All that is valuable in human society depends upon the opportunity for development accorded the individual.
Albert Einstein
Monthly Blog Update
Despite a month with a record number of posts, the blog experienced its first monthly drop in readership since last August and a three-month low. For some odd reason, readership appeared to sharply drop off around mid-month, although last month had a post (my Valentine's Day post) which attracted an unusually high number of pageviews, more than doubling my previous all-time post pageview high.
I have read a number of blogs on the web, and I can honestly say I haven't seen anything like this on the web. I can remember on rare occasions as a young kid being dropped off at day care. What impressed me, even then, wasn't toys or games: it was a single sheet of copy paper. The things you could do with a blank sheet of paper: you could create something from nothing... So years later, when John-Boy Walton, an aspiring writer, got a set of writing tablets for Christmas by a Dad whom didn't understand but supported his ambition, I got how touched John-Boy was by the gift.
I used to wonder, when I started posting daily, whether I could fill the space. In fact, I seem to recall around the time of Obama's inauguration thinking perhaps there would be little to write about and certainly thought, if I didn't write it, that I would write an occasional post like for my other two blogs. But the fact is, except for maybe one or 2 days over the past two years, I've found myself limiting the topics I wanted to write about. It's a privilege and fun; I think I pick interesting topics, I'm probably the most readable political columnist out there (given the nature of the material), and I have a distinctive sense of humor (I think better than most professional comedians, at least when it comes to political topics). I think this bog makes for an interesting read even if you don't agree with my politics.
Reflections on Adam Smith (courtesy of Cafe Hayek)
- Dan Klein: "Maybe, as Alfred Marshall suspected, what is most important in economic wisdom are discursive verities about how things work by and large, not axiomatically or categorically, and the awareness that we generally cannot know the economic system well enough to intervene into it beneficially. That was Adam Smith‘s central message for public policy, and it authorized a presumption of liberty."
- Russ Roberts: "DeLong then quotes Adam Smith. Smith understood that we admire wealth and fame. DeLong argues that this is why we don’t support high tax rates. I don’t think that’s the reason–it’s not sympathy with the rich. It’s a lack of sympathy for those who claim to know what is best for others and who claim to be able to spend other people’s money more wisely than they can."
$4.9B Government-Guaranteed Loan
For the "Train From Nowhere"?
Obama's Idea of "Park & Ride":
100 Miles to Parking Lot
Why Should American Taxpayers Have to Pay
For Obama's Grown-Up Lionel Train Set?
I haven't read Obama's autobiographies, but I strongly suspect that he didn't get his own train set as a little boy and he's been trying to make up for it ever since.
We know that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid LOVES the gambling industry in his home state of Nevada--so much that he has brought betting to the US Congress. No, not the Mega Millions: the Mega Billions (and Trillions).
Yes, from the very same administration that brought you Solyndra loan guarantees on the backs of the American taxpayers, the same one which keeps getting thwarted by fiscally responsible GOP governors in Florida, Wisconsin, Ohio and New Jersey against pushing-on-a-string, big-ticket infrastructure boondoggles, but undaunted in its attempts to back even the most lame-brained ideas, we have the latest attempts by a desperate Barack ("I Heart Crony Capitalism") Obama to buy off swing state Nevada in this fall's election.
Keep in mind that Las Vegas is an estimated 265 miles from Los Angeles. We have a private company that honestly believes it can lure drivers to drop off their cars roughly 38% of the way to Las Vegas and take a supertrain the rest of the way. Let me edit relevant discussion from USA Today:
Privately held DesertXpress is on the verge of landing a $4.9 billion loan from the Obama administration to build the 150 mph train. DesertXpress officials once boasted they would build the line with private dollars, but they now plan to rely on Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) financing to cover the bulk of the cost. Construction cost projections have soared to as much as $6.5 billion, not including interest on the loan.
FRA's own research warns it's difficult to predict how many people will ride the train. Documents estimate an average round-trip fare of $100. Some fear taxpayer subsidies are inevitable. Hasan Ikhrata, executive director of the Southern California Association of Governments, which questioned ridership potential in a report last year. "There is no high-speed rail system in the world that operates without subsidies."
[The project assumes] car-loving Californians will drive about 100 miles from the Los Angeles area, pull off busy Interstate 15 and board a train for the final leg to the famous Strip. "It's insanity," says Thomas Finkbiner of the Intermodal Transportation Institute at the University of Denver. "People won't drive to a train to go someplace. If you are going to drive, why not drive all the way and leave when you want?" FRA documents show virtually all [purported jobs created by the project] would be temporary.I can just hear it now: "Mom, are we home yet?" "No, dear. We have to get our bags (if they made it), make it to the car, but then we should be able to drive home in two hours, if the traffic isn't too bad." You have to wait up to 20 minutes (assuming no mechanical or scheduling problems) in either direction (which offsets the train commute time savings), your baggage handling goes through a third party, you have to rely on other transportation (versus your own vehicle) to get around in Las Vegas, and you really don't save that much from driving costs (especially if you have multiple passengers).
