Recently, we've been trying to fill a software developer position in the group I work in, and I've been participating in the interview process. Generally, each candidates meets with two interviewers at a time, and the interviewers often ask technical questions. Based on the questions some of my interview partners have asked, and the responses we've gotten from candidates, I've come to the conclusion that I wouldn't be able to perform well enough on these interviews to get a job with my company if I were applying for a position today. Those interviewing me would almost certainly come to the conclusion that I didn't have what it takes to be a successful software developer at the company. However, such an assessment would not be accurate, because I've had a very successful 24-year career as a software developer, and if my most recent performance reviews are to be believed, my supervisors and colleges are still very happy with my work today.
So, with that in mind, I started to think about why I've been able to have a successful career at my company, even though I've almost never had a strong technical knowledge of software development relative to my peers. I came to the conclusion that I'm valued at my company because I'm the kind of person who just gets things done. I may not know all the latest technical tools and techniques off the top of my head, but I realized that when given an issue to tackle, I was going to be able to figure out the best way to resolve it. While thinking about this, I actually had the following thought in my head.
"Give me a problem, and I'll solve it!"
It was then that I realized, much to my chagrin, that any level of success I've had in my 24-year career is based on the philosophy of Vanilla Ice.
Rich ( The Vanilla Ice of Software Developers )
Wednesday, August 30, 2017
Thursday, July 20, 2017
Take My Yacht, Please!
A week or so ago, I shared the photo above on my facebook page. After posting it, I started to think about a specific objection my Right-leaning friends and family might have to it, and I've decided to address some of these potential objections in this blog post.
What follows will be an imagined conversion between somebody who objects to the position above, and me. Everything in red below is from the perspective of somebody who objects to the idea of raising taxes to provide universal healthcare, and everything in blue represents my position.
It's fine that you are willing pay for universal healthcare out of you own pocket, but that doesn't mean the federal government should force other people to support it. You might be able to afford higher taxes, but there are plenty of middle class people who can't.
Well, I believe universal healthcare system will lower health care costs enough for the middle class that it would be offset the any tax increases on the middle class. I'm not saying universal healthcare would be a magic bullet that would be a net benefit to everybody. Some people are definitely going to pay more in in taxes to support universal healthcare than they would get back in benefits from a universal health care system. I get that - that was my whole point of posting the meme above. If we ever have universal healthcare in this country, I'm certainly going to be one those people who pays more in universal healthcare taxes, then they get back in universal healthcare benefits.
Once again, that's your choice to pay more taxes, but I don't buy your argument that there will not be a significant new tax burden on the middle class.
I'll willing to completely cede you point that taxes will be higher for the middle class. If a USA with universal healthcare taxes are going to be higher for everybody. However, I still believe that the momentary value provided by the benefits of universal healthcare will be higher than the cost of the higher taxes for middle class.
All I'm hearing from you is that you want more taxes and a larger federal government.
Yeah, I'm not denying that. If we want to provide universal healthcare, the government is going to have to be bigger and taxes are going to higher, but I still think it's going to be a net benefit for the vast majority of people in this country.
It seems like you are making the ridiculous assumption that a government-run health care system is going to be run efficiently enough to avoid huge costs that will lead to a tax burden that far overwhelms any benefits it provides. Since when has the government run anything efficiently?
I can't possibly imagine how a government-run health care system could possibly be less efficient that the current US health care system. Year after year, studies show that the US spends far more on healthcare than all other industrialized nations, and the health outcomes in the US are among the worst. I think the biggest reason for this is that the for-profit US healthcare system doesn't benefit from reduced healthcare cost and better health outcomes. Theoretically, if the US private healthcare system came up with drugs and clinical methods to keep people healthy all the time, all these US health insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies would go out of business. The privately-run US healthcare system profits from sickness rather than health. There is no incentive to keep healthcare cost down, because high healthcare costs keep everyone in the private system in business.
Conversely, government-run healthcare systems have a large incentives to keep costs down by keeping people healthy. They manage to keep costs down and keep people healthy by adhering to the "ounce of prevention" rule. Other industrialized nations focus more on regular preventative care than on expensive procedures. This incentive to keep costs down exists because the less the government needs to spend on healthcare, the more money they have have available to give provide services to and/or give tax break to their citizens. Lower taxes or more generous government services leads to happy voters which leads to re-elected politicians. For that reason, a government healthcare system overseen by elected officials will always have cost reduction as a primary goal.
I understand that any government program is going to have bureaucracy and inefficiencies, but I rather have a government healthcare system that is trying to reduce costs than a private healthcare system in which profits rise as healthcare costs go up.
Wait, you're not suggesting that you think doctors and drug companies want people to get sick?
No, I don't think they want people to get sick, but the in the USA, all the financial incentives are in doing expensive procedures and prescribing expensive drugs. In other countries where the government has to foot the bill for healthcare, there is a bigger focus on preventative care to avoid situations where expensive drugs and procedures are needed. This leads to lower costs.
Well, it can also lead to governments encouraging doctors to skip on care. In the UK, the government is offering doctors financial incentives to reduce outpatient referrals.
Is that really any better than insurance companies refusing to pre-approve procedures that a patient needs? It's true that you can have the freedom to get any medical care you want in the USA, but only if you have the money to pay for it, which a large numbers of Americans don't. Part of the reason why US healthcare is so expensive is that middle men take a really big cut. Does it really make any sense that insurance companies executives can make more money than doctors? That seems immoral to be. Healthcare expenses should be going to the actually healthcare providers, not to insurance companies.
Well, a lot of those costs go indirectly to lawyers. Doctors in the USA wouldn't be doing so many expensive tests if they were not worried about being sued for malpractice. We could cut healthcare costs a lot if you liberals were not always blocking tort reform.
Hey, don't lump me in with the Democratic politicians who are beholden to trial lawyers. I've actually always been in favor of tort reform. I agree with you on that point, but it seems like we don't agree on much else. I don't think were ever going to agree about whether universal healthcare is a good idea, so let's back back to the original issue about taxes. ( Editor Note: This is all I really wanted to "talk" about in this post. However, my Devil's advocate persona took this post in directions I didn't anticipate it would go. ) I don't think a universal healthcare plan will saddle the middle class with unaffordable taxes. As I mentioned earlier, I think middle class people will wind up with more money in their pockets due to reduced health care cost. However, even if you don't believe that, any universal health care system I'd support would be financed by very progressive taxes. Middle class people would have to pay a healthcare tax, but their tax rate would be much lower than the healthcare tax rates for people at higher income levels.
I don't want middle class people to have to pay taxes they can't afford. I grew up in a middle class family, and I understand that between things like mortgages expenses, college expenses, car expenses, and the basic necessities of life, middle class families don't have a lot of money to spare. However, I've been fortunate enough in my life that I do have some money to spare. I'd be very happy if some my spare money was used to finance a universal healthcare system that would ensure that all my fellow Americans would have access to good healthcare. Sure, that would mean I'd have less money for other stuff, but I'm okay with that. I'd be fine with going on vacation a little bit less and staying in slightly less nice hotels. I'd be fine with spending slightly less on family cars in the future and keeping those cars longer. I'm fine with having a 60 inch TV instead of a 70 inch TV. I'm fine with upgrading my laptops less often. I'm fine the idea of having slightly less money to put into my retirement account each year and delaying retirement by a year to account for that.
I believe that people at a higher income level than me shouldn't mind giving up a little bit more that me to support universal healthcare. I think people that would usually have a Mercedes and BMW in the garage could get by with a BMW and a Honda instead. I don't think it would be a big deal if some people couldn't afford a second home or simply bought a smaller second home. I don't think it would be a big deal if a rich person couldn't afford a yacht, or really rich person couldn't afford that private island. I think everyone who has worked hard and has succeeded in life is entitled to enjoy some luxuries, but I think every person fortunate enough to be able to afford luxuries should be willing to give up some of those luxuries to make sure all Americans have access to affordable healthcare.
Holy crap, comrade! You do realize, you sound like a total communist now, or at the very least a socialist.
What you see as socialism, I see as shared sacrifice for our fellow Americans. I've got no problem with people making money, but I also think we all have a responsibility to make sure our fellow citizen's don't go bankrupt from medical expenses or die from treatable diseases. Those who have the most money to spare should have the greatest responsibility. I'm not advocating that money or material goods be distributed equally. I'm just saying that if higher taxes forced an American billionaire to buy a 300-foot yacht instead of a 400-foot yacht, and some other Americans got 100 yatch-feet worth of extra healthcare, that wouldn't be a bad thing.
I don't even have any yacht money to spare myself, but I do have car, vacation, and TV money I could spare, I'm willing to give it up to help my fellow Americans.
I see where you are coming from, but I completely disagree. I also don't think you've been quite fair to me in this "argument". You seem to be able to ramble on for as long as you want, and my concerns just seem to be jumping off points for you rants. Something's fishy here.
Yeah, well, I had kind of hoped you wouldn't notice, but the sad truth is you don't exist. You're just a figment of my imagination, and I admit that I haven't given your side of the story of a fair hearing. I did the best I could, drawing from my memories of being a Reagan-loving conservative back in the 80s, but you can't really have a good debate on the subject unless you have a real flesh-and-blood person arguing each side. With that in mind, I'd like to invite any conservatives reading this to put in their own 2 cents, and I will do my best to respond. You can either comment on this blog directly, or if you found this blog post via facebook, you can comment on the facebook post associated with this blog post.
Hope to hear from you soon!
Rich
Thursday, June 29, 2017
Harry Potter and the Lazy Blog Post
This past Monday, The Ringer published the following article to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the release of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone on June 26, 1997 ( It was released in the USA in 1998 as Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone ).
The Ringer article inspired me to write a similar article for my blog. However, instead ranking all the Harry Potter books and movies, I'm just going to rank the books ( But for what it is worth, I do think Prisoner of Azkaban was the best of the 8 movies. Alfonso CuarĂ³n did a remarkable job directing that movie. I loved how he used the Whomping Willow to mark the changing of the seasons. ). Before going forward, I should warn anyone who hasn't read all the Harry Potter books that this post will be full of spoilers. Of course, if you haven't read all the Harry Potter books already, you should stop reading this blog post immediately and get your hands on all of the books you haven't read already.
