Churchill Downer

photo by circulating

Imagine if Tom Brady suddenly collapsed and died in the tunnel back to his locker room after he sustained an internal injury in the Patriots' defeat at the hands of Eli Manning and the Giants in Super Bowl XLII. What would the public reaction be? Would there be outrage among sportswriters and the general audience over the brutality that is the sport of football?

Of course not. "It's just part of the game." At least during the Super Bowl-era of professional football no player has died of injuries sustained on the field, and this can be attributed to changes in rules through the decades and increased protection worn by the players. Every few years or so, a new freak injury reminds us of simply how violent the game is, with the most recent case being the catastrophic neck injury to Kevin Everett of the Buffalo Bills. Everett is seemingly making a strong recovery. Sadly, we can't say the same for Mike Utley.

Lately injuries sustained by NFL players and their lasting effects have been in the forefront of discussion with the recent debate regarding the NFL's retirement plan for former players. But none of it revolves around any discussion about an abolishment of the game. We've come to accept the nature of the sport and live with it every time the season rolls around again.

Things are different with the recent death of filly Eight Belles at Churchill Downs this past Saturday in the 134th Kentucky Derby. After finishing second behind the favorite Big Brown, she collapsed on the track after breaking both of her front ankles and was immediately euthanized on the spot due to the nature of injuries that racehorses can sustain. Naturally, PETA was quick to react calling for a suspension of jockey Gabriel Saez with the absurd claim that he was aware of Eight Belles' injury in the middle of the race but kept her going. I don't know about you, but I don't think I could keep running, much less finish second, after I broke my ankles in a race.

PETA has backed off that claim at least on their website and, smartly, has focused more of the attention towards the cruelty of the sport in general. Washington Post sportswriter Sally Jenkins wrote after the death of the filly that she "ran with the heart of a locomotive, on champagne-glass ankles for the pleasure of the crowd," drawing attention to the fact that Thoroughbreds are being bred more for speed and less for stamina and durability. Unlike football, race horses are unwilling participants putting their health and life on the line for our own entertainment.

Collectively, we're all trying to cope with this crisis just over a year after the death of Barbaro. Remember him? We can debate endlessly if horses are being "overbred" for speed, if we should use artificial racing surfaces, or if we should race them at an older age than 3 years old but it's rather pointless. It would be impossible to change the breeding regimen in a sport where the point is raise an animal to go as fast as possible (how do you demarcate the amount of genetics that are geared toward speed and durability anyways?) and injuries will happen no matter what surface they race on or what age the horses are.

There is practically no middle ground in this debate. What it ultimately comes down to is whether or not you accept horse racing as an institution and with it the nature of the sport and the inevitability of more horses breaking down on the track in the near future. As the players, writers, and fans like to say, it's just part of the game.

Not a grain mill on acid, but a $230 million LAUSD high school | Eric Richardson

For a long time, one of California school districts' main complaints was the financial inability to build new schools.

Starting in the early 80s, the result of Prop. 13 and the subsequent Reagan and post-Reagan political climates, school funding tanked, making LAUSD, among many other districts, unable to build schools. That meant classroom overcrowding, overworked teachers, year-round scheduling, and busing disputes, among many other distractions from the business of education.

But now, after a political shift that has seen conservatives embrace the notion of public schooling, and a spate of state and local bonds to fund public schools, the LAUSD is building schools again.

That seems like it should be a good thing. Until you look more closely at how the district has been handling its role as school-builder.

LAUSD has built a bunch of new schools in the past few years – driving west-to-east on any major street will show you that. And the district says that, even with enrollment declining, schools are still way overstuffed and yet more are needed. Let's grant them that.

What's worrisome to me is not their claim of a need for schools, which may indeed be real, nor the inherent compromise of spending on new buildings instead of (say) new teachers.

No, the thing that bothers me is the way they're going about rebuilding the district. Why is LAUSD eminent-domaining low-rent neighborhoods? Why is the district dropping $100 million more than necessary on an (admittedly cool-looking) high school? Couldn't they build new schools without making these sorts of moves, which do little more than damage public trust?

Maybe I wouldn't be as concerned about that if the district was doing a great job under its other charges – like educating students. But there's no question that the district is doing its typically poor job of that, too. Even looking past standardized test scores, a new study shows that many L.A. students don't even know about state-required college prep classes.

And let us not forget last year's payroll disaster that dramatically underpaid some teachers and overpaid others.

Reacting to the questionable management of both the educational and infrastructural sides of the district, Mayor Villaraigosa has quietly wrested control of LAUSD's operations away from the school board's elected superintendent, David Brewer, and handed it to some dude in his office, named Ramon Cortines.

It's too early, of course, to know what difference that's going to make, but I hope Cortines has the mettle to get LAUSD's runaway mine cart back on the rails. As part of that, maybe he can make the LAUSD's construction initiatives justifiable again.

Fantasy Congress... no really

Photo by: James Morrison

See that there? That's an absent Congress, right before the war in Iraq, actually. There's one guy there, talking to himself about how much it stinks that his fellow Congressmen/women aren't there to have a legit debate on the upcoming war.

Though it doesn't seem like he's scoring high in the esteem of his peers, this guy would kick major congressional ass at fantasycongress.com!

And isn't that what matters?

The name of the game is simple, technically: much like fantasy football, you get to draft congressmen/women to your "team" and compete against people in your "league." You're scored by how many bills, of what import, and how far those bills make it through the House and the Senate.

The whole while, you're ditching lazy congressmen/women who have poor attendance records and votes you disagree with and draft better legislators once you've built up some "political capital."

Honestly, the best part about the game is that it really involves you in finding out how your congresspeople are doing. There's a facet of the website that lets you look in at the actions of all the Congress so you're constantly in the know about what's happening in the 2nd branch of the government.

Leave it to Americans to make politics into an actual sport, but whatever, participation is participation.

Anybody want to start a TTTM league?

The Cost of Living

photograph by YuDesign

David Zahniser's piece in today's Times laid out some of the latest about anti-gang program reform in Los Angeles - mainly, that the L.A. Bridges program will be dropped in favor of (hopefully more accountable) prevention and intervention programs in 12 specific gang-reduction zones. While reading it, I tripped over the following piece of information:

"Each of the 12 zones -- neighborhoods such as Panorama City, Cypress Park and Baldwin Village -- will receive $1 million per year in prevention funds, enough to target at least 200 children per zone."

It was sobering to think about how, even after whatever lessons have or haven't been learned by the inefficiency of L.A. Bridges, this is the best we can realistically hope for in terms of raw numbers. $1 million to target 200 children per gang-reduction zone (to this, Councilwoman Janice Hahn reliably quips: "'I mean, all of Markham Middle School' -- which has an enrollment of 1,500 -- 'is at risk of joining gangs'"). And what would an acceptable success rate be in terms of gang prevention? 70%? 10%?

