When Sports and Politics Collide - with Dave Zirin

Dave Zirin, the sports editor of the Nation magazine (who you've probably seen on TV or heard on the radio at some point) joins Ibrahim Abdul-Matin and Fouad Pervez from the No Spoon team to discuss several recent sports events and the political issues underpinning them. In this episode, we discuss Florida Athletic University's decision to sell their stadium's naming rights to a private prison company, the problems with the NCAA as an institution, the role of big money in college sports, baseball academies as sweatshops in Latin America (arguably the most under-covered sports story in the past few weeks, related to Hugo Chavez's death), and the NCAA basketball tournament. Be sure to get Dave's new must-read book, "Game Over: How Politics Has Turned the Sports World Upside Down", which recently received a glowing review in Sports Illustrated. We had technical issues (when taping, Dave's video was frozen and inverted in black and white, hence the references to Ghostface Zirin - YouTube apparently just gave him a blank screen in the final cut), but Google couldn't stop the latest No Spoon episode!

Who hasn't tried to co-opt MLK?

As we celebrate MLK Day in America today (and the second inauguration of Barack Obama, one that is definitely being linked to MLK on a few levels...more on that later), I started thinking: why do we know so little about the real King and, as a result, why are so many able to co-opt his messages?

The MLK we're told about (that I've written about before - click here and here to read more) was a man who told us to live together in peace, for whites and blacks to embrace each other, and let our kids play together. This isn't a bad message at all, of course. However, we rarely get the more complicated politics that MLK touched on. He understood the connection between racism, economics, and politics. "I have a dream" is very special and historical...but the dream MLK wanted us to get to involved addressing war, poverty, and the nature of our political system. He was pro-labor (he was assassinated while supporting sanitation workers on strike in Memphis). He was critical of the economic divide in America. He was staunchly opposed to the Vietnam war, and not supportive of our foreign policy in general. He thought we exploited the poor at home and abroad. He had problems with moderate white American leaders, who would be willing to compromise on social issues to bring about a "peace" without justice. So...yeah, not as warm and fuzzy as we hear about. Of course, reality makes him (and those who fought alongside him - one man does not make a movement) far more courageous, noble, and worthy of rememberance. It wasn't easy to fight against segregation. Fighting against segregation, Vietnam, poverty, aspects of capitalism, political dealmaking...yeah, that's a lot more challenging.

MLK: More Than Just "I Have a Dream"

(This oldie-but-goodie is reposted from our archives. Oh, and don't forget to check out this MLK-related post, either) Another year, another MLK day. While many people enjoy this as an extra day off from work or school, a lot of us enjoy to reflect on the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. That legacy is pretty impressive, but is often reduced to a ridiculously simplistic "black and white people living in harmony" angle by the press and political leaders. In fact, this year, the DoD suggested MLK might understand America's participation in wars today. I'm not even making that up. Seriously. Go read the thing for yourself...it is one of the more insane things I've ever heard.

Are we seriously still having this argument? Climate change is real, folks.

I'll admit it. I'm one of those people who on the whole ignores the midterm elections. I've never lived in a state where shake-ups could happen during a mid-term election and so I've become comfortable with the idea of just 'sit and watch' over the years. But this year's primaries have shot this complacent little ecologist right out of her chair and up on two feet with both arms flailing. Why? Because I suddenly noticed a consistent line being towed by several of the senatorial candidates.

In New Hampshire, all of the GOP potentials are in agreement that climate change due to humans has not been proven. New Mexico GOP candiadates think that "it's not real." In Alaska GOP/Tea Party candidate Joe Miller "hasn't heard about it." Wisconsin hopeful Ron Johnson "absolutely does not believe in the science of man-caused climate change." In fact the only GOP candidate supporting climate action is Mike Castle, from Delaware.

I'm equally frustrated with the candidates on every side who won't vocally speak out in support of the overwhelming scientific evidence that global warming is happening seemingly because it's just not a popular stance. By not advocating for climate change action, these candidates are complicitly contributing to the idea that climate change might not be real.

How can we still be having this argument? Have we landed back in 1992? Cause I really don't want to have to go through the horror of having to wear braces and headgear all over again. Seriously though, in case you're on the fence about this whole "global warming thing", here are a couple of models that I think help explain the problem.

