Sports owners often make or break a professional teams success, and unfortunately a lot of the time owners know a lot about money, and not a lot about sports. Jerry Jones put together a billion dollar stadium for the Dallas Cowboys in 2008, including the worlds largest televsion jumbotron. Before Jones, the Cowboys were a great dynasty winning multiple super bowls with players such as Troy Aikman, Michael Irvin, and Emmitt Smith. However over the past 14 years, the Cowboys have won one measly playoff game and a lot of fans blame Jones for the teams struggles. In fact, fans made a petition to president Barack Obama in an attempt to get Jones fired.
Many may argue that trying to get the President of the United States involved with the Dallas Cowboys business decisions is kind of ridiculous, and it probably is. But there are different perspectives that need to be considered in something like this. Is Jerry Jones responsible for deceiving people's hard earned money for his own personal income? With a payroll like the Dallas Cowboys and the amount of effort he put forth his billion dollar stadium it's fairly conclusive that Jerry Jones likes his money.
Jones of course wants the Cowboys to win, seeing as it benefits him, the fans, and maybe even the NFL from an economic standpoint considering the high amount of payroll Dallas gets. As a result of the dynasty I previously mentioned, and the impressive history of Dallas involving hall of famer and football pioneer Tom Landry, there are numerous Cowboys fans from all over the country. I know from experience, whenever the Cowboys are on the road, there are still numerous fans rooting them on wherever they go.
The point is Jerry Jones is probably not a good dude. Over the years Jones has argued that he does not support the concept of revenue sharing in the NFL. A concept that ex-Giants owner Wellington Mara founded for the good of the league, so football would be able to spread and grow as time went on. Jones may have an arguable point that an individual team should have the rights to their own payroll, but he definitely supports it for the good of the Cowboys, and not of the NFL.
Another example of irrational owners is that of the Miami Marlins Jeffrey Loria. Loria recently traded away five of his teams best players for a 160 million dollar salary dump. What makes matters worse, is the the Miami Marlins had just funded a brand new 515 million dollar stadium that was largely funded through the taxes of Florida citizens. For the team to struggle at base of the owner should be an outrage, especially when fans hard earned money is practically being stolen.
Jerry Jones and Jeffrey Loria are both hated by the fans of their teams, not only for the team struggles, but from the failure to capitalize with the fans hard earned money at stake. Media activist Dave Zirin went as far as to say that Loria should be arrested for his recent abominations. This may be a bit much, but it's perfectly logical to say that changes should be made when people are blatantly being ripped off.
This is an example of some of the things we talked about in Chomsky's Occupy, and some of the concepts we discussed in class. These owners are taking advantage of middle class citizens hard earned money for their own personal benefits. People may not take it as seriously due to the fact that this is about something like sports, but it's certainly something worth thinking about when people are trying to get a petition to the president of the United States. In this country, a huge majority of people are passionate about their sports, and frankly don't deserve to be taken advantage of in the way that too many fans know all too well.
I've learned that sports are more political then people would like to admit. Sports are an important tradition in this country, and the world for that matter, to billions of people. I believe that these controversies with struggling owners should be taken more seriously. These wealthy owners have too much power and don't suffer the consequences as much as the fans do when teams struggle. The irony is, the fans are the reason these owners are so wealthy in the first place.
This is a concept that Occupy Wall Street protesters know all too well.
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
My Opinion on the Bradley Manning Controversy
After the class reading on Wikileaks, and after my Media Activism class on Tuesday, I learned more about a very touchy subject. The internet is powerful, it is the easiest way to spread any kind of media throughout the world, and pretty much anyone has access to it. But in class we learned about Bradley Manning and the controversial story of how he's suspected to have sent restricted files on US army based business to Wikileaks. In my opinion there are two aspects of this story that strike me. The power of the internet and how easy it is to spread information, and how sometimes freedom of speech truly is limited, especially in the media world.