I believe strongly in the value of human lives, and 20 or 50 "saved" children per zone is no small thing, but with tens of thousands of gang members in L.A. (estimates vary between 30,000-60,000), we're talking about band-aids. In addition, there is the problem of measuring success: How long would one keep tracking the children involved in such programs? How effective can long-term tracking be, when many of these children are illegal immigrants? Do we declare success if they stay out of gangs for 10 years, and join in the 11th? How surely could we determine whether they were active gang members or not? How to know whether a child would have stayed out of gangs anyway?

I'm in support of both prevention and intervention programs, as I think too much emphasis is placed on law enforcement when it comes to this problem. And I certainly am not smart enough to draw up a short-term plan that sounds better than this new strategy. But I don't think much will change unless this city somehow tackles larger issues of economic and educational inequality (in addition to all those thornier issues of gun control, immigration, prison reform, interracial tensions, etc.) If ever gang membership and gang violence significantly decrease in L.A., I can't see it being by design.

Back to Special Order 40

LAPD squad car | bailbonds888

At the urging of libertarian political opportunist Walter Moore, the city of Los Angeles is going back to the well of Special Order 40.

Much has elapsed since the death of an L.A. high school student named Jamiel Shaw, and as I predicted weeks ago, the conversation about his death has become an ugly one about immigration.

Moore has ridden the zeitgeist and pressed a repeal of an LAPD regulation called Special Order 40, which bars police from investigation someone solely to determine his or her citizenship. 40 is intended to encourage illegal immigrants' cooperation in police investigations. (Reasoning: An illegal immigrant will tell police about a crime he has witnessed if he knows he won't get deported for it, proponents say.)

His proposed repeal, called "Jamiel's Law," has no political traction, but a related motion in the city council by a San Fernando Valley council member by the name of Dennis Zine does. Zine wants to amend 40 by requiring officers to check the immigration status of gang members they run into, even if those gang members aren't under arrest.

(The plan has obvious surface flaws. For instance, how do you know who's a gang member and who's just a troublemaker? Sure, there are government lists of gang members, but gang membership changes everyday, and the LAPD's Excel spreadsheets of gang membership cannot possibly keep up. Still, one can understand the appeal of Zine's proposal.)

Whether Zine, Moore, or 40's proponents are right I cannot say. The debate over 40 is typical of a policy debate, in which there are pros and cons, and the "right" policy is the one where the pros outweigh the cons.

I can't say whether the pros outweigh the cons because the debate lacks the statistics that comprise pros and cons here. To determine whether 40 is good policy, you'd have to know things like how many illegal immigrants feel protected by the existence of 40? How many crimes have been solved with an illegal immigrant's help? Et cetera.

Right now, the debate is solely an ideological one: should the LAPD be in the deportation business or not? As we know from watching (for instance) the Bush administration, ideology is not necessarily a springboard to good policy.

As such (and as usual), city council president Eric Garcetti is on the right side here:

We need to look at the big picture and focus on creating a system that effectively deports criminals, encourages cooperation from victims and witnesses, and ensures the federal government accepts its responsibility as the enforcer of our nation's immigration laws.

Sure, he sounds non-committal, but starting from a premise of "these are worthwhile policy goals" is so much more effective than starting from a premise of "I believe illegal immigrants should be ______."

Eco-Fashions Defeat the Point

Photo by: EJP Photo

The masses have spoken. They want green. They want eco-conscious. They want stunning vistas in the background and stunning celebrities in the foreground. They want all this stunning, green, consciousness splashed across the pages of Vanity Fair, Rolling Stone, The Advocate and even Fortune—at least once a year when Earth Day rolls around. Who are we to deny the masses?

The iconography of the post-Al Gore green movement is gelling, and even if the use of the actual color green is becoming a design cliché, there are some major upsides. Perhaps the biggest is that the charge of greening the world is no longer a responsibility relegated to the progeny of the counterculture—at least stylistically. Green’s glossy moment has arrived.

So it is that from our newsprint pages in Los Angeles—a city full of glossy tastemakers—we find ourselves struggling with this next chapter of the environmental movement unfolding in our urban, not-so-dense backyard. And we keep finding ourselves squarely in the "it's not easy being green" camp, and we're becoming resentful of anyone telling us otherwise.

Sure, it's easy switching to fluorescent lights, hopping on DASH or buying organic. But, for anyone with more than just a fleeting interest in the environment, there's always that nagging feeling. Was my organic Whole Food produce shipped from Chile? Was the green issue of Vanity Fair printed on recycled paper? Does living alone in my fluorescent-lit apartment increase my carbon footprint?

Politicians and celebs who dare to call themselves "green" face these nagging questions publicly. Gore—the man, the PowerPoint, the Nobel Peace Prize—has had to answer tough questions about the size of his house and his jet-setting ways of spreading the green gospel. Even Mayor Villaraigosa's use of the word "green" to describe Los Angeles—and his own mayorship by extension—is tainted. The DWP still relies on coal-fueled power plants for 47%, which puts us way out of the league of PG&E's 3% or California's average of 15%.

Going green is easier said than done and the process can easily slide into guilt-inducing territory. Now that we've entered the glossy phase, the twin oxymorons of lifestyle journalism and green consumerism are ready to sell indulgences to wash away our eco-sins. (Gore himself has opted for the less glossy but no less controversial carbon offset credits.)

The Times' green blog, Emerald City, is typical of this eco-indulgence trend. The blog links to stories from the green beat and tips on how to reduce your carbon footprint. But they're sandwiched between posts that rely a bit too heavily on a sort of press release journalism that's keen on advising eco-sinners where to get an organic facial or eco-hangers or organic oreos.

Here we face the catch-22 of environmentalist ideas in a liberal market democracy: to make a change, you have to be in the market for change. Environmentalism means consuming less, but consuming less equates to a lower profit margin on environmentally-friendly goods right from the get-go. American consumer culture and the enslavement to shareholder values means that the movement is catering to a group with the desire and money to retrofit their homes with neat-o gadgets that aren’t universally accessible. This notion that we can buy our way out of this crisis or that saving the environment is a matter of personal preference is dangerous and out-of-touch.

The trouble with the new toys and baubles is that they encourage consumerism and take the glint of guilt off the purchase—you can feel like you’re helping the cause, but if you’re changing the quality but not the quantity of your consumption habits, you’re kowtowing to the big cash register in the sky every bit as much as before, and that has never and will never make the world a cleaner place.

“It’s a good thing to have green be chic these days but it shouldn’t turn away middle America who don’t have access to latest fashions. It should still be something democratic in its involvement with everyone,” said Terry O’Day, executive director of Environment Now, a LA-based environmental group.

But O’Day impressed upon us that buying eco-friendly Prada pumps or taking your house completely off the grid are not the only ways to make a difference. The things that average people can do to improve their impact on the environment aren’t sexy. They don’t involve buying new toys or running out and switching your old car for a Prius. They do involve making conscious changes in lifestyle and, the ultimate American hang-up: consuming less.

Unfortunately, one of the biggest changes that needs to be made here is sacrificing the notion that individual efforts can substitute for substantive political change.

Los Angeles is trying, but not hard enough. We’ve got a mayor that wants to go green but can’t quit the DWP’s oil habit, a Million Trees that just isn’t even close and a plastic bag ban that’s stymied in the Board of Supervisors who have passed the buck onto Assemblyman Mike Davis.

