I'm back-ish

Hello again. It's been a long time..

I guess I should forewarn my readers (if there are any left) but with the state of the world these days I feel obligated to speak up. I can't really do so on social media under my real name for various reasons (though my identify is certainly no secret) so I'm going to use this forum I created a while ago.

My biases will become pretty evident, but I will try to stay factual as opposed to opinion based whenever I can.

First up - this story:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/03/politics/bobby-jindal-sanctuary-cities-arrest-mayors/index.html

Louisiana Governor and Presidential hopeful (I hope not) Bobby Jindal believes Mayors of "Sanctuary Cities" should be held as accomplices for crimes of undocumented immigrants..

You can read the article, but I'll just ask this simple question: Shouldn't then Governors also be held culpable in States that don't issue same-sex marriage licenses after mandated by the federal government? 

The BS Report

Well, it's been a long time since I've blogged.  So long in fact that Blogger went ahead and changed the whole blogging process.... My bad!  Sorry that I've slacked.  But, school is all but officially over and I'll get at least some of my life back...

I know I've talked about this one before, but this article and situation really fires me up.

I have no problem with the Minnesota Vikings, but why are citizens forced to pay for private stadiums??  Seriously.  Further, what does this have to do with cutting taxes on businesses?  "Republican leaders also have said they don't want to pass a stadium bill unless they can reach a larger deal with Dayton that includes tax cuts for businesses."

All around this is a sham. 

The NFL is a money making machine and NFL owners set ticket prices at exorbiteantly high rates.  They can easily afford their own stadiums. 

If I can't get tax money to pay for rent on my business why should an NFL owner??

Since I've been out of touch for a while I'll also add this related, but different note...

How is it that Ticketmaster is not a monopoly?  I tried to buy tickets for a show and the ticket price was $54.  For 2 tickets that should be $108.  Somehow after a "convenience fee" the price was $133.  Then Ticketmaster has the gal to try to charge me a "processing fee" off $5.50 on top of that.  What the hell???  Ticketmaster thought they deserved over a third of the total costs?!?!  For what exactly?  That didn't even include shipping cause of course I could just print my tickets...
And of course you can't just buy tickets from the venue online because they always direct you to Ticketmaster....
I call BS on the whole thing.

The Tax Man Cometh

This is a bit old, but it's been on my "to blog" list for a while... Of course there's been no consistency to my blogging, and such it's taken me a while to get here, but still..

An interesting read. 

Reading Between the Lines

*Please see the disclosure on the earlier post before reading further.

I've been listening to the information stemming from the Iowa Caucus and a few things bother me.

1 - Several of the candidates have spoken up about making abortion illegal and I need to say a few things on this.
a) Why does this keep being a go-to issue for politicians?  The subject of abortion has been dealt with at every level of government and will not change.  The legal precedents have been set and cannot be overturned.  Using this as a political talking point is a ploy at best and a mockery at worst.
b) Several candidates have said they will make abortion illegal even in cases of rape.  What?!  If a women is raped and impregnated the government is going to force her to have the baby?  To have a constant reminder of what was likely the worst experience of her life?  And, are they also going to force her to raise the child?  And who is going to pay for this child to grow up?  Is the candidate offering to foot the bill for 18 years of child support?  Are they going to throw money at orphanages?  So much for cutting the deficit.  As we should do with all of these political issues, think "what if this was me or someone I love"...

2 - Several of the candidates have said they will eliminate the Department of Energy to shrink the government and reduce the deficit. 
From the Department of Energy's website their mission is "to ensure America’s security and prosperity by addressing its energy, environmental and nuclear challenges through transformative science and technology solutions"
In essence this is the department within the United States Government which is working towards a more sustainable planet through energy efficiencies.  These are the people who encourage (and sometimes force) companies to raise energy effeciency standards - such as fuel mileage on cars.  These are the people that are promoting alternatives to fossil fuels.  Is it any coincidence that Republicans want to eliminate this department?  This is after all the department most devastating to Big Oil.  The same Big Oil that is well known for its lobbying and political contributions to Republicans.
Eliminating the Department of Energy would not only be a blow to our environment, but it would be one more step towards big business officially (its currently unofficial) running the government.