No to a Ground Zero Mosque, Yes to a Community Center

Yesterday, protests at Ground Zero continued to gain international attention. What's at issue is a figment of the American public's imagination: the ground zero mosque. Herds of "well-intentioned" Americans flooded lower manhattan to chant down the construction of what they are calling a ground zero mosque, but what really is an Islamic community center. This case is a powerful lesson in framing, which I was first introduced to by the George Lakoff but you and I experience constantly. If we want to make sure The Community Center at Park 51 is built, we've got to re-frame the conversation, or else the Islamophobes have won!

President Obama's Oval Office Speech about BP Oil Spill: (and What the Hell Does Jack Welch Know About Keeping A Country from Rioting?)

Since we've been recording this saga since day 1, it only makes sense to embed a copy of Obama's Oval Office response to the spill. For what it's worth, as one of the authors of this blog, I think Obama is doing the best he can. There is so much backlash regarding his response to this disaster, and I understand the overwhelming anxiety and frustration associated with pain that JUST WON'T STOP. I also am very disappointed with some of Obama's other broken promises regarding habeas corpis and maranda rights readings, not to mention Gitmo. I am not going to defend the President because he is "one of ours." I consider myself a Lincoln Republican. But politics aside, all the talking heads trying to use this catastrophe as a rallying point against the President are frankly disgusting. The latest bitching and moaning session by Jack Welch on CNBC is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. How does this guy, who built up his company's financial opacity to the limits before handing the reigns over to his successor at the very moment his company had nothing left to gain, have a right to say anything about Obama or any President's ability to keep the masses from outright strike? Don't get me wrong, I'm aware of the God-like tenor of Mr. Welch in business circles, and I will give the man respect for running GE into and through its most prosperous times in history. However, Six-sigma standards, whereby you get to axe the bottom 10% of your already elite workforce is not an option for the President of the United States. For better or worse, President Obama must keep peace in this country and ensure that the "bottom 10%" of a population that is not pre-filtered does not find meaning in their lives by rallying against the government and the rest of the elite (like Mr. Welch) over something they do not fully understand. Mr. Welch implies that a business man (presumably like himself) is able to handle this crisis better than a politician:

"Here's the difference between a businessman and a politician: Businessmen focus on solutions. Politicians focus on 'who can we blame?'" he said. "We have to be managers right now, not politicians. No photo ops."

Well, Mr. Welch, this is what I have to say in response to you: First off, as of 2008, BP was the 15th largest company in the entire world by market capitalization. So I think it is safe to say that it has some of the best and most qualified "business men" in the world representing them, running the triage for this catastrophe--and as several previous posts on this blog have revealed (consider Lies, Lies, and More Lies: Hey BP, Does It Pay to Not Tell the Truth When So Many People Are on to You?), these same business men have not been all that honest about the extent of damage this crisis is causing; secondly, the way this country works, if you have not noticed, Mr. Welch, is government cannot really get into a private company's business unless they do something utterly wrong. That is, unless of course, the government is helping your profits (consider the Cheney Halliburton Connection). Thus, if business men such as BP and the rest of the execs from the other companies involved in this mess are better equipped with dealing with this mess, then why the heck is it exacerbating further after nearly two months. If you do not want politicians involved then do not cut corners--lest they cause catastrophes that garner public scrutiny--and when a mess occurs be honest, forthright, and throw your entire weight into the problem--as opposed to spending three weeks calculating what the most profitable "solution" to the problem is. Lastly, Regarding politicians focusing on "who to blame" as opposed to "finding a solution," I posit that BP's inability to find a solution has created a much bigger problem than you disgustingly rich CEO's can possibly fathom because you live in a bubble of largess only achievable in the first place because the skilled politicians of this country manage to mitigate the backlash of the people when $hit like this hits the fan. Rather than ripping on the President, Mr. Welch, you should be shaking his hand, thanking him, and offering whatever support you can to solve the problem--since that's what business men do so well.

Full Disclosure: I have owned GE stock in two separate accounts for 11 years and up until about 7 years ago thought of Jack Welch as a God, until I learned about some of the shady business practices and accounting tricks he engaged in while serving as Captain of the falling ship that is GE.

Hospital Rwanda

I can hold a grudge like no other. As a result, I have not done more than skim through the headlines of the New York Times in years. And I used to read the Times and several other papers, granted the electronic versions, cover to cover every day. In all fairness to the Times, several years ago I had a job that allowed me to read several papers a day. Now, particularly at this time of year when I’ve got wall-to-wall interviews day in and day out, skimming the headlines is about all I have the time for.