Learning about Bradley Manning is where the controversy begins. As a homosexual in the army, he immediately doesn't fit in to the stereotypical "good American soldier." It's conclusive from the video we saw in class on Bradley Manning's story that he was unhappy in the army and was not treated well.
That's an important distinction on where the controversy lies. There's evidence to suggest that Bradley Manning would have intentions of getting back at the army, or doing something to put it down. Bradley sent loads of confidential documents to an internet hacker in a chatroom. Many of these documents ended up on Wikileaks, and revealed horrifying truths about the US army killing innocent citizens in Iraq.
Bradley Manning was sentenced to 9 months in prison and in fact very recently it was announced that his case will head back to court. But the real question still stands since the beginning and that is, does Bradley Manning have the right to spread such controversial information to the world? From an army perspective no he does not. As a member of the army it is clear that something like this is not allowed and Manning has every right to be punished significantly.
But there are other details that make this worth questioning. One, was Bradley Manning rightfully treated in his time at the army? Other army members that knew Manning claimed he was picked on more than everybody else, and evidently in this article, he was even harassed. My personal opinion is he was likely mistreated compared to other soldiers due to his sexual orientation and open flamboyance. It shouldn't have a separate impact on his punishment from the army, but it's possible that it does. Regardless if that's true or not it simply has to be included in the topic of conversation.
Bradley Manning broke several army rules by spreading this information. To me it's mind blowing how easy it was for him to accomplish this, but the real question is should it be right for him to be punished this way? In my opinion, if you're a member of the army the freedom of speech concept is diminished. As a soldier, you do what you're told and that's a well known fact. Speaking up as an individual is not encouraged, I don't think that can be questioned. So Bradley Manning posting something as confidential as this is interpretted as an absurdly bad thing to do as a member of the US Army. And as far as the laws that he broke, it's justifiable that he is punished.
But the details of those files are extremely heated, with clear documented evidence that US Army soldiers were killing innocent Iraqis. Lets face it, in any war innocent people are going to die, and that's an upsetting truth. But this information was especially disheartening, and it's something that nobody would ever see in mainstream media.
Was it wrong for Bradley Manning to do what he did? In my opinion from a member of the US Armies standpoint it is, but as a moral member of society it might not be. I think there's no way around his punishment due to the many laws he broke, but he certainly raised awareness to something that United States citizens otherwise would have never seen.
The internet is powerful, and this is an extroadinary controversy. It will be intersting to see how this unfolds...
Learning about Bradley Manning is where the controversy begins. As a homosexual in the army, he immediately doesn't fit in to the stereotypical "good American soldier." It's conclusive from the video we saw in class on Bradley Manning's story that he was unhappy in the army and was not treated well.
That's an important distinction on where the controversy lies. There's evidence to suggest that Bradley Manning would have intentions of getting back at the army, or doing something to put it down. Bradley sent loads of confidential documents to an internet hacker in a chatroom. Many of these documents ended up on Wikileaks, and revealed horrifying truths about the US army killing innocent citizens in Iraq.
Bradley Manning was sentenced to 9 months in prison and in fact very recently it was announced that his case will head back to court. But the real question still stands since the beginning and that is, does Bradley Manning have the right to spread such controversial information to the world? From an army perspective no he does not. As a member of the army it is clear that something like this is not allowed and Manning has every right to be punished significantly.
But there are other details that make this worth questioning. One, was Bradley Manning rightfully treated in his time at the army? Other army members that knew Manning claimed he was picked on more than everybody else, and evidently in this article, he was even harassed. My personal opinion is he was likely mistreated compared to other soldiers due to his sexual orientation and open flamboyance. It shouldn't have a separate impact on his punishment from the army, but it's possible that it does. Regardless if that's true or not it simply has to be included in the topic of conversation.
Bradley Manning broke several army rules by spreading this information. To me it's mind blowing how easy it was for him to accomplish this, but the real question is should it be right for him to be punished this way? In my opinion, if you're a member of the army the freedom of speech concept is diminished. As a soldier, you do what you're told and that's a well known fact. Speaking up as an individual is not encouraged, I don't think that can be questioned. So Bradley Manning posting something as confidential as this is interpretted as an absurdly bad thing to do as a member of the US Army. And as far as the laws that he broke, it's justifiable that he is punished.