The De-unification of the United States

Again, I need to preface all of my political ramblings with the disclaimer that I don't much care for or follow politics, and as such sometimes I can be accused of "talking out of my ass" or being misinformed.  Still, I do hear things from time to time and I am sure that my common sense and integrity is stronger than that of almost all politicians...

So, without further ado:

1 - When the hell did the country become so divided?  Why are all politicians seemingly on the far left or the far right?  Why is "moderate" a dirty word?

2 - What the hell happened to "sportsmanship" (for a lack of a better word)?  Didn't there use to be a time that even if you lost an election you supported the winner?  Particularly when that winner is the President of the United States and he is chosen by the people he is meant to represent?  Why can't politicians get this?  Why can't they support "the winner" and those that elected him.  [This is not a pro-democrat argument but a pro-UNITY argument.]

3 - Why can't we get stability in this country?  Obama passed his "Obama-care" for example.  I understand it was/is controversial, but it was passed.  Now, before it truly even goes into affect Republican candidates are declaring that if they are elected to Presidency they will repeal it.  What the hell is that?  Obama spent a great deal of his time in office struggling with all the push back from the Republicans and making concessions and "deals" to finally get it passed and now Republicans are saying "eh, never mind"?  And then what?  They'll spend half of their presidency fighting to put something else in place?  This isn't progress.  This is the definition of running in place. If politicians could stop politicking for just 2 years we might actually get something meaningful.

4 - While we're on it, why the hell can't someone just go into office and let their accomplishments speak for themselves?  I'm sure I've talked about this before, but it's ludicrous that our elected officials spend most of their time in office campaigning for re-election or their next move.  DO THE JOB YOU'RE ELECTED TO and if you do it well enough trust that will be enough.  You are paid way too much and compensated way too greatly (pensions and life-time health benefits, for example) to do NOTHING... 

Interesting Read

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7021031/the-nets-nba-economics

I found this to be quite an interesting read.  What I wonder about most, however, is what happened to the residents who were displaced under the guise of "public use".  And will they be able to afford this use this "public" property? 

I'm pretty sure I've already blogged about the sham that is tax-payers paying for stadiums that they can't afford to go to, and now we have people being forced out of their homes for stadiums that they can't afford to go to?  Wow.

Abort, Abort

This fits in with my current theme of griping on our government...

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/642186-states-enact-record-number-of-abortion-restrictions-in-first-half-of-2011

Beyond making abortion illegal, how many more restrictions can you put on it?  Seriously, I'm asking.. it's either legal or it's not.  For F's sake... I don't care what political party you support and I don't care about your thoughts on abortion.  Really, I don't.  Bottom line is that this country has many, many more important issues to worry about.

And on a related note... When the church stops molesting little boys I'll take their pro-life stance just a little more seriously...

Thanks Emmylee for sharing.

Checks and Balances... Or Mostly Just Checks

Ok.. Here's another political rant. I know I said I hate politics and I do, but I hate the feeling that I'm being screwed more.  And every day I see the government screwing the average person.

I think every 235 years it's time for us to look at our government and our laws and our regulations and our taxes and our representation and see what's still relevant; what makes sense.  Seriously, the government was written "for the people by the people" but has clearly become "run by the rich for the rich" or more specifically "run for the wealthy, powered with money from the poor".  And let me clarify immediately, "rich" does not necessarily refer to private individuals (though in some cases it does - CEO's getting $500 million a year qualify), but more it refers to companies and industries and lobbyists who care not about the average person, but their special interest.

Below I'm going to gripe about some issues I have, but these are just a few... Chime in with what irritates you or how I'm an idiot, or whatever you've got to say..

