Pretty much everyone knows–or should know–that many, and maybe most, of the points made by most politicians are of little value, amounting to little more than equine feces at best. A commercial I saw the other day illustrated that the same is true of TV commercials. (Yes, I realize that’s no discovery. But still…) The advertisement I saw featured a clean-cut young man making a pitch to “buy American-made gasoline at Kwik Fill” because doing so “strengthens our economy.” Do people believe that type of thing? The short answer is:  Yes. How do I know? Because presidents–and presidential candidates–have been saying pretty much the same thing for close to 4 decades, beginning with Nixon and continuing right up through Obama.

Rachel Maddow–not exactly a standard-bearer for libertarian ideals and the power of the free market–demolished this lunacy on her show, and the episode is immortalized on YouTube, under the appropriate title, “Oil Is Oil Is Oil.” There is no such thing as “foreign” oil and there is no such thing as “domestic” oil. There is no way to purchase oil from domestic sources or that “benefits Americans only.” Maddow covers many valid points in the video–which is recommended viewing–but in economics-speak, oil is fungible. As such, the concept of energy independence by lessening the U.S. dependence on foreign oil is just the same old jingoistic bird cage liner scrapings. All oil is sold on an international market and all oil is purchased from that same place. Which service station you use is largely irrelevant.

Admittedly, Maddow makes a couple points with which I disagree, most notably in her suggestion that we can affect positive change by lessening our overall dependence on oil. To that suggestion, my response would be “Why?” To what purpose should we–users of energy–attempt to cut back on our usage of energy? To what purpose should we–people who benefit from all manner of conveniences due directly to the technology of fossil fuels–attempt to change our ways? I can only assume that Maddow believes, like many liberals, and many conservatives, that the consumer should react to policy concerns versus market signals. If oil is the cheapest alternative, then the consumer should continue to buy it, period. If, and when, oil becomes so rare as to not be the cheapest alternative (and/or the best technological alternative) the costs should reflect it, and we consumers will move on to something else. (The costs will reflect it, unless the government gets in the way.) The problem is not over-dependence on oil. The problem is lack of understanding of basic economics, the market, and the ramifications of supply and demand.

Of more concern to me, and maybe more importance, is this:  If this type of obviously-flawed economics thinking, as evidenced by that commercial, has pervaded presidential talking points for forty years and continues to pervade TV advertising even now, how much more horribly flawed information flows unabated?

Bottom Line:  I guess they don’t call it the idiot box for nothing.

Cross-posted at the LRCBlog.

Massachusetts fisherman Carlos Rafael pulled in what should have been a life-changing fish this week, but before he could unload it for a huge payday, his local chapter of ridiculous-rule-enforcers, A.K.A., the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA)  enforcement division, took him down. (Whew! That was close.) You see, although Rafeal had filed all the appropriate paperwork to catch tuna, the behemoth in question was caught in his boat’s nets and not via rod and reel, as is specified, well, someplace. As a result, the authorities had no choice but to pinch the fish when Rafael’s boat returned to port. The expected $400,000 payday that could come from the sale of fish will very likely go into NOAA’s asset forfeiture fund. Nice racket. (Or, should that be, nice rod and reel?)

H/T:  James Nellis

…cross-posted at LRCBlog.

Right on cue, the vigilant bureaucrats at Protect-You-From-Yourself-Central, A.K.A., New York City, have launched a volley for concerned tax-feeder busybodies everywhere.  Writes LRC Blog reader, James Nellis:

I thought this was an excellent sidebar to your recent blog post:  NYC sues roll-your-own cigarette shops over taxes

The linked piece is chock-full of statist brilliance, and I don’t want to spoil it for you, but here is the bottom line. Folks in NYC who smoke have found a way to circumvent the gargantuan taxes levied against packaged cigarettes, by rolling their own. Smoke shops in NYC enable this circumventing by providing their customers with automatic cigarette rolling machines. (Gawd, I love free enterprise.)

Here’s a brief description of how it works:

Customers select a blend of tobacco leaves, intended to mirror the flavor of their regular brand. Then they feed the tobacco and some paper tubes into the machines, and return to the counter with the finished product to ring up the purchase.

Booyah! This little exploit enables smart-shopper-smokers to leave with a 10-pack carton of cigarettes for $40, whereas a regularly-purchased carton would cost $130, of which $58.50 would account for just some of the taxes. But wait. There’s more. Disappointed that one of their their sin-tax cash cows is developing a bit of a plugged udder, NYC’s legal department has begun to sue stores for “engaging in blatant tax evasion.” You. Cannot. Make. This. Stuff. Up.