Before getting to my rankings, I'd like to write a little bit about how I came to be a Harry Potter fan. I was a little bit later to the party than most Potterheads. I was 28 and childless when the first book was released in the USA, so it wasn't as if I was looking for children's fiction to read at the time. I wasn't aware of the Harry Potter universe at all until March of of 2000, when I read the following ( 6-month old ) article on a plane to ( or from ) Taiwan in the following edition of Time magazine.
I was fascinated by the fictional universe described in the article. A few days later, Ruth went out and got the first 3 Harry Potter books for us, and we've been huge fans ever since. We took turns reading the first 3 books, and by the time Goblet of Fire came out in July of 2000, we had each just finished Prisoner of Azkaban. It was tough to wait for Order of the Phoenix after devouring the first 4 books in 3 months, but anything Potter-related is worth the wait ( Well, except for The Cursed Child ).
Anyway, I want this to be a quick post, so rather than give any kind of detailed review of each book, I'm just going to list all seven books from worst to best ( "worst" is a relative term here - I think all the books were great ) and make some comments to explain why I liked some books better than others. I'm also going to group the books into three tiers of quality, with the first tier being the best. So, with that said, here are my rankings ...
Tier 3
7) Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
6) Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
As I noted above, I love all the Harry Potter books, but I think these two are a notch or two below the other five. There is a lot of fascinating exposition in Half-Blood Prince, and Deathly Hallows wouldn't work without all the groundwork laid by it, but I sometimes think that a better name for the book would have been Harry Potter and the Pensive or Harry Potter and the Background Information. Also, I was never a fan of the Harry/Ginny relationship that begins in this book. I'd been shipping Harry and Luna since Luna's character was introduced, and I was disappointed to see him wind up with Ginny. Seriously, Harry makes some odd romantic choices. He's the most famous wizard in the world, and the two people he decides to hook up with in the series are a girl who is morning her dead boyfriend and his best friend's sister? C'mon Harry, you're better than that!
As far as Chamber of Secrets goes, all I can say is "meh", and despite the "meh", I still wish it were longer.
Tier 2
5) Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
4) Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
You can't have a great book series without a great first book, and Sorcerer's Stone certainly fits the bill. However, as great as Sorcerer's Stone was, I've got to rank Prisoner of Azkaban higher, because Azkaban added richness to the saga that hadn't been there before. The Azkaban book starts to flesh out Snape's character by giving us a window into his school days with James, Sirius and Lupin. Almost as significant, the book introduces us to Sirius and Lupin and gives us important information about how and why Harry's parents died. We learn about both dementors and patronuses, and despite the problematic plot holes that can be introduced by time travel, I really enjoyed the time-turner plot in this book.
Tier 3
3) Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
2) Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
1) Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
It was hard to decide which order to put these three books in, because if I were ranking these books on a scale of 1 to 100, they would all be north of 99. So, with that in mind, Deathly Hallow's third place finish shouldn't be seen as a knock against it. Everything from The Prince's Tale going forward just might be the best 100 pages I've ever read, but it ranks behind the other two books because the 658 pages that lead up to the The Prince's Tale do not quite measure up to the top two books on this list.
I don't think there is anything I didn't love about Order of the Phoenix. I loved the Order; I loved the DA; I loved to hate Umbridge, and I loved the strength, resolve, and determination Harry displayed in defying her. The Snape/Occlumency stuff was great, the battle at the Department of Mysteries was fantastic, and the Harry/Sirius stuff tugged at your heartstrings in just the right way. On top of all that, this book had the two greatest badass Dumbledore quotes in the entire series.
I should also mention that it was well worth the 4 books of waiting to finally see Voldemort in the flesh. Somehow, his duel with Harry in Goblet of Fire was more compelling and emotional that the duel in Deathly Hallows, even though there was clearly more at stake in the Hallows duel.
In the end, you really can't go wrong with any of the Harry Potter books. There's almost nothing I would change about those book, with the notable exception of the rules of Quidditch. That whole Golden Snitch thing thing is ridiculous. Why even bother to try to score goals when the Snitch is worth 150 points? Why the hell would Krum catch the snitch with his team down 160 points ( What, he couldn't wait a few minutes to see if his team could score two goals to cut the deficit to 140? )? Seriously, if somebody made me the manager of the Chudley Cannons, I'd moneyball the shit out of that sport. I'd play with 1 keeper and 6 seekers and we'd catch that snitch long before any of our opponents could accumulate 15 goals. If I ever found myself in the Harry Potter universe a muggle like me probably wouldn't be able handle a wand, but I sure as hell could be a dominant Quidditch manager.
Rich
P.S. Seriously, I'd moneyball the shit out of it.
The Ringer article inspired me to write a similar article for my blog. However, instead ranking all the Harry Potter books and movies, I'm just going to rank the books ( But for what it is worth, I do think Prisoner of Azkaban was the best of the 8 movies. Alfonso CuarĂ³n did a remarkable job directing that movie. I loved how he used the Whomping Willow to mark the changing of the seasons. ). Before going forward, I should warn anyone who hasn't read all the Harry Potter books that this post will be full of spoilers. Of course, if you haven't read all the Harry Potter books already, you should stop reading this blog post immediately and get your hands on all of the books you haven't read already.
Before getting to my rankings, I'd like to write a little bit about how I came to be a Harry Potter fan. I was a little bit later to the party than most Potterheads. I was 28 and childless when the first book was released in the USA, so it wasn't as if I was looking for children's fiction to read at the time. I wasn't aware of the Harry Potter universe at all until March of of 2000, when I read the following ( 6-month old ) article on a plane to ( or from ) Taiwan in the following edition of Time magazine.
I was fascinated by the fictional universe described in the article. A few days later, Ruth went out and got the first 3 Harry Potter books for us, and we've been huge fans ever since. We took turns reading the first 3 books, and by the time Goblet of Fire came out in July of 2000, we had each just finished Prisoner of Azkaban. It was tough to wait for Order of the Phoenix after devouring the first 4 books in 3 months, but anything Potter-related is worth the wait ( Well, except for The Cursed Child ).
Anyway, I want this to be a quick post, so rather than give any kind of detailed review of each book, I'm just going to list all seven books from worst to best ( "worst" is a relative term here - I think all the books were great ) and make some comments to explain why I liked some books better than others. I'm also going to group the books into three tiers of quality, with the first tier being the best. So, with that said, here are my rankings ...
Tier 3
7) Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
6) Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
As I noted above, I love all the Harry Potter books, but I think these two are a notch or two below the other five. There is a lot of fascinating exposition in Half-Blood Prince, and Deathly Hallows wouldn't work without all the groundwork laid by it, but I sometimes think that a better name for the book would have been Harry Potter and the Pensive or Harry Potter and the Background Information. Also, I was never a fan of the Harry/Ginny relationship that begins in this book. I'd been shipping Harry and Luna since Luna's character was introduced, and I was disappointed to see him wind up with Ginny. Seriously, Harry makes some odd romantic choices. He's the most famous wizard in the world, and the two people he decides to hook up with in the series are a girl who is morning her dead boyfriend and his best friend's sister? C'mon Harry, you're better than that!
As far as Chamber of Secrets goes, all I can say is "meh", and despite the "meh", I still wish it were longer.
Tier 2
5) Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
4) Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
You can't have a great book series without a great first book, and Sorcerer's Stone certainly fits the bill. However, as great as Sorcerer's Stone was, I've got to rank Prisoner of Azkaban higher, because Azkaban added richness to the saga that hadn't been there before. The Azkaban book starts to flesh out Snape's character by giving us a window into his school days with James, Sirius and Lupin. Almost as significant, the book introduces us to Sirius and Lupin and gives us important information about how and why Harry's parents died. We learn about both dementors and patronuses, and despite the problematic plot holes that can be introduced by time travel, I really enjoyed the time-turner plot in this book.
Tier 3
3) Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
2) Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
1) Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
It was hard to decide which order to put these three books in, because if I were ranking these books on a scale of 1 to 100, they would all be north of 99. So, with that in mind, Deathly Hallow's third place finish shouldn't be seen as a knock against it. Everything from The Prince's Tale going forward just might be the best 100 pages I've ever read, but it ranks behind the other two books because the 658 pages that lead up to the The Prince's Tale do not quite measure up to the top two books on this list.
I don't think there is anything I didn't love about Order of the Phoenix. I loved the Order; I loved the DA; I loved to hate Umbridge, and I loved the strength, resolve, and determination Harry displayed in defying her. The Snape/Occlumency stuff was great, the battle at the Department of Mysteries was fantastic, and the Harry/Sirius stuff tugged at your heartstrings in just the right way. On top of all that, this book had the two greatest badass Dumbledore quotes in the entire series.
"Well -- it's just that you seem to be laboring under the delusion that I am going to -- what is the phrase? 'Come quietly' ..."
"It was foolish to come here tonight, Tom"It's hard to say exactly why I have Goblet of Fire ranked ahead of Order of the Phoenix. If I simply added up all the great parts of each book, I think the Order would finish ahead of Goblet. However, I think Goblet has some kind of special charm that I just can't quantify. I could point to a lot of great stuff in Goblet like the Quidditch World Cup, the Triwizard Tournament, and the graveyard scene, but the part the really pushes it over the top for me is everything related to the Yule Ball. I had been hoping that Ron and Hermione would become a couple from the first time they met in that train compartment, and all the Yule Ball stuff finally confirmed they were in love, even though they wouldn't admit it to themselves until years later. It was also nice to see Hermione finally get the attention she deserved ( from Krum ), and I enjoyed how the Patil sisters left Harry and Ron in a cloud of dust when the boys failed to be good dates. Most of all, I think I was touched more by Harry's failed attempt to date Cho than his successful attempt in the next book. I felt an all-too-familiar pit in my stomach when Harry was about to ask Cho to the Yule Ball, and the disappointment he felt afterwards made him a more relatable character than he had ever been before.
I should also mention that it was well worth the 4 books of waiting to finally see Voldemort in the flesh. Somehow, his duel with Harry in Goblet of Fire was more compelling and emotional that the duel in Deathly Hallows, even though there was clearly more at stake in the Hallows duel.
