Who does Wisconsin's little "tin horn" dictator/governor, and his Party of neo-fascists think they are? First they pass huge state tax breaks for corporations, and then they use the supposed budget "deficit" that is created to try and take away the fundamental rights of workers to organize and bargain collectively, a right that was not given by governments nor the robber baron oligarchs who exploited workers--and would again if permitted--with abysmally low wages, dangerous working conditions, and indeed near indentured servitude. Such rights were won with the sweat, blood and indeed lives of workers who fought back against the profit seeking corporate vultures whose only goal is to amass wealth at the expense of their fellow human beings. Does Walker believe that American workers will simply sit back and applaud as he tries to deny them rights earned over decades of labor struggle? Of course he does, for the Scott Walkers of the modern Republican party know nothing of labor history, all they know about is their political religion of unfettered corporatism. They want to take the entire country back 100 years, to the good-ole days of sweat shops, rampant poverty, company stores, Pinkerton-backed strike breakers, and 50-ish year life expectancy. Well, screw that! Wisconsin workers are right to resist this pathetic corporate toady with everything they can muster. Indeed, all of America needs to wake up and resist this relentless assault on working people and the middle class.
Make no mistake, the power grab currently being effected by the miserable Scott Walker and his band of Republican know-nothings is simply the latest salvo in a 30+ year class war that has been waged against working people by today's equivalent of the robber barons of the gilded age. Their war has been immensely successful, for them, and disastrous for the majority of Americans. Yes, the vast majority of Americans are working people. While the myth of unlimited upward mobility still seems to have a hold on many Americans, it is indeed a myth, and most people must work to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table.
The evidence of this war is all around us, if we would simply turn off our TVs long enough to weaken the grip of the mind-numbing propaganda and dumbed-down programming endlessly peddled by our corporate media. Here are just a few of the most obvious symptoms. 1) Income inequality is at record levels. Not since the pre-Depression era of the "roaring" twenties has so much of the national wealth been concentrated in so few hands. 2) Real wages of American workers have barely budged in 30 years, while, over the same period, the productivity of American workers has steadily risen. That means people have worked longer and harder for the same wage. Guess where all the productivity gains went? That's right, into the pockets of the oligarchs. There was a day when organized labor exerted more influence and productivity gains went at least partly into increased wages, but Reagan saw to the end of that. No wonder he is now deified as some kind of Capitalist saint. 3) The money of the oligarchs has completely corrupted American democracy. A Supreme Court packed with conservative activist justices concludes that corporations deserve the rights of people, and unleashes the virtually unlimited funds of the oligarchs into the electoral process. Trillions of dollars of the public trust are instantly made available once big banks and other corporate looters blow their markers at the Wall Street casino and torpedo the economy, but they are asked to bear absolutely none of the costs, not even a miserly financial transactions tax. Indeed, tax cuts for the wealthy are further extended, and the suddenly important budget deficits that result must be balanced, we are told, with cuts to public programs and the freezing of wages of public employees. 4) Poverty in America is at epidemic levels and indeed, 1 in 5 children, in the wealthiest nation on earth, lives at or below the poverty level. The priorities evidenced by these conditions are beyond obscene.
At present, total acceptance of the "electoral process" as the sole avenue of democratic expression is a fools errand. Both major parties are almost completely in the hip pocket of the corporate interests that fill their campaign coffers. The only difference is that the Democratic Party still has a modest handful of politicians who try to represent the interests of working folks, just a few mind you, but when push comes to shove the only interests that matter, meaning in the context of actions and deeds, not words, are those of the corporate wing of the Party. The most glaring example of this is none other than President Obama. He was elected with a large turnout and broadening of the Democratic coalition, combined with a clear signal to turn away from the disastrous results of eight years of George W. Bush. The 2008 vote was clear, it was a strong call by the people for change. Obama has failed at virtually every turn to deliver anything even remotely resembling change. He followed through with the Bush Administrations bailout of the banks, he passed a health reform bill crafted to the interests of drug and insurance companies, he has largely implemented the very policies that he ran against as a candidate, two recent examples being the budget-busting extension of the "Bush" tax cuts, and the personal mandate to buy private insurance as the basis for health care "reform." Obama also bragged during the campaign that he would "walk the picket lines" with workers,
"And understand this: if American workers are being denied their right to organize and collectively bargain when I’m in the White House, I’ll put on a comfortable pair of shoes myself. I’ll walk on that picket line with you as president of the United States of America, because workers deserve to know that somebody’s standing in their corner."
Uh huh, sure Mr. President. This would be a no-brainer, a win-win for the national Democrats, if they had any intention of really standing with working and middle class Americans. I won't hold my breath for Mr. Obama to find those comfortable shoes. So far, while there have been some supportive statements from Mr. Obama, that's typically what the Democratic base has gotten from him, lots of hot air, and little action. Indeed, Obama's credibility gap is so huge, that he faces long odds in his re-election bid. Expect to find his opponents--could there be a primary challenge--running ad after ad with direct statements from candidate Obama, only to be followed with the contradicting statement as President Obama.