NYC’s Health Commissioner, Dr. Thomas Farley, is cited at the very bottom of the piece, and his sentiment speaks volumes.

Farley also defended the city’s high taxes on cigarettes, saying that studies had shown that they are pressuring people into quitting, or not taking up the habit, and thereby saving lives.

In other words, “when we tax you for habits we don’t like, we’re saving you from yourself!” Well then, that certainly makes me feel better.

…cross-posted at LRCBlog.

I am not a smoker. Never have been. Frankly, I admit to thinking it’s a vile habit. Those caveats aside, the treatment of smokers in the U.S. is something of a quandary to me. Here is a group composed of a cross-section of Americana that might be unrivaled in its breadth. Rich people smoke. Poor people smoke. People of color smoke. White people smoke. Men smoke. Women smoke. Young folks smoke. Old fogies smoke. Lawmakers smoke. Hell, even the POTUS has been known to light up a time or two. Truly, everybody is represented on the smoking band wagon. With all that representation, again I ask:   Why isn’t there an all-smoking airline? The answer is obvious: because the government says so. The obligatory airline safety briefing contains words to this effect: “Federal regulations prohibit smoking on airplanes.” Why in the hell…?

Estimates have placed the number of smokers in the U.S. at 45 million people. Few would argue that the tobacco lobby is not powerful. Yet, smokers are treated like pariahs pretty much uniformly, with airplanes just being one place of many. I’m not suggesting that smokers should be forcibly mixed with non-smokers on huge tubes of metal rocketing through the sky, or anyplace else. (Remember when planes had a smoking section? What lunacy.) Voluntary mixing, however, should be left to the individual. Given the shear number of people who voluntarily place a burning tube of tobacco into their mouths and suck the smoke into their lungs, one would think that they would not be persecuted by the State. Don’t these people vote? Certainly they do, but apparently it doesn’t matter. (There is a message in that.)

A grown man can’t go into a bar of his own choosing, to partake in a legal habit of his own choosing, surrounded by people who agree with him, either by commission or acceptance. The treatment of smokers in U.S. society exemplifies a level of paternalism that should be troubling to anyone not passed out from getting blazed on that other kind of cigarette. Despite a flawed application of The Harm Principle or the persuasive pseudo-science of the second-hand smoke gambit, few would suggest–I hope anyway–that cigarettes should be generally banned, as is the case for marijuana, cocaine, heroin, meth, etc. Yet, cigarettes are widely banned in both public places and private places. (A bar is a private place!) The thing that troubles me, and it should trouble everyone–whether you smoke or not–is:  How did the bureaucrats decide where to draw the line? More importantly, when will that line infringe on enough personal choices that people to stand up and say, “Okay, that’s just about enough!” My suspicion: it won’t happen.

And there is a message in that too.

…cross-posted at the LRCBlog.

I’ve written on the phenonenon before, most recently, while examining the trite hate-fest that pretends to be media coverage surrounding LeBron James. And frankly, I’ve found myself disagreeing with Bryant Gumbel on a number of salient points throughout these discussions. This time though, Gumbel is on-point. Recently he made these comments, regarding the NBA Lockout and how NBA Commissioner David Stern is handling it:

Stern’s version of what has been going on behind closed doors has of course been disputed, but his efforts were typical of a commissioner who has always seemed eager to be viewed as some kind of modern plantation overseer, treating NBA men as if they were his boys. It’s part of Stern’s M.O., like his past self-serving edicts on dress code and the questioning of officials. His moves were intended to do little more than show how he’s the one keeping the hired hands in their place.

His comments have drawn a lot of ire, much of it from black media members. (In full disclosure, I tend to discount white media member’s discomfort when a black person uses a supposed slavery analogy. Call it a personal failing.)  Try though I may, I can’t find what is incorrect about Gumbel’s statement.

It’s accurate, right down to Stern’s approach in handling “his” players. Apparently, invoking slavery–or seeming to invoke slavery–since Gumbel didn’t call the NBA players slaves, is a special case of Godwin’s Law. I get that too, but here’s the thing.  The fact that those who are under control are better paid is no reason to conclude that control is not taking place. (A similar analogy is applicable to the American State and its “freedoms.”) The amount of compensation doesn’t necessarily change the relationship between those under control and those who control them.  (It can however, and I’d be among the first to admit, make the control feel better!)