So please, green the government before you green up your clothing choices. In our glossy-green world of eco-Oscar’s and Leonardo DiCaprio’s pretty face on Al Gore’s important words, know that the most important individual effort any of us can make is at the ballot box. If not, we’re just biding our time before green goes out of fashion and with it the Hollywood gleam that’s giving it some cache.

--By Emma Gallegos and Ashley Archibald

Two Abortion Stories

Image by Labour Youth

A few weeks ago, I came across this paragraph at the bottom of the second page of an article on a search and consent case the Supreme Court was about to hear at the time.

In other action on Monday, the court rejected an appeal concerning an
Arizona county jail's policy on abortions for pregnant prisoners. The
unwritten policy requiring an inmate to obtain a court order before
jail officials would transport her for an abortion was found by an
Arizona appeals court to place an undue burden on the right to
abortion. The justices, without comment, turned down the Maricopa
County sheriff's appeal, Arpaio v. Doe, No. 07-839.

Now, maybe it's a sign that my head's been buried in the sand the past few months (election, election, election, aaaahhhHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH), but this one took me by surprise. And then there was this article last week: Health Database Was Set Up to Ignore 'Abortion'.

The Arpaio v. Doe decision came as a pleasant shock to me. Of course there are government officials trying to limit abortions - I'm not that out of the loop. That this would be an even bigger problem for prisoners, whose rights and movement are greatly restricted is also no big shock. Never mind that most prisoners are in a uniquely, shall we say inconvenient, situation to bring a child into this world - 'they shoulda thought of that before they went and had sex.' What did surprise me is that the Supreme Court - the Roberts Supreme Court - might possibly side with those women who, realizing that they cannot care for their children and uncertain that anyone else will do so for them, choose not to bring a pregnancy to term behind bars. And don't give me that old sob story about all the childless couples out there ready to adopt these unborn children. The number of children in semi-permanent foster care speaks differently.

Now, I know that Arpaio can't really be taken as a test case for how this court will treat future abortion cases. The sheriff's appeal was rejected without comment, masking any opinions held by members of the court. But it still made me happy, unlike the second story, about search limits on Popline, only the world's largest reproductive health database.

It all started in February, when the Agency for International Development, the government body that funds Popline (which is run by the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University), noticed that it included two articles on abortion advocacy. They 'expressed concerns,' it was determined that the articles didn't meet the database's criteria, and the articles were removed. Then the database's search engine was reprogrammed to ignore the query word 'abortion.'

Right...That's not an overreaction at all. As Debra Dickson, one of the Popline managers pointed out, database users still could still find information on abortion by using such search terms as, "fertility control, postconception," and "pregnancy, unwanted." Silly me! It's 'Guess the Query Word!' Here I've been missing out on a great game.

It's still not clear exactly what happened. In a statement on the School of Public Health's website, Dean Michael Klag, promised to look into the issue, assuring people that "I could not disagree more strongly with this decision," which he hadn't been aware of it until that morning.

In the end, this'll probably all be chalked up to an explosive misunderstanding on the Popline managers' part, but it's easy to see how they got there. The database does depend on federal funds, and the paws currently clutching at the purse strings don't exactly smile upon family planning going further than what you learn in an abstinence only sex ed class. Maybe there was some personal ideological motivation there too, but most likely they just got scared. Massive databases don't fund themselves, and with the Bush administration out to get anything that smacks of 'immorality,' what would you do?

Gah! I may not agree with fiscal conservatism, but at least I can comprehend it. Moral conservatism... Just because you have a close personal relationship with Jesus, doesn't mean I have to. Believe me, I've tried. We just couldn't seem to make it work. Please, stop trying to save me from myself.

Damn, I'm Hungry

So, as I’m sure many of you have noticed firsthand, there is a massive food crisis going on throughout the world right now. I’m sure you all noticed, you went to Trader Joe’s or Chipotle and they were out of a bunch of stuff, like bread and other essential items you need to survive, right? Oh wait, you haven’t noticed, you’ve only read about it? Oh yeah, sorry, I forgot we live in a rich country so it’s not our problem. Never-mind.

Alright, we may as well talk about it, that’s kind of like helping right? So I guess all these poor countries all over the world have no food or something. I can’t imagine it’s that big a deal, I mean it’s just food, but I guess it is. Alright, so the crisis cost the Prime Minister of Haiti his job. And it’s caused a few riots, but just in countries like Indonesia, Egypt, the Philippines, Cameroon, and the Ivory Coast (where the price of beef has almost doubled—in three days). Ok and maybe there’s been a little civil unrest in a couple of other places; but it’s just in countries like Burkina Faso, Senegal, Mauritania, Morocco, Yemen, Uzbekistan, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, South Africa, Mexico, and most of South America. Most of those places are probably in Africa though, and they don’t really have food there anyway, right?

Either way, all I know is that all this “agflation” (my new favorite political buzzword) can’t be the United States’ or Europe’s fault. It’s gotta be India’s and China’s fault, if they didn’t have so many damn people eating so damn much there would be plenty of food left for Africa and those other places. Oh yeah, and fuel prices have gone up too thanks to India and China’s trillion people driving all their fancy new cars, which makes fertilizer way more expensive and makes it cost like $300 for my boss to fill up his Hummer. This, coupled with poor harvests in 3rd world countries (which has nothing to do with global warming, which China and India also caused; that is, if global warming existed, and it doesn’t) has created this food crisis.

Alright, so maybe the United States is investing way more of its subsidies for corn into biofuel (in 2005, 6% of U.S. corn production was used for biofuel, now it’s 23%). Ok, and maybe rich countries like the United States have caused developing nations to become reliant on food imports so that the U.S. can subsidize its farmers (we sure taught them a lesson in self-reliance when we switched the subsidies for corn from their food to our precious biofuel!). And maybe corn ethanol is one of the least efficient and least practical fuels ever. And sure, the amount of corn ethanol biofuel it takes to fill up the average American car requires roughly the same amount of corn the average African eats in an entire year. Whatever, though, maybe if all these countries learned about the wonders of democracy and capitalism they wouldn’t be so hungry all the damn time. All I know is I can walk down to the corner and buy a Big Mac for $2, and if the United States can do it, I don’t understand why everyone else can’t. And we’re in a recession too (which has nothing to do with the lack of investment in food commodities that may or may not have something to do with the food crisis)! Again, I place full blame for this on India and China.

Seriously though readers, a lot of people in the world are starving and it’s only going to get a much, much worse. Don’t take your plentiful food for granted and don’t ignore the problems faced by people in developing nations. Please. At the very least, go to www.freerice.com and donate rice to developing nations while playing a fun game that vastly improves your vocabulary; it's an easy way to do something good!

The Latest Poll Shows: It's a Recession!

photo by marshlight

President George W. Bush is famous for saying he doesn't pay attention to public opinion polls.

Many reasonable people think that this is arrogant – democratically elected leaders should not flout the will of the people who elect them, critics say.

