Bill (Simmons),

You mentioned in an article recently why the NBA doesn’t enter into an interim deal to save this season, based on the most recent deal, and immediately begin working on a complete overhaul of the system based on a framework you set forth. I’m a mergers and acquisitions attorney, so I work on multi-million dollar deals (albeit not nearly as large as the NBA deal), and throughout the NBA and NFL labor talks, I kept wondering myself why interim deals don’t happen in the labor context. It’s baffling to me that the sides would simply abandon the revenue lost from a labor stoppage, especially in light of the fact that once that revenue is gone, it never comes back (they’re lost games, never to be replayed). Good attorneys who aren’t pandering to the public or to clients who pander to the public do everything possible to massage deals, to make them happen, and to make sure the client realizes all possible revenue. We work out interim deals, we extend deadlines and keep everyone working as long as we feel the sides are negotiating in good faith. I can’t imagine telling my client that I advise shutting down operations pending a deal; I’d much rather advise that I’d worked out an extension keeps money flowing while I devised a solution to the problem. Also, I do distressed M&A (bankrupt and insolvent companies) that have already run out of operating capital; I consistently work out deals with banks to continue funding an insolvent company pending consummation of a deal because nothing destroys a company’s value like a work stoppage. In almost every other non-entertainment field, work stoppage more or less ensures liquidation of the company.

Owner-induced work stoppages make my skin crawl. These work stoppages are not like autoworker-commenced stoppages, where strikes are the only way that the owners will listen. Strikes create leverage specifically because work stoppages cause so much damage. On the contrary, in these deals, owners shut down their own shops to squeeze labor. In the NBA, the owners seem to claim the situation cannot continue because costs exceed revenue. I have not seen the economic analysis, but journalists seem to agree. However, no crisis event occurred that necessitated a stoppage, and losing the revenue of a block of games destroys top line revenue without negating many fixed costs, particularly stadium costs. The NFL, everyone was making money, the owners seemed to simply demand a greater return on capital at risk. They were willing to kill the business to increase return on investment.

I believe that owners in the sports entertainment space shut down operations in a kamikaze style business tactic because market manipulation created conditions that permit the owners to exert undue leverage. The owners provide a product heavily supported by government subsidy. They provide a product that nearly every American invests in financially and emotionally. They provide a non-essential product. Although these are businesses, making huge money, they also have an element of leisure to them. This is not a manufacturing plant nor a financial services firm. Normal businesses cannot decide to shut down to pressure labor; shutdowns would destroy the business. However, because the public subsidizes owners, and because owners are in these businesses for their own leisure, they can afford to lock labor out. The public needs to stop subsidizing these pseudo-businesses; although I love sports, public subsidization amounts to spending tax dollars of all people to please the sports-loving segment of the population, and that is inherently unfair. Pubic benefit from sports entertainment is limited when factored against tremendous public expense building stadiums and supplying services. Furthermore, if these owners left the business, certainly sports businessmen would fill that void and make that money for them. These owners and leagues aren’t the only ones able to produce this product.

Just like when asking for public support for building a stadium, these owners have grown accustomed to holding constituencies hostage because they’re given disproportionate leverage to negotiate. It’s sickening to see an elite class taking advantage of a constituency merely because they can. Although it’s predictable behavior (people are incentivized to use the tools available), it can be predictably corrected by forcing owners to behave like real businessmen. At the very least, if we’re going to support these owners with pubic funds, then they need to be likewise regulated to create an equitable system. That includes equitable rules regarding labor (fair splits with players, who are equally if not more important (keeping in mind that owners deserve a fair return on investment for risking capital). However, if we subsidize sports as an institution with public funds, then we subsidize the sport, not the owners, and that means players deserve return on investment too. It also means there need to be equitable systems for cities, so that they don’t lose teams (Cleveland Browns) or players (LeBron James) simply because the city happens to be a small market. Small markets are necessary to foster the competition, small markets need to be subsidized as part of the sport. I have so much trouble with baseball because the system is sickeningly skewed towards large markets. I have trouble with basketball because the system is skewed towards large markets.