All of which is a long winded way of saying, I came across this article on health insurance in Rwanda which I had to stop and read. To the dismay of my colleague this means that last Tuesday’s election results get short shrift. My quick two cents on that, much ado is being made about nothing with regards to the appearance of the anti-labor/progressive positions taken by the White House and former President Clinton in stumping for Blanche Lincoln. They did their job in campaigning for the incumbent from their party, and one sitting in a fairly important committee chair. We can argue about whether that’s how it should be or not, but that’s politics. Don’t like it, vote and convince the people you know to vote and hold elected officials accountable for the positions they take. Which is most likely what’s going to happen to Senator Lincoln. Back to Rwanda.

139th out of 181. 139th out of 182. 141st out of 190. That’s where Rwanda ranked on the IMF’s 2009, World Bank’s 2008, and 2009 CIA World Factbook list of countries by GDP. The United States ranked number 1. 92% of Rwandans have health insurance. 85% of Americans have health insurance according to last year’s annual report by the Census Bureau. Why is it that Rwanda can figure out how to bring near universal health care to its population for $2 a year and we can’t, or more to the point won’t, figure out a public option? Right, politics. Something Blanche Lincoln is learning cuts both ways.

Politics and the World Cup

So, the World Cup is upon us. The great celebration of soccer/football (depending on if you live in the US or not - I will just go ahead and call it soccer in the rest of this piece...don't take it personally, non-Americans, because I don't get the name, either) across the globe that comes around every four years. Everyone gets into it. I was in Pakistan in 2002, and people were out in public places extra late at night to see some of the games - and they didn't even have a team in the tourney! Of course, there's a lot of mainstream discussion about how soccer brings the world together. You've possibly seen the Bono-voiced commercials about this...man, is that guy promoting everything??? ESPN has had a bunch of segments suggesting the same theme - unity and peace from the game. I don't doubt it has some effect, actually. But, these games are also being held in South Africa. That by itself makes it a really big deal, even for the World Cup. There's also the whole FIFA-is-a-thug-gangsta thing, which is really wreaking havoc on South Africa, and might do the same in Brazil in 2014. Yeah, that's right, there are TONS of politics in the World Cup coming up! Shocker, right?

The South Africa angle by itself makes for a really conflicting story, actually. On the one hand, there is a general feeling of pride, especially in the global South, and with non-white folks around the world, that this is a huge deal. It is. A World Cup in a formerly-colonized land? A non-white country? South Africans have to be very proud of this, and I can attest that lots of people around the globe are as well. And if an African team can make a good run, like Senegal in 2002, that would be incredible. So, yeah, lots of positive vibes about South Africa being the site.

Of course, South Africa isn't a well-off country, either, and FIFA does some serious dirty work on those countries. 24% of the population is unemployed, and 50% live below the poverty line. It's also got a decent amount of debt right now - almost 40% of its GDP. So, not exactly a fantastic economic story. Now, this is where Babyface Nelson...er...FIFA comes in.

So, South Africa actually had pretty good stadiums. I mean, they hosted the Confederations Cup there in 2009 for two weeks and didn't seem to have many problems. But, for the World Cup, they had to build new stadiums, on their own dime. Total costs? 1.12 billion dollars. The costs for building new transportation systems? 1.2 billion dollars. Not cheap at all, and seemingly an insane amount of money to spend when nothing seemed terribly bad the previous year for a major soccer tournament. These are MAJOR expenses, especially for a country that doesn't have a lot of money to throw around. I get that FIFA wants to ensure everything is top-notch for the World Cup, but come on - I remember games in Giants Stadium (which, btw, is in New Jersey, not New York - Jersey represent!) in 1994, and Giants Stadium wasn't a Rolls Royce by any means. There had to be a much cheaper way - upgrades on the stadiums from the previous year seemed reasonable. This doesn't. It's like the debate on public financing for US sports stadiums, a hot-topic at all times. These sweetheart deals usually cost the public dearly - no real economic analysis shows building a stadium improves the local economy, even though advocates always claim that's the case. In this case, these new stadiums are even more costly, given South Africa's economy, compared to the US. For a good discussion about public financing of stadiums in America, check out Field of Schemes.