Having essentially abandoned a significant fraction of the voters who elected him, these same people then decided to largely stay away from the polls at the mid-term elections. Hence we have a Republican "landslide," and an "epic shift" in the electorate according to mainstream media. This is the dilemma faced by the American voter. They vote for change, giving the Party ostensibly of working Americans a chance to govern ON BEHALF of working Americans, but once elected this Party utterly fails to do so. This triggers even larger scale disaffection with the electoral "remedy." Many Americans feel elections are useless, and they are largely right, it's a rigged game; heads and corporations win, tails and corporations win. This is why the Wisconsin protests are so important. It's long since time for a direct confrontation with the oligarchs and the politicians who support and enable them. If our elected officials won't support us, then it's time to do some politicking in the streets.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Sister Kate
Here's some more guitar music. This is "Sister Kate" an old ragtime tune. The basic arrangement is again from Stefan Grossman's Complete Country Blues Guitar book. It should be played up tempo, and I'm giving it my best shot. A fun song to play.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
To fight or not to fight: the NHL's image problem
OK, my first post was about hockey, so maybe it's time for another one. First, let me say that I am a huge fan of hockey and have played it most of my life. I also follow the professional game quite closely, so I'm not some newcomer to the sport. As I mentioned in my first post, I'm a big fan of the New York Rangers.
You probably know the old joke where someone says they went to a boxing match and a hockey game broke out? Hockey (when I say hockey I mean ice hockey) is the only major professional sport where violent fisticuffs are not only allowed, but are actually sanctioned and codified within the rules. You'll here endless talk from hockey commentators, some of whom I would call "old-school" types (think Barry Melrose) about how fighting is a part of the game, and we could never think of trying to remove it. Indeed, it's fair to say that most of those involved today with managing and coaching the professional game are probably content to see that fighting remains "a part of the game." While the National Hockey League (NHL) has made great strides in promoting the game to a broader audience it will, in my opinion, always remain a second tier professional sport, and the butt of many a joke, as long as such violence remains within the game.
Indeed, there is almost a "professional wrestling" aura surrounding fighting in hockey. Some people who are not familiar with the game may even think that fighting is somehow staged. While there are unwritten "rules" surrounding fighting in hockey, I can assure you, when two players drop the mitts they are swinging for real, as a few of the images here will attest. While many fights end with no real injury to either player, there are also many where someone is not so lucky.
An important point to consider is that fighting has largely been removed from the game, it is only tolerated at the professional level, and in Canadian junior leagues, which feed many players to the professional system! When I played youth and recreational hockey, fighting was not allowed anymore than it would be in a little league baseball game. So, why can't the NHL take the high ground and lead by example? Consider the dilemma that the NHL faces if it continues to ignore this problem. The league has spent a lot of resources in trying to develop the spread of youth hockey, but how can the league expect to reach parents whose kids can tune into an NHL game and see this. How does mommy explain to her young hockey playing son Johnny that hitting and punching is never allowed, oh, except when you're playing hockey! How can the NHL expect to have any credibility with parents when fighting in hockey HAS BEEN eliminated at most every other level, except for the "professional game." It's simple, they can't, and they don't (have any credibility). Indeed, the fact that fighting is not tolerated at every other level (youth hockey, college hockey, etc.) means that eventually the NHL must go in that direction. It's simply a matter of when.
The video in the link in the previous paragraph shows highlights from the NHL's latest "black eye." The recent meeting between the New York Islanders and the Pittsburgh Penguins descended into a nasty slug-fest as the Islanders attempted to find some "frontier justice," after a previous meeting between the teams had resulted in several injuries to their players, including facial fractures to their goaltender Rick Dipietro in a one-punch fight with opposition goalie Brent Johnson, and concussion symptoms to forward Blake Comeau. So, how do such situations come about?
An argument often given in support of fighting is that it is a way for players to "police" themselves, to maintain a sort of crude balance of power on the ice. What it comes down to is this, if you are going to "mess" with one of my teammates, then you best expect to be "messed" with in return. A related argument you will here is that if fighting is removed, then players will resort to retaliation with their sticks. You will also here talk about a players "honor code," meaning you only fight when challenged, etc., etc. Now, at some level this might make some sense, there is a deterrent effect if you know that an opposing player will retaliate if you cross some perceived line. But thinking about this a little further leads to the conclusion that this is certainly not what you want. You do not want players deciding on and dispensing perceived justice because it is a perfect recipe for escalation of the violence (the Isles - Pens matchup is a glaring example of this), and secondly, each team is not exactly impartial in their assessment of what constitutes justice! No, just as in every other major sport the league and its officials, that is the referees in any particular match, need to "police" the game. To those who insist that the "players can police themselves," I would simply ask, so, it seems to be working well?
This is the fundamental problem with excessive violence in the NHL, it is the league's unwillingness to acknowledge the existence of the problem at the level required. Now, there are a number of factors involved, but in my opinion the most glaring problem is the unwillingness of league officials to seriously crack down on illegal (meaning against the rules of the game) hits. This also has the most serious implications for the concussion epidemic in the sport. Here are some recent examples (a warning to the squimish, some of these hits are indeed brutal and not pretty to watch); Cooke on Savard, Talbot on Comeau, and Richards on Booth.
The 2nd of these examples was the one that led the Islanders to attempt retribution on the Penguins, and thus was the principle cause for the escalation of the recent violence. Now, those were just some recent glaring examples, but I'm sure you could find more with some easy searching on the internet. All of these hits were in my opinion illegal, and I will explain why in a moment, but only one of these hits actually drew an on-ice penalty (the Richards hit on Booth). Now, why were the other two hits not even penalized? Actually, at present they probably would be because of new guidelines involving hits to the head, but the real problem with these hits is that they were all late, meaning they occurred after the player had already given up possession of the puck. The NHL rule book is clear, although you have to look under "restraining fouls (Interference)," rather than "physical fouls;"
Possession of the Puck: The last player to touch the puck, other than the goalkeeper, shall be considered the player in possession. The player deemed in possession of the puck may be checked legally, provided the check is rendered immediately following his loss of possession.