In the end, you really can't go wrong with any of the Harry Potter books. There's almost nothing I would change about those book, with the notable exception of the rules of Quidditch. That whole Golden Snitch thing thing is ridiculous. Why even bother to try to score goals when the Snitch is worth 150 points? Why the hell would Krum catch the snitch with his team down 160 points ( What, he couldn't wait a few minutes to see if his team could score two goals to cut the deficit to 140? )? Seriously, if somebody made me the manager of the Chudley Cannons, I'd moneyball the shit out of that sport. I'd play with 1 keeper and 6 seekers and we'd catch that snitch long before any of our opponents could accumulate 15 goals. If I ever found myself in the Harry Potter universe a muggle like me probably wouldn't be able handle a wand, but I sure as hell could be a dominant Quidditch manager.
Rich
P.S. Seriously, I'd moneyball the shit out of it.
Monday, May 29, 2017
An Ounce of Prevention
This post is inspired by the following opinion piece written by Republican House member Cathy McMorris Rodgers:
My son has a preexisting condition. He’s one of the reasons I voted for the AHCA.
The title of the article alone is preposterous enough ( unless you believe families that rely on health insurance coverage for preexisting conditions would benefit if their health insurance premiums were increased to unaffordable levels ) , but what really got me upset about the article is that it claims the following is major flaw of Obamacare:
The simple answer is, she doesn't believe healthcare for the sick should be subsidized. It is more than likely she is philosophically opposed to the government transferring money from from one group of people to another for any reason
She's certainly not an outlier in that regard. Most Republican politicians feel that way. If you don't believe this, think back to 2008 when Republicans branded Barack Obama a socialist for being in favor of the United States' progressive income tax system.
Republicans have a fundamental belief that a system that transfers wealth from the well-off ( who they generally believe have earned their success through hard work and wise decisions both in life and business ) to the poor ( who they believe have not worked as hard as those who have achieved success ) is unfair. They believe it is unfair to the point of being immoral.
I'm not just guessing that Republicans feel that way, I know they do, because more that 3 decades ago I was a Ronald-Reagan-worshiping conservative Republican who felt exactly that way. The story of how my own political philosophy changed is a story for another day ( though I believe a big part of it had to do with growing up ), because for now I'd like to focus on the flaws in the conservative ideas about fairness.
Regarding the conservative idea of fairness, I've written before about how conservatives seem to ignore the role luck plays in success ( Note: The post in the link to the left is not trying to claim that hard work is not a big part of any success, but it is pointing out that we should not ignore the role of luck in any success story ), how assisting the poor actually makes our nation more competitive than pure social Darwinism ever could, how "fairness" cannot exists without equal opportunity, and how even policies that could be unfair to a given individual create a net benefit to society as a whole. However, rather than revisit all of that here, I'd like to focus on the concept of fairness in healthcare explicitly. This brings me to the following quote from Republican Representative Mo Brooks that has to be seen to be believed. See the YouTube clip below ...
For the sake of context and fairness, I'm also going to reproduce his full quote below:
The AHCA is designed to make sure that those people who have led "good" healthy lives don't have to subsidize a significant amount of health care for the kind of people who have presumably led bad lives. That idea, in a vacuum, can certainly seem fair to a lot of people. After all, in theory if guy A and guy B start life with the same genetic advantages and disadvantages, is it fair for guy A to subsidize guy B's healthcare, if guy A works out 5 times week and eats kale every other meal and guy B sits on the couch all day eating chips and drinking soda?
I can understand the appeal of the argument, and I can certainly recognize that under a system like Obamacare, there are certainly some kale-eaters who are subsidizing the health-care of some chip-eaters. However, despite what Representative Brooks said about helping those with pre-existing conditions, there are no policy prescriptions in the AHCA that distinguish between the couch-potato who ruined his health one Twinkee at time and a child who is born with a disease. The AHCA prescribes high risk pools as the solution to the issue of pre-existings conditions without making sure those pools are properly funded. So, if the AHCA doesn't cover pre-existing conditions in any practical sense of the word "cover", and Republicans have overwhelmingly supported the AHCA ( which they have ), then you really have to question the Republican definition of "fairness".
Is it fair if a child born with a disease cannot get the treatment that he or she needs? More specifically, is fair if a child of rich parents can get this treatment, while a child of poor parents cannot?
When I was a child, I had very bad asthma - bad enough that I needed to be hospitalized for a week when I was four years old. My parents were by no means rich, but I was fortunately that my father's job came with good enough health insurance that my family could afford my hospital stay and all the drugs I needed to manage my asthma until I was a young adult.
I'm now a 47-year old man blessed with good health, a good job, a great wife, and two wonderful kids. I'm convinced that I would not have had all these blessings in my life if my asthma had not been controlled as a child. I was lucky to have access to the health care I needed, but the health care of a child should not have to rely on luck. I want every sick child to have access to the kind of health care I had. Every child should be able to dream of a bright future. Allowing a manageable/curable childhood illness to take that future away is about the most unfair thing I can think of.
I think of my own children's futures a lot. To be honest, it keeps me awake at night sometimes, because I'm not 100% sure that their lives will be as fulfilling and fortunate as my life has been.
Both of my boys are on the Autism spectrum. Thankfully, they've made great strides since the days they were both severely speech-delayed and my wife and I feared the worst and worried that things might never get much better. They both talk up a storm these days, are taking honors classes, have reports calls full of A's ( straight A's for both of then in the last marking period ), and have demonstrated the discipline and focus to get their brown belts in jujitsu. There are still plenty of challenges ahead of them ( neither of my sons have any close friends, Peter has big issues with food and many social issues that require regular sessions with a psychologist, and both boys will probably always be socially awkward. )
Still, as much as I worry as a parent, I'm thankful for all the progress they've made, and know none it would have been possible without the help of all the wonderful speech therapists, child neurologists, psychologists, and teachers ( particularly the Special Ed teachers and Early Intervention teachers ) that have been part of all our lives for past decade-plus. We've been extremely lucky to have all these people in our lives to help. I know that not all families are as lucky. Not every state has Special Education and Early Intervention resources as good as our state, and not every family has the financial resources ( and advocacy resources ) to fill in the gaps that the government is not providing.
It is painful to imagine what my children's lives would be like right now if I were a single parent without many financial resources. I'm tearing up now just thinking of the tears and frustration they've suffered through over the years and I can't even imagine how painful their life would have been if they had not gotten help. No child should every have to suffer when help can be made available.
Obamacare isn't perfect, but it made some of that help available for millions of kids. Now the Republican party wants to take that help away. In what world does refusing to "share the wealth" to help sick kids qualify as "fairness"? I don't know, but I know it's world I refuse to live in.
Rich
P.S. Here are some photos of my boys during one of their speech therapy sessions.
My son has a preexisting condition. He’s one of the reasons I voted for the AHCA.
The title of the article alone is preposterous enough ( unless you believe families that rely on health insurance coverage for preexisting conditions would benefit if their health insurance premiums were increased to unaffordable levels ) , but what really got me upset about the article is that it claims the following is major flaw of Obamacare:
"With Obamacare, our health- insurance system relies on younger, healthier people subsidizing the costs of the older and sicker."Wait a minute! Isn't that how insurance is supposed to work? Isn't that the only way insurance can work? If the healthy don't subsidize the sick in Representative McMorris Rodger's ideal health care system, by what mechanism does she believe a health care system should subsidize care for the sick?
The simple answer is, she doesn't believe healthcare for the sick should be subsidized. It is more than likely she is philosophically opposed to the government transferring money from from one group of people to another for any reason
She's certainly not an outlier in that regard. Most Republican politicians feel that way. If you don't believe this, think back to 2008 when Republicans branded Barack Obama a socialist for being in favor of the United States' progressive income tax system.
Republicans have a fundamental belief that a system that transfers wealth from the well-off ( who they generally believe have earned their success through hard work and wise decisions both in life and business ) to the poor ( who they believe have not worked as hard as those who have achieved success ) is unfair. They believe it is unfair to the point of being immoral.
I'm not just guessing that Republicans feel that way, I know they do, because more that 3 decades ago I was a Ronald-Reagan-worshiping conservative Republican who felt exactly that way. The story of how my own political philosophy changed is a story for another day ( though I believe a big part of it had to do with growing up ), because for now I'd like to focus on the flaws in the conservative ideas about fairness.
Regarding the conservative idea of fairness, I've written before about how conservatives seem to ignore the role luck plays in success ( Note: The post in the link to the left is not trying to claim that hard work is not a big part of any success, but it is pointing out that we should not ignore the role of luck in any success story ), how assisting the poor actually makes our nation more competitive than pure social Darwinism ever could, how "fairness" cannot exists without equal opportunity, and how even policies that could be unfair to a given individual create a net benefit to society as a whole. However, rather than revisit all of that here, I'd like to focus on the concept of fairness in healthcare explicitly. This brings me to the following quote from Republican Representative Mo Brooks that has to be seen to be believed. See the YouTube clip below ...
For the sake of context and fairness, I'm also going to reproduce his full quote below:
"My understanding is that it ( the AHCA ) will allow insurance companies to require people who have higher health care costs to contribute more to the insurance pool, That helps offset all these costs, thereby reducing the cost to those people who lead good lives, they're healthy, they've done the things to keep their bodies healthy. And right now, those are the people--who've done things the right way--that are seeing their costs skyrocketing. In fairness, a lot of these people with pre-existing conditions, they have those conditions through no fault of their own, and I think our society, under those circumstances, needs to help. The challenge though is that it's a tough balancing act between the higher cost of these mandates which denies people coverage because they can't afford their health insurance policies...and having enough coverage to help those people truly in need."I've highlighted the awful thing he said in red and the the reasonable compassionate thing he said in blue. However, it's worth noting that AHCA policy on pre-existing conditions matches the red part of the quote so the blue part of the quote doesn't really carry any weight.
The AHCA is designed to make sure that those people who have led "good" healthy lives don't have to subsidize a significant amount of health care for the kind of people who have presumably led bad lives. That idea, in a vacuum, can certainly seem fair to a lot of people. After all, in theory if guy A and guy B start life with the same genetic advantages and disadvantages, is it fair for guy A to subsidize guy B's healthcare, if guy A works out 5 times week and eats kale every other meal and guy B sits on the couch all day eating chips and drinking soda?