But perhaps there is some wisdom in Bush's policy against reading polls.

What I'm getting at is: Most people just don't know that much stuff, and polls must reflect that. That is, in many cases, polls are asking people about things they simply don't know very well.

Imagine if a pollster called you and asked, "Is the economy headed for a recession?"

You're smart, sure, but do you know what a recession is? Troll your memory for a second. Formulate a guess.

Going by that most reputable of all sources, Wikipedia, a recession is defined in two ways.

Economists say: "A recession is a decline in a country's real gross domestic product, or negative real economic growth, for two or more successive quarters of a year."

The National Bureau of Economic Research says: "A recession is a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales. A recession begins just after the economy reaches a peak of activity and ends as the economy reaches its trough."

Did you guess right?

Knowing whether the American economy is in recession requires knowledge of the definition of "recession," as well as the directions of GDP, and perhaps income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales.

Knowing whether the economy is headed for recession requires all that, plus advance knowledge of what will happen in the future.

So you'll excuse my skepticism when I see a poll that announces, "Majority of Americans expect a recession." I don't think the majority of Americans even know what a recession is, let alone whether one is on the horizon.

There are many things that the majority of Americans are expert on: how to speak English, whether they are happy, and whether they like their cars and houses, for instance.

But when a pollster calls and asks the majority of Americans a bunch of questions that baffle economists, we ought not to grant the results much credence.

Short Memories

As the Bear Stearns debacle from a couple weeks ago begins to play itself out more thoroughly, American taxpayers must be wondering: why are we funding the bail out of financial institutions who made bad bets on the stock market? And really, not just bad bets, but stupid, pyramid debt schemes that by the laws of nature would have to collapse under their own weight just like classic Barbie would have to walk on all fours.

The Fed stepped in and assisted JP Morgan Chase in the acquisition of its one-time competitor to put ol' Bear back on its feet, mostly to appease the yowling of its investors who cried a thousand emo tears when they saw their stock prices drop to $2 a share. Don't worry, the Fed bumped it up to $10, and we all footed the bill.

It's really not just that though. The Fed has reinvented its responsibility in this new age of financial moral hazards. It has now decided to lend directly to commercial banks, a role it never held before, and to intervene as it sees fit to keep these behemoths afloat.

It claims to have more oversight too... it better, if it plans on tossing out $30 billion buy outs like water. Chances are though that the new Fed oversight still won't amount to much in the way of regulation, which means that debt will be bought and sold in new, fancier packages that simply can't help but attract investors like small children to a sharp, shiny object. They don't even NEED to control themselves, because Uncle Sam will be there to set them on their feet again.

To be fair, the government HAD to bail out Bear Stearns. Frankly, it should have stepped in earlier to avoid the collapse of the company, but in either case, Bear was too well-connected in the markets to let fail. It had a finger in every pot that would have essentially amounted to a bulldozer effect on our already slumping economy (r-word, anybody?), and that, at least, the Feds couldn't just stand by and watch. It also shouldn't have let that happen in the first place.

Really, though, the most egregious bit of this is that there should be no reason for it to happen.

We've seen it all before. There was the Great Depression, caused in part by people buying stock with money they didn't have. There was the 1970s collapse in Latin America where the amount of debt those countries were racking up made total sense... until interest rates went through the roof and debt services became almost a laughing matter. Let's not forget the collapse in 1994, or, my favorite, the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis where Thai banks got short term loans from international banks and sold the money as long term loans to primarily real estate investors at home for ridiculous interest rates. That system collapsed when the short term end of things dried up and investors, spooked, began pulling money out of Asia left and right, even though other countries were anything but insolvent, or even risky.

The point is that investors don't learn from history. Or maybe the point is that they do – the moral hazard, the assumption that the government is going to take this sticky business off your hands if your big risk falls through (and that you'll direct your profits overseas to avoid taxation if it doesn't) has been almost a given for so long that investors have to think it's written in the rule book. Coming up with new and interesting ways to sell debt abroad has its uses, but when the company has nothing to lose and everything to gain, risky behavior is assured.

In an ideal world, and my crazed liberal mind, what we need is international regulation of financial centers, preferably stemming from the WTO as an update on a matter that has taken a backseat to agricultural subsidies and free trade back biting. At the very least, domestic regulation that can ensure that these companies will sink or swim based on the soundness of their decisions is absolutely critical to curtail corporate welfare and make sure that Americans are supporting an America they can be proud of.

photo by Azrainman

Money speaks, but does it speak well?

Like most people I know, I've never really thought much about punitive damages (at least, I assume that's the case - you never know what people like to ponder in their free time), but an article in the NY Times last week (Foreign Courts Wary of U.S. Punitive Damages) got me thinking: What is the point of awarding large sums of money - beyond the actual damages suffered - to plaintiffs in civil lawsuits?

While Americans are used to hearing about large punitive damage awards (despite the active movement to limit punitive damages in the United States, they are a fairly settled point in our legal system), they're relatively uncommon in other countries. English law severely restricts the circumstances in which they can be awarded, while Japanese law prohibits the enforcement of any punitive damages awarded by foreign courts.

In the case outline in the Times article, Judy Glebosky, an Alabama woman had sued an Italian manufacturer after the buckle on one of their motorcycle helmets failed in an accident, killing her son. The Alabama court awarded the woman $1 million in punitive damages, but the company refused to pay. Last year, the Italian Supreme Court sided with the company, blocking Glebosky's efforts to collect because they found the notion of punitive damages to be offensive to Italian ideas of justice.

Now, I've always been vaguely in favor of courts awarding punitive damages, especially when there's clear evidence of sleaziness, if not direct proof of wrongdoing, on the part of big corporations. Exxon Mobil, tobacco companies, I'm looking at you. Corporations may legally qualify as individuals, but it's damn hard to throw those 'individuals' in jail, even if you do manage to get a conviction, which is enough of a challenge in itself. How do you punish a corporation for breaking the law?

Sometimes it's enough to simply make them compensate the plaintiff(s) for the actual provable harm caused by corporate malfeasance. But if the point of the punishment is also to deter future crime, you have to decide whether having to shell out for compensatory damages really is enough to stop a company from committing the same irresponsible and/or illegal action in the future. Maybe they'll get caught again, but the cost of settling the cases that do come up is usually outweighed by the savings that made the irresponsible and/or illegal action seem like a good idea in the beginning - it's incredibly unlikely that they'll have to pay out in every case. In the end, money speaks, and because punitive damages involve larger sums, they speak louder than compensatory damages.

At this point, punitive damages - governed by state laws - are pretty standard practice in this country. It is an understatement to say that there has been a fairly vocal movement to limit punitive damages - opponents have been screaming for limits, or outright prohibition, at the tops of their lungs. But despite all that, the large awards that you hear about are rare within the system - the median award is closer to $40,000, and punitive damages are only actually awarded in around 2% of the civil cases that do end up in trial. While efforts to cap punitive damages have failed to pass constitutional muster, most punitive awards larger than 4 times the compensatory damages are questioned for the same reason. We all remember last year, when the Supreme Court overturned $80 million in punitive damages against Phillip Morris awarded to the widow of a smoker in Oregon. I know I was pissed when that happened.