But the details of those files are extremely heated, with clear documented evidence that US Army soldiers were killing innocent Iraqis. Lets face it, in any war innocent people are going to die, and that's an upsetting truth. But this information was especially disheartening, and it's something that nobody would ever see in mainstream media.
Was it wrong for Bradley Manning to do what he did? In my opinion from a member of the US Armies standpoint it is, but as a moral member of society it might not be. I think there's no way around his punishment due to the many laws he broke, but he certainly raised awareness to something that United States citizens otherwise would have never seen.
The internet is powerful, and this is an extroadinary controversy. It will be intersting to see how this unfolds...
Thursday, September 20, 2012
A Rant About Advertising and Other Things
During the reading of Chapter ten in The Whole World is Watching, there was a quote that particularly stuck with me: "The primary product of any news is the audiences attention, and the primary market is the advertisers themselves. As a result the media speaks from the angle of consumers not workers" (Gitlin).
As I read that quote I thought, wow that makes sense. Personally I hate almost all commercials. I can't even watch a sporting event without these anti climactic commercials that ruin the flow of the game. But that's just the beginning. The reference to the article is simply the media itself. Any form of media is overwhelmingly run by advertising, and it's unavoidable for any human in this world.
This is how big the media can be. The media is a gateway to capitalism and all kinds of businesses, and obviously the large ones thrive. This is the downside of capitalism. When businesses with obscene amounts of money use their greed to destroy any other kind of competition and manipulate the audiences in the media to just keep giving them more money.
Therefore it's arguable that most major media sources are linked with higher businesses and that's where we are now. The media arguably can run this country, and that's the problem of advertising right now, and this is why I feel that a vast majority of people that I talk to are anti-capitalism.
That's definently true. I feel that a pretty huge majority of people I talk to, at least around here, hate the idea of capitalism. Those opinions are fine, and I agree to an extent where I can't even watch a football game without watching the same bud light commercial seventeen times while my favorite team is in the red zone. It's not just sports though, it's everywhere. And that's a source of all this negativity.
It's also one of the many reasons for this Occupy Wall Street movement. To advocate change in many different levels, and make this country a better place for anyone. I truley believe that the Occupy Wall Street movement is good, and inspiring. However I do not truley understand what the plan is, how this movement can actually change things, or what the results of Occupy Wall Street will be. But I definently know it's good.
I also happen to think that some elements of capitalism are good. I am not anti-capitalism, but I am anti greed. Unfortunately too often are these things correlated in this country and like Dr. West said a few weeks ago, you have to prepare to die. I think that means that too often in life people simply do whatever they can to make money. Preparing to die means that someday when you're on your deathbed you can look back and say you were a good person. Heck that day can be tomorrow, so why not be the best person you can be to others around you rather than yourself? The irony is being good to others makes you feel good about yourself.
So I'm not anti-capitalism, and I'm certainly not one of those mega-conservative ignorant people that think everything will be fine with this country. Times are tough, and I happen to be blessed. But that does not mean I should be ok with things. I hope that after this class I can have some sort of general idea as to what people can do to start fixing this country that we live in. Because right now, I'm clueless. Seriously I have absolutely no idea. I'm pro freedom but sometimes I feel that with freedom the conflict of whether or not these businesses, or the 1%, should have all this power is where the problem lays. People should be able to do whatever they want in this country, but sometimes people just suck! Where can we possibly begin to fix this country that we live in?
So there you have it. Hardcore advertising sucks, greed sucks, and times for lots of hardworking Americans right now really suck. But I refuse to think that this is permanent, and I refuse to just complain about everything that's wrong in this country without any kind of positive suggestion. For some crazy reason, I think people are generally good. And this country that has become so messed up can be fixed. And I think that optimism may in fact be the most important thing at the end of the day. Because if we want to fix things, we have to believe we can do it.