- I've already taken a shot at the RIAA in this blog (http://thegiftandthegoods.blogspot.com/2009/12/riaa-its-not-about-music-anymore.html) but every day we hear a new way in which the government is trying to protect the arts or internet businesses.  I am of course against Piracy and as a business person myself, I fully support people making money for their talents.  I do however believe the "market" or economy should be allowed to self-regulate.  In all truth, for a long time music has been in a bubble - similar to the housing market.  Record labels demand $15 for a CD where they know likely only 2 or 3 songs will become "popular" and charge ticket prices at concerts upwards of $200 a seat.  If the market is resorting to piracy perhaps the industry is the one doing something wrong?  Sure, piracy threatens the future of the digital arts.  I don't argue for a second that if musicians can't get paid it may limit the number of future musicians, but no one stopped the creation of posters which hurt painters.  And in truth, if musicians stop making music eventually people will yearn for new music and the industy will be reborn.  Perhaps its time the government stopped helping to hold up this bubble and let it pop?

- Why do tax dollars go to pay for stadiums and arenas run by private franchises?  I love sports - pretty much more than anything else- but I can't afford to go to the games.  Why do my tax dollars fund those stadiums?  I know the government and teams will tell me the stadium brings in lots of revenue to the state, but not if the NFL/NBA has a lock-out!  How can my tax dollars go to building stadiums and then still teams are allowed to sell seat licenses - which mean absolutely nothing (in fact you can't even customize your seat [ie sell ad space] even though you have the license)?

- I've griped on here many times about speed limits (http://thegiftandthegoods.blogspot.com/2009/12/need-for-speed.html), but this is my biggest issue.  Speeding is not a crime.  It is something the average person does every time they get in their car.  Speed limits were originally created to protect people, but now they are simply a form of taxation (without representation) and it needs to stop.  At the very least the governments need to realize and acknowledge that most speed limits were decided before cars had anti-lock breaks and clearly aren't realistic anymore.  And to further prove my point:  the fact that you can be giving a ticket via a camera and a picture mailed to your home proves the lack of severity of the issue.

- Why don't we let common sense rule the day?  Why does shit need to be written down to be official?  Piracy is wrong.  We can go ahead and create laws that say so.  But why do we allow the RIAA or other parties take advantage?  Why do we allow them to charge $20,000 in damages per song (as in the above post)?  Why do we allow them to go after people who do stupid things on YouTube, but happen to have the song in the background?

- Why do we let people sue McDonald's because the coffee is too hot?  Causing all future coffee to be just luke warm?

- Why do we think laying off teachers is a good idea?  Have we learned nothing about the value of education?  Have we forgotten that children are our future?

I'm not just a complainer though... I'm also a problem solver and I've got some suggestions...

- We have tons of unemployment, but we're looking for ways to stimulate the economy, hmmm... How about creating jobs?  More specifically, how about hiring some of the overabundant supply of lawyers to review all the above things (and the thousands of others) and actually fix the system?  How about hiring civil engineers to review all of the speed limits and adjust them for today's automobile technology?  How about just keeping our (good) teachers employed?

I know, I know, someone is going to ask where we are going to get the money for all of that.  I've got ideas for that too..  1 - see my last post.  Let's use campaign contribution money.  2 - Take it from our overpaid and underperforming Congressmen/women and Senators and Members of the House who are so busy bickering and trying to screw each other to actually consider their citizens.  3 - Take it out of the travel and leisure and lunch budget of the aforementioned groups.  Afterall, do they really need catered lunches every day? and meetings in Hawaii (I'm looking at you former Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele)? 

Education on Education

I just finished semester #2 of my MBA program.. In fact just a week ago I handed in final papers and took final exams.  3 days later I had final grades never having actually seen the grades on those final papers and tests.

Doesn't anyone else see a problem with this system? 

As a student why does our learning stop when we hand in the final paper or final project?  Shouldn't it stop after we get feedback on said paper or test?  After a teacher can assess our strengths and weaknesses and relay them to us so we can actually learn?

For example: Though not necessarily the case in high school or even undergrad, I'm seeing that most of grad school is about these long-term (semester length) projects.  Thing is we spend 3+ months working on these projects (presumably learning in class along the way) and after we turn it in we NEVER get any actual feedback.  Never learn what we did excellent and what we should avoid in our future work. 

I'm not questioning the value of standardized tests (though I'm sure I could) and I'm not questioning the value of the papers/projects/assignments, BUT without that feedback school becomes even more clearly about grades and not education. 