Which is why I was kind of surprised when I didn't feel that bad for Glebosky. Not that I suddenly discovered that punitive damages were a bad thing, but I did wonder why she needed the money - as she said, it's not going to bring her son back. I know I felt more certain about rulings against the tobacco companies because that money was going to go to anti-smoking education.

I don't have any clear conclusion to these musings, but I guess I just wish there were a better way of punishing corporate malfeasance than just throwing money at the problem. Maybe having to pay large sums does provide the proverbial slap in the face for corporations who would otherwise cut corners (or outright lie to consumers) in order to raise profits, but is it really enough? And with punitive damages going directly to plaintiffs, you get the impression that they're being excessively rewarded for their victimhood, which really only helps corporations in their fight against responsibility. On the other hand, who else do you give them to?

Silly games

They always say the three taboo subjects are as follows: sex, politics, and religion. But no topic draws up the greatest amount of emotion from the fires within people quite like sports. Talk to any Duke fan and they'll go boo-hoo over the seemingly inexplicable amount of hated slung at their team (and then go boo-hoo over another early NCAA Tournament flameout). Wear a Giants hat in Los Angeles and you won't be invited for any more Scrabble Nights at your neighbor's. Show any sign of affinity for the Dallas Cowboys and I'll immediately remove you from my "Top Friends" on MySpace. In our democratic, open, and tolerant society that we enjoy, SP&R are so old-hat. But if another team from Boston wins a championship, then the terrorists have won.

With that in mind, what better place to incite political and social discussion than your weekly dose of Monday Night Football?

Sports serve as a microcosm of the world we live in, as the small segment of the population that we watch compete every day on television is put under a microscope. Every move the athletes make on a playing field or within an arena is scrutinized, and so is every aspect of their lives. The unfortunate death of Sean Taylor (age 24 at death) served as a reminder that "the leading cause of death for black men 15 to 24 is homicide." The probable bolt of college stars Michael Beasley and Derrick Rose to the NBA only adds to already low graduation rates among black students from college. UCLA star freshman Kevin Love has stated that remaining in school for another year is not a "financial issue" for him. I don't know what the financial situation is for Beasley or Rose, but with millions of dollars in their future as high draft picks I don't find it to be just a coincidence that Kevin Love is white and from an affluent suburb (Lake Oswego, Oregon) while Beasley and Rose are both African-American and came from predominantly black urban areas (Baltimore-Washington, D.C. and Chicago, respectively).

Lest we forget the revelry of George Bush throwing the first pitch of Game 3 of the 2001 World Series in Yankees Stadium in the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11th. What could be more political than the leader of the free world bringing back a sense of "normalcy" by appearing in the home of the most popular team of "America's Pastime," who also happen to don an Uncle Sam hat in their logo?

With the Summer Olympics looming on the horizon for China, it's safe to say the Chinese Communist Party is nothing short of embarrassed over the turmoil erupting in the disputed province of Tibet and the protests and discussion that it has sparked worldwide. Having experienced their collective excitement firsthand in a trip to China last year (here's a picture of me in front of the newly constructed Beijing National Stadium), the people and government of China are treating the Games as more than just a global revelry of sports and nationalistic pride, but as their welcoming party into the world stage. Having long been the 1.3 billion-large Communist elephant in the room of global politics, the Chinese people are viewing the Summer Games as their globalization bar mitzvah.

That's fine and all; as I said before we've always attached an inflated sense of value to what is basically men and women playing a game and there is nothing wrong with that. So then why are people backing off from the notion of a full boycott of the Olympic Games saying that the Olympics are not a place for politics? The Olympics are a perfect place for politics. If that's not the case then Jesse Owens showing up Hitler in his own backyard, the Black Power salute in the 1968 games, and the Miracle On Ice are all just another moment in the dominance of the United States in international competition and nothing more. What other time do you have every nation of the world represented in a forum where the spotlight is shining down upon them and millions of people are watching? Last time I checked, the General Assembly of the United Nations doesn't draw a high Nielsen rating.

So this August when the Games start, don't forget the charter of the Olympics aims to "create a way of life based on the joy found in effort, the educational value of good example and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles." I'm not calling for or supporting any sort of boycott of the Olympics, but I don't want people to let the Chinese government's blatant abuse of human rights not only in Tibet but throughout their country swept underneath the rug in the midst of the seemingly benign Games.

Sports are just fun and games, but they can be so much more than that. And that's why I love them.

photograph by shalvas

loss absorption

I will begin by recapping something which happened to me back in September. It began with waking up feeling a bit nauseous, and ended with a trip to the ER several hours later; well, at least one would think that’s where it ended.

Don’t worry, I’m fine, but the aftermath of my experience has truly woken me up to the realities of our health care system in this country. I should also add a disclaimer saying I do not know much of the propositions of any of the candidate on this issue, and I’m not sure at this point how to get out of this frightful mess, so I will not profess I have the final answer to this health care nightmare. That all being said, here’s a breakdown of my experience.

June 16^th, 2007 – I officially graduate from UCLA, thereby beginning my tender first steps to the “adult world,” and also thereby losing all my health coverage which until you graduate, is covered by your parents health coverage (assuming they have it).

June 18^th, 2007 – At the urging of my parents (despite thinking it a terrific waste of money at the time), I purchase ‘interim’ health insurance from UCLA amid advertisements from the Alumni Association about what great coverage I was getting and for such a good cost. ($90 per month, major medical only)

September 25^th, 2007 – I wake up feeling a bit sick, but brush it off. On my drive to work I get violently ill. Once at work I tell my boss I have to go to the doctor because I think I have food poisoning. After debating with them for a while I finally go to the doctor, where I can only see a nurse because all the doctors at the office are booked with appointments and do not have scheduled times for emergencies. I was told I had food poisoning, to get some rest and it will clear up in a few days.

September 26^th, 2007 (1AM) – Far too sick to be any food poisoning I have ever known, I am unable to even drive myself to the ER, so I call my dad to take me to the hospital. I am seen by a triage nurse who also believes it is food poisoning, and told there will be a substantial wait since my case is not urgent.

September 26^th, 2007 (3AM) – After getting so sick I can’t even raise my head, I am finally taken back to see the doctor, who diagnoses me in about 2 minutes with not food poisoning, but a severe case of vertigo. (No, not the movie, which seems to be the almost universal first response when I get to this part of the story) I am given 3 bags of IV fluids and medication, 3 different oral medications, and told if it didn’t get any better in a few days I would have to follow up with my own doctor.

September 30^th, 2007 – Still no change in vertigo (pills given to me by the ER doctor very ineffectual, especially since they turned out to be OVER THE COUNTER DRAMAMINE, but in a prescription bottle, which apparently made them cost 3 times more). I call my own doctor and over the phone she prescribes a heavy dose of decongestants which kicked in finally and I begin to feel better.

October 1^st, 2007 – My health insurance from my new job kicks in (just in time, right?)