I just have no idea where to begin.
As I read that quote I thought, wow that makes sense. Personally I hate almost all commercials. I can't even watch a sporting event without these anti climactic commercials that ruin the flow of the game. But that's just the beginning. The reference to the article is simply the media itself. Any form of media is overwhelmingly run by advertising, and it's unavoidable for any human in this world.
This is how big the media can be. The media is a gateway to capitalism and all kinds of businesses, and obviously the large ones thrive. This is the downside of capitalism. When businesses with obscene amounts of money use their greed to destroy any other kind of competition and manipulate the audiences in the media to just keep giving them more money.
Therefore it's arguable that most major media sources are linked with higher businesses and that's where we are now. The media arguably can run this country, and that's the problem of advertising right now, and this is why I feel that a vast majority of people that I talk to are anti-capitalism.
That's definently true. I feel that a pretty huge majority of people I talk to, at least around here, hate the idea of capitalism. Those opinions are fine, and I agree to an extent where I can't even watch a football game without watching the same bud light commercial seventeen times while my favorite team is in the red zone. It's not just sports though, it's everywhere. And that's a source of all this negativity.
It's also one of the many reasons for this Occupy Wall Street movement. To advocate change in many different levels, and make this country a better place for anyone. I truley believe that the Occupy Wall Street movement is good, and inspiring. However I do not truley understand what the plan is, how this movement can actually change things, or what the results of Occupy Wall Street will be. But I definently know it's good.
I also happen to think that some elements of capitalism are good. I am not anti-capitalism, but I am anti greed. Unfortunately too often are these things correlated in this country and like Dr. West said a few weeks ago, you have to prepare to die. I think that means that too often in life people simply do whatever they can to make money. Preparing to die means that someday when you're on your deathbed you can look back and say you were a good person. Heck that day can be tomorrow, so why not be the best person you can be to others around you rather than yourself? The irony is being good to others makes you feel good about yourself.
So I'm not anti-capitalism, and I'm certainly not one of those mega-conservative ignorant people that think everything will be fine with this country. Times are tough, and I happen to be blessed. But that does not mean I should be ok with things. I hope that after this class I can have some sort of general idea as to what people can do to start fixing this country that we live in. Because right now, I'm clueless. Seriously I have absolutely no idea. I'm pro freedom but sometimes I feel that with freedom the conflict of whether or not these businesses, or the 1%, should have all this power is where the problem lays. People should be able to do whatever they want in this country, but sometimes people just suck! Where can we possibly begin to fix this country that we live in?
So there you have it. Hardcore advertising sucks, greed sucks, and times for lots of hardworking Americans right now really suck. But I refuse to think that this is permanent, and I refuse to just complain about everything that's wrong in this country without any kind of positive suggestion. For some crazy reason, I think people are generally good. And this country that has become so messed up can be fixed. And I think that optimism may in fact be the most important thing at the end of the day. Because if we want to fix things, we have to believe we can do it.
I just have no idea where to begin.
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Chicago Teachers Strike
Yesterday in class I learned about the teacher strike currently going on in Chicago. Teachers are going on strike for mainly two reasons, one is a serious decline in public school funding, but more importantly the second one is the demands for results from students grades. If the students standardized test scores don't match the schools demands then thousands of teachers could lose their jobs. (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-chicago-teachers-strike-20120911,0,1301512.story)
I am amazed at what is happening with this strike. It is not news to me that teachers are getting ripped off, but the fact that the teachers are acting and refusing to work really ties in to Chomsky's Occupied Media reading. Teachers are really hurting themselves obviously by not working, but what's alarming to me is the harm they are doing to the students and the citizens of Chicago. Public school parentss pay tax dollars to make sure their children have the opportunities at school that they need. With the teacher strike, teachers are not only out of work but children are either out of school or receiving serious limitations.