*Honestly I question whether professors even read those final papers when the turnaround for them to submit grades is so short.

Unseasonable...

I don't want to sound like an asshole here (if not here, then where?), but can't we (as a society) work on our fundamentals of the English language?

I really don't mean to sound harsh, but I've tried typing this several times and each time I read it I feel like I'm just taking cheap shots.  This is certainly not the intent.  Still, this must be said....

In the winter, there is no such thing as "unseasonably cold" weather.  This is exactly the season for cold weather.  There is no season where you would or could expect colder weather.  If you're trying to make the point that it's unusually cold, go ahead and say that..  No, you wouldn't expect the South to see temperatures in the 20's even in the winter.. and that's totally fair to say.. but still, there is no season colder than winter so if you were to get 20 degree temperatures this is exactly the right season. 

Some other adverbs you can use are:  unnecessarily, unreasonably, and ridiculously.... you get the point.


*Disclaimer:  I admit I am a bit critical here because I see what social media and texting are doing to the language and I fear for the day my niece writes "nite" instead of "night" on a school paper..

Exhibit A

Walking through the halls of school today I heard one girl talking to another:

"Yes. I broke up with him, but we were still talking, like on the phone and stuff, so yeah, I feel like he cheated on me."

For the sake of not offending my audience or alienating anyone I'll stop this post here....

Philly Tasing...

I tried to avoid talking about the kid that was tased at the Phillies game.  The media pretty much covered it and everyone has their own opinions on the topic, so I tried to just let it lie.  Alas, I cannot.  Still, despite the overwhelming media coverage, there are 2 points that I think were missed.  But, luckily, you have me to catch them.

1 - No matter where they stand on the issue everyone in the media agrees this kid posted no immediate threat.  It may be true that he didn't have a weapon and he posed no threat to those on the field, no one talks about the potential threat to those in the stands.  Luckily in this case he was just a stupid kid, but what if he was a decoy for a pick-pocket ring?  As security guards around the stadium and 40,000+ fans focus on this kid that leaves them vulnerable to a lot of other problems.  I'll just say 'pick-pocketing' as to avoid a national panic.

2 - The media always refers to this kid as a 'fan'.  "The fan who was tased", or "The fan who ran onto the field", etc.  I'm sorry, but this kid is not a 'fan'.  This kid is a schmuck who wanted to be 'cool' or get attention or win a bet.  No true fan risks being banned for life from the stadium of their favorite team.  No fan risks a good pitching outing for their own satisfaction. 

I am not a medical professional and I don't know the risks involved with tasers, but as far as I'm concerned it was fine.  Stop running on the field!

A good article on the topic: Taser Controversy (thank you Amy K. for sharing with me.)

Bowl Over(kill)

In college football each season ends with the top teams playing in what are called 'Bowl' games.  These games are meant to showcase the best talent and be a way for teams to give their season some finality since there is no true playoff system. 

It has been noted that one reason the NCAA has not switched to a playoff system is because they can make more money on the Bowl series.  Each Bowl game is sponsored by a corporation and televised nationally.  As of last year there were 34 Bowl games - many more than a playoff system would allow for. 

However, it would appear that the Bowl series is becoming watered down (something I fear of the new basketball NCAA tournament expansion) and thus cannabilizing itself. 

FedEx bows out of Orange Bowl title slot

With more Bowl games there are more teams playing and let's be honest - some of these teams do not deserve any type of post-season play.  Fans are getting overwhelmed and bored with the sub-par matchups and they are not patronizing these games.  The excitement of the major Bowl games is being replaced by the tediousness of the other 20 or so. 

Basically what I'm saying (rambling as it may be) is that the Bowl game system is getting out of control and while it was designed to maximize profits for the NCAA and it's member schools it actually seems counter-intuitive and needs a major overhaul to satisfy it's fans, teams, players and possibly most importantly, it's sponsors...

Flew the Coop Part 2

Spirit Airlines CEO Stuffs Himself Where He Should in Explanation Video

Thank you Matt D. for sending this along.

