More Foul Calling in the NBA?

I wrote the following response to a news story coming out of the National Basketball Association offices which stated that NBA refs are being instructed to call more fouls on players who are protesting foul calls made against them. The intent is to stop the whining by players, and to speed up the game a little as it has become bogged down in mini-rants and incessant cry-baby complaints out of players and coaches. My response:

"It may not seem like much, but at least the League is starting to tap into the things fans find most irritating about today's game.

Personally, I'd like to return to the NBA of 30 or 40 years ago when actual skill in footwork, dribbling, and non-contact defense were prized by fans, and a joy to watch; when hanging on the rim was un-sportsman-like conduct; putting your elbow into a defender was an offensive foul, and traveling was called when any player took more than two steps without dribbling.

I stopped watching NBA games about four years ago because what I see is no longer skill so much as the ability to brawl on court and get away with as much as possible without getting caught. Then when they do get caught, these overpaid whiners throw a mini temper tantrum and act like they are being picked on by the refs. I long for the days of player loyalty to the cities they played for; when being a role model to kids actually meant something to the average player--rather than being an irritating afterthought.

I say, start calling all contact, all swiping at the ball, and definitely any complaining for committing a foul that the players themselves know damned well they did. The game needs to get back to its roots in just about every way.

The NBA will probably start attracting more fans back into the overpriced seats in the luxury arenas that Stern and Co. insisted be built in order to fit into their new "economic model." Maybe then they'll own up to creating the monster that is now the National BasketBRAWL Association. But I doubt it.

Are Political Parties Still Necessary?

I wrote the following response to a question posed on the website Intersect.com that asked, "Are political parties still necessary?

John Adams, the second President of the United States wrote, "The essence of a free government consists in an effectual control of rivalries." (Balancing and compromise between parties.)

I don't doubt the need for political parties for even a second. Without structured goals, ideals and leadership, out government would quickly fall into chaos. On the other hand, I completely agree with those who state that Congress has lost its way; that millionaires now control the country on not just the National level, but the State level as well. The voice of the commoner has become lost in a proverbial sea of Special Interest lobbyists who are more concerned about their right to pollute the environment, put unpronounceable chemicals in and on our foods and increasingly deny hardworking American the health care we so desperately need. Who is speaking now for the average American? I guarantee you it's NOT my Representative or Senator! They are too busy dancing the DC two-step in order to appease their business lobby financial backers.

The Founding Fathers did not want an exclusive wealthy leadership. They framed the guidelines for elected office with the thought that even the least noticed could lead the wealthiest.

Also, the Spoils System was supposed to have gone the way of the Dodo back in the early 1900's. But, it's back! We see this in Cabinet appointments, National Leadership appointments, passage of laws favoring certain industries as exchange for election backing (money, votes, etc).

It seems that what made this country great, what really separated it from other national governments, is being lost as party fighting (and in-fighting) reaches an all new crescendo as each tries to out shout the other in their quest to "carry the banner of freedom."

So, how do we fix it? Easy--Get rid of all lobbyists; electively replace every member of Congress with those having a real and true desire to serve *the will of the people*, insist that our Presidents abandon any semblance of the re entrenched spoils system, and reduce the powers of the presidency to its original parameters.

Return the power of the government back to the people. That would be a good start.

Will it happen? I doubt it; but it is a worthy goal that is certainly worth working towards. For the sake of the United States, I hope it actually happens.

Fidel Castro Was Wrong?

I was going to try and comment on this story, but have been feeling so bad that I decided to abandon that effort as this piece of news was too important to let it pass by much longer. So, here is a copy of the story as it appeared early on Thursday, 09 Sept 2010. Full credit is given.


By Jeff Franks (Reuters)

updated 9/8/2010 9:36:59 PM ET

HAVANA — Fidel Castro said Cuba's economic model no longer works, a U.S.-based journalist reported on Wednesday following interviews with the former president last week.

Jeffrey Goldberg, a writer for the Atlantic Monthly magazine, wrote in a blog that he asked Castro, 84, if Cuba's model — Soviet-style communism — was still worth exporting to other countries and he replied, "The Cuban model doesn't even work for us anymore."

The comment appeared to reflect Castro's agreement, which he also expressed in a column for Cuban media in April, with his younger brother President Raul Castro, who has initiated modest reforms to stimulate Cuba's troubled economy. Goldberg said Julia Sweig, a Cuba expert at the Council on Foreign Relations think tank in Washington who accompanied him to Havana, believed Castro's words reflected an acknowledgment that "the state has too big a role in the economic life of the country."

Such sentiment would help President Castro, who took over from his brother in 2008, against those members of the ruling Communist Party who oppose his attempts to loosen the state's hand, Sweig told Goldberg.
Goldberg wrote in a blog on Tuesday that Castro summoned him to Havana to discuss his recent article about the likelihood of conflict between Israel and Iran, with possible U.S. involvement, over Iran's growing nuclear capabilities. He said Castro criticized Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for anti-Semitism and denying the Holocaust.

Castro, since emerging in July from four years of seclusion following intestinal surgery, has become an anti-nuclear weapon crusader expressing concern about the future of the world. He fears that if the United States and Israel try to enforce international sanctions against Iran for its nuclear activities, nuclear war will break out.
Castro also criticized his own actions during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis when he urged the Soviet Union to launch nuclear weapons against the United States, telling Goldberg "it wasn't worth it at all."

Goldberg described Castro as physically frail, but energetic and mentally acute. During their visit, Goldberg and Sweig went with Castro, at his invitation, to see a dolphin show at Cuba's National Aquarium in Havana. They were accompanied by local Jewish leader Adela Dworin, who Castro kissed in front of the cameras in a possible message to Iranian leaders, Goldberg said in his Wednesday blog. Inside the aquarium, Goldberg was introduced to the veteranarian — a woman named Celia Guevara, Che's daughter.