President posessed. That said, I think it is critical that he defeat the effort to recall him and serve the balance of his term. I would think that regardless of the quality of the candidates on the ballot to replace him.
You see, Davis already won the election for governor. If he loses the recall, what is to stop the anti-Bustamante forces or the anti-Ahhrnold forces from gathering signatures and forcing another election. Even worse, future governors of California will be terrified to take any position that alienates voters for the fear that it will prompt a recall effort. Politicians already fear losing reelection when elections are every four years. Part of the responsibility of elected officials is to exercise judgement and in doing so risk alienating voters. If Davis is recalled, California will be one giant step closer to a direct democracy where every issue gets voted on and the purposes of having elected officials is rendered moot.
Direct democracy is appealing. Why shouldn't everyone get to vote on issues that affect them, especially since the bums in Sacramento (or Albany or Columbus or Washington) are only looking out for themselves? The arguments against direct democracy are many but most prominently, there is no protection of the rights of those whose interests are different than the majority and the general population does not have the information to make crucial policy decisions that involve tradeoffs between values. The constitution (and the State constitutions that are based upon the original) takes this into account by ensuring officials, once elected, have the incentives to make decisions that serve the electorate and their consitutents in proper balance. It is a small step from direct democracy to mob rule. And essentially it is an angry mob that is trying to run Gray Davis out of the governor's mansion.
Recall, like impeachment, should be saved for the most dire of offenses. Disagreement over budgetary priorities, tax levels, and who is to blame for the energy crisis, does not reach this level. Gray Davis may be an unpleasant person, but you Californians elected him governor. So regardless of whether the options on the second question in the ballot appeal to you, vote no on the recall in the first question. Or else your candidate will likely be the next one to be recalled.
I have no affection for Gray Davis. From what I have read about him, he seems to be an utterly political animal with few principles beyond his own career advancement. Sort of a Clinton without the charisma and the few principles the former President posessed. That said, I think it is critical that he defeat the effort to recall him and serve the balance of his term. I would think that regardless of the quality of the candidates on the ballot to replace him.
You see, Davis already won the election for governor. If he loses the recall, what is to stop the anti-Bustamante forces or the anti-Ahhrnold forces from gathering signatures and forcing another election. Even worse, future governors of California will be terrified to take any position that alienates voters for the fear that it will prompt a recall effort. Politicians already fear losing reelection when elections are every four years. Part of the responsibility of elected officials is to exercise judgement and in doing so risk alienating voters. If Davis is recalled, California will be one giant step closer to a direct democracy where every issue gets voted on and the purposes of having elected officials is rendered moot.
Direct democracy is appealing. Why shouldn't everyone get to vote on issues that affect them, especially since the bums in Sacramento (or Albany or Columbus or Washington) are only looking out for themselves? The arguments against direct democracy are many but most prominently, there is no protection of the rights of those whose interests are different than the majority and the general population does not have the information to make crucial policy decisions that involve tradeoffs between values. The constitution (and the State constitutions that are based upon the original) takes this into account by ensuring officials, once elected, have the incentives to make decisions that serve the electorate and their consitutents in proper balance. It is a small step from direct democracy to mob rule. And essentially it is an angry mob that is trying to run Gray Davis out of the governor's mansion.
Recall, like impeachment, should be saved for the most dire of offenses. Disagreement over budgetary priorities, tax levels, and who is to blame for the energy crisis, does not reach this level. Gray Davis may be an unpleasant person, but you Californians elected him governor. So regardless of whether the options on the second question in the ballot appeal to you, vote no on the recall in the first question. Or else your candidate will likely be the next one to be recalled.
Friday, August 22, 2003
Iraq
Over the past several years I have found Thomas Friedman's columns in the New York Times to be thoughtful and well researched and one of the best sources of information on the Middle East. Therefore it was difficult for me to disagree with him on the war in Iraq. His central point was reasonable, that if done correctly the Iraq invasion could foster tremendous good in the region. What I never understood was why he thought the invasion, and more importantly as we are now seeing the occupation, would be done well by this Administration.
The best reason for expending lives and tremendous expenditures in Iraq was to replace a brutal totaltitarian regime with a democratic one and in doing so save Iraqi lives and set an example for the region. The Bush Administration never made this a reason for going in until long after the invasion when their ostensible reason, the presence of weapons of mass destruction, was shown to be based on flimsy evidence. The coupling of wmd as the reason for invasion, and the apparent haste to invade for no reason beyond political ones (a 2004 war just wouldn't do), should have convinced all those on the fence about invasion (including many of the Democrats running for President) that this was a disaster in the making.
And indeed it has turned out that way. There has been no concrete plan for reconstruction of Iraq. As a result, U.S. soldiers and now with the bombing of the U.N. mission and the Jordanian embassy civilians are losing their lives and there is no reason to believe it will end anytime soon. With the reported migration of Al Qaeda to Iraq, even the capture of Hussein does not hold the promise of ending the terrorist attacks on western and allied forces.
Bush's decision and his moral culpability for the decision to invade a foreign country and needlessly expend US lives should be a central issue in next year's campaign. However it doesn't answer the question of what to do now. We have created a mess in Iraq but it appears to me that in addition to soliciting the U.N.'s help, we will need to devote a great deal more in terms of resources to fixing the problem. This will require an honest dialogue with American people about what is required in Iraq. How many people, how much money, how much bigger will the deficit need to become? Now that we have created a situation, arguably worse than when we went in, we have an obligation to do everything we can to fix it. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any interest in doing so or even in honestly discussing what would be necessary to do so.