I can understand the appeal of the argument, and I can certainly recognize that under a system like Obamacare, there are certainly some kale-eaters who are subsidizing the health-care of some chip-eaters. However, despite what Representative Brooks said about helping those with pre-existing conditions, there are no policy prescriptions in the AHCA that distinguish between the couch-potato who ruined his health one Twinkee at time and a child who is born with a disease. The AHCA prescribes high risk pools as the solution to the issue of pre-existings conditions without making sure those pools are properly funded. So, if the AHCA doesn't cover pre-existing conditions in any practical sense of the word "cover", and Republicans have overwhelmingly supported the AHCA ( which they have ), then you really have to question the Republican definition of "fairness".
Is it fair if a child born with a disease cannot get the treatment that he or she needs? More specifically, is fair if a child of rich parents can get this treatment, while a child of poor parents cannot?
When I was a child, I had very bad asthma - bad enough that I needed to be hospitalized for a week when I was four years old. My parents were by no means rich, but I was fortunately that my father's job came with good enough health insurance that my family could afford my hospital stay and all the drugs I needed to manage my asthma until I was a young adult.
I'm now a 47-year old man blessed with good health, a good job, a great wife, and two wonderful kids. I'm convinced that I would not have had all these blessings in my life if my asthma had not been controlled as a child. I was lucky to have access to the health care I needed, but the health care of a child should not have to rely on luck. I want every sick child to have access to the kind of health care I had. Every child should be able to dream of a bright future. Allowing a manageable/curable childhood illness to take that future away is about the most unfair thing I can think of.
I think of my own children's futures a lot. To be honest, it keeps me awake at night sometimes, because I'm not 100% sure that their lives will be as fulfilling and fortunate as my life has been.
Both of my boys are on the Autism spectrum. Thankfully, they've made great strides since the days they were both severely speech-delayed and my wife and I feared the worst and worried that things might never get much better. They both talk up a storm these days, are taking honors classes, have reports calls full of A's ( straight A's for both of then in the last marking period ), and have demonstrated the discipline and focus to get their brown belts in jujitsu. There are still plenty of challenges ahead of them ( neither of my sons have any close friends, Peter has big issues with food and many social issues that require regular sessions with a psychologist, and both boys will probably always be socially awkward. )
Still, as much as I worry as a parent, I'm thankful for all the progress they've made, and know none it would have been possible without the help of all the wonderful speech therapists, child neurologists, psychologists, and teachers ( particularly the Special Ed teachers and Early Intervention teachers ) that have been part of all our lives for past decade-plus. We've been extremely lucky to have all these people in our lives to help. I know that not all families are as lucky. Not every state has Special Education and Early Intervention resources as good as our state, and not every family has the financial resources ( and advocacy resources ) to fill in the gaps that the government is not providing.
It is painful to imagine what my children's lives would be like right now if I were a single parent without many financial resources. I'm tearing up now just thinking of the tears and frustration they've suffered through over the years and I can't even imagine how painful their life would have been if they had not gotten help. No child should every have to suffer when help can be made available.
Obamacare isn't perfect, but it made some of that help available for millions of kids. Now the Republican party wants to take that help away. In what world does refusing to "share the wealth" to help sick kids qualify as "fairness"? I don't know, but I know it's world I refuse to live in.
Rich
P.S. Here are some photos of my boys during one of their speech therapy sessions.
Saturday, April 29, 2017
Why Can't the Jets Ever Draft a Great QB?
In 1965, the Jets selected Joe Namath with the first pick in the American Football League ( AFL ) draft, and in January 1969, Namath led the Jets to a their first and only Super Bowl victory by defeating the NFL's powerful Baltimore Colts.
That was as good as it got for the Jets and their fans. Since joining the NFL as part of the 1970 NFL/AFL merger, the Jets have never managed to draft a great quarterback. Sure, they've drafted a couple of pretty good quarterback over the years ( Ken O'Brien was among the the NFL's passing leaders for a few years before his tendency to take sacks ( and the concussions that followed ) curtailed his career, and I'm still convinced Chad Pennington could have taken the Jets's to the promised land if he wan't getting injured every other year ( Seriously, if Pennington had stayed healthy, he would have still been the Jets quarterback in 2009 and 2010, and is there any doubt that upgrading from Mark Sanchez to Chad Pennington could have put either the 2009 or 2010 Jets teams ( who both lost in the AFC championship game ) over the top? )), but they've never drafted a great Hall-of-Fame-caliber quarterback.
There was a time when a team could win a Superbowl without a great quarterback ( a lot of people consider the 1985 Bears to be the best football team of all time, and nobody's getting a bust ready for Jim McMahon in Canton ), but because all the recent rules changes have made passing a much more important part of the game ( Ex: You can't hit a quarterback as late as you could in the past; you can't even touch a quarterback at all from the knees down or above the shoulders; you can't hit a receiver hard over the middle; you can't hit a receiver with your helmet; you can't hit a receiver on his helmet; you can't hit a "defenseless receiver" if the ref doesn't think the receiver had enough time to brace for your hit ) it is extremely difficult to win a Super Bowl unless you have a great quarterback.
Since drafting Mark Sanchez with their first pick in the 2009 NFL Draft, the Jets have drafted a defensive player with their first draft pick for the last 8 years in a row. It's quite possible that the Jets' decisions to draft the "best player available" with their first pick over the last 8 years was the smartest football move to make, but I would have preferred if they had taken the "best quarterback available" a few times with those first picks. In fact I sometimes wonder if the Jets should just take a quarterback with their first draft pick every year until they luck into a great one. After all, it is not as if the Jets have always has the greatest luck drafting who they think is the "best player" available with their first draft pick.
Three Notes on the video above:
1) Freeman McNeil should not have been including in that montage. He was was a really good player who led the league in rushing in 1982 and led the Jets to the AFC Championship Game that season ( It wasn't his fault that Don Shula intentionally didn't put the tarp down when it rained before the AFC Championship game, effectively shutting down the running game and leading to 5 Richard Todd interceptions ).
2) The video doesn't mention that the Jets wasted their first draft pick on a *kicker* in the 2005 Draft ( Mike Nugent )
3) Since that video was posted in 2006, the Jets have had the following NFL Draft busts:
2008: Vernon Gholston
2009: Mark Sanchez
2010: Kyle Wilson ( Not a giant bust at the 29th overall pick, but still worse than average for a first round pick ).
2012: Quinton Coples
2013: Dee Milliner
2014: Calvin Pryor ( It may be early in his career, but considering the Jets just drafted safeties with the first 2 picks of the 2017 draft, I think it is safe to say that the Jets have given up on him ).
So, I've decided to check who the Jets could had drafted if they had decided to pick the best available quarterback every year with their first draft pick instead of the player they actually picked. Note, that when I say "best available quarterback", I mean best available quarterback based on the consensus of most NFL evaluators at the time. This means that I can't switch the Jets year 2000 draft pick to Tom Brady ( even the Patriots didn't think he was worth drafting until the 6th round ). Also, if the Jets happened to draft a quarterback first in a given year, I'm not going to switch their pick. Thus, the Jets would still draft Mark Sanchez in 2009 based on my "best quarterback available" rules and they would still draft Ken O'Brien over Dan Marion in 1983. The "best quarterback available" will be defined as the next quarterback selected in the draft after the Jets made their first pick ( assuming the Jets did not select a QB with their first pick ). As I write this, I have no idea what QBs were potentially available for the Jets to pick using this "best QB available" system - we're going to find out the answer together. Also, I realize that the Jets would have drafted at different positions in most of the drafts over the years if they were using the "best QB available strategy" each year ( because drafting different players than they had drafted originally would have resulted in different won/loss records than they'd had originally ), and I realize that drafting a QB every year would not have been practical ( because you can only have 3 QBs on your team at a time and only one QB can get significant playing time in any given year ), but let's just try to have fun with this. I'm going to start this exercise with the 1977 NFL draft - the first draft after Joe Namath left the team. I'll also going to indicate if the QB had a better or worse career than the player the Jets picked ( by "career", I mean entire career, not just their career with the Jets). I'll only indicate if a given player was better or worse than another player if one player had a clearly better career than the other player. If both players had a roughly equal career, I'm not going to try and decide who was better.
( BTW, sorry for how messy the columns are below. I tried to keep the columns below in a neat line, but Blogger doesn't seem to support tabbing, and columns that seem to line up in edit mode don't line up after you post to the blog. )
( BTW, sorry for how messy the columns are below. I tried to keep the columns below in a neat line, but Blogger doesn't seem to support tabbing, and columns that seem to line up in edit mode don't line up after you post to the blog. )
Year Real Pick Best QB Available Pick QB pick BETTER/WORSE/same
------ ------------ --------------------------- --------------------------------------
1977 Marvin Powell Steve Pisarkiewicz WORSE
1978 Chris Ward Doug Williams BETTER
1979 Marty Lyons Steve Fuller WORSE
1980 Johnny "Lam" Jones Marc Wilson same
1981 Freeman McNeil Rich Campbell WORSE
1982 Bob Crable Oliver Luck WORSE
1983 Ken O'Brien Ken O'Brien same
1984 Russel Carter Boomer Esiason BETTER
1985 Al Toon Randall Cunningham BETTER (Note 1)
1986 Mike Haight Jack Trudeau same
1987 Roger Vick Jim Harbaugh BETTER
1988 Dave Cadigan Tom Tupa BETTER (Note 2)
1989 Jeff Lagerman Mike Elkins WORSE
1990 Blair Thomas Andre Ware WORSE (Note 3)
1991 Browning Nagel Browning Nagel same
1992 Johnny Mitchell Tommy Maddox same (Note 4)
1993 Marvin Jones Billy Joe Hobert WORSE
1994 Aaron Glenn Perry Klein WORSE
1995 Kyle Brady Todd Collins WORSE (Note 5)
1996 Keyshawn Johnson Tony Banks WORSE
1997 James Farrior Jim Druckenmiller WORSE
1998 Dorian Boose Charlie Batch BETTER
1999 Randy Thomas Brock Huard WORSE
2000 Shaun Ellis Chad Pennington got both (Note 6)
2001 Santana Moss Drew Brees BETTER
2002 Bryan Thomas Patrick Ramsey WORSE
2003 Dewayne Robertson Byron Leftwich same (Note 7)
2004 Jonathan Vilma J. P. Losman WORSE
2005 Mike Nugent Charlie Frye WORSE (Note 8)
2006 D'Brickashaw Ferguson Matt Leinart WORSE
2007 Darrelle Revis Brady Quinn WORSE
2008 Vernon Gholston Joe Flacco BETTER
2009 Mark Sanchez Mark Sanchez same (Note 9)
2010 Kyle Wilson Jimmy Clausen meh
2011 Muhammad Wilkerson Andy Dalton WORSE (Note 10)
2012 Quinton Coples Brandon Weedon same
2013 Dee Milliner EJ Manuel BETTER (Note 11)
2014 Calvin Pyror Johnny Manziel WORSE
2015 Leonard Williams Garret Grayson WORSE
2016 Darron Lee Paxton Lynch Too early to tell
2017 Jamal Adams Patrick Mahomes II Too early to tell
Note 1: Al Toon was one of my favorite Jets ever but he's not better than Randall Cunningham.