Learning about movements to bring about change is interesting to me. But the serious difference between Occupy Wall Street and the Chicago Teaching Strike is that in the case of Occupy, the participants are the ones who suffer most of the consequences, where as with the Teaching Strike it also effects the students who had no say in whether or not their should be a strike. Also, the teachers strike obviously has much simpler goals than that of Occupy. But they also seriously need more immediate results.
This could be revolutionary for the citizens of Chicago and eventually teachers througout the country. President Obama has chosen to remain neutral in this disagreement to protect voters in the upcoming election. I am fascinated, and somewhat inspired, by these examples of community based concern and how they are responded with action. I have learned more about Occupy Wall Street and the motives behind it, but I would still like to know what's realistic and what is not. There is still a lot that confuses me. But the dedication to the multiple issues, and the commitment to change is what I find inspiring.
The Teachers strike is just an example of how community organization can raise awareness and hopefully change to serious issues. I am interested in the results, but I hope they are reached as soon as possible for the teachers, but more importantly the citizens of Chicago. The results of this will be extremely important as it could have a serious impact on teachers throughout the United States.
I am amazed at what is happening with this strike. It is not news to me that teachers are getting ripped off, but the fact that the teachers are acting and refusing to work really ties in to Chomsky's Occupied Media reading. Teachers are really hurting themselves obviously by not working, but what's alarming to me is the harm they are doing to the students and the citizens of Chicago. Public school parentss pay tax dollars to make sure their children have the opportunities at school that they need. With the teacher strike, teachers are not only out of work but children are either out of school or receiving serious limitations.
Learning about movements to bring about change is interesting to me. But the serious difference between Occupy Wall Street and the Chicago Teaching Strike is that in the case of Occupy, the participants are the ones who suffer most of the consequences, where as with the Teaching Strike it also effects the students who had no say in whether or not their should be a strike. Also, the teachers strike obviously has much simpler goals than that of Occupy. But they also seriously need more immediate results.
This could be revolutionary for the citizens of Chicago and eventually teachers througout the country. President Obama has chosen to remain neutral in this disagreement to protect voters in the upcoming election. I am fascinated, and somewhat inspired, by these examples of community based concern and how they are responded with action. I have learned more about Occupy Wall Street and the motives behind it, but I would still like to know what's realistic and what is not. There is still a lot that confuses me. But the dedication to the multiple issues, and the commitment to change is what I find inspiring.
The Teachers strike is just an example of how community organization can raise awareness and hopefully change to serious issues. I am interested in the results, but I hope they are reached as soon as possible for the teachers, but more importantly the citizens of Chicago. The results of this will be extremely important as it could have a serious impact on teachers throughout the United States.
Saturday, September 1, 2012
Gun Control
Learning about attempted social change in Chomsky's "Occupy" is very interesting to me. Multiple questions arise in my mind as I learn more about the subject, but what sticks in my head is the clear commitment from the thousands of people involved in Occupy Wall street. There are countless reasons to occupy and attempt to validate some kind of movement in this country. But another problem going on in this country that we haven't really talked about is gun control. I should let it be known I am against guns. But at the same time I grew up in an area where I could feel safe at night knowing there wasn't a gun in the house.
Self defense is a valid argument in the subject of gun control, but people are dying and this is undeniably a problem that has not been addressed. The facts alone are enough to alarm anybody (http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp). What upsets me is seeing these problems over and over with no intentions of change. The Trayvon Martin Case, the Dark Knight Rises shooting, and the shooting at the Empire State building last week are just a few incidents that come to mind over the past year.
Due to the fact that it is an election year, I feel Mitt Romney and Barack Obama should address their stands on these issues. But I think this topic is constantly ignored because opening up where you stand on such a subject could lose you votes. What's interesting to me is when Mitt Romney was a governor in Massachussets he was an advocater of gun control (http://www.businessinsider.com/mitt-romney-gun-conrol-nra-assault-weapons-colorado-shooting-theater-2012-7). He limited the use of assault weapons in the state. But now when he's running for president and there are countless shootings going on in this country talking about gun control is an unlikely occurrence.