November 26^th, 2007 – I get my first hospital bill; $5,000. $5,000!!!!!!!!! Then I get a doctor’s bill ($800), bills for the IVs ($50/each), for the lab to process my blood test ($300), and an extra fee for $200 because I was seen at the ER “after hours” which began at 10PM. Oh, and my insurance from UCLA’s deductible was $8,000. I guess when they said ‘major medical only’ they REALLY meant ‘major medical only’.

Here’s the real kicker and the point I’ve been building towards. Despite saying on their bills that financial assistance was offered and payment plans could be discussed, upon calling the hospital, I was told that there was nothing they could do to help me and I owed all the money that was listed or else they would turn me over to a collection agency. I was told, point blank, by the hospital, that the reason my bill was so high was because I had insurance.

What? Apparently, there are so many patients that come for emergency care without insurance (and they have to, by law, treat them anyway), the hospital purposely inflates the bills of patients with insurance, to try and get more money out of the insurance company, to fill the gap with how many uninsured patients they have to treat. It was just too bad that my insurance sucked so much.

Now, I was able to talk my way down to about $4,000 total for all the bills, but that still doesn’t mean I have $4000. I am barely out of college, did not make much money at work, had school and car payments (not to mention car insurance), and have now been hit with this debt which I will be paying off for a long time to come, because most other people don’t pay for insurance.

Now I of course believe that everyone should get medical treatment when it is an emergency, no matter if they have insurance or not, no matter if they have money or not, but the drain on the health care system (ERs mostly) comes primarily from non-emergent cases such as people not paying for health insurance, then going in when they have a cold. My father, who worked in an ER for 10 years and saw these abuses every day, confirmed this. He even spoke with a woman once who was very proud that she had found a way to cheat the system which meant she didn’t have to pay for insurance for her 5 children; when one of them way sick she would simply take them to County Medical Center and tell them she had no insurance, no money, and then give a fake address. The hospital had thus far just written her off as a charity case and they never paid a cent to the hospital. Incidentally, she drove a brand-new Mercedes when my dad spoke to her.

Most of the problem lies in the lack of affordable insurance and the bureaucracy of the entire system coupled with a lack of doctors and nurses, facilities and equipment (oh and don’t get me started on drug companies). But even if these problems are addressed, there will still be people who feed off the system because they are allowed to. The more we are willing to just ‘absorb the loss’ of some, and then translate it to overcharging others, the more screwed-up we are going to make the situation. This isn’t a problem exclusive to ethnicities or immigration status, either, although all these topics collide in one mushy mess. I really think universal health care would be the best way to ultimately solve the problem, circumstances what they are, but even it is not a total fix. But until we get even there, there has to be a fundamental change in people’s attitudes about taking more than what they are entitled to and feeling justified in doing so. Although, maybe we’ll see coverage for everyone before people start taking responsibility for themselves. All I know is when the hospital billing department asked me why I didn’t lie and say I had no insurance, I told her I didn’t because it was wrong. I really hope more people will do that when they’re in my shoes.

Commend this post to Digg.

The Votes Are In...and Everybody Loses

The votes are in, but we do not yet have a winner! No, I’m not talking about the United States Presidential Election, which is still a brain-numbing eight months away. Believe it or not, other countries have elections (they’re usually rigged) and a rather interesting one took place over the weekend (yep, it was rigged). That’s right, the absolute disaster of a nation known as Zimbabwe (or Rhodesia for all you former British colonists) voted in an absurd election over the weekend that will determine the fate of their once functional country. See, as stupid and frustrating as the United States election may seem sometimes, it's really not that bad compared to the elections of other nations, like Zimbabwe. At least in the United States election somebody (and some people) actually win and the voting is usually fair (unless it's decided by the Supreme Court). In Zimbabwe, well, not so much.

For a quick history lesson, following Zimbabwe’s independence in 1980, they quickly became one of the more successful African nations due to their abundance of arable land and their surprisingly well-run educational system. However, former hero, current President (in office since 1987), and future pariah Robert Mugabe managed to destroy all of that with amazing efficiency.

What started with absurd claims and mismanaged policy, such as Mugabe’s assertion that homosexuality didn’t exist in Zimbabwe before colonization, turned into an absolute nightmare following his 2000 land reforms. Mugabe was pissed that most of Zimbabwe’s arable land (the one that was making the country all that money and feeding all those people) was still being run by the few white people that had stayed after independence. So, Mugabe took it all away from them and gave it all to members of the black African majority. Problem was, these new farmers were pretty much just Mugabe’s friends and didn’t know how to farm (to be unbiased, Mugabe claims that Tony Blair used chemical weapons on the farms to incite instability). Either way, since that time the food production has substantially decreased, life expectancy has dropped like a rock, and unemployment has hit an unheard of 80%. Most impressive is their inflation, which is estimated at a ridiculous 100,500% (some project it at over 1,000,000%, but since inflation really has never been this high anywhere ever, a lot of this is speculation). This has led to Zimbabwe’s awesome $10,000,000 bill (not a typo), worth about $1 US.

Either way, Mugabe’s presidency was kind of up for grabs this weekend, which is surprising for a totalitarian regime. Two opposition parties, most notably Morgan Tsvangirai’s MDC, looked to stand a legitimate chance to take over the nation. Naturally, all parties involved claimed widespread fraud, likely all were right. Over 3 million more ballots were printed than people in the country and almost 9,000 addresses were registered to vacant land (mostly registered to the surprisingly powerful 1960’s dead, white Rhodesian voters). It doesn’t help that the election was outrageously confusing, with hundreds of local and parliamentary seats being voted on along with the Presidential vote. Shockingly though, Tsvangirai’s MDC is claiming a victory over Mugabe despite few votes having actually been counted. Surely Mugabe will accept this and step down, because that’s what democracy is all about right?

Unfortunately, he will most surely not. Mugabe has already declared the MDC’s claims of victory as tantamount to a coup and despite what results slowly come in (and who in Mugabe’s camp gets killed for botching such a seemingly easy to rig election) one would be foolish to expect Mugabe’s party to go down without a fight. So what does this mean? Well, think of the violence in Kenya last year (caused by a similar election) and times that by superhyperinflation (new word) and over 2 million refugees (that’s about 15% of Zimbabwe’s population) trying desperately to get into South Africa. Yeah, that’s bad.

So yeah, maybe the United States’ election has a lot of problems: it’s long (REALLY LONG), it costs a shitload of money, and the Electoral College is the stupidest thing not called a superdelegate. However, at least in the United States’ election at least 50% of the country can declare themselves a winner; in Zimbabe’s election, like most 3rd world democracies, the only sure thing is that nobody is going to win.


Commend this post to Digg.

Your backyard is a problem

I wanted to keep this to a simple comment on Greg's post, but as I went on about recidivism, I realized my comment was getting to be a small novella. As such, here's my rant on the corrections system.