Note 2: Tom Tupa was drafted as a QB and started his career playing QB, but eventually became a very good punter. If you don't think Tom Tupa is a legit choice, it is worth noting that the next QB selected in that draft ( Chris Chandler ) also had a better career than Dave Cadigan.
Note 3: This may be hard to believe, but as big a bust as Blair Thomas was, Andre Ware was clearly a worse player. Thomas had twice as many career rushing yards as Ware had career passing yards.
Note 4: If you put a gun to my head I'd say Maddox's two years as a mediocre starting QB in Pittsburgh trumps anything Mitchell did in his five years in the league, but Mitchell did have more NFL starts than Maddox, and if you think about it, both of them sucked.
Note 5: Kyle Brady was a massive disappointment. Jets fans will always be upset that the Jets drafted Kyle Brady instead of Warren Sapp that year. That said, Kyle Brady caught more touchdown passes in his career than Todd Collins threw in his career.
Note 6: In this year, the first QB picked after Shaun Ellis was Chad Pennington, who was picked by the Jets. Considering that the Jets wound up getting both ( who they believed to be ) the best player available and the best QB available, it doesn't make sense to do a comparison in this case.
Note 7: Considering that Robertson was the 4th overall pick and Leftwich was the 7th overall pick they both had disappointing careers. Robertson started more games, but Leftwhich stayed in the league longer. Leftwich showed some promise early in his career with Jacksonville and even won a playoff game, but he wound up losing his job to the immortal David Garrard.
Note 8: I still think Mike Nugent was one of the worse picks the Jets ever made, but Charlie Frye was a terrible QB who only lasted a few years in the league while Nugent is still placekicking in the NFL.
Note 9: Even though I know it's impossible for Mark Sanchez to be worse than Mark Sanchez, I still had a hard time not putting the word "WORSE" next to Mark Sanchez's name.
Note 10: Some might dispute my assertion that Dalton is worse than Wilkerson, because ( surprisingly ) Wilkerson has been selected for only one Pro Bowl team and Dalton has ( shockingly ) been selected for three Pro Bowl teams ( I'm sure it's only because top QB's like Manning or Brady decided not to play in the Pro Bowl the years Dalton made the Pro Bowl team ( or couldn't because they were playing in the Super Bowl ) ), but nobody who's ever watched them both play would tell you that Dalton is a better player than Wilkerson.
Note 11: EJ Manuel is a pretty crappy QB, but at least he is still in the league.
In the table above "WORSE" appears 20 times and "BETTER"appears only 9 times. Thus, it seems that in any given year, it probably does make sense to pick the best available player rather than the best available quarterback. That result doesn't really surprise me. However, in a quarterback-driven league where elite quarterback routinely have career of about 15 years, I'm still not sure that picking the best player available each year is the best strategy.
Just look at all the notable QBs that the Jets could have taken over the last 40 years.
Doug Williams ( Not a great career, but he was the 1987 Super Bowl MVP )
Boomer Esiason ( 4 Pro Bowls, 1 First Team All-Pro ( 1988 ), and 1988 MVP )
Randall Cunningham ( 4 Pro Bowls, 1 First Team All-Pro ( 1998 ), and 1990 MVP )
Drew Brees ( 10 Pro Bowls, 1 First Team All-Pro ( 2006 ), 2009 Super Bowl MVP. Brees once held the NFL single season passing record, and he has a fairly good chance of passing Peyton Manning for the all-time lead in both touchdowns and passing yards. )
Joe Flacco ( I don't think he'll ever be thought of as a great quarterback, but he did play great in the 2012 post-season and was the 2012 Super Bowl MVP ).
Now, it's not realistic to think the the Jets could have had all these quarterbacks. Esiason and Cunningham entered the draft in consecutive years, and a team with a young quarterback on the roster usually wouldn't draft a new young quarterback until they'd given up on the young quarterback they already have. If they Jets were drafting QBs every year, and giving up on those quarterbacks after one year if they didn't show signs of greatness, they might not have found out that some of these great quarterbacks were destined for greatness. Esiason didn't play great until his second season, and Cunningham didn't show signs of greatness until his 3rd season. Brees didn't have a good year until his 4th season, and his original team was so unimpressed with him that they let him leave for the Saints after his 5th season.
So, drafting a quarterback with their first draft pick every year isn't a realistic strategy for the Jets, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be taking quarterbacks with their first pick more often. Over the last 41 drafts from 1977 to 2017, the Jets have only used their first pick on a quarterback 3 times. If you are wondering why the Jets haven't drafted a great quarterback in the last 40 years, that's why. For years, the New York Lottery ( Lotto ) used the slogan "You've gotta be in it to win it.". Well, if the Jets ever want to win the NFL's annual quarterback lottery, they've got to be "in it" more often than 3 times in 41 years.
Hey, you never know.
Rich
------ ------------ --------------------------- --------------------------------------
1977 Marvin Powell Steve Pisarkiewicz WORSE
1978 Chris Ward Doug Williams BETTER
1979 Marty Lyons Steve Fuller WORSE
1980 Johnny "Lam" Jones Marc Wilson same
1981 Freeman McNeil Rich Campbell WORSE
1982 Bob Crable Oliver Luck WORSE
1983 Ken O'Brien Ken O'Brien same
1984 Russel Carter Boomer Esiason BETTER
1985 Al Toon Randall Cunningham BETTER (Note 1)
1986 Mike Haight Jack Trudeau same
1987 Roger Vick Jim Harbaugh BETTER
1988 Dave Cadigan Tom Tupa BETTER (Note 2)
1989 Jeff Lagerman Mike Elkins WORSE
1990 Blair Thomas Andre Ware WORSE (Note 3)
1991 Browning Nagel Browning Nagel same
1992 Johnny Mitchell Tommy Maddox same (Note 4)
1993 Marvin Jones Billy Joe Hobert WORSE
1994 Aaron Glenn Perry Klein WORSE
1995 Kyle Brady Todd Collins WORSE (Note 5)
1996 Keyshawn Johnson Tony Banks WORSE
1997 James Farrior Jim Druckenmiller WORSE
1998 Dorian Boose Charlie Batch BETTER
1999 Randy Thomas Brock Huard WORSE
2000 Shaun Ellis Chad Pennington got both (Note 6)
2001 Santana Moss Drew Brees BETTER
2002 Bryan Thomas Patrick Ramsey WORSE
2003 Dewayne Robertson Byron Leftwich same (Note 7)
2004 Jonathan Vilma J. P. Losman WORSE
2005 Mike Nugent Charlie Frye WORSE (Note 8)
2006 D'Brickashaw Ferguson Matt Leinart WORSE
2007 Darrelle Revis Brady Quinn WORSE
2008 Vernon Gholston Joe Flacco BETTER
2009 Mark Sanchez Mark Sanchez same (Note 9)
2010 Kyle Wilson Jimmy Clausen meh
2011 Muhammad Wilkerson Andy Dalton WORSE (Note 10)
2012 Quinton Coples Brandon Weedon same
2013 Dee Milliner EJ Manuel BETTER (Note 11)
2014 Calvin Pyror Johnny Manziel WORSE
2015 Leonard Williams Garret Grayson WORSE
2016 Darron Lee Paxton Lynch Too early to tell
2017 Jamal Adams Patrick Mahomes II Too early to tell
Note 1: Al Toon was one of my favorite Jets ever but he's not better than Randall Cunningham.
Note 2: Tom Tupa was drafted as a QB and started his career playing QB, but eventually became a very good punter. If you don't think Tom Tupa is a legit choice, it is worth noting that the next QB selected in that draft ( Chris Chandler ) also had a better career than Dave Cadigan.
Note 3: This may be hard to believe, but as big a bust as Blair Thomas was, Andre Ware was clearly a worse player. Thomas had twice as many career rushing yards as Ware had career passing yards.
Note 4: If you put a gun to my head I'd say Maddox's two years as a mediocre starting QB in Pittsburgh trumps anything Mitchell did in his five years in the league, but Mitchell did have more NFL starts than Maddox, and if you think about it, both of them sucked.
Note 5: Kyle Brady was a massive disappointment. Jets fans will always be upset that the Jets drafted Kyle Brady instead of Warren Sapp that year. That said, Kyle Brady caught more touchdown passes in his career than Todd Collins threw in his career.
Note 6: In this year, the first QB picked after Shaun Ellis was Chad Pennington, who was picked by the Jets. Considering that the Jets wound up getting both ( who they believed to be ) the best player available and the best QB available, it doesn't make sense to do a comparison in this case.
Note 7: Considering that Robertson was the 4th overall pick and Leftwich was the 7th overall pick they both had disappointing careers. Robertson started more games, but Leftwhich stayed in the league longer. Leftwich showed some promise early in his career with Jacksonville and even won a playoff game, but he wound up losing his job to the immortal David Garrard.
Note 8: I still think Mike Nugent was one of the worse picks the Jets ever made, but Charlie Frye was a terrible QB who only lasted a few years in the league while Nugent is still placekicking in the NFL.
