You can't spell Twitter without TWIT.
Another reason not to like the NBA. Appears all the talent is going to be concentrated in six or eight teams. The rest are apparently just there to get clobbered by the major media market clubs.
So, hurry and shell out for those season tickets to watch your city's team get its collective head bashed in 60-plus times a year. Don't all stampede to the ticket windows at once.
Maybe they should cut the NBA to the NHL level of pre-1967: Six teams. So the big cities get their big stars and the rest of the country isn't asked to play the role of cannon fodder.
By NBA standards, the Green Bay-Pittsburgh Super Bowl earlier this month would be considered a disaster. Funny, but that game set viewership records. Without a New York, Boston, Chicago or Los Angeles involved. And last year? New Orleans-Indianapolis.
That's why the NFL and Major League Baseball -- and the NHL, for that matter -- all have a better league than the NBA. Somebody outside the top four or five TV markets gets a chance to win.
Can't really say that about college football, though. The odds are that only a handful of the 100-plus so-called major college teams have any real chance to compete for the national title -- or ever will.
Anybody envision a Northwestern-Vanderbilt title game? Anybody?
Wyoming? Mississippi State? Wake Forest? UTEP? Memphis? The list of no-chance schools goes on and on.
Having Wisconsin Democrats hiding out rather than face a vote they know they're going to lose is both silly and futile. Didn't work in Texas a couple of years back either.
On the other hand, doesn't busting unions -- which is what Wisconsin's governor is up to -- take power away from the people and put more power in the hands of government? Used to be that the GOP stood for less government, not more.
Not that Republicans ever had much use for unions ...
It could be said to some extent that unions have largely served their purpose.
Workers are far better off than they were 80 years ago, and now the unions seem more interested in protecting members who can't do their jobs than in producing quality American goods.
Still, when a state government agrees to collective bargaining, does the agreement state UNTIL WE CHANGE OUR MIND? Or is our leaders' word no better today than it was to Native Americans in the 18th and 19th centuries?
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
An old, old debate
We're hearing, at least from the political right, that the military doesn't care much for Barack Obama.
This has been going on for, oh, only 210 years or so.
There has long been chafing on the part of the military of civilian leadership. At the same time, there has long been a civilian distrust in putting too much power in the military's hands.
It was decided at the time the United States was founded that the military would be under civilian control. The President, a civilian, would be commander-in-chief of the armed services.
At the time, it was something of a progressive idea. After all, the European nations were ruled by kings, to whom the military answered personally.
For centuries, it was the king who led the military into battle or at least gave the orders.
That pretty much went out after Napoleon Bonaparte, the last major European leader to lead his armies into battle. By that time, most of his rivals were already employing professional military officers while the rulers kept a safe distance from the bloodshed.
Anyway, civilian control of the armed services was written into the Constitution when the United States was formed.
The first President, of course, left little room for carping from the military. George Washington's credibility with the army was beyond dispute.
The complaining on the part of the military probably began about the time the second President, John Adams, took office. He was, after all, not a military veteran.
Same with Thomas Jefferson and those who followed, up until Andrew Jackson.
Since Jackson, a few other military leaders have made it into the White House. Most were far less effective as President as they had been in uniform.
Although his Presidency is not held up as a shining example, credit has to be given to one ex-general who had a huge effect on the United States we know today.
Dwight Eisenhower saw the autobahns of Germany and brought them to the U.S. as the Interstate system.
His interest was as much military as anything else -- the Interstates are also known as National Defense Highways. Better highways mean moving troops around more rapidly.
Those around during the first Gulf War saw that idea in action as convoys of troops used freeways to get to airports and seaports for deployment.
Is there any significance to the fact that Eisenhower was an administrator and politician as a general, not a fighter? His service in World War II was far from the front lines, but his ability to get disparate leaders and nations to work together was invaluable.
And those who claim that Ronald Reagan "won" the Cold War do a great disservice to Eisenhower and his predecessor, Harry Truman. Those two had to deal with a far more dangerous leader in Moscow, Joseph Stalin, than did those who followed.
Of actual fighting generals, only Jackson was outstanding -- but his total disregard for the Supreme Court's ruling on the rights of the Cherokees would have been a major Constitutional crisis if most white Americans of the time weren't just as racist as Jackson toward Native Americans. Prejudice swept that one under the rug of history.
Only Abraham Lincoln, who threw the Bill of Rights out the White House window in his battle to save the Union, showed less respect to the Constitution.
But that's a rant for another day.
This has been going on for, oh, only 210 years or so.
There has long been chafing on the part of the military of civilian leadership. At the same time, there has long been a civilian distrust in putting too much power in the military's hands.
It was decided at the time the United States was founded that the military would be under civilian control. The President, a civilian, would be commander-in-chief of the armed services.
At the time, it was something of a progressive idea. After all, the European nations were ruled by kings, to whom the military answered personally.
For centuries, it was the king who led the military into battle or at least gave the orders.
That pretty much went out after Napoleon Bonaparte, the last major European leader to lead his armies into battle. By that time, most of his rivals were already employing professional military officers while the rulers kept a safe distance from the bloodshed.
Anyway, civilian control of the armed services was written into the Constitution when the United States was formed.
The first President, of course, left little room for carping from the military. George Washington's credibility with the army was beyond dispute.
The complaining on the part of the military probably began about the time the second President, John Adams, took office. He was, after all, not a military veteran.
Same with Thomas Jefferson and those who followed, up until Andrew Jackson.
Since Jackson, a few other military leaders have made it into the White House. Most were far less effective as President as they had been in uniform.
Although his Presidency is not held up as a shining example, credit has to be given to one ex-general who had a huge effect on the United States we know today.
Dwight Eisenhower saw the autobahns of Germany and brought them to the U.S. as the Interstate system.
His interest was as much military as anything else -- the Interstates are also known as National Defense Highways. Better highways mean moving troops around more rapidly.
Those around during the first Gulf War saw that idea in action as convoys of troops used freeways to get to airports and seaports for deployment.
Is there any significance to the fact that Eisenhower was an administrator and politician as a general, not a fighter? His service in World War II was far from the front lines, but his ability to get disparate leaders and nations to work together was invaluable.
And those who claim that Ronald Reagan "won" the Cold War do a great disservice to Eisenhower and his predecessor, Harry Truman. Those two had to deal with a far more dangerous leader in Moscow, Joseph Stalin, than did those who followed.
Of actual fighting generals, only Jackson was outstanding -- but his total disregard for the Supreme Court's ruling on the rights of the Cherokees would have been a major Constitutional crisis if most white Americans of the time weren't just as racist as Jackson toward Native Americans. Prejudice swept that one under the rug of history.
Only Abraham Lincoln, who threw the Bill of Rights out the White House window in his battle to save the Union, showed less respect to the Constitution.
But that's a rant for another day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)