Flew the Coop

Spirit Airlines is going to become the first to charge for carry-on luggage.

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/item.aspx?type=blog&ak=86761.blog&loc=interstitialskip

According to the article the intent is to continue to 'unbundle' the expenses of flying so passengers can only pay for what they use.  For the luxury of carrying your bag on board they will charge upwards of $45 each way. 

So, here's The Gift's take:

- Will they reduce airfares by $45 each way?  Somehow I doubt we see that translate fully.

- They say in the article it should help expedite the boarding process.  Really??  People having to pull out their credit cards at the gate and disgruntled customers arguing over the size of their bags, etc. is going to speed up boarding??  Last time I boarded a plane they called my 'zone' I walked on, put my bag in the overhead and sat down.  How much quicker can it get?  Sure some people bring bags that are way too big for the overhead, but that one bag has to be more convenient than checking 100 bags to make sure they are the correct size.

- Often people put extra clothing in their carry-ons in case of lost luggage (which we know happens) or delayed flights and missed connections and that worst-case scenario of having to sleep in the airport - because the airlines don't cover hotel costs even if the missed connection is their fault.  Now if you want that 'protection' it's going to cost $45.

The airline industry is afforded a lot of lee-way that other businesses don't get (double-booking, dynamic pricing, not getting you where you're supposed to be when you're supposed to be there, etc.).  They can do this because customer service generally is not as important to consumers as pricing in this industry.  That's fair enough.  But at some point customer service must be taken into account, and boy are they stretching the limits..

I know money is tight and the airline industry is hurting, but there have to be other ways.  Go back to selling advertising space on the food trays or the back of seats.  Get your marketing department and R&D departments to do their jobs..  Complicating the process of air travel is only going to turn people off.  This is a bad idea.

-Thank you Courtney S. for bringing this to my attention.

Common Census

Dear Government Officials Who Love To Take And Waste Our Money,

What the hell are you doing mailing me a letter telling me that you will be mailing out another letter.  Do you truly find it pertinent to waste millions of pounds of paper, tons of printer ink and the time of already disguntled postal workers in order to inform the average citizen that in "about one week from now, you [we] will recieve a 2010 Census form in the mail."?  This is irresponsible both economically but also environmentally.

What is the value of this?  I imagine that in someone's mind this is the same as making a phone call to schedule another, but it's DEFINITELY NOT the same..

In the future, if you could not waste my tax dollars in such a poorly thought out manner I would appreciate it. 

Thank you,

The Gift - who owes A LOT in taxes this year.

Expert Opinion

Now that the football season has concluded (congratulations to the New Orleans Saints) I would like to take a minute to address the so-called 'experts'.

I understand that sports are a tricky business and that assessing talent and the outcome of games can be very challenging.  It is for this reason that professional scouts are highly paid and face tremendous issues in job security.  It is for this reason that gambling on sporting events is possible - if outcomes were guaranteed there would be no vegas odds.

With that said, the so-called media experts (from this point on I'll refer to them as simply as 'experts' - for the sake of ease, despite the misnomer) should be held responsible for their words.  How often has an expert predicted the outcome of a game wrong?  Can we take the superbowl for example where the Indianapolis Colts were the heavy favorite of 'experts' everywhere? 

My issue of course is not with 'experts' predicting the outcome of singular games wrong.  No, my issue is much greater.  It's in the way they talk about players and teams and games and hold no responsibility for what they say. 

In the corporate world, if someone is off on their yearly forecast they have to answer to someone.  Why don't sports 'experts'?  Why are they not accountable? 

When the Houston Texans drafted Mario Williams over Reggie Bush and Vince Young in the 2006 NFL Draft, the team was lamb-basted by the media.  The scouts, the coaches and the ownership were harshly ripped for not taking the flashy Reggie Bush or hometown favorite Vince Young, but instead taking a nobody named Mario Williams.  Yet, while Reggie Bush has failed to live up to his hype (he won a Super Bowl Championship last night, but I didn't see him do much), and Vince Young has already had a stint on suicide watch, Mario Williams has done nothing but been elected to the Pro Bowl twice and help sure up a previously abyssmal defense.