People were displaced from their homes to make way for the new stadiums. FIFA tried to brush away any signs of poverty from sight. As Dave Zirin points out, "thousands have been forced from their homes into makeshift shantytowns, to both make way for stadiums and make sure that tourists don't have to see any depressing scenes of poverty. The United Nations even issued a complaint on behalf of the 20,000 people removed from the Joe Slovo settlement in Cape Town, called an "eyesore" by World Cup organizers."

FIFA has also cracked down on the informal economy around the stadium. Many people work right around the stadiums, selling food, drinks, souvenirs, etc., to make a living. In light of the World Cup, many had been increasing their sales slightly. However, FIFA has made all of that illegal. They have set up a 1 kilometer barrier - merchants unlicensed by them cannot operate within 1 km of the stadiums now. Those who run stores around the stadiums also cannot make any money off the event, unless they are willing to pay a steep price to become authorized to sell items. No merchants can use any World Cup logos without paying a large fee as well. So, FIFA essentially killed off the chance for poor South Africans merchants to make some money off the World Cup by getting the government to change the laws for them.

There's also the issue of labor. Instead of using South Africans to formulate and produce the merchandise, FIFA farmed most of that out to foreign firms, despite its claim to want to distribute the economic gains from the World Cup to ordinary South Africans. There's the issue of soccer ball production, largely done in foreign countries, particularly Pakistan and India, where labor laws have been ignored. Not a huge concern to FIFA. There's the fact that the mascot toys for the World Cup were also not produced in South Africa, which would have been a boost to their economy, but rather in a Chinese sweatshop via a subcontract from Global Brands Group.

The World Cup will make a hell of a lot of money. The TV deal alone is worth more than the revenue from the previous two World Cup TV deals combined. South Africa will see little of it, while they foot the bill. FIFA only pays the prize money, and expenses for travel and preparation for the teams. FIFA will get up to $4 billion from the event. (This is a lengthy report, but goes through the issues quite thoroughly). South Africa, not so much. For instance, they get ZERO percent of the TV revenue (which is about $2b). FIFA gets to pocket most of the money. Back in 2005, 1 in 3 South Africans hoped to personally benefit from the World Cup. Tellingly, today, that number is at 1%. This is a reason many of them have been protesting so vigorously. Over 70,000 South Africans have taken part in strikes against World Cup related projects since 2007.

So, despite all the warm and fuzzy stories you're likely to hear in the next few days and weeks (and many of them are completely legitimate - a World Cup in an African nation is an incredible thing), don't forget that there are a lot of ugly politics involved in this World Cup. Like most others. FIFA has done what it usually does, act all gangsta and extort everything from a host nation while pocketing most of the money. In this case, the host nation happens to be a poorer one, in the global South, which means the debt it will likely incur, and the expenditures for the World Cup that were diverted from other critical areas of national spending, will have much greater consequences. And guess what - in 2014, FIFA takes its act to Brazil. Don't expect things to get any better - unless people understand what exactly happened in South Africa (and, honestly, most World Cups).

It is an incredible event, no doubt, but FIFA does some horrible things to host nations. When it steps on a poorer country, things can get very bad very quickly. Host governments also go along with this, so it's not like they're not complicit in the problem as well. For all intents and purposes, FIFA rents these governments to do what it pleases. Now, they obviously want the World Cup, so they're sort of held hostage, but is the price worth it? That's what they should ask themselves. If it is not (it doesn't seem to be), then they shouldn't play ball. So, shame on these governments for giving in to FIFA. Of course, you get FIFA to stop being such a bully, the problem goes away. Also, this creates a major advantage for richer countries to host such events, since FIFA's economic extortion doesn't cause as much relative damage in their nations as it does in poorer ones. But, it is a fair point to say the host governments are also responsible for letting FIFA do what it does.

However, if people know what happened, they can raise awareness, watch the games while protesting FIFA through acts of civil disobedience (or simply writing letters to editors, telling their friends, etc.), and supporting those on the ground taking action against FIFA and the South African government. Hey, Chicago residents knew that the IOC for the Olympics work the same way. They wanted no part of that, which they shouldn't. You deal with dirty actors like FIFA and the IOC, you'll get burned. Their protests scared the IOC enough to not bring the games to Chicago. And who knows, with enough pressure and education, maybe we can force corporate sports conglomerates like FIFA and the IOC to stop their game of extortion. There's another way to put on these great events without killing the host nations. We don't need any more sad stories like South Africa, Invictus in reverse, as Zirin calls it.