Note 9: Even though I know it's impossible for Mark Sanchez to be worse than Mark Sanchez, I still had a hard time not putting the word "WORSE" next to Mark Sanchez's name.
Note 10: Some might dispute my assertion that Dalton is worse than Wilkerson, because ( surprisingly ) Wilkerson has been selected for only one Pro Bowl team and Dalton has ( shockingly ) been selected for three Pro Bowl teams ( I'm sure it's only because top QB's like Manning or Brady decided not to play in the Pro Bowl the years Dalton made the Pro Bowl team ( or couldn't because they were playing in the Super Bowl ) ), but nobody who's ever watched them both play would tell you that Dalton is a better player than Wilkerson.
Note 11: EJ Manuel is a pretty crappy QB, but at least he is still in the league.
In the table above "WORSE" appears 20 times and "BETTER"appears only 9 times. Thus, it seems that in any given year, it probably does make sense to pick the best available player rather than the best available quarterback. That result doesn't really surprise me. However, in a quarterback-driven league where elite quarterback routinely have career of about 15 years, I'm still not sure that picking the best player available each year is the best strategy.
Just look at all the notable QBs that the Jets could have taken over the last 40 years.
Doug Williams ( Not a great career, but he was the 1987 Super Bowl MVP )
Boomer Esiason ( 4 Pro Bowls, 1 First Team All-Pro ( 1988 ), and 1988 MVP )
Randall Cunningham ( 4 Pro Bowls, 1 First Team All-Pro ( 1998 ), and 1990 MVP )
Drew Brees ( 10 Pro Bowls, 1 First Team All-Pro ( 2006 ), 2009 Super Bowl MVP. Brees once held the NFL single season passing record, and he has a fairly good chance of passing Peyton Manning for the all-time lead in both touchdowns and passing yards. )
Joe Flacco ( I don't think he'll ever be thought of as a great quarterback, but he did play great in the 2012 post-season and was the 2012 Super Bowl MVP ).
Now, it's not realistic to think the the Jets could have had all these quarterbacks. Esiason and Cunningham entered the draft in consecutive years, and a team with a young quarterback on the roster usually wouldn't draft a new young quarterback until they'd given up on the young quarterback they already have. If they Jets were drafting QBs every year, and giving up on those quarterbacks after one year if they didn't show signs of greatness, they might not have found out that some of these great quarterbacks were destined for greatness. Esiason didn't play great until his second season, and Cunningham didn't show signs of greatness until his 3rd season. Brees didn't have a good year until his 4th season, and his original team was so unimpressed with him that they let him leave for the Saints after his 5th season.
So, drafting a quarterback with their first draft pick every year isn't a realistic strategy for the Jets, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be taking quarterbacks with their first pick more often. Over the last 41 drafts from 1977 to 2017, the Jets have only used their first pick on a quarterback 3 times. If you are wondering why the Jets haven't drafted a great quarterback in the last 40 years, that's why. For years, the New York Lottery ( Lotto ) used the slogan "You've gotta be in it to win it.". Well, if the Jets ever want to win the NFL's annual quarterback lottery, they've got to be "in it" more often than 3 times in 41 years.
Hey, you never know.
Rich
Wednesday, March 29, 2017
Independence Dreck
I know there are a lot more important things going on that I probably should be writing about, but sometimes you just need to take a break and enjoy the guilty pleasure of making fun of a god-awful movie. This wasn't really something I planned to do this week, but I happened to come across the start of "Independence Day: Resurgence" ( which I'll refer to as "ID2" from now on ) while channel surfing late last Saturday night ( actually early Sunday morning ), and it was such a train wreck that I just couldn't look away.
Needless to say, this post is going to be full of spoilers for both the 2016 and 1996 Independence Day ( ID ) movies, so if haven't watched these movies, you should stop reading now.
OK, from this point on I'm going to assume all of you reading this have watched both Independence Day movies. This post is going to be mostly about the new Independence Day movie ( It's fresh in my mind, and I don't have the time and energy right now to enumerate all the ridiculous flaws in the original ), but I can't write a post about Independence Day movies without pointing out the most implausible part of the original. In a movie that had alien invaders, nuke-proof energy shields, death rays strong enough to destroy an entire city ( but not the tunnel alcove Vivica A. Fox was hiding in ), alien/human mind control, Will Smith punching out an alien, president fighter pilots, and trailer park fighter pilots, the most implausible thing was that Jeff Goldblum was able to plug a Macbook into an alien ship and use it to load a computer virus into the alien's computer system. In 1996 a Mac couldn't even interface with a PC, much less alien technology. Are we to believe that a USB port is truly universal?
OK - end of rant about the 1996 "Independence Day". Let's move on to the new one.
My favorite thing about this movie might be the way the filmmakers decided to react to Will Smith's wise decision to have nothing to do with this sequel ( When a man who cashed a paycheck for starring in "After Earth" decides he doesn't want to be a part of your movie, maybe you should consider re-writing your script ). Early in the movie, there is a scene in which we see a painting of Will Smith and the back of an African American man in a military uniform who has roughly the same height and build as Will Smith. We see the man ( still shot from the back ) walk into a room and meet President Sela Ward. When President Sela Ward addresses him using the last name of Will Smith's "Independence Day" character, I'll admit that I ever-so-briefly wondered if Will Smith had done a cameo. However, it is soon revealed that the mystery military man is Will Smith's son ( Note: Not Jaden - though I've just realized that this movie could have been so much more wonderfully bad if Jaden had been given that role ), and President Sela Ward tells him something like "your father was a great man". Was? Really - "was"? They killed off Will Smith? They killed Will Smith off-screen? That's ...
That's ....
That's fuckin' awesome!
That's so fuckin' awesome!
"You don't want to be in our movie, Will Smith? You think you're too good for us? Well, fuck you Will Smith, fuck you! We just killed your fuckin' ass! Have fun making 'Suicide Squad' you dipshit!"
( BTW, Will Smith's instincts for picking movies are so bad these days that he turned down an awful Independence Day movie so he could star in one of the worst movies of all time. I don't feel like reliving "Suicide Squad" in any way, except to say that while the Independence Day movies are so bad they make me laugh, "Suicide Squad was so bad it made me angry. )
Anyway, so Will Smith is dead and they got some young actor to take his place and do all the things Will Smith would have done if he had decided to do the movie. From this point forward, I'm to refer to the young actor's character as "Fake Will Smith".
As long as I'm introducing you to Fake Will Smith, I might as well introduce you to the other new young stars of ID2.
Liam Hemsworh plays Liam Hemsworth. Apparently Liam and Fake Will Smith have some kind of a beef - enough of a beef that Fake Will Smith feels compelled to punch Liam in the face the first time they cross paths in the movie. As in all movies where two guys punch in each other in the beginning, it's clear that they are going to be best friends by the end.
Well, maybe not best friends in this example - because Liam's best friend in ID2 is some dude who is considerably smaller and less Hemworthy than Liam. I'm going to call him "Dorky Guy" for the rest of this post, not because the actor who plays this character is at all dorky in real life, but because just about anyone would be considered the "dorky guy" ( or girl ) when standing next to a Hemsworth.
Anyway, we soon learn that Dorky Guy is smitten with a female pilot from China. I don't have to worry about giving Dorky Guy's crush an unusual name for this post, because the actress who plays her already has an unusual name. She goes by the stage name "Angelababy". There is nothing about the name "Angelabady" that isn't equal parts ridiculous and awesome. "Angelababy" sounds like something a guy from my old neighborhood might say when greeting his girlfriend.
"Hey, Angela baby, get over here!"
( BTW, Angelababy was clearly included in this movie to increase ticket sales in mainland China, which is part a disturbing trend of Asian characters in American movies being almost exclusively foreigners. Sure, Angelababy, Gong Li, Michelle Yeoh, Zhang Ziyi, Jackie Chan, Ken Watanabe, Jet Li, Donnie Yen, and Irrfan Khan can get plenty of rolls in Hollywood, but if you are an Asian American actor or actress, you had better hope they keep making "Harold and Kumar" movies. )
With the exception of Will Smith, just about every major character who was still alive at the end of the first ID returned for ID2 ( Well, Vivica A. Fox only returned for a minute or so before they killed her off. "Yeah, fuck you Will Smith! We're going to kill off your wife too!" ). They even brought back Brent Spiner, who I figured was dead after that alien used him like a ventriloquist dummy in the first ID. It turns out that Brent Spiner wasn't dead, but had just been in a coma for 20 years. I guess, I could buy that he spent the last 20 years in a coma, but what I could not buy was the following ...
1) When Brent Spiner wakes up from his 20-year coma in a hospital bed, the first thing he does is ask for his glasses, which are quickly handed to him by his boyfriend. From what I could tell, his boyfriend grabs the glasses from the night stand next to the bed and hands them to him. The boyfriends grabs the glasses so fast that I don't think there is any way the glasses could have been in a glasses case ( I'm also almost certain he grabbed the glasses with one hand, which would have been almost impossible to do if the glasses were in a case. ). This bothered me, because it makes no sense that a pair of glasses would be sitting right next to a person who had been in coma for 20 years. Did his boyfriend optimistically leave the glasses there 20 years ago? Were they just sitting there undisturbed for 20 years? If so, wouldn't the glasses be as dusty as all fuck by now? Was the boyfriend cleaning the glasses periodically, and if so, why wouldn't he just keep them safe ( and clean ) in a case? So many questions ...
**** EDIT *****
I originally had two items here, both of which I realize were incorrect, because I just watched the movie a second time. So, if you've read this before, I'm sorry about all the BS I wrote earlier about some of the Brent Spiner coma stuff. I think the only issue I really have about the coma stuff is the glasses. **** EDIT *****
Anyway, I think I've complained about the Brent Spiner coma stuff enough. Here are all my other issues with ID2 in no particular order:
- When Jeff Goldblum was in Africa with that warlord guy, he almost fell into a giant hole in the ground, but was saved at last second when Warlord Guy warned him that he was about to step into the giant hole. Why the fuck didn't Warlord Guy warn Jeff Goldblum about the giant hole before they started walking towards it in the dark? Why the hell isn't there a fence around that thing? How many kids do you think fell into that hole in the preceding 20 years? Don't you think somebody would have thought to put a fence around that hole after just one kid fell in? ( BTW, I couldn't help but notice that 2016 Jeff Goldblum looks almost exactly like 1996 Jeff Goldblum. You could say the same thing about Judd Hisrch. What the hell are those guys eating? )
- Speaking of holes ...