As Friedman notes in his latest column, time may be running out.
The best reason for expending lives and tremendous expenditures in Iraq was to replace a brutal totaltitarian regime with a democratic one and in doing so save Iraqi lives and set an example for the region. The Bush Administration never made this a reason for going in until long after the invasion when their ostensible reason, the presence of weapons of mass destruction, was shown to be based on flimsy evidence. The coupling of wmd as the reason for invasion, and the apparent haste to invade for no reason beyond political ones (a 2004 war just wouldn't do), should have convinced all those on the fence about invasion (including many of the Democrats running for President) that this was a disaster in the making.
And indeed it has turned out that way. There has been no concrete plan for reconstruction of Iraq. As a result, U.S. soldiers and now with the bombing of the U.N. mission and the Jordanian embassy civilians are losing their lives and there is no reason to believe it will end anytime soon. With the reported migration of Al Qaeda to Iraq, even the capture of Hussein does not hold the promise of ending the terrorist attacks on western and allied forces.
Bush's decision and his moral culpability for the decision to invade a foreign country and needlessly expend US lives should be a central issue in next year's campaign. However it doesn't answer the question of what to do now. We have created a mess in Iraq but it appears to me that in addition to soliciting the U.N.'s help, we will need to devote a great deal more in terms of resources to fixing the problem. This will require an honest dialogue with American people about what is required in Iraq. How many people, how much money, how much bigger will the deficit need to become? Now that we have created a situation, arguably worse than when we went in, we have an obligation to do everything we can to fix it. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any interest in doing so or even in honestly discussing what would be necessary to do so.
As Friedman notes in his latest column, time may be running out.
Thursday, August 21, 2003
Who am I?
And more importantly why should anyone care what I have to say? I have been a politics/policy follower for 17 years and a sports fantatic since I could read (nearly 30 years). I followed through on the first of these interests by getting a Ph.D. in public policy from Harvard University in 1998 and working for the next five years in the Office of Management and Budget. For those outside the beltway, OMB is part of the Executive Office of the President and is in general close as a non-political appointee can get to the heart of public policy decisionmaking. I had the good fortune to be at OMB for five years across two very different Administrations.
I recently left OMB to take a job as a professor at the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers University. One of my chief frustrations at OMB was that I couldn't write what I was thinking about important policy issues for anyone to read besides myself. I am looking forward to being much freer in terms of expressing myself in my classroom, in my research, and here.
So does that mean I am some radical who has been bottled up all of these years? Quite the contrary. I am a moderate's moderate. I try not to prejudge any issue until I have read a fair amount about it and heard both sides of it. That said, I typically come out on issues to the left of center but not by a lot. There are some issues (gun control, drug legalization) which I am very far to the left on, and others (abortion, foreign policy) where I have considerable sympathy for the right. I do not consider myself set in my views and trust very few people who do.
From what I've seen on the web, (and in politics generally) the extreme voices are the loudest. This is bad not only because they drown out other views but also because I firmly believe that most Americans have little sympathy with either extreme. As a result, they get turned off of politics and reading the newspaper and a disengaged citizenry is not something that an advanced democracy can afford. As voting rates go down, the possiblility of extremism in our government increases. Then everything that this country stands for becomes at risk.
It is my hope to provide thoughtful, moderate views on issues in this space. I hope to learn from doing this and fully expect my views to evolve throughout this weblog. If anyone ever reads this and wants to comment, I expect to learn from them as well.
Occasionally (okay, maybe more often than occasionally) you will see me deviate from politics to sports and other matters. Whereas my views in politics are moderate, my views in sports are extreme (we all need outlets). I am a huge New York Yankee and Knick fan and an avid student of baseball history. There will definitely be columns here advancing particular views about sports as well as the usual political stuff. Read what you want and skip what bores you. That's what the web is for, right?
I recently left OMB to take a job as a professor at the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers University. One of my chief frustrations at OMB was that I couldn't write what I was thinking about important policy issues for anyone to read besides myself. I am looking forward to being much freer in terms of expressing myself in my classroom, in my research, and here.
So does that mean I am some radical who has been bottled up all of these years? Quite the contrary. I am a moderate's moderate. I try not to prejudge any issue until I have read a fair amount about it and heard both sides of it. That said, I typically come out on issues to the left of center but not by a lot. There are some issues (gun control, drug legalization) which I am very far to the left on, and others (abortion, foreign policy) where I have considerable sympathy for the right. I do not consider myself set in my views and trust very few people who do.
From what I've seen on the web, (and in politics generally) the extreme voices are the loudest. This is bad not only because they drown out other views but also because I firmly believe that most Americans have little sympathy with either extreme. As a result, they get turned off of politics and reading the newspaper and a disengaged citizenry is not something that an advanced democracy can afford. As voting rates go down, the possiblility of extremism in our government increases. Then everything that this country stands for becomes at risk.
It is my hope to provide thoughtful, moderate views on issues in this space. I hope to learn from doing this and fully expect my views to evolve throughout this weblog. If anyone ever reads this and wants to comment, I expect to learn from them as well.
Occasionally (okay, maybe more often than occasionally) you will see me deviate from politics to sports and other matters. Whereas my views in politics are moderate, my views in sports are extreme (we all need outlets). I am a huge New York Yankee and Knick fan and an avid student of baseball history. There will definitely be columns here advancing particular views about sports as well as the usual political stuff. Read what you want and skip what bores you. That's what the web is for, right?
testing
testing