First of all, I feel like I should define what I want out of a good corrections system. If you think that the only purpose of a jail should be to lock people away as punishment for breaking the law, that's one thing. Then sure, let jails and prisons be overcrowded with petty offenders. Let the system take them out of their homes and communities, their jobs and activities so that they can sit around pointlessly for a while. Let them make better connections in prisons so they can have something more "profitable" when they get back out. Please, create the next crime they're almost sure to commit.

Why is recidivism so common? Because the resources that those people need aren't provided to them. An addict is probably still an addict when he/she gets out of jail if the state chose not to spend the resources on him/her. The guy who was so down and out when he was caught the first time is no better by the time he gets out of jail if the system is no more than a long term holding tank.

A big problem comes from society's attitudes toward the people who commit crimes. Some of them surely need to be locked away for the protection of the community as a whole, but most of them don't. The harmless ones in for a long time due to the genius that was the 3 Strikes Law are only going to be more of a problem when they get out, bitter, denied education or work, the normal things that raise self esteem and break the cycle that they're in.

The problem is that the corrections system doesn't have much of a choice but to keep putting these people back out there. Know why? 'Cause we don't want them. The smartest, most economical option is to create things called halfway houses, staffed minimally by a few officers and counselors to help people get back on their feet. They get job hunt help, go out and set their lives back up in a manner which most of us would find acceptable. Halfway houses are proven.

But they drive down property values.
But most people don't want former convicts anywhere near them.
Apparently they'd rather pay for their stay in jail then their rehabilitation.

To prevent recidivism, you need resources going to people's re-education. They need the skills to create security for themselves that they used to find in crime. They need a place to go until those skills are developed. But if society won't provide for them, they certainly won't make life any easier for it.

/endrant
Commend this post to Digg.

Kwame, Eliot, and Getting What You Pay for

photograph by Cave Canem

I hate how liberal I'm going to sound when I say this, but America needs to get over its prostitution hang-up.

The reason I've ended up at this conclusion is Kwame Kilpatrick. Kilpatrick is the disgraced mayor of Detroit, who, so far as we know, did not have sex with any prostitutes. What he did do was have an extramarital affair with his chief of staff, Christine Beatty (and, it has been alleged in court, at least three other women, in addition to throwing stripper parties at the city-owned mayoral residence). He then allegedly had fired, and thus ruined the careers of, those policemen investigating both his misconduct and abuses by his security team. When those officers fought back and won a Whistleblower Protection Act lawsuit against the city worth $6.5 million in damages, Kilpatrick (who is black) publicly pulled the race card and vowed to appeal. But in the end, he quietly offered a settlement of $8.4 million.

If that sudden change of heart doesn't make sense to you, it's because, as The Detroit Free Press discovered, the $8.4 million settlement included a secret deal in which all parties agreed to hide the existence of incriminating text messages between Kilpatrick and Beatty. In other words, Kilpatrick tried to spend $8.4 million in taxpayer money to cover up an affair. (Well, one could say that the $6.5 million was for the illegal firings - which, remember, he was allegedly responsible for in the first place - and the extra $2.1 million in taxpayer money to be the actual price of silence.)

I first heard about this when Slate ran some of the text messages on its website almost two months ago. Unbelievably, Kilpatrick is still mayor, despite being indicted on Monday with eight felonies, including perjury. The media coverage has been widespread, but certainly not scandalous. There's none of the national moral outrage that was so fervent just two weeks ago.

Eliot Spitzer had sex with prostitutes.

That's Why They Play the Games

Speaking of things that matter, tonight is actually the official beginning of the 2008 Major League Baseball season as the defending World Champion Boston Red Sox face off against the Oakland A’s in Japan (game time: 3:05 AM, thanks MLB). I’m a huge baseball fan and I am ready for this season. Got my fantasy team ready to play, got my games ready to watch, and got my $20 ready to park in (and subsequently wait two hours to get out of) the hell that is the Dodger Stadium parking lot.

However, with baseball season kind of officially here, one must prepare for the onslaught of preseason media coverage devoted to every aspect of almost every team (sorry Nationals, there’s just nothing to cover) from “expert analysts” all over the country. This includes “expert” preseason picks. Now, I used to be a big fan of expert analysts; I would dedicate my limited attention to shows like Pardon the Interruption, Around the Horn, and the talking segments on Sportscenter. Then one day it hit me: these expert analysts are always wrong. Not just sometimes, but always. I mean, occasionally one or two will be right, but really it’s no more likely than the average baseball fan making his prediction or an average person off the street randomly guessing. On this note, I figured we might as well take a trip down memory lane and analyze the preseason predictions of ESPN’s expert team of expert analysts to see how they did (after all, ESPN is the worldwide leader in sports). The data analyzed will be ESPN’s panel of predictions from 2002-2007, with the exception of 2004 for which the data doesn’t appear to exist (although, I think it's fair to say that not too many analysts had the Boston Red Sox winning their first World Series title in 86 years). The main focus will be on experts picking the correct World Series teams, MVP’s, and Cy Young’s (best teams, best players, best pitchers) Don’t worry, kudos will be given for the few correct, often very simple, picks.

We’ll start with 2002 when my beloved Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim (then referred to by the simpler and far more accurate Anaheim Angels) won the World Series over the San Francisco Giants. Naturally, 0 of the 18 ESPN expert panelists had the Angels making the playoffs that year; only 2 had them finishing out of last place in the West. While 13 of the 18 had the Giants making the playoffs (although only 1 of those accurately picked them to win the Wild Card), 0 had them reaching the World Series. Even worse were their MVP picks: eventual American League MVP Miguel Tejada received all of 0 preseason votes (even Christian Guzman got a vote!), while reigning and eventual National League MVP Barry Bonds (coming off one of the best seasons of ALL TIME) received just 2. While a solid 6 correctly picked Randy Johnson to win the NL Cy Young, 0 experts picked Barry Zito to win the AL Cy Young.

I guess ESPN had a look over their 2002 predictions and decided the best way to improve their odds was to up the number of panelists. Hence, in 2003 we were blessed with 27 ESPN expert preseason predictions; all were terrible as expected. Not surprisingly, for the second year in a row the eventual 2003 World Series Champions, this time the Florida Marlins, received 0 out of 27 votes to even make the playoffs. Surprisingly, albeit every expert had the 2003 World Series loser New York Yankees making the playoffs (that was a gimme), only 5 of the 27 put them into the World Series (the overwhelming favorite was the Oakland A’s as this was before people realized that “moneyball” was bullshit). In what should have been a relatively easy year to pick the MVP’s in the preseason, a mediocre 10 out of 27 correctly picked Alex Rodriguez to win the AL MVP, while a comparably mediocre 9 picked Barry Bonds to win the NL MVP. Of course, 0 out of 27 correctly picked Eric Gagne to win the NL Cy Young, but 1 expert correctly picked Roy Halladay to win the AL Cy Young. Mind you, these people get paid a lot of money to make these picks.

