The other aspect about soccer that is truly unique is how it has brought to sports an entire group of fans who aren’t your typical sports fans. Young, progressive people who normally find the business side of sports to be tiresome. This new group of fans are attracted to soccer because of its egalitarian atmosphere and the fact that money plays a far smaller part than the purity of competition and victory. While it is true that these players are paid handsomely for their talents, they seem to be far more humble and respectful and no one ever sees themselves as bigger than the game of soccer. You will never see a soccer star hold an hour long press conference/special to announce where he will next play…

LeBron James does think that he is bigger than his team and the sport, hence the, “Summer of LeBron.” With his decision on July 9th he finally ended the “anguish” of the nation in a one-hour long media event in which he demonstrated how he can make the entire sports media bend to his will. It was by far the most ridiculous thing I have ever witnesses in sports and while my opinion is certainly not a unique one it is, I think, the proper one. Anyone who walked away from that special thinking better of LeBron is either six years old of a resident of Miami. This goes back to our obsession with sports. Instead of informing his team of his decision face-to-face, giving them time to make appropriate decisions, maybe go out and sign a new small forward, he told them minutes before the show and after all the best free agent options were off the board. He paid no mind to that fact that the city of Cleveland, and the state of Ohio for that matter, had supported him since he tried to enter the league as a junior in high school trying to break into the league. Instead he treated them like a stool to be stepped on to reach a greater height. The fact is while LeBron’s decision is his own he treated his city and his home as a piece of dog meat without value and discarded them with that attitude. He chose to gut an entire city and franchise on national television.He made it crystal clear with this spectacle that, at the least, he believes he is bigger than his team. A concept that is blasphemy in sports.

If LeBron truly cared for winning and felt himself as part of a team rather than a universe unto himself, instead of going to Miami to take a pay cut and “win” he could have stayed in Cleveland and taken a pay cut so that the Cavs could go out and get some more talent. It is clear that before the end of the last playoff series that LeBron had made his decision to leave, his play during those final games spoke volumes. The sad part is, the last people find out were the Cavs.

Why did he do all this? to help Dwayne Wade win a second title? If they win titles, they won’t be LeBron’s they will be Wade’s and he will go down as the guy who couldn’t hack it on his own and to be honest, I don’t think he can. He is a great player, without a doubt, but he is Charles Barkley great or Patrick Ewing great— not great enough to win a title on his own. LeBron to me is a joke. A shadow of a man. Someone who thinks he is bigger than the game of basketball and that they should just give him the championship already. For crying out loud he was crowned King without having achieved anything. He has a few MVP’s and that is it. He will go down as the most valuable loser, and that will be his legacy.

He went from this:

To This:

…in a single hour.

…Mute in this case. The Elena Kagan confirmation hearings have been “raging” now for several days, and we know only one thing about her— she is a hypocrite.

One of Ms. Kagan’s oft quoted remarks comes from a 1995 book review published in the Univ. of Chicago Law Review where she describes Supreme Court confirmation hearings as “vapid and hollow charade, in which repetition of platitudes has replaced discussion of viewpoints and personal anecdotes have supplanted legal analysis. Such hearings serve little educative function, except perhaps to reinforce lessons of cynicism that citizens often glean from government.” (Kagan, p. 941) Find the full book review here: Kagan Book Review .pdf

Her hearings thus far have been nothing but a vapid and hollow charade. While arguably this is possibly the only sure way to confirmation— taking pains to not directly answer any questions— it simply reinforces the idea the government, in all its forms, is a full of self-centered politicians who care only about their own careers and reputations more than service to their country. The inherent truth of this statement is debatable, some public servants serve better than others, but the underlying premise is solid. In today’s political environment cynicism is the default setting of many people in the country because they have become tired of the constant bickering and power struggles that fill the political pages of newspapers and blogs. You would be hard pressed to find a person who honestly believes that the government has the people’s best interests in mind.