Edit: For another great piece on the World Cup, read this.

Retail Traders and Investors get Fleeced by Humongous Banks and Brokers: JPMorgan and BofA Sell High, Buy VERY Low, Sell High Again in Mere Minutes

Thursday's market meltdown and ensuing rally, all of which took place in a matter of 8 minutes will go down as one of the most unethical fleecings of retail investors/traders by the HB&B's ("Humongous Bank & Brokers") in history. Thanks in part (at the least) to high frequency trading algorithms (more about HFT below), between 2:40 and 2:48pm on Thursday May 6, 2010, the S&P500, already down 2% on the day, dropped an additional 6.1%, before dramatically rebounding right back to where it was before the collapse. Of course, the media (namely, CNBC), very quickly (within 2 minutes of this collapse and rebound) came out with "the explanation," that "someone had fat fingers at one of the trading firms, and entered a 'b' for billion instead of an 'm' for million." Give me a break! (See CitiBank Fat Finger, or Stock Sell off May Have Been Triggered by a Trader Error; there are hundreds of additional sources online, just google "fat finger sell-off". Several hours later, conflicting reports out of Fox, SmartMoney, and even CNBC, the source of the original "explanation" came out: Obama Administration Source: 'Fat Finger' Error Didn't Trigger Thursday Selloff and 'Fat Finger' Trigger May be a Myth. ) Again, there are myriad sources that argue in opposition to what I personally believe is an incredibly lame excuse that a single trade at one of the HB&Bs triggered more than $1 Trillion worth of losses and gains in less than 10 minutes (it took 4 minutes for the market to drop and another 4-5 minutes for the market to bounce back to where it was before the meteorite struck).

It is undeniable, however, who benefited the most from this "freak" event. I have managed to get my hands on twenty-five minutes of audio from the NYSE stock trading floor before, during, and after this 8 minute period, which I believe sheds some light on what really happened during the aforementioned time period (nothing short of grand larceny). At the very least, it shows who bought at the absolute nadir of the collapse (Dow -928 points) and sold once the market "returned to normalcy" (Dow -300 points). It gets really interesting just before the halfway point in the audio clip when the anonymous reporter yells: "This will blow people out in a big way like you won't even believe."

Many believe--myself included--that the market does not have the fundamental foundation to support being where it is right now and that it is only at such levels because High Frequency Trading (HFT) or algorithmic trading on the part of hedge funds and the HB&B's have artificially moved it higher taking both the bid and ask prices up in fractional increments so fast that true supply and demand pivots cannot be calculated. In other words, up until several years ago, large stock market transactions required a person to stand up and bid for a certain amount of stock at a particular price and then do the opposite if and when that person or entity was ready to sell. Now, however, with computer trading comes the ability to create a trading algorithm that would trade in place of the person behind the trading account by taking advantage of so-called "inefficiencies" in the market place. This works wonderfully (for the hedge fund behind the computer) when other (mostly retail) investors and traders are willing and able to take the other side of that trade; indeed, it is extremely lucrative under such conditions, which is why when the market is acting "rationally" the HB&Bs are able to rake in the profits. However, when a political or economic event suddenly makes it difficult or impossible to gauge an intrinsic value for the market (the BP oil spill in the Gulf, the uncertainty surrounding Greece's debt problems in the Euro Zone, and the Financial Reform legislation taking place on Capital Hill all qualify) these computer algorithms do not have a counter party to take the other side of their trade and since they are programmed to figure out where inconsistencies exist based on the next bid, they start pounding the market price down until a bid is reached, no matter how far that bid may be. Before HFT, the market would simply have stalled momentarily while the persons behind the trades thought about what was a reasonable bid and ask spread. That moment of reason does not exist with HFT and since it all happens so fast, the market can very easily and quickly feed on itself, igniting fierce downward pressure in market prices that essentially force everyone involved to reevaluate appropriate market valuations. Well, I believe that is partially what happened on Thursday. But wouldn't you know who was available to buy at the exact bottom of this downward spiral, which coincidentally was a few fractions of a percentage points away from the circuit breaker trigger (10% loss) that would have shut down the market for the day: that's right, the proprietary trading desks of JPMorgan and Merrill Lynch (now owned by Bank of America). Just listen to the audio to hear it yourself--note that the recording cracks at various points because of the excitement of the environment. Just keep listening, it comes back.