Still has anyone heard one of these 'experts' stand-up and admit they were wrong?  Apologize to the scouts of the Texans, to the ownership, to the fans who had to endure the mass ridicule? 

Do I expect 'experts' to really know everything?  Of course not.  Do I expect them to be right all of the time?  No.  But, I think when they are wrong they should be held accountable.  Maybe we should stop calling them 'experts' and start calling them what they are - 'highly paid commentators whose guesses are no better than the rest of us'.

Servings Per Container

I was in Target and browsing through the frozen food section to see if there was anything on sale or anything that caught my eye.  I hadn't had a chicken pot pie since I was a kid and it seemed like the kind of comfort food I could get into, so I picked one up.  - Now, I'm not the healthiest guy alive, but I try to take care of myself. I go to the gym regularly and I eat my fruits and vegetables. I don't count calories, but I try to keep track of what I put into my body.  - So, as I'm getting ready to throw the pot pie into the oven I quickly browse the nutrition information on the back of the box.  I am not naive enough to think something made of cream soup and pie crust is gonna be healthy, so I wasn't too shocked to see the calorie content around 500.  I was, however, SHOCKED when I realized that it was 500+ calories per serving.  Why was I shocked?  Because according to Marie Calendar, who produced this frozen pot pie, there were 2 servings in the box.  Excuse me? 
SOMEONE PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME HOW YOU DIVIDE A CHICKEN POT PIE INTO MULTIPLE SERVINGS.  It's not like a pizza pie that you can cut into slices.  If I cut a pot pie into 2 servings the filling is gonna run all over the place.  And once it's cooked you can't refrigerate the half you don't eat and reheat it later (it will turn to mush).. Marie Calendar knows this.  I know it's a marketing ploy so the average consumer won't notice they are about to indulge in a 1000 calorie meal, but its nonsense. 
It's one thing for Entenmanns to say a serving size is 3 cookies knowing full well the average person is gonna eat more than that, but it's a whole nother to be asked to cut the cookie in 2.

Needless to say, this caloric mess is still in my freezer, just waiting until I'm desperate enough.

I guess the moral here is that everyone should pay attention to what they buy and what they put in their bodies.  'Cause the manufacturers won't.

Need For Speed

I’ve talking about cars and driving a lot on this blog already and I’m sure to do it a decent amount more, but today’s post focuses on speed limits.

There was a time when speed limits were about safety. Now it’s almost strictly a money making enterprise for state and local officials.

I was going to make this very scientific with facts and figures, but I don’t have that kind of time and likely you don’t want to read 6000 words. Instead I’m going to make some blanket statements (with a ‘fact’ or 2 thrown in) and hope to maybe initiate some thought, discussion and maybe even some individual actions (aka letters to your elected officials).

Like all statistics you can manipulate the ‘facts’ any number of ways. There are studies that say speeding causes more accidents and there are others that say there is no correlation between the two. Truth is, and there is no denying it, speed is a factor in motor vehicle accidents. The faster you drive the less reaction time you have; the faster you drive the less room for error there is. BUT, (and this is a big but) speed alone doesn’t cause accidents. Reckless driving is much more of a factor. It’s tailgaiting, cutting people off, slamming on the breaks, etc. that cause the accidents. It’s talking on a cell phone, texting, and playing with an iPod that causes accidents.

If speed itself were so inherently dangerous would we have NASCAR? I mean, congress is starting to get involved in the helmets football players wear, but they haven’t said a peep about NASCAR drivers. (Yes, I know there are accidents in racing and they have safety in place, but you’re smart people. You know what I’m getting at.)

The bottom line is that, like many of our laws, it’s about money – and it shouldn’t be.

Speed traps are not a myth. And they aren’t set up to protect and/or serve the general public. They are set up in places cops know people ‘speed’ so they can write a ticket and earn their salary (I support police and the work they do, but just as we don’t like getting tickets the majority generally do not like issuing them – it’s just a part of their job). If people are known to ‘speed’ on specific roads, but the incidence of accidents is non-existant wouldn’t it make more sense to review the speed limit?