Sometimes, the plantation is in our minds. One of my idols, Carter G. Woodson, might suggest that this is often the case.  The walls surrounding this mental plantation were on full display during a recent “debate” I watched on ESPN. Asked if the players should start their own league, one of the commenters said “No!” He suggested that they should instead hold out and continue to fight the owners, hoping that they eventually receive–what this commenter thought–was appropriate compensation, or a “better deal” from the owners.

So, they’re not really on a plantation, i.e., they can leave and “do their own thing” whenever they like, but instead of doing that, they should debate with the overseers about how much cornmeal is enough? Damn. I’m forced to quote Woodson again:

When you control a man’s thinking you do not have to worry about his actions. You do not have to tell him not to stand here or go yonder. He will find his “proper place” and will stay in it. You do not need to send him to the back door. He will go without being told. In fact, if there is no back door, he will cut one for his special benefit. His education makes it necessary. … History shows that it does not matter who is in power … those who have not learned to do for themselves and have to depend solely on others never obtain any more rights or privileges in the end than they had in the beginning.

Count me among those who hopes, desperately, that just this once, rich guys living in a mostly-free society tell their ostensible overseer to go jump in a lake, and use free enterprise to their own advantage. (They probably won’t—but a guy can dream, right?)

…cross-posted at LRC.

Uppity Negro: N.—a Black person who is committed to reversing the crimes of self-refusal, self-denial, and self-hatred that are endemic to the Black community and detrimental to the Black psyche. Syn.—UNAPOLOGETIC. VAINGLORIOUS. MULTIFARIOUS. JUST AUDACIOUS. ~ The Urban Dictionary

Having written on both LeBron and Kobe it should be pretty clear that I like sports. What I find particularly fascinating is how a combination of selective logic and the availability heuristic drive almost all sports discussions, be they on “sports talk radio” or during the ostensibly more journalistic major network coverage. In the case of Kobe, I was amazed that something as innocuous as a video game could draw so much discussion, but then again, the discussion of irrelevant crap even remotely involving sports has spawned an entire profitable network. Just ask Disney. (FTR, I openly admit to watching way too much of this particular network.)

Recently, I found myself Tweeting about LeBron James quite a bit. (Yes, I obviously have time to kill.) I have also found myself responding to several negative posts about him among my Facebook friends. Over the last few days, people I don’t even know have exchanged barbs with me about James. Ironically, this is despite the fact that I was fiercely hoping for a Dallas victory. How did this author—a staunch supporter of Dirk, J-Kidd, and the Mavs—morph into a protector of LeBron’s image? Truthfully, I do not know. Well, I did not know, until I watched a particularly interesting telecast on “The LeBron Network,” which is occasionally also referred to as ESPN.

During the episode, amid ample dissection of the game itself, much was made of a statement James made during the post-game press conference. At some point during the presser, after he had been asked a breathtaking variety of insipid questions ranging from “Did you choke?” to “Why do you think you perform so poorly during the clutch?” James was asked, “What do you think about the people who hate you?” (or words to that effect). No, I am not making this up. Whatever happened to asking sports figures about, well, sports—Xs and Os and the like?

LeBron responded with some variant of, “Tomorrow those people will wake up with the same life they have, and so will I.” I was proud of him. The reporters on ESPN were aghast! Surely, he will regret saying that later, they opined. My question is simply, “Why?” What LeBron said was accurate. Maybe he should have been more sheepish in his response. Sheepish always plays well for the cameras. Maybe he should have continued to respond politely to even more insulting, vapid, and frankly, silly questions. Good for him that he did not. After some consideration I now realize that LeBron’s biggest offense that night was the same as his biggest offense throughout this whole saga, dating back to The Decision.

LeBron James is an uppity Negro!

I’m not the first person to draw this conclusion. Skip Oliva implies a similar conclusion in his piece, “LeBron and the Collectivist Mentality.” Says Oliva:

James is the ongoing target of one of the most vehement public racism campaigns in recent memory. And when I say racism, I don’t mean he’s being targeted because he’s African-American. That type of racism is generally taboo. James is a professional athlete, which is one of the few groups the mainstream press not only condones racism against, but also actively promotes.

Oliva stopped short of saying James is a target of died-in-the-wool racism. This author won’t pull up short. LeBron James is an uppity Negro. In fairness, Oliva made the above statement over a year ago. He now says, “I’m 100% on-board with the notion that this is straight-up anti-black racism.” He shared with me that this wonderfully even-handed piece from Deadspin provided the tipping point for his point-of-view. (Parental guidance suggested for anyone following that link, and by the way, it is not even-handed.)

