Is there a relationship between the decline of amateurism, most recently seen in the NCAA's new rules on name, image, likeness (NIL) and the desire to work remotely?
I think there is. Both were subjects in today's newspapers. Today's not a good blogging day, may expand my thoughts later.
When my family first got a TV, the NY Giants games were the ones mostly on TV, so I became a Giant fan. I remember the games with the Cleveland Browns and the greatest NFL back, Jim Brown (who once scored 6 touchdowns against my alma mater, setting a record that lasted for 40+ years, and he didn't just score TD's, he kicked the extra points as well).
When I got to college, I worked in a dorm kitchen along with a man from Long Island. At that time lacrosse was very much a niche sport; I think it was popular on Long Island and upstate NY where Native Americans continued to play. As good as Jim Brown was at football, he was better at lacrosse, as John told me at the time and was ratified by the lacrosse people.
We're seeing a turnover of House leadership for the Democrats. That's good; we need younger members and younger leaders. Sen. Schumer seems to have been effective in the Senate, but there too I'd like to see newer leadership.
While there's a reasonable argument that some people of my age and above still have good judgment, and that judgment is the most important attribute of a leader, I think it's mistaken. Leadership is many things, judgment only part of it. So somehow I'd like to see the Democrats come up with a new candidate for the presidency in 2024, but one with good chances of winning, and one who will help candidates for other offices on the ballot. Maintaining control of the Senate will be difficult; the map is against us. Continuing to make progress in state legislatures and governorships is very important.
Currently reading Sen. Leahy's memoir. He entered the Senate in 1974 and was barely re-elected in 1980. It's an easy read, anecdotal and more about persons than policy or procedure.
One point--Reagan's victory in 1980 swept out a bunch of Democratic senators; only Leahy and Gary Hart of the 1974 Watergate class survived in the Senate. Was this the turning point to partisanship? He mentions Carter's farewell address, which included a warning against single-interest organizations. I think the reality is that organizations trying to influence Congress have become more and more specialized over the years. For example, we used to have the "farm lobby", composed of three big national organizations--Farm Bureau, Grange, National Farmers Union. But over time single commodity groups have become more important and more wide-spread.
I've got a couple books in my library queue about the growth of partisan politices; both of which I think go back to the 1990's, but not before.
On a farm, with animals, Thanksgiving Day is like any other. The cows have to be fed and milked, the manure has to be moved to the spreader and spread, the hens have to be fed, the eggs have to be gathered.
Since we raised chickens, that, not turkey, was our Thanksgiving entree. It was still special; you might expect we were eating chicken regularly but not so. Chickens laid eggs, that was their role in our ecosystem. As you only eat your seed corn in desperate times you don't eat your egg layers.
The usual menu IIRC was chicken, mashed potatoes (bought), and green beans (canned from the garden), with pie for desert.
Typically it was just the four of us at the table, which might mean conflict. Or not.
After the meal and some rest, the routines resumed. More milking, more feeding, more egg gathering, cleaning and packing.
Two possible pictures of humans:
The consensus of historians is the cause of the Civil War was slavery. Evidence includes the assertions of many Southern leaders, as documented in the secession resolutions.
A few people have worried about a new civil war. I don't share that worry, but out of my contrarian spirit I wonder this: if we were to have a new civil war, what would be the cause?
[Added: my point is that everything is clearer in hindsight.]
NYTimes reports on a letter sent to Chief Justice Roberts claiming a leak of the decision in 2014 in the Hobby-Lobby case. Although the writer relates it to the leak of the Dobbs draft decision this year, I don't see it as such. I'm sure over the years justices have told friends and relatives which way a decision went, before the release of the opinion. Speculation on the Dobbs decision focused on whether it was an attempt to freeze or change the decision: a different thing.
What's concerning is the efforts to lobby the justices by becoming friends, efforts which Roberts and Justice Kennedy rebuffed, but Scalia and Thomas were open to. But I don't know where you draw the line; I can't expect justices never to make friends with interests which will come before the court. The friendship of RBG and Nina Tottenberg is an example: while she claims to be an objective reporter, it's clear to anyone where her sympathies lie.
So what's the standards Kennedy and Roberts used?
Politico has a piece on the fight for space on the Mall for the various museums. Everyone wants recognition. In the old days we had the Freer, then we added an Asian art museum and an African Art museum underground. But these days, following in the paths of the National Museum of the American Indian and the National Museum of African American Art and Culture Congress is now trying to add museums for Latinos/Hispanics and Women on the Mall, despite laws which would prohibit the proposed sites. In my lifetime we've added memorials for the Vietnam war, the Korean war, and World War II as well. We've added monuments for Ike, FDR, and MLK on or near the Mall, as well as the Holocaust museum.
What's next? The obvious one is a "National Museum of Asian and Pacific Islander X". But how about honoring the brave veterans of our longest wars, if not the bloodiest? I think the potential demand is infinite, and it's an easy way for Congress to please an interest group.
Given the unending demand, I suggest we start repurposing buildings on the Mall, starting with the Administration building for USDA. When I joined ASCS in 1968 Chet Adell used to call it the "ivory tower", an indication of his disdain for the decisions made there (he was a key figure in implementing them). It's the only bureaucratic HQ on the Mall--so tear it down and use the site for a couple of the new museums. Once we've set that precedent, we can go onto repurposing other of the structures.
Love to see this:
Over my years in the public and private sectors, I've had people tell me: If only the government could work like business.