This hearing seems to demonstrate nothing to the contrary. Other than (soon to be former) Sen. Arlen Specter (D?R?/PA) expressing frustration at Kagan’s non-answers the hearings seem relatively superficial. They vacillate between Kagan refusing to answer, in striking similarity to Jon Roberts Jr, because the issue is before the court and questions about such riveting national dialogue as the movie “Twilight.” I am curious though as to what Ms. Kagan sees as the role of the hearings are? The same book review offers us an illustrative answer:

the most striking aspect of the debate over the Bork nomination was not the depths to which it occasionally descended, but the heights that it repeatedly reached.36 What Carter tongue-in-cheek calls “the famous national seminar on constitutional law” (p 6) was just that. The debate focused not on trivialities (Carter’s “ethical molehills”) but on essentials: the understanding of the Constitution that the nominee would carry with him to the Court. Senators addressed this complex subject with a degree of seriousness and care not usually present in legislative deliberation; the ratio of posturing and hyperbole to substantive discussion was much lower than that to which the American citizenry has become accustomed. And the debate captivated and involved that citizenry in a way that, given the often arcane nature of the subject matter, could not have been predicted. Constitutional law became, for that brief moment, not a project reserved for judges, but an enterprise to which the general public turned its attention and contributed (Kagan, p. 940)

Here she is marveling at the stark contrast between the Bork hearing, where the Senate delved deep into the Constitutional issues at stake and to what she would consider the heart of the matter, to eventually reject Bork as a justice (in my opinion rightfully so). She later contrasts this to the charade earlier quoted. So Kagan’s own personal belief is that these hearings should be complex, intense processes that force the Senators and the nominees to look introspectively and outwardly when considering the appointment of a new justice of the SCOTUS. This is indeed how the political process is designed to work. The elected officials of the people decide if they believe the nominee is fit for the job and reflects the current attitudes of the nation. This is reflected in the lean of the Senate. While I don’t condone judicial activism, that desire to rule beyond the scope of the issues at hand and essentially legislate from the bench, I do believe that a justice needs to have a judicial philosophy, liberal or conservative, and stick to it. It is our values that define us, and to co-opt them so you can get the job is selling yourself, and indeed the country, short.

The question remains, though, is Kagan fit to be the next SCOTUS justice? The answer from me is a yes. While her politics and mine don’t necessarily jive, and while I would MUCH rather see Obama pick a strong progressive for this seat (especially since J.P. Stevens was exactly that), there is no question as to the mind of Elena Kagan. It is obvious in the book review and other of her works the she has a legal mind of the highest caliber. She is more than intellectually capable of sparring with Scalia and Thomas on the bench. The question remains, and again I don’t have the requisite seer qualifications to predict the future, as to how effective a justice she will make. Only time will tell, but the confirmation hearings certainly wont make it any clearer.

For More Information on:
Robert Bork
Elena Kagan 1
Elena Kagan 2
Kagan’s Big News Page on Huff Post This will give you coverage of the confirmation hearings as well.

Today, on the last day of its term, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled in favor of the gun lobby and gun rights activists in striking down the 30-year old Chicago gun ban.

This affirms that the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights is an incorporated right.. For more on incorporation see: wikipedia.

While this is not the end of firearms legislation, according to Justice Samuel Alito the decision “limits (but by no means eliminates) their [Cities] ability to devise solutions to social problems that suit local needs and values,” it is a definite blow to those of us who believe firearms need heavy regulation.

In the history of the US the gun has become an icon of what it means to be American, reflecting the cowboy mentality that much of the world attributes to us— not always incorrectly. We have an obsession with them. We worship them in a way that is only surpassed perhaps by money. It is a dangerous obsession, because, while advocates of gun rights will say that a gun is just a thing that is harmless without the human element and that we shouldn’t punish the gun for the actions of its handlers, the reality is that the purpose of a gun is to maim and kill. Guns were not designed for target shooting or carnival attractions. They developed as more efficient means to kill in the setting of a war. The evolution of firearms has been one where innovators have found ways to make guns more reliable, more devastating, and more user-friendly. What this adds up to is a recipe for disaster: in the US over 30,000 people die each year from gun violence, the most in the world.

The history of firearms aside, this SCOTUS decision could serve as the crack in the dam that will permit the NRA and it’s cohorts to bust through and open wide the flood of massive and comprehensive deregulation of guns. This is somewhat alarmist, and I do not possess the requisite extra sensory perception to see the future and what will happen from this new decision: this is certainly a worst case scenario. What it represents though, in our highest court, is what I alluded to earlier in describing our love of firearms. Let’s unpack that one.