Labor deals, LeBron, the Zombie-Sonics, these things show us that in the subsidized world of sports, we have supported owners rather than supporting sports. Although the subsidization seems completely unnecessary, if we are going to subsidize, we need to subsidize the sport, not the owners. And like all good subsidies, if we give the money, we get to attach strings, meaning we get to set rules so that there are no work stoppages, and so that the sport is fair to the fans, since we ultimately spend the money that makes the owners and players rich (the contempt they show for fans is another subject).

Why not create a league of cities, make that a union, really show owners, players, everyone involved that we want new rules? I guess it’s too much to ask of sports fans to get behind something like that.

— Matt in Ohio

Our neighbors to the north are causing waves on the topic of raw milk. While I’m not fanatic about raw dairy, I am a huge proponent of allowing people to make informed decisions about the foods they consume. Currently, the sale of all unpasteurized milk is illegal in Canada. In response to being found guilty on several charges of raw milk sales, raw dairy farmer Michael Schmidt is engaging in a hunger strike. He hopes to shine the spotlight on the topic and to get a serious meeting with the Premier of Canada. Schmidt hasn’t eaten for month, and is pledging to take the strike to death if he must.

In farm to consumer news, a small Nevada organic farm’s “Farm to Fork” dinner was interrupted by a Nevada Health Department inspector. While guests were arriving, the inspector showed up and informed the farmers and cooks that all of the food would have to be thrown away. Not only that, it would have to be splattered with bleach to ensure it wasn’t fed to the farm’s pigs. What were their infractions?

1. Some of the prepared food packages did not have labels on them. (The code actually allows for this if it is to be consumed within 72 hours.)
2. Some of the meat was not USDA certified. (Did I mention that this was a farm to fork meal?)
3. Some of the food that was prepared in advance was not up to temperature at the time of inspection. (It was being prepared to be brought to proper temperature for serving when the inspection occurred.)
4. Even the vegetables prepared in advance had to be thrown out because they were cut and were then considered a “bio-hazard”.
5. We did not have receipts for our food. (Reminder! This food came from farms not from the supermarket! I have talked with several chefs who have said that in all their years cooking they have never been asked for receipts.)

To read more about the debacle, head over to the Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund site. While you’re there, consider donating to the fund. It helps provide 24/7 legal counsel to farmers when our government attempts to wrongly enforce already questionable rules.

One of the underlying themes found in the two stories above is that most agricultural legislation is written specifically for large, industrial operations, but then also applied to the small farms of North America. Raw milk is much less of an issue when you only have a handful of animals, versus hundreds or thousands. Likewise, the slaughtering of meat or harvesting of vegetables on a small, family farm shouldn’t be directly compared to million dollar cattle yards or corn operations.

Luckily, the recent news isn’t all bad. Congresswoman Chellie Pingree has introduced a bill that would help small farms generate more income and create more jobs. This would be done by rewriting some of the current legislation previously mentioned to consider the vast differences between small and large scale farming. Some items on the rewritten bill intend to:

• Provide funding to help farmers build the infrastructure—like slaughterhouses—to process and sell their food locally.
• Require USDA to keep doing traditional seed research, not just on genetically modified seeds.
• Create a new crop insurance program tailored to the needs of organic farmers and diversified farmers who grow a wide variety of crops and can’t easily access traditional crop insurance.
• Break down barriers for schools and institutions to procure local food more easily. Provide schools with a local school credit to purchase local foods, as well as fix out-dated federal policies that inhibit schools from purchasing local food.
• Make it easier for food stamp recipients to spend their money at farmers markets by giving the farmers access to technology necessary to accept electronic benefits—that money goes right back into the local economy. The bill includes a pilot program to test smart phone technology to accept food stamp benefits at farmers market.