If there is one thing the press doesn’t like, it’s an uppity Negro—particularly when those members of the press think they have somehow bestowed greatness upon that Negro. (“We made you, nigger, and we can break you.”) In this case, James had the gall to actually collude with two other darkies to decide for whom he and they would play basketball. The nerve! He did this with the stated goal of winning the NBA championship. Say what? He even had the moxie to openly state that he and his compadres would win multiple NBA championships. Tacky? Sure. It seems pretty clear to me that he was, at that point, just mugging for the camera (i.e., not having a serious discussion of his team’s prospects), but apparently statements made during a made-for-fans celebration are fodder for public debate and reprisal. Tacky statements from sports figures ain’t exactly something new, are they? Again, if we return to Oliva, we get a clue as to what really galls me about this situation:

I’ve heard reasonable basketball minds differ as to whether James might be closer to a championship in Chicago or New York. Such debate is normal and fun. What I’m critical of is the collective consciousness of the press harping on nonsensical talking points that seek to portray James as somehow antisocial or mentally unbalanced. I believe such criticism originates from the false belief that professional athletes like James must conform their behavior to social norms that the critics themselves would not adhere to. (Emphasis added.)

Exactly. We can debate if The Decision, i.e., the announcement of his plans to “take his talents to Miami,” was handled properly, but as Oliva states elsewhere in his piece and as I state in mine—previously posted here—the movement of high-profile players around the NBA, and elsewhere, is routine. Anyone who seriously thinks LeBron is the first superstar to be teamed-up with another superstar would do well to repeat one phrase to himself:  Boston Celtics. (Boston even calls their three studs “the Big Three,” just as sportswriters have dubbed the Miami triumvirate of Wade, James, and Bosh.) As an aside, Kobe Bryant publicly pouted in Los Angeles—while privately threatening to leave—until the Lakers went out and stole “the most skilled big man in the NBA” and brought him to L.A. to help Kobe win, which he promptly did. That the Miami case can be presented as somehow unique is laughable, except for one thing—the Miami case happened because the players directly pulled the strings, versus the normal course of events, whereby team owners and management do so. Damned uppity Negroes!

Conclusion

Will the Heat win multiple championships? I don’t know and, really, I don’t care. Did LeBron choke against Dallas? I’ve played a lot of sports and I actually have no idea what that phrase even means. (Wiki didn’t help, since the definition they gave didn’t apply to this case.)  More to the point, as Wade so eloquently answered that tacky question, the terminology “choked” is overused. The use of such a designation suggests that the Mavericks do not deserve due credit. Basically, saying the Heat choked is tantamount to saying that Dallas won by default. What a compliment! (Apparently, Dallas has the power to make four consecutive teams, even the vaunted Lakers, who they swept, become chokers.  The Force is strong with the Mavs!)

That the same group of supposed journalists can simultaneously ask if Miami choked while celebrating Dirk Nowitski’s clutchness is testament to the cognitive dissonance that we’ve come to expect from the typical coverage of U.S. sports and embrace as we enjoy it.  That the same people who over-praised, over-promoted, and over-hyped a 26-year-old basketball prodigy now attack him for being audacious is par for the course. After all, unapologetic audaciousness is the very definition of being an uppity Negro.

For a little historical context, one has only to look at the post-NBA career of Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. Kareem was always, always the prototypical uppity Negro—and now, one of the smartest men to ever play in the NBA, cannot get a sniff at an NBA coaching job. Clearly, not pandering to the press and not displaying appropriate levels of “humility” is not only a recipe for ridicule and personal attacks, all too often from people who should know better, but also a way to make sure you spend lots of time watching other guys get opportunities while you do not. While I can appreciate the age-old wisdom of “going along to get along,” part of me also hopes folks like LeBron James continue to follow the advice offered by Frederick Douglass, in his Narrative, when he says:

I prefer to be true to myself, even at the hazard of incurring the ridicule of others, rather than to be false, and incur my own abhorrence.

Granted, Douglass was speaking of issues far more important than basketball. It strikes me that amazingly negative attitude toward LeBron James is about more than basketball as well.

“You had ample time over the last two years to make a proposal that would be fair to both sides, but you failed to do so. During the last week of the mediation, we waited the entire week for the NFL to make a new economic proposal … That proposal did not come until 12:30 (p.m.) on Friday, and, when we examined it, we found it was worse than the proposal the NFL had made the prior week when we agreed to extend the mediation.”

