Baseball's All No-Star Game

The Major League Baseball All-Star Game is this week in Minneapolis.  It's a big event, in close proximity, and it would be cool to see in person.  So why am I not even fired up to watch it at all?

Because Major League Baseball continues to be a flawed sport.

The last time Minneapolis hosted the MLB All-Star Game it, I was there, in the old Metrodome.  It was wall-to-wall future Hall-of-Famers:  George Brett, Carlton Fisk, Cal Ripken, Wade Boggs, Don Mattingly (that's just the American League), Ozzie Smith, Dave Parker, Ryne Sandberg, Nolan Ryan, and Pete Rose.  (I know, Rose isn't in the HoF because of gambling, but we all know he should be.)  This is a short list -- there were others.

Nearly 30 years later, there aren't more than a couple of cinch HoFers in the game, maybe only one (Derek Jeter).  It's been diluted by too many teams with too many players making too much money on too few contending teams.

About five years ago, I wrote about reasons why Major League Baseball sucks.  A couple of these have been partially cleaned up (replay and PEDs), but in the end, nothing has changed enough for me to spend a lot of time watching it.

Not even the All-Star Game.

I (Religiously) Object

Last week, there were a couple of Supreme Court rulings of major interest.  The most interesting, and polarizing, one was Burwell v. Hobby Lobby.

In brief (pun intended), the court struck down the contraceptive coverage mandate under the Affordable Care Act (ACA).  It further ruled that closely held for-profit corporations could be exempt from a law they religiously object to if there is a less restrictive means of furthering the law's interest.

As expected, this ruling sent progressives into a tizzy.  The basic themes were 1) corporations are not people, and 2) now every employer will be able exempt itself from federal laws by saying they have a religious objection.

Anyone who looks back at this blog knows that I generally side with the socially liberal viewpoint.  I even posted an entry about the self-righteousness of some groups opposing the mandate.  And yes, it does seem crazy that 5 Catholic males on a court could make far-reaching decisions that affect only women.  (On second thought, not only does that seem crazy, it IS crazy.)

However, anyone who looks back at this blog will also know that I generally side with fiscally conservative capitalism.  While there's nothing specifically fiscally conservative about this ruling, generally speaking, I don't believe that employers should be federally mandated to provide medical coverage of any kind.

So, I'm having a hard time getting worked up about the Burwell ruling.  While I disagree with it, I also think the one absolute problem with the ACA is the employer mandate.  While everything else about the ACA may turn out just fine, including the individual mandate, the employer mandate is dumb.

Regardless of whether it's the 'job-killer' conservatives want to believe it is, employers (and other related third-parties) should not be in the health care business.  The ACA should mandate that employers NOT provide coverage, instead of the other way around.  Employers will then have to compete for quality employees solely on the basis of pay.  (I've just solved the minimum wage issue, too!)

Let the people be responsible for getting their own coverage, as with other forms of insurance.  If that sounds like it discriminates against the poor, that's why we have Medicaid.  (I know, I know, this attitude means taxpayers like me might be paying for more indigent medical care.  But on balance, I think it would still be no worse, and probably better, than it is now.)

Suffice it to say, I think the Burwell ruling is illogical, and anti-female, but I don't think it's the end of the republic.  Corporations surely aren't people, but even corporations should have some protections from the law, e.g. tort reform.  Too bad Hobby Lobby didn't focus on that.

World Cup Fever > Headache

Over the past two weeks, the quadrennial FIFA World Cup (that's soccer to Americans, and futbol to everyone else) has been playing out.  It's the ultimate tournament for the most popular sport in the world, but usually an American afterthought for only the 6th or 7th most popular sport in the U.S.

For reasons not fully related to the growth of soccer's popularity here, it seems Americans who couldn't care less about soccer have joined those who could care less, and the nation suddenly has World Cup fever.  How and why has this happened?

1)  Lots more kids plays soccer these days, just as they did four years ago, and the four years before that, and the four years before that, etc.  So there is more generational interest.

