Come on, folks. In both cases, they're just billionaires, screwing around with their money.
But they shouldn't be able to have it both ways: If unlimited spending is so good for democracy, why not allow it in the NFL, the NBA and the majors?
Wednesday, April 2, 2014
Why is it OK to allow unlimited contributions in politics, but baseball payrolls should be capped?
Come on, folks. In both cases, they're just billionaires, screwing around with their money.
But they shouldn't be able to have it both ways: If unlimited spending is so good for democracy, why not allow it in the NFL, the NBA and the majors?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
15 comments:
I think you could make a good argument that only sports should be free of spending limits. After all, in a sense it's "only sports"--even though some people seem to stake their lives on the fortunes of their teams, nothing that dire is really at stake--not your health, the well-being of your family, the fate of the earth's ecosystems, etc. But elections can and should be considered part of the "commons"--as much so as our endowments of natural resources, the electromagnetic spectra of our mass communications, our government, and . . . our elections--all properly belonging to the public sphere, although increasingly under siege from those who want to put everything up for sale in an orgy of piracy and plunder. All that, of course, does have grave implications for the very essence of our being on this planet in a way that diversions like sports do not.
The "STOP" sign for the plutocrats can and should be raised in key areas of our human community; let the 1 percenters play without limit in their sports hobbies--but don't let them play fast and loose with our sense of community, with the health of our fragile and beautiful planet. Bread and circuses are fine for sports arenas but deadly in the political arena.
I wonder those same people's feelings about "Citizens United" follow?
Well said Anonymous, very well said!
I wouldn't worry about people buying elections. If you could, Linda McMahon would be a senator. What we should be worried about is how terrible this team is.
absolutely toothless with runners in scoring position. pathetic.
It's not only or mainly about rich people buying office for themselves--it's mostly about their buying the votes of others. No disrespect to The Master, but the real Masters of the Universe prefer to operate behind the scenes in the political arena; they prefer slick double-talking politicians, to do their bidding in the political arena. Mainstream politicians are the combined PR staff and executive committee of the faceless elite--that's why, for example, the major corporate elites buy politicans--so much easier than having to do the dirty work themselves.
Thank you, Ken, for the kind words. As a resident of Queens, I don't normally get on well with the urban gentry of Brooklyn. But in your case I'll make an exception. I've adjusted the dosage on my medication, and am feeling less pessimistic about the human race (though I shall always be the misanthrope). I might even go to Confession this weekend. Odd to feel this brotherly love toward you all in the teeth of this disastrous campaign in Houston.
Ken--just for the record, the Anonymous who wrote as a "resident of Queens who does not get on well with the urban gentry of Brooklyn," although posing as me, is not me (the person who worte about sports and spending limits.)
The fictive names on a blog like this are no more meaningful than the "prove you're not a robot" pseudo-words we must type to post here. So far I've been posting under "Anonymous," so I've attracted a buzzing gnat who passes the time of day posting scabrous, nasty messages intended to look as though they're coming from me, as he just did with Ken from Brooklyn. Of course, everyone knows by now the difference between him and me, but it's a free country, and his curious little vendetta seems to fill his life with a purpose it otherwise lacks.
What's in a name? Nothing. Henceforth I'll be posting under a variety of names to make things a bit harder for my secret flatterer, with his inexplicable obsessive attentions to little old me.
Since this is a Yankkee/baseball/sports blog, if my self-appointed Sancho Panza would like to redirect his misspent energies commenting on those subjects rather than making a life's work of nipping at my heels--which will only result in unending frustration for him and eye-rolling tedium for the rest of us--we would all be the better for it, especially the nipper himself.
See you soon--with a new name, coming to a comment section near you. In my new guises I will make no reference to any of my previous posts or any previous interactions I've had out here, so if you read a post under a different name that stirs up the SOS, it's the nipper, not me.
Go Ivan Nova! Win one for the nipper!
Before jetting off to Austria, I sourly predicted we would lose 2 out of 3 to Houston. I think I was wrong, however. We will likely be swept now.
Nice job by Kuroda. 2 runs in 6, I'll take that every time.
Any Yankee fan living in Queens certainly has my respect.
Just a quick note in here in my absolutely last post as "Anonymous"--this is about ground rules to foil the chronic flamers who slime other posters by using their names:
I will post henceforth under a variety of names, but I will never use the same name twice--not even in the same thread. So if my little nipper tries to post as me by repeating a name I've just used, it will be the nipper, not me. Also, I will never make reference to my posting history or my previous status as "anonymous." Hence the nipper will never be sure that it's me and not some innocent newbie that he's flaming; any attempts to malign me by falsely posting as me will be exposed by the repetition of the name.
Good--let's drive the little nipper nuts and foil his efforts to poison this list!
This is insane, but I love it.
Anonymous is going undercover.
It appears that the fake anonymii, anonymany? have succeeded in providing a solution to the multiple posts by “anonymous” that many on the blog pleaded for him/her/them to do some time ago, that is, to provide some distinction. Brilliant! As effective as the recently discussed over-shift.
But there is no more or less distinction than before. No one knew for sure at all times which Anonymous was posting when, and it didn't matter really unless someone wanted reassurance about whom to be nasty to.
It's still impossible to know whether we can take Original Anonymous at his word--others will post as Anonymous, so maybe the original will do so as well. Still now way of knowing.
Here's the point--IT DOESN'T MATTER. EVERYONE IS COMMENTING ANONYMOUSLY. ANYONE CAN POST UNDER ANYONE ELSE'S NAME.
Just sit back, relax, and enjoy the show.
Post a Comment