~ Letter from NFLPA to Commissioner Roger Goodell

While one would hope the fans and the public would understand what’s really going on with the NFL lockout, it is quite possible that not everyone will “get it.” Some people—and some libertarians—have used a somewhat misinformed, if catchy, description of the situation. That description is: The NFL lockout is millionaires fighting with billionaires over money. While certainly punchy, and containing a nugget of truth, this description also misses the point.

Consider: If this labor negotiation were between business owners and their workers in almost any other endeavor, but particularly one where the workers were paid sums of money that were more “normal,” almost no one would make such a statement. Were this ostensible dispute—it isn’t really a dispute, but more of a money-grab—between the owners of a string of car manufacturing plants and their assembly-line workers, not only would the public side with the workers, but the supposedly liberal media and some members of Congress would be crying loudly as well. Why? In those cases, it would be easy to sympathize with workers. In fact, in that scenario, it’s a safe bet that some would compare the plight of these workers with that of the Wisconsin teachers union. (That would be a huge mistake, but not one that will be explained here. Maybe in the next rant.) The amount of money has nothing to do with the logic.

The NFL owners have been planning this labor stoppage for well over 2 years. They could have submitted a proposal to the players at almost any point during that time but chose not to do so. Why? In order to extract the amounts of money from their labor force that they wished to extract, they would have had to present evidence of their plight. (They claim that the current labor contract is unsustainable, and that they are losing money.) Maybe they are, but if so, why not just prove it? Why not simply justify changing the contract in mid-stream? If it seems rather ballsy for a cartel that has already successfully gotten the public to pay for their biggest capital investment—stadiums—while negotiating a huge TV contract, to attempt to take additional money out of the pocket of its workers, one can readily see why the approach of simply being honest did not appeal to the NFL owners. Open books do not a naked money-grab support.

The owners had also planned to use part of the TV contract money as a bridge to support themselves while they squeezed the players with the lockout. One could compare that strategy to the owners of that string of car manufacturing plants having been paid for cars that had not yet been made. Would it be reasonable for them to lock out their workers and keep the money? Of course not. (Thankfully, the judge who heard that portion of the case saw the underhandedness of such a plan.)

How will this situation play out? Only time will tell. And how should the fans of the NFL—which include this author—react? One can only hope for two things: One, that the players have banked enough cash to “ride it out.” Two, that the owners’ scheme to diversify from armed robbery—funding of stadiums with tax money—to grand larceny—fleecing their employees with a management-imposed work stoppage, is met with derision by not only the NFLPA, but the public as well. All the money eventually comes from the public anyway. The tax revenue was taken via the guns of the State. It would be a shame for the rest of the cash to be taken with even less of a fight.

Cross-posted at the LRCBlog.

“Pryor and four teammates were suspended Thursday by the NCAA for the first five games of next season for selling championship rings, jerseys and awards. They also received improper benefits — from up to two years ago — from the tattoo parlor and its owner.”

~ Article at ESPN.com

The situations of Ohio State University Quarterback Terrelle Pryor, leading rusher Dan Herron, No. 2 wide receiver DeVier Posey, All-Big Ten offensive tackle Mike Adams and backup defensive end Solomon Thomas should be pretty well known to the sports fans in our studio audience.  The sports airwaves have been chock-full with commentary on it for the last few days.  From a sports reporting standpoint, the coverage has often been quite good and pretty far ranging.  ESPN generally, and Pat Forde and Adam Rittenberg specifically, have covered the issue and the rather obvious duplicity of the NCAA in some detail.  For the overarching view of the issues, I recommend those columns.  To get an impression of my view of the duplicity of the NCAA, I highly recommend this video from Michael Smith.  Smith and I agree completely, the NCAA was duplicitous in its application of sanctions against these players and against The Ohio State University.  But there is more to it than that, and it is upon those differences that I will focus in this brief rant.

To make a long story short, and save the reader from wading through the MSM reporting, here is the synopsis.  These players sold and/or bartered with items and notoriety they had been given or “earned” in their capacity as football players at The Ohio State University.  Those benefits included both cash and services, in the fashion of tattoos from a local tattoo parlor in Columbus.  (No, I’m not making this up.)  They have been found guilty of “receiving improper benefits.”  Their punishment is:  being suspended for five games next football season.  They will all compete in the Sugar Bowl this season.  (No, you didn’t misread anything.  That is exactly what is happening.)