2)  The U.S. has so many more immigrants now, from so many countries.  These folks have brought there passion for futbol with them; it rubs off on Americans who now works and socialize with them.

3)  The U.S. men's national soccer team has been more successful over the years, and won its first World Cup game.  Nothing brings out the bandwagon-ing, no-nothing fans more than a winning team.

As a short-term memory, immediate-gratification nation, this fever shall soon pass.  That's good, because seeing people suddenly interested in something they know nothing about gives me a headache.

It was fun while it lasted, but I doubt many people will be taking their new-found passion for soccer beyond this month.  After all, American football is right around the corner.

Bad TV

I hate my cable TV provider.

My cable TV provider is Mediacom.  They've had the Des Moines cable TV franchise for as long as I can remember.  Why, I don't know.  With luck, they'll get bought out by another provider soon.

I've been to enough other places in Iowa and beyond to know that Mediacom offers the worst basic channel selection compared to its competitors.  At the same cost, maybe more.  And their service is so-so at best.

Last week, they raised my monthly charge by 25%, because apparently my contract agreement expired.  Now I'm going to get the same, for more.  Great.

So why don't I do something about it?  Why don't I switch to satellite?

Because switching would be an even bigger pain in the neck.  Providers like Mediacom know this.  And regardless of whether I switch or not, I'm still stuck getting a bundle of channels I don't want, just to have the ones I do want.

It's hard to believe that in 2014, nobody has à la carte TV choices.  It's a conspiracy.

If I'm so lucky to live another 10 or so years to live, I look forward to having just the TV shows I want delivered to me, on demand, via my computer-TV.

Until then, I'll hate my cable TV provider.

Best Song Lyrics (Part XV)

It's a little embarrassing to have just realized I haven't included a single female songwriter yet in this continuing series on lyrics.  There are plenty to choose from, although not as many these days as in the 60s and 70s.  In terms of contemporary singer/songwriter/performers, Lady GaGa comes to mind, but not enough history yet.

For my 'best song lyrics' category, I'm going to go with Sarah McLachlan.  Known these days as much for her charity work, she has a great, soulful music library to choose from.  She's also covered a lot of Christmas season songs, my favorite being Gordon Lightfoot's Song For A Winter's Night.

My choice for a great example of her music is Building A Mystery, for which she won a Grammy for Best Female Pop Vocal Performance.  It's about keeping certain aspects of our lives hidden from others.  It was a bit unique for the time (1997) in that it was a popular radio song that contained a naughty word, which made for a gap in the radio lyrics.  That part goes like this -- can you see the naughty word?:

You woke up screaming aloud
A prayer from your secret God
To feed off our fears
And hold back your tears
Oh you give us a tantrum
And a know-it-all grin
Just when we need one
When the evening’s thin
Oh you’re so beautiful
A beautiful fucked up man
You’re setting up your
Razor wire shrine
‘Cause you’re working
Building a mystery
Holding on, holding it in
Oh yeah you’re working
Building a mystery
And choosing so carefully

The Sound of One Hand Clapping

I was thinking about a blog post to update this one on Iowa's repressed views of medicinal marijuana.  Then the Des Moines Register published the following editorial, which is pretty consistent with my views:

Iowa parents will no longer face prosecution if they purchase a special marijuana extract for their severely epileptic children. Gov. Terry Branstad signed a bill into law, which takes effect July 1, that allows parents to buy a cannabis oil that may lessen seizures. For that, he and the Legislature deserve credit.

“This bill received tremendous support and truly shows the power of people talking to their legislators and to their governor about important issues to them, to their families and to their children,” Branstad said shortly before he signed Senate File 2360.

Parents did work relentlessly the past few months to gain support from lawmakers. And that did make all the difference in swaying elected officials. However, this law is only the first step toward changes Iowa needs to make.

