A lamentation on social values as represented by $$$

I've had two exchanges recently that have got me down.

This is a lamentation on our social values.

Grant me, for a moment, the proposition that a society's values can be represented in general--but highly important and informative--terms by the amount of money it expends on activities, infrastructure, and professional salaries. I'll call this the "show me the money" proposition.

If the above proposition holds any water, then, regardless of what a society might say it values, when push comes to brass tacks, a society will consciously or unconsciously allocate resources to the categories it considers most worthy.

Then, looking at where the money goes, one can determine what a society values.

Therefore, the American society most values the following . . .

I can throw a football over the North Salem High School football team

In spite of what it may seem like with what I'm about to write, I don't spend my days fixated on the "coulda-woulda-shoulda" regarding my high school football experience. I'm not at all like this guy:

Movie Videos & Movie Scenes at MOVIECLIPS.com

However . . .

Bamboozeled by sports franchises

There was a fascinating thread recently on H-Urban in response to a question about the true costs of professional sports franchises. This is a topic I've long wondered about. Over the years I've heard some critiques about hidden or externalized costs of sports facilities & stadia. I've also witnessed—usually from afar and with only part of my attention—sports team owners playing one city against others every few years when local subsidy agreements are nearing an end, or when they perceive that it's time to build a new stadium. Some examples of this include when team owner Art Model moved the NFL's Browns from Cleveland to Baltimore (where they became the Ravens) in 1995, and when chairperson Clay Bennett moved the NBA's Supersonics from Seattle to Oklahoma (where they became the Thunder) in 2008.

Professional sports are really big business in this country (as are certain college sports, claims to the contrary notwithstanding), and team owners generally treat their franchises as revenue-generating businesses. Owners threaten to relocate their businesses when they don't wring from municipal governments the public subsidy agreements they feel are their due; "free market" adherents would claim this is as it should be.

Many fans of professional sports, however, invest in teams the kind of emotional attachment that in some ways can only be described as religious.

The problem arises as a result of the difference between the pragmatic, capitalist perspective of the sports franchise owner and the emotional, religious perspective of many sports fans. As the discussion and sources below allude, the economic returns on sports team investments tend not to meet initial projections, which means that taxpayers pay much more in subsidies than they originally bargained for. Owners generate their original business plans and subsidy packages with threats—variously implied or expressed, as needed—to municipal government and city residents that they will move the franchise if their proposal is not approved. City residents—the voters—then face the decision without full knowledge of the amount they're about to subsidize millionaire (sometimes billionaire) sports franchise owners; many of these citizens also carry with them their emotional, religious attachment to the team & the team's history, potentially clouding rational judgment.

This is where the bamboozling comes in: owners take advantage of sports fans by obscuring economics behind a shroud of emotional manipulation.

Key parts of H-Net discussion & sources below.

Evolution of a video game

Here is an interesting brief historical overview of the development of the Madden NFL video game. I recall playing some of the mid-1990s iterations of this game and having a great time. It looked something like this:

I like this look

Now, something from the Meaningless Files . . .

I gotta say, I really like the look that the Redskins have been sporting through week 2 of the 2010 NFL season:

It definitely beats the all-white nonsense they were sporting last year:

One of those relatively rare moments when football and real life intersect

I was struck by the broad applicability of the following section of Sally Jenkins' article "No quick fix for the Washington Redskins" from the Sep. 21, 2010, Washington Post:

[Washington Redskins coach Mike Shanahan] always told me when I was younger, 'All coaches have their system, and anybody can win with good players,' Kyle [Shanahan] said. 'But true coaches, when they don't have the right players to run the system, can they adjust? Do you have other stuff? You've got to know everything, so that if players can't do what you're asking them to do, you don't just keep beating your head against the wall. You got to figure out what can they do. That's the sign of a good coach.'

That's a pretty cool Zen-like statement about life itself. Its lamentably rare when professional sports and real life intersect in a positive way (see, for example, this post), so, when it does, I feel less guilty about following such a violent gladiator sport as football.

Here's another, from the same article, that pertains a bit more to the fantasy world in which I live where the Redskins are perpetual Super Bowl contenders:

Overall, despite the shortcomings, the Redskins are showing organized progress. It's still early, but it's promising. And anyway, like Winston Churchill said, "I am an optimist, because it does not seem too much use being anything else."

-

Formerly a Hog, currently cluless (historically speaking)

It was one of those days weeks ago when I was putzing around on the Internet, re-living a bit of the glory days of the Washington Redskins,* when I happened upon what was news to me: One of the original Hogs, former Tight End Clint Didier (#86), was one of 15 candidates gunning for Patty Murray's senate seat in Washington State.

In response to the interview showcased at the link above, when asked why he was running for a position on the Senate, Didier replied:

When I see our kids and grand-kids' freedom being jeopardized by an over-intrusive government. They want to keep taking away our rights and individual liberties. We've gotten away from the basics...the Constitution.

"Hmmm," I thought . . .