There are really only two issues of interest from my libertarian perspective.  First is the issue of ownership and its privileges. One would hope that rules imposed by the NCAA would somehow reflect an understanding of private property ownership.  Let us call that Standard One.  Secondly, there is the issue of rules and regulations.  If there is a rule in place that circumvents my ownership, e.g., an agreement, either implicit or definitive, that I will not receive “benefits” from ownership until such time as said agreement is no longer in place, what punishment fits the “crime” of breaking that contract?  One would hope that penalties levied by the NCAA would reflect some understanding of punishment that fits the crime in the most obvious sense.  Let us call that Standard Two.

These are the only questions that exist in the Ohio State Affair, or Tattoo Gate, as I will hereafter refer to it.  As anyone who has witnessed the amazingly transparent actions of the NCAA over the last few months can attest, what can be generally said about the imposition of NCAA sanctions is this:  The NCAA generally opts for a punishment that fails to meet either standard.  This case is no different.  In fact, Tattoo Gate is an object lesson in how to be damned certain that one’s actions meet no discernible standard at all.

If a person owns an item, the disposition of that item should be the business of that owner only.  In short, he can do whatever he wishes with it, including, but not limited to, sell it, give it away, bury it in the back yard, or burn it for warmth.  The obvious (read:  statist) exception of intellectual property aside, this seems pretty straightforward.  Clearly then, something else must cover the case of NCAA athletes.  This is where Standard Two comes in.  The NCAA apparently believes, and I’ll even agree with them for arguments sake, that the “contract of scholarship athleticism” precludes actions that might otherwise be appropriate for an owner of real property such as a championship ring or other soon-to-be-useless whatnottery.  Tattoo Gate is not about ownership.  Tattoo Gate it is about rules.

So then, a scholarship athlete cannot sell NCAA-sanctioned trinkets while participating in NCAA activities and/or while maintaining eligibility.  To do so constitutes the receiving of improper benefits and is justification for punishment.  Clearly, the players in question broke the rules.  Just as clearly, imposing a sanction of five games—approximately one-third of a college football season—is a hefty penalty.  Why then would the NCAA impose the penalty next season, effectively allowing the players and the team to benefit from their presence in a (high-profit-generating) bowl game?  That’s a very good question, and a question that no one seems able to answer.

If the infractions were egregious enough to warrant a large penalty—like five games—it would seem to warrant immediate imposition of said sanctions.  If it the infraction is minor enough to allow for imposing a sanction that won’t take place until next season (when at least two or three of those players could be gone to the NFL) it would also seem to not be worth mentioning.

What the NCAA has done, effectively, is harshly punish while simultaneously not punishing.  That’s an elegant implementation of justice and a fine example of what those of us who watch the actions of the NCAA have known for quite some time:  The NCAA is, in the vernacular, FOS.  (That means, loosely translated:  Full of Feces.)  Of course, many of us knew that before Tattoo Gate.  Didn’t you?

“A debate on ESPN about Kobe being in that “Call of Duty: Black Ops” commercial, holding a rifle, convinced me of two things…” ~ First Tweet

“…One, ESPN has a lot of retarded debates about issues that are less than important.” ~ Second Tweet

“…Two, I watch too much ESPN.” ~ Third Tweet

My previous blog rant about a sports figure—regarding the LeBron Decision and the wrath it wrought—opened with this line, “I have an admission to make…” Here we go again.

I have another admission to make, this time about the Tweets I posted, as shown above.  I was wrong about ESPN.  They don’t debate about issues that are less than important, well, not in the way I originally opined.  (That those debates remain somewhat retarded is not similarly incorrect.)  This issue is not only important, but also emblematic of and intertwined with many other issues.  In fact, it dawned on me as I watched a panel discussion on “Outside the Lines: First Report,” that the Kobe-holding-a-rifle-in-a-commercial issue is both important and confusing.  By the way, the coverage, particularly on Yahoo, is worth checking out.

This issue is—these issues are—important because the discussion of black men—particularly prominent black men—and weapons, is tied up in the same psychological murkiness that I attempted to clarify via the lens of racist gun control.  The issue is confusing because any discussion seems to meander through any number of sub-issues, some germane and some peripheral, at best.  (As an aside, my third admission via Tweet, that I watch too much ESPN, is hardly worth debating.  It is what it is.)

That professional sports are fraught with racist collectivism is far from a discovery.  Furthermore, these issues are not new, which is probably why they tend to recur.  Given the exorbitant coverage of celebrity in the MSM, any time a prominent black man makes news, it presents an excellent opportunity to drive viewership.  Paraphrasing the old quote from It’s a Wonderful Life about angels and ringing bells, every time a high-profile black man does anything even remotely newsworthy, a budding TV producer gets his wings.