According to the rule book a player can only be checked immediately following loss of possession of the puck. In each of the examples above the hits were well after immediately. After a player passes or losses possession they are not expecting to be checked and often are not protecting themselves as much as if they sense a check coming when in possession. This is when concussions frequently happen, when players are hit when they don't expect it. Again, you will hear old-school types arguing, well, Cooke or Talbot or Richards were just "finishing their checks," but there is nothing in the rulebook about "finishing checks." No, the rulebook is clear, such a late hit is sanctioned as an interference penalty, and indeed stiffer sanctions can be enforced if such fouls result in injury to the opposing player. Others may argue that there was not time enough for the player to "ease up" from the check, but this is also nonsense, as anyone who has played the game at a high level could attest. Players make split second decisions routinely all over the ice. They know when a player has passed or lost the puck. In particular, Cooke's hit was illegal, not to mention dirty, in that it was late (after loss of possession from Savard), and he stretched with his elbow and lower arm to hit Savard in the head. I think the same can be said for the Talbot hit, it was late, such that Comeau was not suspecting a big collision and was in an awkward position. When players "get away" with these illegal hits, then the opposing team is rightfully angry and within the current framework of the game, there is a perfect recipe for escalation of the violence. The lesson? The NHL needs to enforce its own rules!
The NHL has begun issuing suspensions for hits to the head, but so far these have not been strong enough to act as a sufficient deterrent. Consider the case of Cooke, his hit knocked Savard out for essentially the remainder of the season. Savard returned briefly in last years playoffs, but he is clearly not at the level he was, and after suffering yet another concussion this year his career appears to be over. Meanwhile, Cooke is still "stirring" things up for the Penguins, and he's a multiple offender, having been suspended several times for illegal hits. So, to cut to the chase, why is Cooke still playing in the NHL? Suspensions of 2-5 games are not sufficient, in order to show that it is serious about protecting its players and getting the mayhem out of the sport the length of suspensions need to be much longer. At a minimum, if an illegal hit results in injury and loss of playing time, then the culprit should be suspended for at least as long as the other player is out of action. But the nature of "late hits" still seems to be unclear and should be clarified by the league. There is, and should be no such thing as "finishing your check," you are either late or not, and this cannot be an excuse for leveling an opponent who is not prepared to be hit. Unless the league does this, then such hits will continue and teams will retaliate, as the Islanders did, leading to such "wild west" games.
In the wake of the Isles - Pens dust-up the NHL quickly issued its version of discipline. The Islanders were more heavily sanctioned, with two players receiving suspensions and the team being fined $100,000. However, the principal initiator of the mayhem, Talbot's late hit on Comeau went unpunished! So what signal is the league sending? That late hits are still tolerated, but that the subsequent retaliation--that they know will come--will be sanctioned. So, this is an admission by the league that such situations will occur again, it's just a matter of when the next one happens. The NHL seems willing to admit that sometimes violence in the game gets out of hand, but there seems to be no willingness to effectively reduce the kind of dangerous violence that can lead to, for example, serious head injuries. Probably this is so because the league recognizes that at some level violence sells tickets. And it's true, crowds tend to erupt at the outbreak of a fight. But isn't there enough action, speed, and yes, physicality in the game already? We don't need to see players knocked unconscious and blood on the ice to know that the game is rough and tumble. It is exciting enough already, the spectacle surrounding the violence of fighting just detracts from the game more than it adds to it. Maybe a minority of fight-loving fans would walk away from the game if fighting were eliminated, but it's hard to see this being anything but a minority. Are these the fans that the league desperately wants to keep, rather than the many more fans that could be attracted to a game where fighting was marginalized rather than glorified.
Another issue with fighting is that it sets up a tier system amongst players. Let's face it, currently teams still have to keep "enforcers" on their rosters, tough guys, "goons" in the old days. These guys are ostensibly supposed to do the fighting and "dirty work," to protect a teams more skilled players. But the lines can get blurry, and sometimes the "skill" players who recognize that they are more protected by officials, can decide to get into the rough stuff a bit. Then, to coin a phrase, "all hell can break loose." Wouldn't it be better if teams could actually fill out their entire roster with the very best players, not the very best fighters? Again, the physical nature of the sport would not have to change, big talented players could still use their power, etc. but the overall quality of the game would improve. Isn't that what the league should be about?
So, here's my recipe for how the NHL can reduce and eventually wean itself from fighting and dangerous violence in the game;
1) SERIOUSLY sanction dangerous late hits and hits to the head. SERIOUSLY means suspensions that run to a significant fraction of a season, particularly if the hits result in the opposing player missing games due to injury. Similarly enforce other dangerous acts such as using the stick against another player with the same level of seriousness.
2) Officials need to re-enforce the rule around hitting after a player gives up possession of the puck. The notion of "finishing ones check" needs to be eradicated, particularly in the minds of "old school" types (again, think Barry Melrose).