Reasons why one particular American doesn't care about soccer . . .

Much ink -- both actual and virtual -- continues to be spilt discussing why Americans aren't as rabid about soccer as most of the rest of the world. There are many theories:

** "Soccer would be popular in the U.S., but it can’t be televised profitably because there are no natural breaks for advertisements."

** "Americans have neither the belief system nor the temperment for such a sisyphean sport as soccer. We are a society of doers, achievers, and builders. Our country is dynamic, constantly growing, and becoming ever bigger, richer, and stronger. We do not subscribe to a 'zero sum' mentality. We do not labor for the sake of laboring. And we like our sports teams to score."

** "America isn't interested in football because they can't win, plain and simple. Enough BS American propaganda."

** "Maybe the sales pitch is wrong. . . . perhaps the best hook for Americans is not the beauty of soccer, but the fact that the game is also, in truth, pretty ugly."

** "it’s a sissy sport"

** "[Americans' dislike of soccer] can be easily explained in two parts[:] First, as a nation of loony but determined inventors, we prefer things we thought of ourselves. . . . The second and greatest, by far . . . is the element of flopping. Americans may generally be arrogant, but there is one stance I stand behind, and that is the intense loathing of penalty-fakers."

** "Another big factor as to why Americans don't get as passionate about soccer is because, generally speaking, we don't have a strong sense of nationalism."

My take on the matter is . . .

You've Come A Long Way, Dude!

When you first looked at the image above, my guess is that you had no idea what it could possibly be. This was my first impression.

On sports & media-manufactured role models

Tim Keown has written a thought-provoking piece about one of the most recent big-time sports stars who got caught acting like a sociopath. In this case, it's Ben Rothlisberger, star quarterback of the Pittsburgh Steelers.*

Keown includes a fascinating take on this topic that did not occur to me until I read it (most fascinating part for me in italics):

The whole role-model thing might be the most ludicrous idea ever imagined. The concept of our coddled and impressionable youth drawing life lessons from a guy with a big curveball or an ability to move in the pocket is solely a construct of the industry and its mouthpieces. It was born on the back of myth: the slugger promising the ailing boy a homer, the fearsome defensive tackle tossing his jersey in exchange for a soda. In real life, a kid might model his seven-step drop after Roethlisberger, but beyond that they're both on their own.

I don't specialize in this field of history, but identification of the source of the myth of the sports role model seems accurate. To add to this, consider other corporate- and media-manufactured "role models": Babe Ruth and Red Grange. I don't have time to list them all.

----
* Who have two very lucky Super Bowl victories to their credit over the past few years to add to their amazing run in the 1970s. Did I mention the part about them being very very lucky? Particularly against those plucky Arizona Cardinals. Lucky bastards.

-

An example of humanity's propensity (nay, need) to discern meaning out of patterns of any kind

Remember hearing about the direct correlation between Washington Redskins wins/losses in their game immediately preceding a presidential election, and the win/loss of the incumbent party? Fascinating!

Isn't it great how readily we discern meaning and portent from patterns we observe? Sometimes this meaning-making process can be fruitful, sometimes it can lead to delusion, and sometimes it can just be fun & entertaining. In any case, there is meaning to be found when we examine such cases of meaning-making -- unless, of course, I'm just creating my own meaning in all of this, which may, itself, provide us some meaning about the ways in which I create my own meaning, which may mean something.*

Here are some thought-provoking words from snopes.com that I couldn't have written more clearly and concisely:

"Our desire to understand and assert some control over the world around us is often manifested by our attempts to find predictive signs that enable us to prognosticate events -- even when there is no seeming connection between predictor and event. Sometimes one natural phenomenon supposedly forecasts another, as in the belief that a groundhog's seeing his shadow on February 2 portends another six weeks of winter. In other instances the linkage is between affairs of mankind, as in the superstition that the winners of football's Super Bowl augurs that year's stock market performance (or vice-versa)."

----
* Or, maybe not.

-

Inner sadness & conflict

I was born in Arlington, VA, and lived in Alexandria until the ripe old age of six. Some of my earliest memories were watching Redskins football games with my parents, in the glory days of QB Billy Kilmer and coach George Allen. I also remember owning back then a white sweatshirt with the classic Redskins "R" helmet logo, a shirt that might be worth a buck or two these days, even if it did have adolescent drool all over it.

I grew up in coastal Oregon and was the only fan of the Redskins I knew. I clung to my identity as a Redskins fan living on a former Native American reservation surrounded by fans of the 49ers, Steelers, Chargers, Broncos, Raiders.

I didn't think about the fundamentally offensive name of my favorite team until about five years ago. Now I'm a bit sad that the push to get the team to change its name seems to be highly improbable.

My inner conflict is: Will my team still be my team even with a different name?

Washington Post sportswriter Mike Wise got it right in September when he wrote that the "Last Word on 'Redskins' Is Not Ours". I interpret "Ours" to mean "Americans of European descent."

Alas, I'll get over a name change, if it ever were to happen. It's only a game.

-