My own view is that the enchantment with these issues—and their presentation via sports television—is indicative of more than a sports-centric misinterpretation of value.  Plaxico Burris is in jail in some measure because he is a high-profile black athlete.  I might argue that Mike Vick went to jail for much the same reasons.  Not to put too fine a point on it, but “uppity Negros” have been getting whipped in America for about as long as there has been an America.  (I know.  I know.  Again, that’s unfair.)  Ergo, figuratively whipping them via the court of ostensible public opinion via sports entertainment is a tried-and-true strategy.

The Issues:  Separated, Exposed, Filleted, and Glazed

There are several issues that must be separated before one can even begin to have a meaningful debate about what I’ll call from this point forward, “The Kobe Commercial.”  First, do violent video games promote violence?  Second, is Kobe trying to promote violence by appearing in a commercial for a violent video game?  Third, is Kobe breaking a contract—moral, ethical, implied, or specific, by appearing in a commercial for a violent video game?  Forth, does Kobe have a responsibility, as a public figure and ostensive role model, to exclude himself from any activity that might be construed as unseemly?  Fifth, is Kobe somehow glorifying war at a time when America is engaged in a real war?  Bonus question:  Even if Kobe does not have a personal responsibility, can his employer, the National Basketball Association, treat him as if he had such a responsibility and impose sanctions upon him as a result?

Let’s address the easy answers first.

Violent video games do not lead to more violence in society.  The two academics on ESPN’s Outside the Lines episode confirmed this, and no one should find it surprising, despite the hype that tenuous links between gaming and episodes like Columbine appear to have.  (As an aside, the book, “Killing Monsters” which I own, but have not yet completed, provides similar evidence.)  Simply put, vicarious violence is not real violence and might even provide an outlet for violent tendencies.  Society might be less violent because people can express violent tendencies via fantasy.

Even if video games made people more violent, the issues are separate. Appropriate penalties for violent behavior are available regardless of its genesis.  Kobe is, and should be, free to play and advertise any game he likes, whether he enjoys playing it, as is the case with Black Ops, or not. Moral busybody-ism does not a restriction on the activities of Kobe Bryant provide.

Is Kobe promoting violence?  Again, no.  Given the fact that violent video games don’t make people violent anyway, no other conclusion is reasonable.  Kobe is not killing anyone in real life.  He is promoting a video game that he plays and enjoys.  Any discussion of promotion beyond that is utterly ridiculous, bordering on insane.

Contracts:  Implied and Otherwise

Has Kobe broken a contract with his employer?  Similar to the first two cases, no.  Now, as anyone who watches the goings-on which emanate from (NFL commissioner) Roger Goodell’s echo chamber can attest, it does seems possible for the commissioner of a major sport to take almost any action against one of his employees under the color of “conduct detrimental to the league” by imposing sanctions despite a lack of evidence, civil or criminal charges, or frankly, anything else.  As such, and as ESPN’s Skip Bayless implied, (NBA commissioner) David Stern could still sanction Kobe, although it is not clear that the NBA Collective Bargaining Agreement allows Stern the kind of wide latitude as is afforded Goodell.  (For those keeping score at home, this is the answer to the bonus question above.)  If Stern does sanction Kobe, don’t get it twisted:  He’ll be trying to protect his league and its profits, not making a statement about morality.

Does Kobe have an implied contract with “his fans” regarding such behavior?  Once again, the answer is no, but this time for different reasons than previously.  The game he is promoting is and was enjoying record sales volume.  As such, one could actually conclude that Kobe is responding to the actions already taken by the public.  Kobe is promoting something that many, if not most, of his fans already like.  He’s closer to bandwagon jumping than setting a trend!  Kobe’s appearance in the ad is cool because the game is popular.  The video game is not popular because Kobe is cool.  (For the record, I don’t play Black Ops, or any other video game for that matter, but I admit to thinking Kobe Bryant has been cool for a while.)

Glorifying War—Precluding Peace?

Does The Kobe Commercial glorify war?  It is on this question that this debate gets interesting.  Skip Oliva provided the best summation of my feelings when he responded to my Tweet with one of his own:

Funny how the media usually gets more outraged over depictions of violence then [sic], oh, actual violence caused by government.

Exactly.