3) Increase the sanctions against fighting. I'm not suggesting an immediate outright ban. Some suggestions; fighting results in a 5 minute major penalty and a 10 minute misconduct penalty. Second fight in a game is an automatic match penalty with review toward possible suspension in subsequent games. Sanctions against fighting have increased compared to 20 years ago, this just needs to continue.
4) The League needs to understand that there is much more to be gained in eventually eliminating fighting than by keeping it.
And in case you think I'm alone in these sentiments, this is what Mario Lemieux, the co-owner of the Pittsburgh Penguins, and arguably one of the best players in the game, ever, had to say about it;
“Hockey is a tough, physical game, and it always should be. But what happened Friday night on Long Island wasn’t hockey. It was a travesty. It was painful to watch the game I love turn into a sideshow like that. The NHL had a chance to send a clear and strong message that those kinds of actions are unacceptable and embarrassing to the sport. It failed. We, as a league, must do a better job of protecting the integrity of the game and the safety of our players. We must make it clear that those kinds of actions will not be tolerated and will be met with meaningful disciplinary action. If the events relating to Friday night reflect the state of the league, I need to re-think whether I want to be a part of it.”
Now, maybe Mario was upset that the League was not harsh enough with the Islanders, but the statement does not specifically refer to that, and overall, his comments are pretty much in line with what I discussed above. Predictably, the League essentially ignored Lemieux's statement, saying it was completely satisfied with the way the situation was handled. Of course they were, because the present leadership is completely blind to the problem. What, we have a problem? There's nothing wrong with our league. And with attitudes like that, the NHL will continue to be the butt of jokes, and will always struggle for mainstream acceptance. It doesn't have to be that way.
You probably know the old joke where someone says they went to a boxing match and a hockey game broke out? Hockey (when I say hockey I mean ice hockey) is the only major professional sport where violent fisticuffs are not only allowed, but are actually sanctioned and codified within the rules. You'll here endless talk from hockey commentators, some of whom I would call "old-school" types (think Barry Melrose) about how fighting is a part of the game, and we could never think of trying to remove it. Indeed, it's fair to say that most of those involved today with managing and coaching the professional game are probably content to see that fighting remains "a part of the game." While the National Hockey League (NHL) has made great strides in promoting the game to a broader audience it will, in my opinion, always remain a second tier professional sport, and the butt of many a joke, as long as such violence remains within the game.
Indeed, there is almost a "professional wrestling" aura surrounding fighting in hockey. Some people who are not familiar with the game may even think that fighting is somehow staged. While there are unwritten "rules" surrounding fighting in hockey, I can assure you, when two players drop the mitts they are swinging for real, as a few of the images here will attest. While many fights end with no real injury to either player, there are also many where someone is not so lucky.
An important point to consider is that fighting has largely been removed from the game, it is only tolerated at the professional level, and in Canadian junior leagues, which feed many players to the professional system! When I played youth and recreational hockey, fighting was not allowed anymore than it would be in a little league baseball game. So, why can't the NHL take the high ground and lead by example? Consider the dilemma that the NHL faces if it continues to ignore this problem. The league has spent a lot of resources in trying to develop the spread of youth hockey, but how can the league expect to reach parents whose kids can tune into an NHL game and see this. How does mommy explain to her young hockey playing son Johnny that hitting and punching is never allowed, oh, except when you're playing hockey! How can the NHL expect to have any credibility with parents when fighting in hockey HAS BEEN eliminated at most every other level, except for the "professional game." It's simple, they can't, and they don't (have any credibility). Indeed, the fact that fighting is not tolerated at every other level (youth hockey, college hockey, etc.) means that eventually the NHL must go in that direction. It's simply a matter of when.
The video in the link in the previous paragraph shows highlights from the NHL's latest "black eye." The recent meeting between the New York Islanders and the Pittsburgh Penguins descended into a nasty slug-fest as the Islanders attempted to find some "frontier justice," after a previous meeting between the teams had resulted in several injuries to their players, including facial fractures to their goaltender Rick Dipietro in a one-punch fight with opposition goalie Brent Johnson, and concussion symptoms to forward Blake Comeau. So, how do such situations come about?
An argument often given in support of fighting is that it is a way for players to "police" themselves, to maintain a sort of crude balance of power on the ice. What it comes down to is this, if you are going to "mess" with one of my teammates, then you best expect to be "messed" with in return. A related argument you will here is that if fighting is removed, then players will resort to retaliation with their sticks. You will also here talk about a players "honor code," meaning you only fight when challenged, etc., etc. Now, at some level this might make some sense, there is a deterrent effect if you know that an opposing player will retaliate if you cross some perceived line. But thinking about this a little further leads to the conclusion that this is certainly not what you want. You do not want players deciding on and dispensing perceived justice because it is a perfect recipe for escalation of the violence (the Isles - Pens matchup is a glaring example of this), and secondly, each team is not exactly impartial in their assessment of what constitutes justice! No, just as in every other major sport the league and its officials, that is the referees in any particular match, need to "police" the game. To those who insist that the "players can police themselves," I would simply ask, so, it seems to be working well?
This is the fundamental problem with excessive violence in the NHL, it is the league's unwillingness to acknowledge the existence of the problem at the level required. Now, there are a number of factors involved, but in my opinion the most glaring problem is the unwillingness of league officials to seriously crack down on illegal (meaning against the rules of the game) hits. This also has the most serious implications for the concussion epidemic in the sport. Here are some recent examples (a warning to the squimish, some of these hits are indeed brutal and not pretty to watch); Cooke on Savard, Talbot on Comeau, and Richards on Booth.