Computers do what they are programmed to do, and nothing more. If the algorithm behind the trades incorrectly assumes that trading conditions or environments do not change, and therfore does not compensate for "panic" scenarios that inevitably happen in the stock market from time to time, the end result can be catastrophic because the permissions and controls have already been provided to the computer. If you are interested in learning about and discussing the perils of high frequency trading, I highly recommend this prescient post HFT: The High Frequency Trading Scam, by Karl Denninger, which was published on Seeking Alpha two weeks ago.

For those who know what a stop-loss order is, suffice it to say that pretty much every stop order that had been placed prior to this event was hit. For those who do not know what a stop-loss order is, essentially what it amounts to is a great number of individual traders and investors were forced to sell at very low prices, which only became trades in the first place because the algorithms were instructed to "find the next lowest price"--period. Furthermore, it happened so fast that those who were bright enough to figure out what was happening did not have enough time to react.


UPDATE Sunday May 9, 2010: A plethora of news syndicates have finally reached past the implausible "fat-finger" excuse and are actually doing some critical thinking into the matter. Fortune Magazine Online just published an article dissecting what they believe are the most likely possibilities for cause of the flash crash of May 6th, but only after first reiterating my thoughts above:

The fat finger. Plausible, but very unlikely. Typing in billions with a "b" versus millions with an "m" seems impossible. Trading systems don't work that way. More likely, the trading system accepts the sell/buy amount in thousands. Some trader in the heat of the moment forgets it's in thousands, types in an order for 16,000,000 instead of 16,000. That kind of thing seems far more plausible.

Check out the article for more.

Reprint of "Boxing, Wrestling, and the American Dream"

What follows is an unpublished essay written in March of 2006. It was written long before Barack Obama announced his candidacy for presidency of the United States of America. Reading this essay four years after it was written makes me summons an ironic adage: "The more things change, the more they stay the same." Indeed, it seems that in one regard the essay was quite prescient in its assertion that the American People were demanding fairness to return to the "ring." I do not think the author could have expected, however, just how in tune with the future his discussion about Jack Johnson's pardon at the end of the essay was in regards to the historic election of the first African American President. Unfortunately, the promise of change may end there. It seems even the calm and collected Barak Obama can only do so much to change the politics of this country. The middle class continue to get squeezed and pushed further down the ladder of consequence; the War in Iraq will soon replace Vietnam as the longest running war in American History; oil still rules our existence even as the promise for unlimited renewable energy lies at our finger tips; and the richest 2% still control 98% of the world's wealth.

Although the essay makes references to the politics and entertainment of the time in which it was written (i.e. former President Bush, Rocky VI, etc,) it is really intriguing to see how similar everything looks. The one minor difference seems to be a marginally better opinion of Americans amongst the rest of the global citizenry.

On America's Moral Barometers...

So, Plaxico Burress just got a 2-year jail sentence for carrying a licensed gun into a nightclub and shooting himself in the leg, but nobody else. Michael Vick just got reinstated to the NFL after serving 2 years in jail for his role in financing a dog-fighting racket. In both cases, lots of people have voiced outrage as to the supposed leniency in their cases. I'm not saying they are necessarily wrong (though I really think Burress' sentence is kind of crazy), nor am I condoning their actions...but do these people follow the news????


I mean, seriously, is Michael Vick the guy we need to go after? I get it, he played a part in something horrible, especially if you are a dog-lover (I'm indifferent, but can sympathize), but understand that the harm he inflicted, while obviously bad, was limited...and he paid his dues by going to jail and losing his money. Same will happen to Plax, whose football career is essentially over - 2 years in jail for a wide receiver at Burress' age means nobody will sign him when he's out. Barry Bonds, the home-run king, has essentially been blacklisted by Major League Baseball, and the players in general have come under fire for their use of steroids, but nobody is talking about the owners who looked the other way in the 1990s when juice-induced homers were filling the seats and their pockets. Michael Phelps, Olympic hero (and University of Michigan grad - go Blue!), attracted so much criticism for his admission that he had smoked marijuana in the past.