The parents who will be legally allowed to purchase the cannabis oil still face obstacles. They need a recommendation from an Iowa neurologist and will have to travel to other states with less restrictive marijuana laws to obtain the oil. They may face waiting lists.

Also, the change in law benefits only a small group of Iowans with the most organized lobbying efforts. Other sick Iowans should have legal access to marijuana extracts, too. These include people with painful and debilitating conditions like cancer, spinal cord injuries and severe arthritis, who may benefit from the drug. But if these people obtain cannabis oil, they will still be considered criminals in this state.

Benton Mackenzie, for example, has been diagnosed with angiosarcoma, a cancer of the blood vessels. The 48-year-old was growing his own marijuana to make cannabis oil to shrink skin lesions caused by the disease. After the plants were confiscated from his parents’ home in Long Grove last summer, his lesions have grown enormous and his health has deteriorated.

Mackenzie and his wife are both charged with felony drug possession. His 73-year-old parents are charged with hosting a drug house. His son is charged with misdemeanor possession, and his friend is charged in the drug conspiracy. A Scott County district judge recently ruled Mackenzie won’t be able to use his illness as a defense.

“At least the state is now recognizing, with a law, that marijuana has medicinal value,” said Mackenzie.

Yes, but the state has much more work to do on this issue.

Branstad and other mostly Republicans in Iowa want us to applaud how open-minded they were in helping just a few Iowans with the cannabis oil law, in the absolute most minimal way possible.  It's a joke.

To paraphrase the old Zen riddle, they deserve the applause made by the sound of one hand clapping.

Dear Graduating Class of 2014

Time for my annual advice to graduating seniors.  I'm going to once again concentrate on college-level seniors, but to high school graduates I have this reminder:  You haven't accomplished anything.  According to the census bureau, nearly 90% of U.S. citizens over age 25 have a high school education.  Congrats for not being the 1 out of 10, if it makes you feel better.  You know those graduation parties your parents threw to celebrate?  Those weren't actually for you, they were for your parents and other relatives, who survived your vain teenage years.  Call me in five years and we can talk about your accomplishments, if any.

As for our college graduates, I've decided I may have been too hard on you the past couple of years.  If you've got a bachelor's degree but no job or plans for independent living, you may not be entirely to blame.  It's clear there is another culprit, and I'm not referring to the economy.  It's your parents.

That's right, your parents are at least partially to blame for your troubles.  The children of the so-called 'greatest generation' have become the greatest coddlers.

You'd think that after hearing about our own parents winning World War II, then partaking in a mechanical and transportation revolution that put hard work at a premium, we would teach that same toughness and work ethic to our kids.  Instead, we've gone the other way.  We've excused your (in)actions, and often allowed you too much slack during college, where many of you now don't even attempt to find a full-time job until after graduation.

And there's no pressure to find a job, because we parents will do you graduates an even greater disservice by acting like we're your best friends.  We bring you back in to room with us while you consume without cost or limit, halfheartedly looking for full-time work during the day while wholeheartedly going out with your other unemployed friends at night.  Of course, you'll accept this offer -- why not?  It isn't as if you have anything else to do.

This seems especially crazy to me, because when your parents were your age, moving back in with their parents would have been less than a last resort.  Back then, college grads found a cheap apartment, a roommate (or two), a jalopy car, and a so-so job -- whatever it took to remain independent.  Have you become so lazy and reliant on your parents' money that you aren't willing to do these things?  For many of you, the answer is yes.

In summary, at your age, your grandparents were fighting a war, and your parents were on their own, possibly even married with children.  Most of you graduates are about as far from that as you can be.  So much for learning what you live.

So, it's up to you, graduates.  Your parents have sold out to be your friends.  Your friends have sold out to be your enablers.  Unless you have a trust fund, you're going to have to pick yourself up by your bootstraps (have your parents tie them first), and self-start your way out into the big world.

Good luck.  And remember, in the immortal words of Judge Smails from Caddyshack, "The world needs ditch-diggers, too."