The 2nd of these examples was the one that led the Islanders to attempt retribution on the Penguins, and thus was the principle cause for the escalation of the recent violence. Now, those were just some recent glaring examples, but I'm sure you could find more with some easy searching on the internet. All of these hits were in my opinion illegal, and I will explain why in a moment, but only one of these hits actually drew an on-ice penalty (the Richards hit on Booth). Now, why were the other two hits not even penalized? Actually, at present they probably would be because of new guidelines involving hits to the head, but the real problem with these hits is that they were all late, meaning they occurred after the player had already given up possession of the puck. The NHL rule book is clear, although you have to look under "restraining fouls (Interference)," rather than "physical fouls;"
Possession of the Puck: The last player to touch the puck, other than the goalkeeper, shall be considered the player in possession. The player deemed in possession of the puck may be checked legally, provided the check is rendered immediately following his loss of possession.
According to the rule book a player can only be checked immediately following loss of possession of the puck. In each of the examples above the hits were well after immediately. After a player passes or losses possession they are not expecting to be checked and often are not protecting themselves as much as if they sense a check coming when in possession. This is when concussions frequently happen, when players are hit when they don't expect it. Again, you will hear old-school types arguing, well, Cooke or Talbot or Richards were just "finishing their checks," but there is nothing in the rulebook about "finishing checks." No, the rulebook is clear, such a late hit is sanctioned as an interference penalty, and indeed stiffer sanctions can be enforced if such fouls result in injury to the opposing player. Others may argue that there was not time enough for the player to "ease up" from the check, but this is also nonsense, as anyone who has played the game at a high level could attest. Players make split second decisions routinely all over the ice. They know when a player has passed or lost the puck. In particular, Cooke's hit was illegal, not to mention dirty, in that it was late (after loss of possession from Savard), and he stretched with his elbow and lower arm to hit Savard in the head. I think the same can be said for the Talbot hit, it was late, such that Comeau was not suspecting a big collision and was in an awkward position. When players "get away" with these illegal hits, then the opposing team is rightfully angry and within the current framework of the game, there is a perfect recipe for escalation of the violence. The lesson? The NHL needs to enforce its own rules!
The NHL has begun issuing suspensions for hits to the head, but so far these have not been strong enough to act as a sufficient deterrent. Consider the case of Cooke, his hit knocked Savard out for essentially the remainder of the season. Savard returned briefly in last years playoffs, but he is clearly not at the level he was, and after suffering yet another concussion this year his career appears to be over. Meanwhile, Cooke is still "stirring" things up for the Penguins, and he's a multiple offender, having been suspended several times for illegal hits. So, to cut to the chase, why is Cooke still playing in the NHL? Suspensions of 2-5 games are not sufficient, in order to show that it is serious about protecting its players and getting the mayhem out of the sport the length of suspensions need to be much longer. At a minimum, if an illegal hit results in injury and loss of playing time, then the culprit should be suspended for at least as long as the other player is out of action. But the nature of "late hits" still seems to be unclear and should be clarified by the league. There is, and should be no such thing as "finishing your check," you are either late or not, and this cannot be an excuse for leveling an opponent who is not prepared to be hit. Unless the league does this, then such hits will continue and teams will retaliate, as the Islanders did, leading to such "wild west" games.
In the wake of the Isles - Pens dust-up the NHL quickly issued its version of discipline. The Islanders were more heavily sanctioned, with two players receiving suspensions and the team being fined $100,000. However, the principal initiator of the mayhem, Talbot's late hit on Comeau went unpunished! So what signal is the league sending? That late hits are still tolerated, but that the subsequent retaliation--that they know will come--will be sanctioned. So, this is an admission by the league that such situations will occur again, it's just a matter of when the next one happens. The NHL seems willing to admit that sometimes violence in the game gets out of hand, but there seems to be no willingness to effectively reduce the kind of dangerous violence that can lead to, for example, serious head injuries. Probably this is so because the league recognizes that at some level violence sells tickets. And it's true, crowds tend to erupt at the outbreak of a fight. But isn't there enough action, speed, and yes, physicality in the game already? We don't need to see players knocked unconscious and blood on the ice to know that the game is rough and tumble. It is exciting enough already, the spectacle surrounding the violence of fighting just detracts from the game more than it adds to it. Maybe a minority of fight-loving fans would walk away from the game if fighting were eliminated, but it's hard to see this being anything but a minority. Are these the fans that the league desperately wants to keep, rather than the many more fans that could be attracted to a game where fighting was marginalized rather than glorified.
Another issue with fighting is that it sets up a tier system amongst players. Let's face it, currently teams still have to keep "enforcers" on their rosters, tough guys, "goons" in the old days. These guys are ostensibly supposed to do the fighting and "dirty work," to protect a teams more skilled players. But the lines can get blurry, and sometimes the "skill" players who recognize that they are more protected by officials, can decide to get into the rough stuff a bit. Then, to coin a phrase, "all hell can break loose." Wouldn't it be better if teams could actually fill out their entire roster with the very best players, not the very best fighters? Again, the physical nature of the sport would not have to change, big talented players could still use their power, etc. but the overall quality of the game would improve. Isn't that what the league should be about?