We move on to 2005 where ESPN realized that more picks was not necessarily more accurate and slimmed their panel back down to 19. This year (holy shit!) 1 of the 19 ESPN experts actually predicted the eventual World Series Champion Chicago White Sox to make the playoffs (unfortunately this lucky expert did not have them making the World Series). Naturally, the usual 0 out of 19 experts picked the 2005 World Series loser Houston Astros to make the playoffs. In what should have again been an easy year to pick the MVP’s, a poor 6 out of 19 correctly picked Alex Rodriguez to be the AL MVP, while a slightly impressive 9 easily picked Albert Pujols to be the NL MVP. But to be fair, only 1 correctly picked Bartolo Colon to be the AL Cy Young Winner, while 0 correctly picked Chris Carpenter to win the NL Cy Young. That’s as many preseason Cy Young predictions combined (1) as Zack Greinke got; in 2005 he went 5-17 with a 5.80 ERA, but he did hit his first home run!

In 2006 ESPN decided to go with 20 expert panelists and amazingly this nice, even number gave them their best preseason picks yet! All 20 of the experts had the eventual 2006 World Champion St. Louis Cardinals making the playoffs, 10 of those had them in the World Series, and 2 of those actually had them winning! This really shouldn’t come as that much of a surprise, as the Cardinals that year won just 83 games and are arguably the worst team to ever win the World Series. But kudos nonetheless experts! Unfortunately, the more common 0 out of 20 experts picked the World Series loser (aka World Series choker) Detroit Tigers to make the playoffs. Fortunately, to make up for their semi-accurate World Series pick, none of the experts correctly picked the NL MVP Ryan Howard or the AL MVP Justin Morneau. In addition, only 5 of the 20 experts correctly picked Johan Santana to win the AL Cy Young (how 15 picked against him I don’t know) and 0 correctly picked the NL Cy Young winner Brandon Webb.

Finally, we arrive at last season, 2007. ESPN decided to return to 18 expert panelists (the same number they had in 2002, awfully good for closure’s sake) and stuck with their generally poor preseason picks. Kudos goes to the 15 who picked the 2007 World Series Champion Boston Red Sox to make the playoffs (whatever the 3 who didn’t pick them were smoking, I want some), extra kudos to the impressive 3 who actually correctly predicted they would win the World Series (fine, mild kudos to the 1 who predicted they would make the World Series and lose). Back on track, 0 of the 18 predicted that the World Series loser Colorado Rockies would make the playoffs. On a side note, 3 experts (who hadn’t yet figured out that “moneyball” was bullshit) picked the A’s to win the AL West, they finished 18 games out of first place. Always good at making the easy pick, 10 of the 18 experts correctly picked Alex Rodriguez to win the AL MVP; always terrible at everything else, 0 correctly picked Jimmy Rollins to win the NL MVP. Not surprisingly, the 2007 Cy Young picks definitely came as a surprise to these knowledgeable experts; just 1 correctly picked NL Cy Young winner Jake Peavy and ESPN’s favorite number, 0, correctly picked the AL Cy Young Winner C.C. Sabathia.

So, if you’re one of those people that listens to baseball experts (specifically ESPN’s) preseason predictions, DON’T. How these people get paid so much money to make such poor guesses, I will never know, but I will always be jealous. Hopefully I have shown that these experts know about as much as what’s going to happen during the baseball season as any other schmuck. On that note, I will make my 2008 World Series prediction, one that pits my two lifelong favorite teams against each other: the Los Angeles Angels against the New York Mets. I have picked this World Series match up for as long as I have been a baseball fan and I’ve been wrong almost every single year. I guess that puts me in pretty good company.

Going to Get Ugly

photograph by mirandapablo

The Associated Press scooped all the L.A. papers this morning, following up on a rumor that the gang member who stands accused of killing high school football star Jamiel Shaw might be – wait for it – an illegal alien.

A spokesperson for the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency said the alleged killer may or may not be an illegal alien, and that they may not know for sure for awhile.

The accused killer, Pedro Espinoza, had just finished serving a four month prison term the day before Jamiel was shot. He was serving a sentence for brandishing a weapon and resisting arrest.

So, just to recap, this story now

• Has a youth-on-the-right-path narrative
• Has a youth-on-the-wrong-path narrative
• Contains brown-on-black violence
• Includes a gang member
  
• Includes a star athlete
  
• Has an immigration thread
• Has a prison system thread
  
• Is happening during a spike-in-crime
  

and to top it all off with a big dollop of symbolism, the victim was a student at a high school named Los Angeles.

With the new information about the accused's immigration status, it would be naive to think that Shaw's death will not immediately become a rallying point for anti-immigrant hatred. I predict Lou Dobbs will begin to talk about it in approximately 14 seconds.

Never mind that Espinoza has not been, you know, convicted.

Another aspect likely to be overlooked, due to a combination of Los Angeles's current fog of fear and the coming tsunami of talk show immigration rhetoric, is the total uselessness of the prison system. If Espinoza is indeed the killer, this is someone committing a murder the day after he got out of jail. Taking him as an example – though he's certainly not unique in this sense – it's pretty clear that our prisons do little to discourage recidivism.

It seems to me that the whole concept of imprisonment as a solution to criminal behavior is based on a principle that imprisonment prevents people from committing crimes again. If prisons are not discouraging repeat offenses, what's the point?

Maybe one might think the reason for prisons is just to satisfy a sort of primal need for revenge. But if that's all we require of a post-conviction system, we could put convicts in the stocks and throw rotten fruit at them and then be done with it.

No, imprisonment must have some other goal. But whatever that goal is, it's not being accomplished – and at a cost to California taxpayers of over $10 billion per year, growing 9% annually.

That's one tenth of the state's revenues.

The Things That Matter

photograph by slimmer_jimmer

Philosophers and scientists agree: there are two ways to prove a claim.

The first is to eliminate all possible other options.

As such, the Things that Matter is not a music blog. It is also not a blog for worship of the Democratic Party platform.

It is not a blog about what bag Paris Hilton is carrying. It is not a blog about what I ate for lunch.

It is not a blog that reeks with naked pretension. It is not a blog that weeps with hyper-sincerity.

It is not a blog aimed at the largest possible audience. It is not a blog written to maximize profit and minimize costs.

It is not a blog that is supposed to ingrain itself into the coveted 18-to-34 demographic. It is not a blog that is supposed to capture the imaginations of a generation.

That is not to say that any of those things are bad per se. But there are many voices shouting at those ears.

The second is to show what it is.

The Things That Matter is a project that my friends, acquaintances and I are undertaking.

We are of the opinion that we have creative and interesting insights into the fascinating environment in which we live. We hold many things dear: politics and policy, culture and art, science and philosophy, sports and media, ethics and economics.

We care deeply about these things and many others. We spend our waking hours analyzing them, in blogs, in conversations, in our internal monologues. By any account, we could be using this time in more profitable ways. But we can't help but feel that these things are very important and that they deserve our attention.

As a result of our intellectual devotion, we often come up with creative insights we wish to share. Thus arose this blog.

We are not especially qualified pundits, though many of us have served, are serving, or wish to serve as analysts, authors, journalists, and other organizers of information. No, we are just people who value intelligent commentary and think that we have voices that will add value to an enormous, open-ended conversation – a conversation about The Things That Matter.