— Ronald Klain (@WHCOS) November 15, 2022
Well, the team at @USEdgov and @USDS built a Student Loan Forgiveness portal that processed 8 MILLION applications in the first 30 hours without a crash. https://t.co/VaaoTMVycg
The Times had an article yesterday on the lawsuit against the Trump organization. As I understand it, two employees have pled guilty for fraud--not reporting as income benefits they got from company, like tuition for kids, cars, etc. But the suit is against the organization so the government must prove that their manipulations of the accounts to provide these unreported benefits were "in behalf of" the organization. Apparently it's a big issue.
With my bias against TFG it seems clear to me. It was a "win, win" deal for the two employees--they got more compensation from the company through the manipulation without doing anything more for it. What did the company gain? Presumably the employees were providing services worth their total compensation.
For example, assume the employee got $500K in taxable income, making $350K after taxes. He also got $250K in benefits under the table, the taxes on which would have been $75K So the employee nets $600 K, the company pays $750K, and the US gets $150K The US should have gotten $75K more. So it's a win, win for the two employees, a loss for the US taxpayer.
How about the company? It's simple accounting, if someone loses, someone must gain. So who gained the $75K--I say the company, assuming a free market for the employee's services. In such a market to hire the employee they'd have to pony up $825 in taxable gross salary and benefits.
I've mentioned the conservatives at Powerline blog breaking with Trump. They apparently got a lot of flak about the break from the people commenting. So they did a quick poll on whether Trump should be the candidate in 2024. The results suprised me--very strongly anti-Trump. So the Republicans are shifting away, perhaps, and definitely you can't judge the readership of a blog by its commenters.
I've read more books on the Trump administration than I should. The books usually treat some people worse than others. Jared Kushner and Ivanka do well sometimes, very poorly in other books. And so forth for other major players.
One player who seems to have been able to survive without major enemies, or at least without participating in major controversies. is Secretary of Treasury Steven Mnuchin. The sole issue in my readings for which I remember him being criticized is his opposition to banning travel from Europe early in the pandemic.
Otherwise he seems to have operated quietly, not being criticized by Trump when everyone else was. I may have missed some criticism since I wasn't conscious of his invisibility from the beginning.
His memoir would be interesting, to see how he did it.
I'm expecting the Republicans to control the House, assuming that Kelly will win and Masto lose, and fearful Sen. Warnock will not be able to repeat his runoff victory.
I'd also predict there will be at least one senator leave Congress during 2023-4 due to health.
I'd predict the 2024 nomination will be between DeSantis and Youngkin.
A quote from John Hinderaker's post-election analysis:
"At this point, Trump is a giant anvil around the neck of the Republican Party. In many areas, likely most, he is absolute poison. To be associated with Trump is to lose. Pretty much everything he has done in the last two years has been not just ill-advised but massively destructive to the Republican Party and to the United States."
My wife, my cousin and I are all uptight about the results of today's election. Of the three of us I may be the most relaxed. As I see it, we've survived Nixon, Reagan, and Trump so far, so we can survive a possible Republican control of Congress for 2 years.
What happens in 2024? Who knows. I wouldn't bet on Biden, Harris, or Trump winning the presidency, although I would bet on the Republicans winning the Senate in 2024 (the map really really favors them--so much so Mr. Thiessen in the Post speculates that if the Republicans pick up 4 Senate seats this year, they'll have a good chance at 60 in 2024--that's disastrous).
But predictions tend to extrapolate the current situation into the future, which may not be true down the road. People will get tired of Trump, and Trump-like pols. I've already seen a post at Powerline blog, the most conservative one I follow, hoping Trum isn't the nominee in 2024.
It's all very interesting.
Kevin Drum delves into the past to get his telescope working. In this case the past is likely >30years. And the lesson is, even with IT, don't judge everything by its looks.
I remember the actual original mo-dem (modulator-demodulator). Never bought one, but used one, very briefly.
For the past 3 national elections I've been fairly optimistic: disappointed in 2016, pleased in 2018 (though I tend to forget Republican gains in the Senate; happy in 2020. My optimism in each case was based on the polls.
Recently the polls have turned against the Democrats so I'm not optimistic for Tuesday (and the days and weeks after, since it may take that long to finally resolve some races). I won't venture predictions on the results.
The Constitution has a provison for holding a new constitutional convention whose powers would be essentially unlimited (just as the original convention far exceeded its authority). A number of states over the years have called for such a convention, and there's been recent discussion of it.
Lyman Stone doesn't connect the two, but his twitter thread on the faults of the 1982 Canadian constitution provide me evidence to argue against a broadbrush revision:
Canada's 1982 constitution is a lulzy document which was passed with little serious consideration and a large number of wild drafting decisions with massive unanticipated consequences.
— Lyman Stone 石來民 🦬🦬🦬 (@lymanstoneky) November 3, 2022
What I learned today.
Interesting thing about Ireland’s university system is it’s very meritocratic and no one really objects to that
— Ronan (@rfitz77) November 2, 2022
I confirmed there's no legacies or athletic admissions in the Irish system. That's for the Irish.
But if you want to study there, here's the site.
Seems there's a controversy in AZ over a group which wants to put watchers over poll drop boxes, armed watchers. The argument against is it's intimidating.
I believe in transparency, but it seems to me the best approach is to put video camera(s) up, so people can watch in real time. The video could be stored and analyzed later if necessary.