One thing I’ve heard again and again about the Occupy Movement is this thought that they aren’t really speaking for the “99%”.  There is a counter-movement calling themselves the 53%, referring to a recent study that showed that 47% of Americans don’t pay their full share of income taxes.  Their “mission-statement” claims that they aren’t part of the 99% because “they pay taxes” and they don’t want to support the lazy people that are protesting the ultra-rich’s raping of America.  Regardless of the fact that the 1% don’t pay their share of federal income taxes (HELLO!!!), you can say with a straight face that the Occupy protestors are lazy?

When was the last time the fat fuck that sits on his duff in front of his computer/tv all day while eating funions and ring dings stood up to a wall of riot police? When was the last time a person screwing the system by exploiting loop holes stood up to that system that was armed with tear gas, guns, dogs, and mounted officers with billy clubs? Really, the 53%, that’s the best you can do?

To the 53% I say, if you’re serious about fixing the system to make it that all pay their fair share of taxes, then stand with your brothers and sisters that make up the Occupy Movement! Everyone is getting fucked by the Ultra Rich! They hold all the marbles in the political game! They have jury rigged the financial system so we bail them out and pay for their vacations, McMansions, and their toys!

I cannot understand what it is about Americans that make us so fucking stupid to believe that WE can become that rich.  We can’t…we can become successful but that level of wealth is unattainable for any individual.  I hope, for the sake of this country, that we come together to combat the destruction of the American Dream.

photo: Mat McDermott

This post slightly piggy backs Jake’s last post, in which he quotes a friend’s thoughts on the current goals of the Occupy Wall Street movement. As I read it I really understood, and agreed with, what Bill was saying. But after taking a step back, I realized that I wasn’t entirely sure that’s what Occupy Wall Street was all about.

The more I read, be it in mainstream media, small blogs like ours, leftist or conservative, it dawns on me that there is no one goal or focus of the movement. This is something I think will ultimately hurt it. As a computer programmer, I recognized this potential for failure from my own experiences. Many technical teams have been assembled with a litany of great concepts placed in front of them and backed with hundreds of thousands of dollars in budgets. But, with no focus or goal, the same result is inevitable. Failure.

For the record, I’m not exactly pleased with large corporations getting billions of taxpayer dollars to hand out as bonuses to officers. Nor am I happy with how closely wound industry lobbies are with our governing politicians. But perhaps the reason I’m not prepared to don a Guy Fawkes mask and hit the streets is simply because,  well I’m not sure what the hell the movement is trying to accomplish.

And then I came by an article that eloquently stated all of the above. Entitled Dear Occupy Wall Street …, finance author and radio personality Dave Ramsey gives some advice to the folks participating in the protests. From the article:

A lot of people on Twitter are saying I totally agree with the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) demands and goals. The only problem is that I have no idea what their demands and goals are. And neither does anyone else. If all you ever do is stomp around, yell and hold up signs protesting a million different things, sure you’ll get some attention, but over time, you’ll just look foolish. You end up coming across like a three-year-old having a temper tantrum.

His proposed goals are well thought out and I’d recommend you read the entire article.

As an experiment, feel free to explain exactly what Occupy Wall Street is trying to accomplish. We’ll see if all of our readers agree.

Guys, I have thought about this a lot and the following are my own words (except the Aristotle thing). There are a lot of people talking about the inequality of wealth where some people acquire a lot more than others and this is definitely true. The weirdness starts when the proposed remedies are revealed like abandoning the principal equality under the law, confiscation of property for redistribution at the behest of an all powerful government which can only be justified when we are told that our fundamental liberty are derived from an omniscient government rather than a creator. I think that this is what Aristotle meant when he said, “The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal.” As a just society we need to ensure equality of opportunity. We can definitely do a better job of this than we are right now. By dedicating ourselves to the concept of self determination, that we all possess the freedom to pursue a diversity of personal choices is a sacred and wonderful thing but we need to remember that there will also a diversity of outcomes based on the merit of our personal choices. I believe that a mandate of equality of outcome is destructive of freedom. We need to have a reasonable and compassionate safety net for children, the infirm, and the elderly but able-bodied and competent people in their 20s and thirties need to develop the opportunity before them of being the lucky 1% of the world’s population who were lucky enough to be born in the United States. There are billions of people elsewhere who truly live in abject (rather than relative) poverty who no doubt would literally give their right arm to have the opportunity just to be able to work in the lowliest job in our country. They know exactly what our ancestors knew that you have to start somewhere and if you work hard and smart and live virtuously in America that great things can be achieved. I believe that his is the American dream. It should never be given but it can be earned.