So, here's my recipe for how the NHL can reduce and eventually wean itself from fighting and dangerous violence in the game;
1) SERIOUSLY sanction dangerous late hits and hits to the head. SERIOUSLY means suspensions that run to a significant fraction of a season, particularly if the hits result in the opposing player missing games due to injury. Similarly enforce other dangerous acts such as using the stick against another player with the same level of seriousness.
2) Officials need to re-enforce the rule around hitting after a player gives up possession of the puck. The notion of "finishing ones check" needs to be eradicated, particularly in the minds of "old school" types (again, think Barry Melrose).
3) Increase the sanctions against fighting. I'm not suggesting an immediate outright ban. Some suggestions; fighting results in a 5 minute major penalty and a 10 minute misconduct penalty. Second fight in a game is an automatic match penalty with review toward possible suspension in subsequent games. Sanctions against fighting have increased compared to 20 years ago, this just needs to continue.
4) The League needs to understand that there is much more to be gained in eventually eliminating fighting than by keeping it.
And in case you think I'm alone in these sentiments, this is what Mario Lemieux, the co-owner of the Pittsburgh Penguins, and arguably one of the best players in the game, ever, had to say about it;
“Hockey is a tough, physical game, and it always should be. But what happened Friday night on Long Island wasn’t hockey. It was a travesty. It was painful to watch the game I love turn into a sideshow like that. The NHL had a chance to send a clear and strong message that those kinds of actions are unacceptable and embarrassing to the sport. It failed. We, as a league, must do a better job of protecting the integrity of the game and the safety of our players. We must make it clear that those kinds of actions will not be tolerated and will be met with meaningful disciplinary action. If the events relating to Friday night reflect the state of the league, I need to re-think whether I want to be a part of it.”
Now, maybe Mario was upset that the League was not harsh enough with the Islanders, but the statement does not specifically refer to that, and overall, his comments are pretty much in line with what I discussed above. Predictably, the League essentially ignored Lemieux's statement, saying it was completely satisfied with the way the situation was handled. Of course they were, because the present leadership is completely blind to the problem. What, we have a problem? There's nothing wrong with our league. And with attitudes like that, the NHL will continue to be the butt of jokes, and will always struggle for mainstream acceptance. It doesn't have to be that way.
Friday, February 11, 2011
Nobody's Dirty Business
Here's another guitar video. I'm playing a version of Nobody's Dirty Business, a popular blues from the '20s. This version is based on the arrangement in Stefan Grossman's "Country Blues Guitar Book," and was at least partly inspired by the playing of Mississippi John Hurt. It's in the key of C. You're playing just 3 chords in first position, C, F and G, but there's a quick move up to the 5th fret which can be a little tricky. I'll occasionally post new videos to my YouTube channel, you can find them here, or there is a link below my profile.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Tearing Down the Myths
We are currently witnessing extraordinary scenes across the Middle East as people are rising up to demand an end to decades-old, Western-backed despotic regimes from Tunis to Cairo, and the revolt now shows signs of spreading into Jordan and Yemen as well. These revolts give renewed hope to peoples everywhere who yearn for freedom, democracy and economic justice.
There are no doubt a range of factors involved, but a proximal stimulus would appear to be simple economics. As people's living circumstances become more desperate, then they can be moved to take more forceful steps to try and change the status-quo. What might appear to be a desperate act to one with some food on his table becomes a necessary act for one whose children are starving. As an example, it appears that in Egypt a significant percentage of the population routinely subsists on something like the equivalent of $2 a day. Given such precarious economic circumstances a sudden increase in food prices, as has been occurring across much of the world, can be devastating. More succinctly, poverty and repression cannot be tolerated indefinitely.
As usual, the depiction of events unfolding in Egypt have been greatly distorted by the filter of the US media. Indeed, by far the best coverage I've seen on the Middle East rebellions so far has been that of Al Jazeera (I'm speaking specifically of the English language edition, since I can't comment on the Arabic version). While Al Jazeera English is apparently widely available in Canada and Western Europe it presently has little distribution on US cable networks. Somehow this doesn't seem surprising given the US media's increasing concentration in fewer and larger multinational corporations, and their general subservience to US government interests. For first rate coverage, then also check out the reporting from Sharif Abdel Kouddous at Democracy Now! who is on the ground in Egypt with an eye-witness and first-hand perspective on events.
As we watch these events unfold and see their refraction through the prism of US media outlets we can begin to see cracks in a number of longstanding myths on which US economic dominance and control in the Middle East and beyond is founded. One of my favorites is the notion of "regional stability." We hear this term endlessly from US media pundits. As in the following illustrative example: US Media Hack #1, "The US can't afford to lose the support of a pro-Western, stable Egyptian government," or, US Media Hack #2, "the toppling of Mubarak would just sow regional instability." So lets look a bit more closely at what this notion of stability actual implies.
Here's how the game works;
1) when a regional government is supportive of US government interests, that is, behaves as a good client and generally "knows how to follow orders," then, by definition, such a regime is "stable."
2) It is virtually irrelevant whether the government in question is democratic, autocratic, monarchical, tyrannical, plutocratic, oligarchic, theocratic, or any suitable combination thereof, by axiom 1) it is still a "stable" government. And just so that "stable" doesn't appear to be too overused, one can also substitute "moderate."
Note that by US government interests above I mean those of the economic elites--largely corporate interests and their patrons--within the US that for the most part influence and control the US foreign policy agenda. Also bear in mind that these interests are not necessarily the same as, and often are directly opposed to, those of the vast majority of the American people.