There is no reason that a 3 lane highway should have a 55mph speed limit. There is no reason cops should pull people over for going 80mph on a highway if there isn’t another car on the road. I guarantee that 100 out of 100 times you drive on the highway (in normal traffic conditions) the flow of traffic is moving at at least 10 mph above the speed limit. Isn’t it more dangerous for the cars to slam on their breaks (which can cause tailgating accidents) when they see a waiting patrol car than to continue on at their cruising speed?

Maybe I’m just rambling at this point, but the moral of this post is that speed limits are by and large a joke and our government is abusing their power. Didn’t we fight a whole war against ‘taxation without representation’? Well, isn’t this exactly the same thing? Speeding tickets are more or less a tax, and I want to know who is representing the driving public? I’d like to see that person’s driving record. I bet there’s a speeding ticket on it.

Theeeee Yankees Win! Theeeee Yankees Win!

There are a lot of sports focused sites and blogs on the web (including these two, less well-known, that I particularly enjoy: Voices In The Crowd and Everyman's Fantasy), and thus I've tried to keep my blog relatively sports free. Truth is though, this is MY blog and sports are a major part of who I am. So, from time-to-time sports will pop up on here. This is one of those times.

The baseball season ended almost a month ago and I tried to let it go, but today on Mike and Mike (a morning talk show on ESPN Radio and ESPN 2) team salaries were discussed. Bitter fans of other teams still want to shout to the world that the Yankees bought their championship.

I know I’ll never convince anyone that this isn’t true. Honestly, maybe to some extent it is. The best players demand the highest salaries and the Yankees have amassed a team full of winners. But we need to go beyond the $201 million dollar payroll (2009 salaries) and look a little deeper. I hoped the mass media would do their job, but they seem content to stay above the surface. I am not going to do all the research (not only because that’s boring, but because this is a blog, not an article for Sports Illustrated), but here are some things to consider - not all facts may be 100% correct since I'm not doing the research, like I already said.

Cost of living/taxes in NY/NYC vs the rest of the country.
-The Houston Astros had a payroll of $102,996,414 in 2009, the 8th highest. What is the cost of living in Houston versus living in NY? What are the income taxes? Money in NY does not go as far as it will in most of the nation. In every industry worker’s salaries are higher in NY than in most of the nation.

American League teams should have higher salaries because they have to pay a DH who plays everyday.
-In the National League there is no DH position. In the American League there are 10 everyday players (9 batters and a pitcher). In the National League the pitcher is a batter as well.

In trading Alex Rodriguez to the Yankees in 2004 the Texas Rangers agree to pay $43 million dollars of his salary.
-Alex Rodriguez, the highest paid baseball player in history ($10 million higher than Manny Ramirez at #2), had a salary of $33 million this year. This obviously skews the total salary of the Yankees. $7 million of that, however, was paid by the Texas Rangers.

Luxury Tax.
-The Yanks certainly spend a lot, but they also pay a lot in the luxury tax. There is evidence that owners of other teams, rather than investing this ‘free’ money on their teams, are pocketing it.

How many teams only sell out games when the Yanks or Sox come to town?
-Yanks make the MLB money. PERIOD.

Yanks won with players who may be paid a lot, but came up in the farm system.
-Derek Jeter, Mariano Rivera, Andy Pettite, Jorge Posada, Robinson Cano, Melky Cabrera, Brett Gardner, Phil Hughes, Joba Chamberlain, Alfredo Aceves, and David Robertson, are the highlights of a strong group of home grown talent. Derek Jeter and Mariano Rivera were in the top 25 of league salaries in 2009. But they were not ‘bought’, they were compensated for their worth.

Other teams spend a lot, but lose.
-Money isn’t everything. The Mets had the second highest payroll in baseball in 2009 and had a total of 70 wins. The Red Sox spent over $50 million just to talk to Dice-K. How’s that working out?

Ewing Theory
-If you don’t know the Ewing Theory go here.  This says everything I need to.

Anyway, this post (and this blog in general) won’t change people’s opinions. BUT, maybe it will make people think a little more, or dig deeper. Or maybe it will just be interesting to read. That’s OK too...