- Somebody needs to tell these scientifically illiterate screenwriters that a sonar system designed to image the ocean floor a few miles down cannot be used to look roughly 1800 miles underneath the Earth's crust to the edge of its molten outer core. Also, there is no precisely defined boundary between the solid mantel layer of the the Earth and the liquid outer core. It's not as if you could have a precise to-the-second countdown of when the hole being drilled by the aliens would reach the molten core of the Earth. Also, if aliens drilled a hole in the Earth roughly 1799.5 miles down to the edge of the Earth's molten core, it's not as if everything would be OK just because the hole wasn't half a mile deeper.
- While I'm on subject of how much ID2 makes a mockery of science, let's consider the following 3 issues I had with how the mothership was depicted.
1) When we first see the mothership near the moon, it seems to be roughly disc-shaped, and we are told it has a 3000 mile diameter. The top half of the ship is shaped like a shallow dome, but the bottom half of the ship seems roughly flat. With that in mind, it wouldn't be possible for the surface of the bottom of the mothership to be at roughly cloud-level in middle of the Atlantic Ocean, while also being at cloud level well in both London and the US east coast. Unless you are a flat-earther, it is absolutely impossible to conceive of that. If you can't visualize why it makes no sense, hold a dime next to a ping pong ball and see how much further the edges of the dime are from the ping pong ball than the center of the dime. In the same way, the edges of the ship should be much further from the surface of the earth that the part of the ship over the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. If want to know precisely how much further, approximate the radius of the Earth as 4000 miles ( roughly correct ) and consider a circle with the equation X^2 + Y^2 = 4000^2 ( where "^" represents "raised to the power of ) with the point (X=0, Y=0) at the center of the Earth. I won't bother to do all the math here ( but I will note the easiest way to solve this problem involves the Pythagorean Theorem ), but if you consider the center of the spaceship to be at point (X=0, Y=4000) and one edge of the spaceship to be at (X=1500, Y=4000 ), the length of a line drawn from point ( X=1500, Y=4000 ) perpendicular to the surface of the circle ( this would be the altitude ( in miles ) of the ship over London if we assumed the middle of the ship was touching the surface of the Atlantic Ocean 1500 miles away ) would be about 272 miles. So, if we assume the part of the skip drilling the hole in the middle of the Atlantic was a few miles above the surface of the water, the edge of the ship would have been about 275 miles above London. I know something as big as the mothership would have still been visible from 275 miles away in London, but I'm pretty sure the edge of that mothership was cutting through the clouds and barely clearing the ups of landmarks when it approached London. I guess the ship could have been designed to curve dynamically to match the surface of the earth, so I might be able to give filmmakers a pass based on that, but they never actually showed the ship changing shape. The again, I could be completely wrong about the curvature of the ship. Perhaps they did show the ship with a gentle curve at the bottom when it was next to the moon, but what are the odds that the aliens designed the ship to match the curvature of the Earth. It seems like a lot of trouble to go to when you might need to use the ship to attack other planets as well.
2) "The ship has its own gravity" : While that line was scientifically accurate, just about every way they portrayed that gravity was not. It's certainly true that a disc 3000 miles across and roughly 600 miles thick would exert a lot gravity, but that would pale in comparison to the 8000 mile wide sphere of the Earth. For that reason, it's kind of ridiculous to think that the mothership could have pulled all that stuff ( buildings, boats, etc. ) in London up into the air while the Earth was pulling down on all that stuff. Yes, the mothership was depicted as being lot closer to London ( a few miles ( I'll assume for now that the mothership actually could curve to match the curvature of the earth ) ) than the center off the Earth ( about 4000 miles ), but it was not like all of the mass of the ship was right over London. The mass of the the ship was spread over 3000 miles, and the gravity from most of that mass would have been pulling the stuff in London sideways rather than up. I'm not sure exactly what the direction of the gravitation force vector would have been ( It's not a simple calculation, because the further the matter in the ship gets from London the more it pulls sideways on London, but the gravitation force from that matter also has a smaller influence on London the further away it is from London. ), but I would guess the vector of the gravitational force would be more up than sideways. However, it's clear the the gravity exerted on London by the ship would be far less than the gravitational force exerted by the Earth on London ( especially because the ship seems to have a lot of empty space inside ( based on the adventures of Fake Will Smith, Liam Hemsworth, Dorky Guy, and Angelabady inside the ship ). The inside of the ship certainly looked a lot less dense than the inside of the Earth. ). Now, I know some of you may be saying that the alien ship has some technology that artificially generates an extremely strong gravitation field, and that super strong artificial gravity is pulling all that stuff in London into the sky. Well, the only problem with that theory is Newton's Third Law. If the is ship is exerting a large enough gravitation force to lift stuff off the Earth, it also must be exerting a large gravitational force on the Earth. This means ( based on Newton's Third Law ) that the Earth must be exerting an equal and opposite force of attraction on the mothership. That force would make the mothership crash into the earth. If you're saying "but the ship has anti-gravity" explain to me how the ship could be putting out a gravitational force ( that would have to pull it towards the earth ) and an anti-gravity force ( that would have to push it away from the earth ) without those two forces canceling each other out. I don't care how advanced the aliens are supposed to be - they can't break the laws of Physics ( or the laws of common sense - if you think gravity and anti-gravity could work at the same time, see if you can blow air out of a straw and suck air into a straw at the same time ).
3) The scale of the ship was all over the place in this movie. The mothership is supposed to be 3000 miles wide, but in the scene where our heroes are flying over the upper surface of the mothership to attack the queen ( the full-sized mothership, not the part that separates later in the movie ) we can see our heroes' planes, the outer edge of the ship and the middle of the ship all in the same shot. If the ship is really 3000 miles wide, the edge of the ship would be 1500 miles from the middle of the ship. If the ship was really curving to match the contour of the earth, there the is no way you could see both the edge of the ship and the middle of the ship from the vantage point of a plane flying a few miles over the surface of the ship. That would be like being able to see both Chicago and Los Angeles from a plane flying over Denver. Also, the mothership seems to be at least a few hundred miles thick ( I'm guessing about 600 miles from the bottom of the ship to the top of the ship ), so our heroes' planes that are flying over the ship are in space - far higher than the Space Shuttle or the International Space Station. I guess those planes could still fly in the vacuum of space using alien technology, but there were blues skies in the background of the scene, suggesting thart the planes attacking the mothership are flying through the atmosphere. This implies that mothership is only a few miles thick, but if that was the case the mothership would have looked like an extremely thin crepe rather than the discus shape we see in every other scene.
- Who thought is was a good idea to have mentally unstable ex-president ( who could barely get out of bed a day or so earlier ) fly a critical mission with the fate of the Earth at stake. They really didn't have any better options? Really?
- Remember when that alien robot sphere was turned on, and the queen alien was able to detect its signature? Remember how the humans had an isolation chamber ( built by humans based on technology from the evil aliens ) that was able to mask the signature of the sphere? Remember how that alien sphere was supposed to have knowledge of technology that went far beyond that of the humans or the evil aliens? Well, if human/evil-alien technology could mask the sphere's signature in the isolation chamber, why didn't that ultra-advance alien sphere have technology to mask its own signature?
- Near the end of the movie when the alien queen was attacking on foot, the queen took over control of all her ships, including the two that had been hijacked by Fake Will Smith (FWS) , Liam Hemsworth (FH) , Dorky Guy (DG) , and Angelababy (AB). It looked like our heroes were helpless until they found some super engines on the highjacked ships that the queen didn't have control of and activated those engines manually. Does that make any sense to you? Why would the queen have control over every part of the ship, except the engines that were only for "flying in space"? Don't you think she would have told her alien engineers "Give me the ability to override the controls of every part of my fighting spaceships, and I mean every part!", rather than saying "Give me the ability to override the controls of every part of my fighting spaceships, except for engines that are used for flying in space. I don't think there is any point of me being able to override the space functions of my spaceships."
- After firing those super space engines and flying high up into the air above the queen, FWS, LH, DG, and AB are in trouble again because their engines are burnt out and they have no power at all. As their highjacked ships start falling like rocks towards the queen the FWS/LH/DG/AB crew starts firing all their weapons at the queen to take her out. At that point I'm thinking "Well, that's a good hero moment. They are all going to die in a horrible crash, but at least they are going out kamikaze style to kill the queen." Then, all of a sudden their ships start to fly parallel to the ground and FWS/LH/DG/AB all survive a crash landing. What the fuck? Their spaceships had no working engines, and I didn't see an wing flaps ( or even wings ) on those alien spaceship. Without power, there is no way they could changed direction by 90 degrees and glided to safety. I know you need Liam Hemworth alive for ID3, but c'mon!
OK, I'm saving the best ( and worst ) for last. Over and over again in this movie it is implied that the most powerful bomb the humans have is a "cold fusion" bomb. This is ridiculous on one level and extremely ridiculous on another level. First of all, the entire idea of "cold fusion" was discredited in the late 80's. I guess one of the ID2 screenwriters heard the word "cold fusion" in a news report back in the 80's and thought it would be a cool-sounding technology put in a science-fiction bomb. So, that's ridiculous, but what's even more ridiculous is that even if cold fusion worked, it could't be used to power a bomb. "Cold fusion" is, by definition, supposed to be cold. It was supposed to be a form a fusion that did not produce large amounts of heat or the explosive energy normally associated with a fusion reaction. If you want to design a bomb that uses fusion, you don't want to use "cold fusion", you want to use "hot fusion". You don't need fancy alien technology to produce "hot fusion"; you just need a Hydrogen bomb, which humans have had since the early 1950s.
Yeah, so ID2 was awful and ridiculous, and amazingly, it may have surpassed the original ID in sheer stupidity.
.
.
.
I just can't wait for ID3!