Now, what is the actual nature of many of these "stable" US client regimes? Well, it would take a book to cover all of them, but looking at the most recent "dominoes" to teeter in the Middle East should be sufficient. You would be hard-pressed to find any serious commentator arguing that either Tunisia or Egypt be considered as democratic states. Rather, these regimes were/are best described as autocratic, repressive oligarchies, in which a small ruling elite has enriched themselves through corruption at the expense of the vast majority of their citizens. They also routinely employed violent suppression of any and all political opposition, often with the use of arrest, torture, or worse. In reality, the societal and political conditions created and fostered by these "stable" regimes could not be more unstable! That is unless you consider vast income inequality with epidemic poverty and violent political repression to be stable economic and political models.
And of course the corollary rules apply. Any regime unwilling to play ball by our rules is "unstable," or if they really attempt to conduct their affairs with independence from Washington, and, heaven forbid, outside of the Capitalist model, then they may even be "radical." Again, the nature of the regime itself is irrelevant, what only matters is their stance towards US interests, if they are willing to put US interests above those of their own people, then of course, they are a "stable" regime. An example of a "radical" regime in this context was the democratically elected, but left-leaning government of Chile under Salvador Allende. Allende was overthrown and murdered in a US-backed coup that installed decades of "stable," vicious autocratic rule under General Augusto Pinochet. You see, a "stable" dictatorial government is always preferable to a "radical" democracy. Chile under Allende could not be tolerated mostly because it might represent the "threat of a good example," and worse yet, right in America's own backyard. That is, a nation that develops outside the Western-dominated model, with development actually serving the interests of its population and not those of international capital.
Another crucial myth that must be continually reinforced is the notion that the US is the bastion and guarantor of true democracy throughout the world. This is axiomatic among news talking-heads and the punditocracy in mainstream US media. While there is abundant evidence to the contrary, it is all completely irrelevant. Just consider the case of Egypt's Mubarak, supported through 30 years of one-party (indeed one-man), iron-fisted rule by multiple US administrations. You see, when government officials understand that this myth is virtually unassailable, then they can get away with the kind of bare-faced lies like those spouted by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who argued in a recent CNN interview, "We are on the side" of the Egyptian people, "as we have been for more than 30 years." The Egyptian people know better Ms. Clinton.
But you can understand that in such circumstances US officials have to be careful, they don't want to be seen as completely on the record in their support for a dictator whom a million Egyptians are out in the streets to try and remove. And on the other hand, if they still see a fair chance for the survival of their client, Mubarak in this case, well, then they don't want to openly call for him to depart to quickly. This is where obfuscation becomes a real asset, and there are few better at it than US State Department Officials. Consider this gem from Clinton herself, in response to a question about the US's stance on Mubarak, "This is a complex, very difficult situation," said Clinton, "We do not want to send any message about backing forward or backing back..." Backing forward? Backing back? Well, I'm glad that cleared everything up. One has to show some grudging admiration for someone who could so torture the English language, but that has been the nature of much of US commentary so far, obfuscation.
We can also learn a great deal by comparing the US response to the present rebellion in Egypt to that which occurred last year following elections in Iran. Now, according to our rules of the game, Iran is clearly not a "stable" regime. On the contrary, Iran is a "radical" regime that sows "instability" in the Middle East. In the summer of 2009 when large numbers of Iranian citizens protested the outcome of elections in their country, then US officials were more than vociferous in their support for the democratic rights of the protesters in Iran. But now, when faced with similar conditions in Egypt, and the apparent demise of one of its own lynch-pin clients in the Middle East, US officials can only talk out of both sides of their mouths and call for "restraint," and other such neutral platitudes. While Iran's theocratic government is objectionable on many levels we have to keep in mind that it had its roots sown in the overthrow of another "radical" democratically elected regime, that of Mohammed Mosadegh, deposed in yet another US-orchestrated coup, that installed the dictatorial rule of the Shah of Iran, Mohammad-Reza Pahlavi. I guess you can say what goes around comes around.
At present, the Mubarak government appears to be digging in its heals, and may not go without trying to first exact a terrible price from the Egyptian people. Let's hope that doesn't happen, and that the Egyptian people can attain a democratic future.
There are no doubt a range of factors involved, but a proximal stimulus would appear to be simple economics. As people's living circumstances become more desperate, then they can be moved to take more forceful steps to try and change the status-quo. What might appear to be a desperate act to one with some food on his table becomes a necessary act for one whose children are starving. As an example, it appears that in Egypt a significant percentage of the population routinely subsists on something like the equivalent of $2 a day. Given such precarious economic circumstances a sudden increase in food prices, as has been occurring across much of the world, can be devastating. More succinctly, poverty and repression cannot be tolerated indefinitely.
As usual, the depiction of events unfolding in Egypt have been greatly distorted by the filter of the US media. Indeed, by far the best coverage I've seen on the Middle East rebellions so far has been that of Al Jazeera (I'm speaking specifically of the English language edition, since I can't comment on the Arabic version). While Al Jazeera English is apparently widely available in Canada and Western Europe it presently has little distribution on US cable networks. Somehow this doesn't seem surprising given the US media's increasing concentration in fewer and larger multinational corporations, and their general subservience to US government interests. For first rate coverage, then also check out the reporting from Sharif Abdel Kouddous at Democracy Now! who is on the ground in Egypt with an eye-witness and first-hand perspective on events.