For those of you who need this lesson, here it is.  Being successful is much, MUCH different than having so much money/property/material goods that you don’t know about all that you own.  A perfect example is my father.  He started a business, he’s run it for over 35 years, and has built it to a multimillion dollar company.  My parents personally own two cars, a 10 acre lot with a home, a summer place, a boat, and are building a new home to retire to as well as the property that our family business sits on.  To me, that is very successful!

But he, NOR ANY OTHER SMALL BUSINESS OWNER, will be affected by the taxes I’m in favor of.  No one that any of us personally know will be affected by these taxes, not even my neighbors at my family’s summer home that stay the summer in a mansion valued at over 3 million dollars.  Who I’m talking about are the men and women whose worth is akin to Richie Rich and Scrooge McDuck.  I’m talking about the officers of multibillion dollar corporations that have taken millions in “bonuses” and then failed to pay taxes on them.

These people are not successful.  They are greedy, money-grubbing whores.  I view success not as the pure attainment of more but as a pursuit health, happiness, material prosperity, love of family and friends, wisdom, influence, and fulfillment.

I can say unequivocally that I love my life, love the people in, and feel that I’ve accomplished positive things for myself and others.  Maybe I’m misguided in believing that this is a great way to measure success but I sure know I’m happier than many people who are chasing the “all-mighty” dollar.

And to those of you who respond to my call for stricter enforcement and higher rates of taxes on the ultra rich by claiming that we all have the chance to be the ultra rich I will respond with the immortal words of a certain French Knight.

I don’t want to talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough whopper! I fart in your general direction! You mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries.

I think I’d fit right in at the next Republican Debate.

The article also discusses some other fairly concerning issues regarding the technology running these drone operations:

“We’d never managed the entire Air Force network as a single enterprise,” Vince Ross, the program manager of the Air Force Electronic Systems Center’s Cyber Integration Division, said in March. “That meant there was no centralized management of the network, that systems and hardware weren’t standardized, and that top-level commanders didn’t have complete situational awareness.”

Read the rest of the article here.

Panthers at Falcons: Falcons 24-17.

Eagles at Redskins: Redskins 21-17.

Bills at Giants: Bills 24-14.

Colts at Bengals: Bengals 21-14.

Jaguars at Steelers: Steelers 24-14.

49ers at Lions: Lions 28-17.

Rams at Packers: Packers 35-14.

Texans at Ravens: Ravens 21-17.

Browns at Raiders: Raiders 24-14.

Saints at Buccaneers: Saints 28-14.

Cowboys at Patriots: Patriots 38-14.

Vikings at Bears: Bears 21-17.

Dolphins at Jets: Jets 28-10.

Last Week: 9-4.

Season: 49-28.

Second, Cain made an insane comment that he wouldn’t allow any bill to pass his desk that was longer than three pages.  Here’s his exact quote.

Engage the people. Don’t try to pass a 2,700 page bill — and even they didn’t read it! You and I didn’t have time to read it. We’re too busy trying to live — send our kids to school. That’s why I am only going to allow small bills — three pages. You’ll have time to read that one over the dinner table. What does Herman Cain, President Cain talking about in this particular bill?

So Mr. Cain, you wouldn’t have signed the Civil Rights Act? Or the treaty ending WWII? Or the Patriot Act? Or any of the Appropriations bills that keep the government running? And you surely wouldn’t sign your own 9-9-9 Tax Bill if you were elected? (More on the 9-9-9 in a minute.)

John Stewart immediately called him out on this inane statement.  (His is much funnier than mine.)  As usual, John was firmly sticking to his perfected tongue in cheek routine.  Wingnut Cain immediately retaliated with a ridiculous claim that Stewart is a racist that hates black conservatives.  Here’s the quote in it’s entirety.