I'm not sure what the hell happened to America, but since when were sports athletes our moral barometers? Seriously. I'm not condoning any of the actions mentioned above, but give me a break. I'd say, at the very least, we should hold our leaders more accountable than the guys we watch throw spirals, right? I get the outrage some people felt when Vick was let back into the league, but, again, he actually paid for his crimes. How many of our leaders have done no such thing? How many people in far more important positions involved in far more serious matters have gotten away with murder? Literally? Yet, America directs more of its outrage at NFL stars doing dumb and horrible things than Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR - a former Halliburton subsidiary), who got some sweet contracts from the US government (and who says having friends in high positions, like Dick Cheney, et. al., doesn't pay?) in Iraq, have misused a lot of the money, and most importantly, may have done such a shoddy job on electrical wiring that that this work killed 16 US soldiers due to electrocution this past year. In some of the cases, the Pentagon already announced no criminal charges will be filed. Well, of course not. Paying a company $80 million to wire facilities in Iraq, and then have a number of US soldiers die because they were electrocuted in showers in those facilities, doesn't seem to be a serious matter at all. Totally not linked, you know, wiring and multiple electrocution deaths in showers. Now, if you really want to talk about morality, let me tell you about Michael Vick...

Speculation is that Burress got a pretty harsh sentence because Mayor Bloomberg wanted to make an example out of him. Okay. So, let me see if I got this right. You want to make an example out of somebody for doing something bad. In New York city. Um...do you know Wall Street is in the area? Because, while Plax is a fool for carrying a gun into a club, and he definitely could have potentially done a lot of harm, he actually only shot himself, whereas our "great" business minds on Wall Street ran amuck and broke our economy with their recklessness, causing a hell of a lot of real harm to countless Americans. What some of them did was totally criminal. So...lets throw the book at Plax instead!

How many laws did the Bush administration break? It seems like we're still getting stories every few weeks about something insane and criminal they did to this day. What are the consequences? None, basically, because they were only the leaders of our country. John Yoo teaches at Berkeley. Dick Cheney seems ready for his own prime time television show. Alberto Gonzalez still can't remember a damn thing and will be teaching political science courses (why, god, why?) at Texas Tech. George W. Bush is putting together a think tank (no, that's not a joke). None of them are in jail. None of them went to trial to go to jail. And I doubt any of them will. While this is killing some progressives across the country (and people in general around the world), the general mood in America is, we shouldn't go after these guys. Awesome. We've got bigger fish to fry. Athletes. Rappers. Not guys who lie to Congress in sworn testimony - he totally doesn't deserve to go to jail.

Over time, it seems like the people we should be holding up to higher moral and civic standards in our country are acting in absolutely appalling ways. And, most importantly, they're getting away with it. Rachel Maddow shouldn't be one of the only people reporting on "the Family" at the C St. House, for instance, an institution that includes Congressional leaders who use taxpayer money to learn about coercion from some of the worst dictators around. Why hasn't there been wider coverage of Bobby Jindal using taxpayer dollars to fly to churches all over Louisiana to give communities checks with his name on it that came from the Obama stimulus bill that Jindal so openly deplored? How about really leaning heavily on Governor Sanford for being completely out of touch with everyone while he went down to Argentina to visit his mistress? Forget the affair, a governor of the state can't just leave town (and country) without telling anyone. By the way, he used taxpayer dollars for several of those trips before, and lots of taxpayer dollars in other inappropriate ways. Maybe he will be impeached (there seems to be some movement towards it), but political leaders sure seem to get away with a lot, so I'll believe he's held accountable when I see it. Now, if he was Michael Phelps, different story...

Charles Barkley famously quipped years ago that he wasn't a role model. Well, I think whether they want to be or not, athletes (and lots of other people in the public limelight, like musicians, actors, writers, etc.) have no choice but to be role models. That means acting responsibly, and paying the price when they don't. Oftentimes, they do get away with a lot. But sometimes they don't. On the other hand, there is no doubt our political, civic, and business leaders should be role models, far more than athletes, etc.. They are engaged in far more serious issues than entertaining us. Somewhere along the line, though, we shifted our moral barometers. Guys like Dick Cheney became untouchable, but guys like Barry Bonds became lightning rods for debates about "what was wrong in America." Well, I think the fact that the discussion has moved to that level might begin to tell us what is wrong in America.

Note: I realize I went after a lot of Republicans here...that's just because its easier, given the insane number of ridiculous scandals they've been involved with, but please don't think my point here is a partisan one. It's about the insanity of holding athletes, entertainers, etc., up to be the moral barometers of this country, while giving our actual leaders, in politics, in business, in civic life, a much easier pass.