I don't disagree with the second amendment. Self defense is an important thing in this country there's no question about that. But purchasing a hand gun for self defense, is as easy as a maniac purchasing an assault rifle to go on a killing spree. Maybe that's an exaggeration but there's no question it is too easy for these criminals.
Not many Americans support gun control. Most are against it. But I feel there should be some alternatives to the system right now. Guns should not be for sale at Wal-mart. Getting a gun should be a long process in which your desire as to why you want to own it is clear and on file. For instance, hypothetically if a hunter wants to buy a gun, there should be some sort of test that explain his intentions and knowledge of hunting. Perhaps similarly to if someone goes to the DMV to get their license there is a test. And if owning a gun for self defense is your intent, nothing larger than a hand gun should be necessary.
I don't know, this is just one idea I had and I'm sure as usual things are more complicated than that. But if there's one thing I'm tired of it's guns and killing. Especially the deaths of innocent people. Citizens should not live in fear of going to see Batman and getting shot. What truley upsets me is the fact that not one idea or one opinion has been shared from Obama or Romney in this election. If the winner of this election displays their opinion of being for or against gun control after they win then that is truley disturbing to me. Citizens should have a right to know where any politician stands on any issue. The manipulations of people through elections is one of the many reasons why people in Occupy Wall street are disgusted with everything in this country.
If we want social change that's beneficial to everyone (crazy concept), then we have to be honest and willing to trust people. Right now, that is an impossible thing to accomplish in this country, and over the course of time I hope that can change.
Self defense is a valid argument in the subject of gun control, but people are dying and this is undeniably a problem that has not been addressed. The facts alone are enough to alarm anybody (http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp). What upsets me is seeing these problems over and over with no intentions of change. The Trayvon Martin Case, the Dark Knight Rises shooting, and the shooting at the Empire State building last week are just a few incidents that come to mind over the past year.
Due to the fact that it is an election year, I feel Mitt Romney and Barack Obama should address their stands on these issues. But I think this topic is constantly ignored because opening up where you stand on such a subject could lose you votes. What's interesting to me is when Mitt Romney was a governor in Massachussets he was an advocater of gun control (http://www.businessinsider.com/mitt-romney-gun-conrol-nra-assault-weapons-colorado-shooting-theater-2012-7). He limited the use of assault weapons in the state. But now when he's running for president and there are countless shootings going on in this country talking about gun control is an unlikely occurrence.
I don't disagree with the second amendment. Self defense is an important thing in this country there's no question about that. But purchasing a hand gun for self defense, is as easy as a maniac purchasing an assault rifle to go on a killing spree. Maybe that's an exaggeration but there's no question it is too easy for these criminals.
Not many Americans support gun control. Most are against it. But I feel there should be some alternatives to the system right now. Guns should not be for sale at Wal-mart. Getting a gun should be a long process in which your desire as to why you want to own it is clear and on file. For instance, hypothetically if a hunter wants to buy a gun, there should be some sort of test that explain his intentions and knowledge of hunting. Perhaps similarly to if someone goes to the DMV to get their license there is a test. And if owning a gun for self defense is your intent, nothing larger than a hand gun should be necessary.
I don't know, this is just one idea I had and I'm sure as usual things are more complicated than that. But if there's one thing I'm tired of it's guns and killing. Especially the deaths of innocent people. Citizens should not live in fear of going to see Batman and getting shot. What truley upsets me is the fact that not one idea or one opinion has been shared from Obama or Romney in this election. If the winner of this election displays their opinion of being for or against gun control after they win then that is truley disturbing to me. Citizens should have a right to know where any politician stands on any issue. The manipulations of people through elections is one of the many reasons why people in Occupy Wall street are disgusted with everything in this country.
If we want social change that's beneficial to everyone (crazy concept), then we have to be honest and willing to trust people. Right now, that is an impossible thing to accomplish in this country, and over the course of time I hope that can change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)