As we watch these events unfold and see their refraction through the prism of US media outlets we can begin to see cracks in a number of longstanding myths on which US economic dominance and control in the Middle East and beyond is founded. One of my favorites is the notion of "regional stability." We hear this term endlessly from US media pundits. As in the following illustrative example: US Media Hack #1, "The US can't afford to lose the support of a pro-Western, stable Egyptian government," or, US Media Hack #2, "the toppling of Mubarak would just sow regional instability." So lets look a bit more closely at what this notion of stability actual implies.
Here's how the game works;
1) when a regional government is supportive of US government interests, that is, behaves as a good client and generally "knows how to follow orders," then, by definition, such a regime is "stable."
2) It is virtually irrelevant whether the government in question is democratic, autocratic, monarchical, tyrannical, plutocratic, oligarchic, theocratic, or any suitable combination thereof, by axiom 1) it is still a "stable" government. And just so that "stable" doesn't appear to be too overused, one can also substitute "moderate."
Note that by US government interests above I mean those of the economic elites--largely corporate interests and their patrons--within the US that for the most part influence and control the US foreign policy agenda. Also bear in mind that these interests are not necessarily the same as, and often are directly opposed to, those of the vast majority of the American people.
Now, what is the actual nature of many of these "stable" US client regimes? Well, it would take a book to cover all of them, but looking at the most recent "dominoes" to teeter in the Middle East should be sufficient. You would be hard-pressed to find any serious commentator arguing that either Tunisia or Egypt be considered as democratic states. Rather, these regimes were/are best described as autocratic, repressive oligarchies, in which a small ruling elite has enriched themselves through corruption at the expense of the vast majority of their citizens. They also routinely employed violent suppression of any and all political opposition, often with the use of arrest, torture, or worse. In reality, the societal and political conditions created and fostered by these "stable" regimes could not be more unstable! That is unless you consider vast income inequality with epidemic poverty and violent political repression to be stable economic and political models.
And of course the corollary rules apply. Any regime unwilling to play ball by our rules is "unstable," or if they really attempt to conduct their affairs with independence from Washington, and, heaven forbid, outside of the Capitalist model, then they may even be "radical." Again, the nature of the regime itself is irrelevant, what only matters is their stance towards US interests, if they are willing to put US interests above those of their own people, then of course, they are a "stable" regime. An example of a "radical" regime in this context was the democratically elected, but left-leaning government of Chile under Salvador Allende. Allende was overthrown and murdered in a US-backed coup that installed decades of "stable," vicious autocratic rule under General Augusto Pinochet. You see, a "stable" dictatorial government is always preferable to a "radical" democracy. Chile under Allende could not be tolerated mostly because it might represent the "threat of a good example," and worse yet, right in America's own backyard. That is, a nation that develops outside the Western-dominated model, with development actually serving the interests of its population and not those of international capital.
Another crucial myth that must be continually reinforced is the notion that the US is the bastion and guarantor of true democracy throughout the world. This is axiomatic among news talking-heads and the punditocracy in mainstream US media. While there is abundant evidence to the contrary, it is all completely irrelevant. Just consider the case of Egypt's Mubarak, supported through 30 years of one-party (indeed one-man), iron-fisted rule by multiple US administrations. You see, when government officials understand that this myth is virtually unassailable, then they can get away with the kind of bare-faced lies like those spouted by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who argued in a recent CNN interview, "We are on the side" of the Egyptian people, "as we have been for more than 30 years." The Egyptian people know better Ms. Clinton.
But you can understand that in such circumstances US officials have to be careful, they don't want to be seen as completely on the record in their support for a dictator whom a million Egyptians are out in the streets to try and remove. And on the other hand, if they still see a fair chance for the survival of their client, Mubarak in this case, well, then they don't want to openly call for him to depart to quickly. This is where obfuscation becomes a real asset, and there are few better at it than US State Department Officials. Consider this gem from Clinton herself, in response to a question about the US's stance on Mubarak, "This is a complex, very difficult situation," said Clinton, "We do not want to send any message about backing forward or backing back..." Backing forward? Backing back? Well, I'm glad that cleared everything up. One has to show some grudging admiration for someone who could so torture the English language, but that has been the nature of much of US commentary so far, obfuscation.
We can also learn a great deal by comparing the US response to the present rebellion in Egypt to that which occurred last year following elections in Iran. Now, according to our rules of the game, Iran is clearly not a "stable" regime. On the contrary, Iran is a "radical" regime that sows "instability" in the Middle East. In the summer of 2009 when large numbers of Iranian citizens protested the outcome of elections in their country, then US officials were more than vociferous in their support for the democratic rights of the protesters in Iran. But now, when faced with similar conditions in Egypt, and the apparent demise of one of its own lynch-pin clients in the Middle East, US officials can only talk out of both sides of their mouths and call for "restraint," and other such neutral platitudes. While Iran's theocratic government is objectionable on many levels we have to keep in mind that it had its roots sown in the overthrow of another "radical" democratically elected regime, that of Mohammed Mosadegh, deposed in yet another US-orchestrated coup, that installed the dictatorial rule of the Shah of Iran, Mohammad-Reza Pahlavi. I guess you can say what goes around comes around.
At present, the Mubarak government appears to be digging in its heals, and may not go without trying to first exact a terrible price from the Egyptian people. Let's hope that doesn't happen, and that the Egyptian people can attain a democratic future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)