Political posturing is killing this country

There are two major events in the past week that have brought the ire of the legislators. Though not exclusively, the GOP was especially galvanized to criticize these happenings. The events were the 2009 spending bill, but more specifically the nearly 8,000 earmarks legislators had placed in them. And the recent bonuses granted to AIG employees amounting to $160 million. While these are two unrelated events the unifying aspect is the way the GOP has used them to create political wedge issues. And they have done so in a manner that is so transparent that it’s hard to believe people buy it.

First, the earmarks:
Last week, Congress passed and President Obama signed a $410 billion spending bill. This was a bill that should have been passed prior to the beginning of the 2009 fiscal year on October 1, 2008, but it was delayed and a continuing resolution enacted to buy Congress some time to pass the bill. While the bill should have been passed prior to the beginning on the 2009 fiscal year, Democrats bet that a President Obama (or had McCain been elected, President McCain) would be more amendable to the party’s budget priorities. But I digress.

The real issue with the spending bill last week was not the delay in its passage, but according to the GOP, the problem was earmarks. In fact, the problem was some 8,000 earmarks placed in the bill by members of Congress. While we could have a complete discussion of earmarks, and why or why not they are the bane of the budget process, that isn’t the issue. The issue is that the GOP was criticizing President Obama for signing a bill with all of the earmarks that many Republicans had placed in it. It’s like ordering a chili-half smoke from Ben’s Chili Bowl and then complaining when they bring your food because it has chili on it. Hopefully, you are as confused as I am.

Ultimately, the issue is not the earmarks at all. It isn’t the number of earmarks or the amount of those earmarks. It isn’t the fact that those earmarks comprised approximately 1.3% of the spending bill. It isn’t even that President Obama had campaigned on the fact that he would attempt to improve the budget process, specifically mentioning the thousands of earmarks. The real issue is that the Republicans put these earmarks in the bill. They placed them there, so they could tell their constituents at home that they brought that convention center or highway or building on the local university to their district or state. These same republicans who are criticizing President Obama for signing a bill with earmarks did so merely days after putting in funding for their own pet projects. They are simply trying to posture themselves politically.

Now personally, I think there are some earmarks that are great and I’m sure that we have all benefited from a few earmarks over the course of our lives. But to request an earmark and then turn around and criticize the bill for being too full of earmarks, is simply ridiculous.

Second, AIG bonuses
As I mentioned before the earmarks and AIG are connected, but simply in the way that these legislators are posturing. Now AIG, the infamous financial insurance group, which has exacerbated this financial crisis, has paid more than $160 million to employees in the form of bonuses. Should AIG have paid these bonuses? Absolutely not. Nobody should be rewarded for running a company the way the folks at AIG ran theirs. But let’s put this in perspective; $160 million is not that much money in terms of the federal budget or the operating budget of a major financial institution. (In fact, its about three times as much as the total amount of earmarks requested by Senator Cochran (R-MS) Ultimately, the legislators who are jumping on AIG are sensing that the public has had about enough. And they are attempting to position themselves as the populist legislators that they haven’t been since being elected.

While these criticisms may seem focused on Republicans, they are not exclusively for them. Democrats are doing it too. My problem with all of this is that legislators are focusing more on political positioning than they are on solving the real problems we have in the country. And we do have real problems; serious problems. And I assure you that these politicians who are preaching their own message of populism in the last 24 hours probably care little about actually solving the problems that we face. There are 45 million Americans without health insurance and far more without an actual source of health care. There are states with double digit unemployment. The stock market has tanked. We are still entrenched in a war in Iraq that we never should have started. And clinging to any gains made in Afghanistan. Our federal deficit is growing at an amazing rate, but more importantly the debt of consumers and small business is mounting and forcing many to close their doors. There is little liquidity in the credit market, which is further impacting every business in the U.S.

So yes, we have problems. Major problems. But the key is to start to fix these problems, to try to address them. We need serious people in Washington to do this. People who care more about the people than the posturing. We need people who care more about creating solutions than illustrating problems. And most importantly, we need people who are willing to put aside party politics to work to benefit all Americans. There are people like this. There are people who care about improving things, who care about rebuilding this country and restoring its image. I think its time that we listen to these people instead of the political posturing and the hypocritical attacks.