Why are we obsessed with firearms? There is a bit of a John Wayne mentality there, a kind of romanticized notion of using a gun to ward off evil bandits and injuns’. There is also, in some places, a legitimate concern for one’s own safety that propels someone to buy a handgun. We have a long history of jurisprudence and popular culture that demonstrates the depths of our relationship with the gun. From the early days of our republic, in the debates over the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights we have debated firearms. In those days the state outfitted every man with a working musket so that, in a time of war or national defense, he might be called upon to shoulder his weapon and march with the militia— indeed this is the source of the Second Amendment. Our brazen, macho attitude and outward arrogance makes Americans seem like we almost need a gun to make our image whole. Our affair with the boom-stick goes deep to our core and says much about what we value, but what exactly is the value of a gun? How rational is our love of firearms?

Study after study has found that the mere presence of a firearm increases the likelihood that someone suffers an injury by it, and most likely not a criminal assailant. A 2004 study found that you were 1.5 to 3.5 times more likely to die from a violent firearm related death when guns were present in the home than if they weren’t. (Linda L. Dahlberg, Robin M. Ikeda, and Marcie-jo Kresnow, Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National
Study. 160 Amer. J. Epidemiol. (2004)) This seems obvious, if a gun is present it implicitly brings with it the potential to harm someone, while its absence removes this potential. So why do so many people feel it necessary to own a gun? Is our society that dangerous that vigilantism and self-defense is the only means to self-preservation? Are our nations city that rife with crime that to not own a firearm goes against one’s own self-interest? The answer to both questions is no.

There is no appreciable benefit to having a firearm. Various studies have confirmed this. Studies not by the NRA or related organizations or by the Brady Campaign or their associates, but by social scientists and others with no real stake in the firearms industry. There is no conclusive evidence that owning a firearm protects you in any tangible way. While there are those who will argue that limiting firearms has no appreciable impact other that preventing “law-abiding citizens” from obtaining legal firearms and defending themselves. The chorus of gun-nuts is always shouting that criminals will have the guns and we they will catch us with our pants down and unarmed. They say this as if there were some great army of vagabonds and hoodlums waiting just over the horizon for the government to pass a national gun ban, and when that moment comes they will storm the hills and take us for all we got because now, all of the sudden we are defenseless: we are ripe for the picking and their time to strike is neigh.

Let me say this though: those who wish to collect for posterity, to hunt, to target shoot, and to otherwise use a firearm for recreational purposes have a legitimate right to own firearms. Also, I really can’t say, “No, you can’t have a gun,” to the urban dweller whose apartment was broken into last month. It is not my place to pass judgment on someone else’s living situation. That being said, why is it such a big deal to register your gun so that if someone steals it the police have a place to begin their investigation? Do you have a problem with tracking down criminals? Why is it such a burden to wait 10 days for your gun, or only be able to buy one a month? If a person is purchasing more than one gun a month then they are either illegally dealing in firearms, or up to no good. Talk about law-abiding citizens, someone who needs to buy more than one gun a month might not deserve such a title. Is submitting to a background check before purchasing a gun so problematic? Is it so offensive that we don’t allow felons and people adjudicated mentally ill from becoming proud owners of a new Beretta? Is it really necessary to protect yourself from the “depredations of a tyrannical government,” in our present? These are all things that gun advocates defend at the top of their lungs without question. Like brainwashed mouth-pieces they shout and hurl insults and accusations of being un-American at anyone questioning their dogma. They might not even be sure why they do it other than the fact that Wayne LaPierre (NRA Lackey) told them to do so. Is the government going to turn into a fascist state tomorrow and confiscate all our guns? I can’t say no because I can’t predict the future, but I feel pretty secure in guessing the answer to that particular query is a resounding, “No.”

The question of firearm ownership and rights is will never be settled. It will forever fill our political venues with venomous accusations of traitorous individuals who will bring down America. I do not expect this post to contribute in any meaningful sense to that debate. There are far more qualified people than I to comment on this issue. I only wish to express my concern for the state of mind in our country. It goes to the heart of our humanity: we have lost our sense of the greater good. Regulating firearms is in the best interests of everyone. Making it easier to trace firearms to the criminals that use them is a worthy cause. Yet crime-fighting tools like microstamping still come under heavy criticism because it would burden the multi-billion dollar gun industry and cost the American gun owner the massive sum of between $.50 and $3.00 on a gun costing in the hundreds. This goes deeper than guns, and sometimes I fear it will be our undoing.