I said, well, Sean [Hannity], first of all if [Stewart] really thinks that I’m serious about a bill only being three pages the joke’s on him. And I said secondly as far as him mocking me look I’ve been called every name in the book because I’m a conservative, because I’m black.

Sticks and stone may break my bones, words are not going to hurt me. I was on that radio show because I happen to be an American black conservative. I labeled myself. I’m an American Black Conservative, an A-B-C. They keep trying to put labels on me. I have been called “Uncle Tom,” “sell out,” “Oreo,” “shameless.” So the fact that he wants to mock me because I happen to be a black conservative, in the words of my Grandfather, “I does not care. I does not care.”

Without touching on the horrible grammar and sentence structure, what the fuck is he trying to say here? He’s really accusing John Stewart of being a racist? Has he ever watched The Daily Show? Did he even listen to John’s rant or his own inane comment?

Lastly, his much discussed 9-9-9 plan.  This is short for 9% income tax, 9% national sales tax and 9% corporate income tax.  To begin with, 9% income tax is a tax cut for people who make over $1 million a year as on average, they pay an 18% income tax.  And a flat 9% income tax is an increase for middle class and poorer Americans as today, the average for us 99% is a 7% income tax.  His “simple” plan will of course also get rid of tax credits for everyone.

While I favor tax reform, I need some substantive evidence of the real workings of any plan before I give my seal of approval.  My figures above are just a guess by me and other people on what he means as Cain has steadfastly refused to elaborate on his plan.  His response for more detailed information is a classic of rhetoric right alongside his three page bills comment.

“Well, see, the critics are already trying to try and prove why 9-9-9 is not a good idea,” he said. “When you see some of these reports talking about it won’t do this and it won’t do that and it won’t do this and it won’t do that, they have changed the assumptions. If you want to know what the assumptions are, why don’t you come to me and my people, and we’ll explain to you what the assumptions are. But they don’t want to do that.”

When his camp was contacted for comment by USA Today, they did not return the request.  Ladies and Gentlemen, your Republican Front Runner, Herman Cain! What a bumbling blowhard.

More recently UAVs, also referred to as drones, have been very actively used in both military combat and surveillance. It was even reported that a drone killed top terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki. The obvious advantage to their use is that no soldier is harmed if anything goes wrong. Generally, they’re piloted by joystick and keyboard by pilots in unmarked buildings in undisclosed locations. The worse case scenario would normally be that we lose a physical machine. That is, until recently.

In a report from Wired Magazine’s ‘The Danger Room’, our country’s Predator and Reaper drones have been infected with a keylogging virus. For those wondering, a keylogging virus does one simple task, it listens for and stores all keystrokes on a computer, UAVs included.

This would seem like a pretty small problem, right? Run military grade Norton Antivirus and be done with it. As a last ditch effort, call Best Buy’s Geek Squad to clean the drones up. Though officials report the virus as being benign, they can’t seem to get rid of it.

“We keep wiping it off, and it keeps coming back,” says a source familiar with the network infection, one of three that told Danger Room about the virus.

I don’t know about you, but benign or not, if a virus CAN NOT be removed from a closed, military operated computer system, doesn’t that sound like a pretty big deal?

And how in the hell did they even get on there in the first place. It’s policy that no systems interacting with the drones be connected to the public Internet. It seems that the current system of loading new maps and mission information on the system is using, external hard drives. This practice has since been stopped, but officials are suggesting that this was the source.

So, to review: Our military has armed drones, currently operating while having a keylogger virus on them. They’re not sure if it’s benign or not, and their current solution is to wipe the drone hard drives and reload from scratch.

I wonder if anyone has considered that if someone was smart enough to get the virus on the drones in the first place, and make it near impossible to remove, they might have a plan for logging keystrokes? And that they might already have some pretty important data? I’m not trying to stoke the FUD fire here, but isn’t it reasonable to be a little concerned?