Rich
Tuesday, February 28, 2017
The Liberal Case Against the NEA
Conservatives have been trying to get rid of the NEA ( National Endowment for the Arts ) for decades, and most liberals understand why. Conservatives don't like government spending in general, they certainly don't like or giving money to liberal artistic types, and they become absolutely incensed when they find out that their tax dollars are being used to fund art that they find sacrilegious ( see Christ, Piss ).
The NEA has been in the news again lately because President Trump has made it clear that he'd like to completely eliminate the NEA. I'm completely against Trump's plan for the NEA because he clearly has no intention of diverting the $148 million of NEA funds to any worthwhile projects. He either intends to give that $148 million to the well-off in the form of tax breaks, or if his latest military spending plan is to believed, he might use that $148 millions on some additional weapons that we do not really need.
All, that said, if I had to power to control the federal budget, I'd divert all the NEA funds to something like the food stamps program tomorrow.
I know a lot of people who love the arts ( as well as many talented artists in various fields ), so I know I'm going to get a lot of flack for this, but I honestly feel that a strong liberal argument can be made for eliminating the NEA and diverting its funds to more worthwhile programs.
Before going forward, I want to make it clear that I'm by no means anti-art. I enjoy art in many forms, and while I don't have much of what most people would consider to be traditional "artistic" talent, I do hope that some of my own modest artistic endeavors ( poetry in high school and college; this blog; the 120 or so YouTube videos I've produced; the several small plays I wrote, directed, and acted in for my kids' birthday parties; scores of songs of song parodies I wrote for YouTube/parties ( and about a thousand more I've created at the spur of the moment to make my kids laugh ) ) have brought at least a little bit of joy to at least a few people.
I'm also writing this to the background music of my kids' trumpet playing. Between the trumpet, the piano, and occasionally the guitar, my kids fill the house with music on a daily basis. I can certainly understand how art enriches people's lives because it enriches my life every day.
However, while I have no issue with art itself, I do have an issue with how some art is funded and who that art benefits.
I did a little research into how the NEA allocates money and that $148 million is spread thin enough across the nation that no single project or organization gets a lot of it. I wasn't able to find a good breakdown of where the money goes specifically, but from I've read it seems that some goes to relatively small grants to individual artists and artistic projects, some goes to states and cities to allocate as they please, and least some percentage of it goes to art education.
Regardless of exactly what percentage of the money goes where, this NEA funding undoubtedly brings more art into the world - certainly more than would have existed without this NEA funding. As I considered that earlier today, I asked myself "Who actually benefits from all the extra art the NEA brings into the world?"
The simplest answer to that question is "people who like art". So, who likes art? Well, any specific person can love any kind of art, but in general some groups of people spend more of their leisure time enjoying art than others.
Think for a moment about the people you know who actually dedicate some of their free time to enjoying art. Think about the people in your life who go to art galleries, who occasionally purchase pieces of art, who enjoy opera or ballet performances, or might go to a performance of their local symphony. What do all these people have in common? Well, the vast majority of these people are well-off. Most of them may not be what you would consider "rich", but most have at least an upper-middle glass income.
So, if the NEA funding brings more art into the USA, and the people who are most likely to enjoy this art are well-off, then some of the NEA funding is being used to subsidize the entertainment of the well-off.
I realize that criticizing the NEA for benefiting the rich is a rather big generalization, and I certainly understand that not all NEA funding is benefiting people with lots of money. I understand that it benefits struggling artists and music education and there are plenty of poor and working class people who love art. However, there is no denying that some forms of art can be expensive to consume and the primary consumers of that kind of art ( opera, ballet, symphonies, art sales ) are people who have incomes far higher than the average American. Some NEA funding does subsidize the art the high-income Americans consume, and those subsidies almost certainly make that art slightly cheaper to consume.
Perhaps the NEA funding that benefits the wealthy is only a small percentage of the NEA's budget ( as noted above, I was never able to find a breakdown of what money goes where ), but even if it is just a little bit of money, the thought of using public money to fund something the most privileged people are the biggest consumers of rubs me the wrong way.
I understand that entertainment and enrichment are an important element of a full life, but why should "fine art" that caters to a richer clientele get public funds while entertainment like soap operas and sitcoms do not. When I was growing up in a middle class neighbor well all watched stuff like "Happy Days" and "One Life to Live" for entertainment, but very few of us spent any time at the ballet or an art gallery.
Now, don't get my wrong, I'm not saying "blue collar" entertainment like "The Jerry Springer Show" or pro football teams should get government funding ( I've always been complete against public funding for sports stadiums, and I also believe the companies should not be able to write of the cost of stadium luxury boxes as a "business expense" ). I really don't think any form of entertainment should get government funding when kids across the nation are still going to bed hungry.
Also, just because I think supporting the arts isn't the most valuable thing we could be doing with federal funds, doesn't mean I don't think art brings value to society. Art bring lots of joy to many people, and I think there are plenty of private donors who would be willing to increase their own personal donations to the arts if the NEA ceased to exists. After, we are are only taking about $148 million a year. It would only take 30 million people donating $5 a year to replace the funding of the NEA. I can think of few rich patrons of the arts who would certainly chip in millions of dollars to help the arts if NEA funding dried up. There has always been a tradition of patronage for the arts and I don't see why that tradition could not continue to fund the kinds of art projects that the NEA currently supports. I'd much rather have NEA-style art projects be sponsored by a new private charity funded by the rich and the well-off than by federal money that could be used to help the less fortunate in our nation. Of course, if I was friends with some billionaires I'd probably encourage them to donate millions to help people in 3rd world countries with food/water issues rather than donating to art projects, but I'd be fine if they donated to the arts if they were passionate about the arts.
I know that some my liberal artistic friends are probably unhappy with me right now, and I can't say that I'd blame then if they told me I was full of shit. To be honest, the idea of making a liberal case to eliminate the NEA just popped into my head today, and I'm still not 100% sure it is is a good idea. However, I do firmly believe that it is an idea that is at least worth discussing, so I've decided to stir the pot a little bit and put my crazy idea out into the world.
I can already anticipate what some the the questions/objections might be from some of my friends, so I'm going to spend the rest of this post trying answer at least some of the questions I think my readers might have for me.
Q: What the fuck Rich? Seriously, what the fuck! Don't do Trump's work for him.
A: As I stated earlier in this post, I do not support Donald Trump's plan to eliminate the NEA. If I was a member of Congress, I would not vote in support of any Trump/Ryan budget that eliminated the NEA. I'm not going to vote for any budget that eliminates the NEA funding and puts that money in the pockets of the rich. However, if I happen to find myself sitting on the floor of the House of Representatives when President Warren is in charge, I'm going to propose moving NEA funding to something like food stamps on day 1.
Q: No, seriously, what the fuck Rich? Don't you realize that the NEA budget us a tiny part of the federal budget. I don't even think anyone ever quotes the amount of the federal budget in terms of tenths of a billion. The $148 million NEA budget is nothing more than a rounding error when it comes to the federal budget. Don't you realize the USA Defense budget is so bloated that it is bigger than the combined defense budgets the 11 countries that are 2 to 12 on the list of the biggest defense budgets. You could cut $100 billion from the our nations's defense spending, and our defense spending would still be more than three times as great as China's defense spending ( China is the number 2 country on this list ). You should divert $100 billion of defense spending to more worthwhile programs before you touch a penny of NEA money.
A: If I was in charge of the federal budget, I would certainly divert $100 billion or so of defense spending to more worthy projects ( food stamps, school lunches, Head Start, infrastructure, college aid, Medicaid, Social Security, veteran's benefits, etc. ), but I would still also divert the $148 million of NEA funding to the same kinds of worthy projects. Why? Well, I'll try my best to illustrate why using the following analogy:
Let's pretend you are cashier in a grocery store in a poor neighborhood. Let's also pretend that you are a bit of an asshole, and occasionally steal from pennies from some customers by shorting them on change and pocketing the difference. You deposit those pennies in your bank account, and occasionally use that money to buy a song on iTunes when your ill-gotten gains grow large enough. So, you are stealing a little money from the poor and are using it to be buy a little bit of art.
However, even if somebody ever noticed your penny filching, it would be a small concern compared to what was going on just outside the store. For about a year, a thief has been preying on the store customers and stealing bags of groceries from them when they leave the store.
So, the thief if doing a lot more damage than you, but if your conscience every gets to you about your penny stealing, you wouldn't say to yourself "I'm not going to stop stealing these pennies until that thief stops stealing groceries." On the contrary, if you knew these poor people were still getting robbed outside the store on a regular basis, it would be even more immoral for you to steal pennies from the potential victims of these thefts than it would be if the thief didn't exist.
So, yeah, I was in Congress, I'd fight to divert defense spending to more worthy projects, but I'd also fight to divert NEA spending regardless of how the fight the divert defense spending went.
Q: How far are you will to take this? You do realize that the NEA isn't the only example of federal spending that goes to the arts. Do you want to get rid of all of it? Do you want to get rid of Smithsonian? What about the Smithsonian?
A: Ummmm....
Uhhhhhh....
My wife asked me this question when I mentioned the topic of my blog post for this month, and I still don't have a good answer to the the question.
On the one hand, there are lots of homeless people in DC, and Smithsonian buildings could certainly function as a really big homeless shelter. If the art in the museums were sold, they could certain pay for a lot of meals.
On the other hand, the Smithsonian museums are free to everyone, rich and poor alike. Of course, many poor people could not afford a vacation to DC, but there are still plenty of lower-income people in or near DC that could enjoy all of the Smithsonian's free exhibits. Also, the Smithsonian is a huge tourist attraction that probably helps generate a lot tax revue for DC.
I think I'd like to keep the Smithsonian around ( or more accurately, the federal funding that keeps it free - the Smithsonian Institute probably would have enough money to run those museums independent of the federal government if they charged entrance fees ), even though I know that might conflict with my willingness to throw the NEA under the bus. I don't know - I'd probably feel differently if the Smithsonian charged entrance fees, but considering that they don't I kinda feel like the Smithsonian museums are a national resource like the national parks.
In any case, I'm not claiming to know all the answers - I just wanted to ask a question. I eagerly anticipate hearing what my readers think the best answer is.
Rich
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)