The first seems obvious, but the second and third is certainly less-so. British Petroleum has been one of the worst offenders when it comes to safety violations in the entire oil industry, eclipsing all other companies in their blatant disregard for the laws and regulations of the United States and apparently a complete lack of concern for the planet and the environment. According to Business Insider:

“Want to hear something scary? BP (BP) has been fined by OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) 760 times. By contrast, oil giant
ExxonMobil (XOM) has been fined only once.”

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/bp-has-been-fined-by-osha-760-times-has-an-awful-track-record-for-safety-2010-6#ixzz0s5zRIPLH

The fact that this company would consistently violate rule after rule demonstrates more than just the incompetence of a single board of directors. It demonstrates the kind of wild-eyed pursuit of profits that has become the default condition of American enterprise. This relentless pursuit of higher margins has led to the compromising of our sense of humanity and our respect for ourselves and our planet. Corporations are blind, in some cases willfully, to the impact of their decisions on the people and environment that they work in and around. It is win at any cost with the American brand of capitalism and with this oil spill we are beginning to reap what we have sewn.

I say we because in this age of cut-throat politics and business we, the American people, have been silent on the violations of the few, rich and powerful who spoil the water for the rest of us while they sit comfortably in their gated-communities reaping the benefits of the misery of many. We have the power to make the changes we wish to see in the world. Looking to history we see a cornucopia of incidents where the common man and woman rise up to oppose the insatiable greed of the small minority at the expense of the great majority. Our portion of the blame comes not from a positive responsibility, from something we actively participated in, but from a negative sense. We failed to prevent such an event by being content in our silence. We are the sole catalyst in this great experiment. We are the only ones who will be the agents of change. During those historical conflicts of the people and the Establishment we see that those are the only times when our government listens to the will of the people. They do so reluctantly, but they do so nonetheless. So some of the blame falls squarely on our shoulders for neglecting our responsibility as active participants in this republic. I am to blame in this as well are most of you.

Now, some may say, “Well, BP is an outlier. Look at the other energy companies with only a few violations!” This is true, and we are glad that they aren’t as inept as BP. However, they are guilty by association. Not because they associate with BP, but because as an industry they fund one of the largest, most powerful lobbying organizations in Washington, DC. They successfully gut every piece of meaningful legislation meant to regulate their toxic profession. This is the way it works “inside the beltway.”

This brings me to the last culprit, the US Government. Let me start by saying this: I voted for Barack Obama and generally support Democrats. With that, the inability of the US Government to hold this company responsible is appalling. They failed at preventing this catastrophe by not vigorously enforcing the laws on the books. Could this be because industry regulators are hand-picked by the very companies they oversee? Or that the Mineral Management Service, the agency responsible for regulating offshore drilling, is almost as inept as BP? Perhaps. Why, however, hasn’t the government slapped BP with massive sanctions, gagged them from making any statements about the disaster not being so bad, and brought the full force of the most powerful nation in the world to bear on this cataclysm?

Now I admire Obama’s seemingly unshakable nerve. There is something to be said for a calm demeanor, but he needs to take off that particular mask when behind those meeting room doors and let BP know exactly who their daddy is.

It isn’t all BO’s fault though. The Congress is the one who makes the laws. The spineless Democrats that inhabit the great marble and granite office buildings have been unable and, perhaps more accurately, unwilling to correct the flaws in our regulatory framework that permit this. Why is this? Is it because the dastardly Republicans, like puppets on a string with Big Business as the puppet-masters, are standing in their way? No, no that isn’t it. I mean when the Republicans had only a one-vote majority in the Senate they did all kinds of nasty things right up until 2006, right? So how is it that with a 17-vote majority the Democrats can’t seem to pass the most rudimentary appointments that are so basic that they are never an issue? It is because the Democrats are as much in the pocket of Big Business as the Republicans are.

This is most certainly not a new revelation. It has been long understood by students of politics. Howard Zinn’s landmark work, “A People’s History of the United States,” had a theme that resonated throughout the book: the men in power in this country do little to upset the established order that is why they are “the Establishment.” In the history of the USA on very few occasions has anyone been the bearer of great change. The case could be made for presidents such as FDR for the “New Deal” or Kennedy with the “New Frontier”. While these men did things with the best intentions, they really did little to upset the status quo. This is still the case today. Riding to victory with overwhelming support the Democrats could have re-regulated the banks, shrank our nuclear arsenal, ended the war in Iraq, and a myriad of other things. Instead they passed a watered-down health care bill, gutted financial reforms, and a consumer protection agency with no teeth. They have failed the American people thus far and this disaster is no different.