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.