In fact, it was at the points where panel members tried to suggest that the U.S. invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan were so sacred as to necessarily preclude violent video games that I nearly lost my lunch.  Come again?  If all the war on Earth was contained in X-Boxes across the U.S., I wouldn’t care one bit, and I bet there would be more than a few dead Iraqi civilians who’d still be alive.  If one wants to get high-and-mighty with disgust over violence, better to do so with regard to legitimate violence like predator drones killing unarmed people.  The fact that Kobe Bryant smiles in a fake-assed video game presentation has no effect on that, one way or the other.

I do not doubt, for a single minute, that the types of violence that Todd Walker fights, particularly among young black men, is a plague on the Inner City.  In full disclosure, I do wonder if that violence is not a result of the massive disarmament of law-abiding black people, that is, too much gun control versus too little.  I also do not doubt that violence, even make-believe violence, is not everyone’s “cup of tea.”  I already noted that I don’t play any first-person shooter games and, from a personal standpoint, find them somewhat distasteful.  Value is subjective, though.  And since we know that these games don’t cause violence, decrying Kobe’s involvement in advertising one that is already selling like hotcakes seems horribly misplaced.

Dan Devine, in the interesting piece from Yahoo (linked above), provides an educational bit of context:

…the backlash got some fresh legs when tech scribe Sam Machkovech wrote at TheAtlantic.com that the “troubling melange of gun, grenade, and rocket combat acted out by blue-collar workers, children, and celebs like Kobe Bryant and Jimmy Kimmel” was a major disappointment that “comes closer to selling real death than any video game possibly could.”

In fairness, Devine notes that the whining subsided as quickly as it started.  But the sentence above still troubles me.  Somehow, so the apparent narrative goes, Kobe acting out in a video game sells real death better than 750 military bases around the globe, better than sanctions that killed half a million children, better than state-sponsored anti-drug violence, and better than thugs in special uniforms killing whomever they like.  I find it ironic, if depressingly typical, that people generally, but the media specifically, as Oliva so pointedly notes, loudly decry that which does not lead to violence while simultaneously remaining largely silent over, or at least puzzlingly acquiescent of, that which is a startling example of it.

Cross-Posted at the LRCBlog.

Some time ago, having just gotten rid of a car, I figured it best to turn in my plates and get that magnanimous refund from NY State for the registration fee on my erstwhile means of transportation.  Being somewhat “unplugged” from the typical goings-on at the Department of Motor Vehicles, I decided to drop by on a Friday afternoon, the last Friday afternoon of the month to be exact. A mistake. A BIG mistake.

You see, on the last day of the month, there apparently is a big rush to get things done at the DMV.  Well, there’s a big rush for the customers.  The people working at the DMV frankly didn’t seem all that rushed.  And that’s from whence the question that titles this essay emanates.  First, let’s recap my visit.

Arrival:  1415 hours (That’s 2:15pm for those who are military-time-challenged.)

Obtaining of Ticket:  1455 hours  (That’s 40 minutes later.)

Visit with Cashier:  1525 hours (That’s 30 minutes after that.)

Departure:  1530 hours (That’s 5 minutes later still.)

Yes, it took me 75 minutes (1 hour and 15 minutes) to accomplish a 5-minute task at the DMV.  For those unfamiliar with this incredibly demeaning scenario, allow me to explain some of the subtleties.  When one arrives at the DMV, at least in my county, he is met with a line that leads to an “information counter.”  This is where they tell you where you need to go next, what forms you have to fill out before you get there, and where they also—in a stroke of bureaucratic genius—give you a ticket with a number on it.  This number corresponds to an electronic display that provides a sort of visual presentation of the “Next!” one hears at the barber shop.  On the ticket is the number for which you should look, and an estimate of how long you’ll be waiting.  You may then go to any one of the fine church-style pews to sit and wait.  Hopefully, you brought a book.

In essence then, one has waited in a line that is not hidden to wait in a line that is hidden.

The punch line:  All of this is an improvement—a vast improvement—over what used to happen at the DMV.  I’m not saying it was bad.  It was worse than bad.  If one was smart, he showed up with a lunch box, or at least a snack.  Standing on line for an hour or so on an empty stomach is tough!  Plus, once one got to the counter, he was faced with a person who himself was pissed off to be there.  A disgruntled worker meeting a disgruntled customer does not a recipe for statist happiness make.

Here’s what I’m trying to figure out:  If I had a choice of vendors for this service, would it still be so terribly inefficient and, frankly, crappy?  I don’t think it requires a degree in, or even an understanding of, Austrian Economics to emphatically declare, “No.”

Cross-Posted at the LRCBlog.