My response: this is like an updated version of the Bridge to Nowhere (except that would have cost a fraction of this and not require the predictable subsidies ("too-big-to-fail rail"), like the federal government enabling a drug addiction, the moral hazard of progressives as usual malinvesting other people's money: who saves us from Bernie Madoff when the government is Bernie Madoff?). Why is the federal government involved? Because the government is underestimating and underpricing the riskiness of the project, and Obama is knowingly transferring risk from the private sector to the public sector. What, if anything, did this guy learn from the economic tsunami?
Now as for Transportation Secretary Ray "Republican-in-Name-Only" LaHood pushing Obamanomics (aka Voodoo Economics v. 44)...
What's Your Ticket to the Millionaire Lifestyle?
Marry a Doctor, a Lawyer, or a Business Owner?
How About a Public School Teacher?
Progressives, who try to rationalize statist interference in the hiring process by among other things demanding a minimum wage, never mind, for instance, that the majority of people earning minimum wage aren't even heads of household ("Studies find that only 20 percent of all minimum wage earners are single earners who are heads of households"), also like to portray public school teachers as underpaid spinsters paying for necessary school supplies out of their meager salaries.
But it turns out if you look at millionaire (net of home ownership) household occupations (including dual-income households), the top two occupations are: managers (17%) and teachers (12%). Other occupations (corporate executive, doctor, lawyer, dentist, salesman, etc.) occur at half the percentage or less as teachers. Why? Among other things, the households of these other professionals tend to be single-income.
Entertainment Potpourri
I've made occasional references about my general enjoyment of professional wresting entertainment. And, before I go any further, pro wrestling is "fake". (In fact, while we're at it, Mickey Mouse can't really talk, and the Easter Bunny can't lay eggs: what's the point?) The majority of us fans like the storylines, the exhibitions of athleticism and skill, and the rituals.
There is a vocabulary known to wrestling fan: babyfaces (good guys), heels (bad guys), cheap pops (cheers) or heat (booing), shoot interview vs. kayfabe (out-of-character, "real" interview vs. in-character mode), and a wrestler's distinctive finishing move(s) to end a match or characteristic gimmicks (persona) and catchphrases. There are also different types of wrestling styles (hardcore, lucha libre, etc.) and gimmick matches (e.g., steel cage, ironman, 2-out-of-3 falls, no DQ, falls count anywhere, etc.)
What are my preferences? Just like in my diet, I prefer variety, in particular a lot of skilled wrestling moves and counters, realism (staggering when no contact is made is not good), good storylines and swerves (e.g., where faces become heels). I don't prefer to see stereotypical, jingoistic characters, suicidal moves, blading (to ensure bleeding), or using weapons.
We are on the eve of Wrestlemania, WWE's trademark pay-per-view annual wrestling extravaganza. Vince McMahon, a second-generation wrestling executive, has created an unparalleled sports entertainment dynasty. His wife Linda, the former CEO, was the 2010 GOP candidate for US Senate from Connecticut and is running for retiring Joe Lieberman's open seat. (I supported Ms. McMahon against Richard "Vietnam War Hero" Blumenthal. Unfortunately, I've decided to support centrist former GOP Congressman Chris Shays as the more viable general election candidate. Shays would, for once, represent a fiscally responsible voice from Connecticut.)
There is little doubt about McMahon's business and marketing genius; he has two of the highest cable programs, Monday's flagship RAW on USA and Friday's Smackdown on SyFy (with talent roughly subdivided between the shows). Nevertheless, he has had competition; Ted Turner briefly eclipsed WWE in the late 1990's with his competitive WCW promotion, luring away key former WWE champions or talent Hulk Hogan, Bret Hart, Kevin Nash and Scott Hall along with returning predecessor promotion NWA talent like Ric Flair, Sting, and Lex Luger. WCW promoted some very compelling factions (nWo, primarily of ex-WWE outsiders invading WCW; nWo would later splinter into Hollywood (Hogan) and Wolfpac factions)). WCW ran into various issues by 2001 (including network management no longer interested in carrying wrestling), eventually being acquired by WWE. Currently WWE's top alternative competition is TNA, with a flagship Impact telecast on Spike Thursday nights.
As a fan and as a writer, I suspect I will have already alienated Vince McMahon by declining to support his wife's campaign for the GOP nomination this year; I'm sure he'll think I know even less about the wrestling business than the little I know of politics. Let me start with tomorrow's PPV.
There are two major matches: the promotion's chief babyface over the past few years, John Cena, is facing the Rock or Dwayne Johnson (a former WWE champion turned major film star after a breakout role in one of the popular Mummy movies) in "The Match of the Ages" or "Once in a Lifetime". Meanwhile, HHH (McMahon's son-in-law Paul Levesque, the heir apparent and semi-retired wrestler) takes on, for the third time, the Undertaker's unbeaten Wrestlemania winning streak in "The End of an Era" match.
Some basic comments here on these matches: first, I hardly consider Rock vs. Cena the most highly anticipated matchup of all time. They are both brilliant at the microphone in a business where the ability to sell yourself is key to championships and big paydays. You can be the most gifted wrestler in the world, but management is not going to put a belt on you if you can't draw paying fans.
Better matchups: Hulk Hogan vs. Andre the Giant; Hulk Hogan vs. the Ultimate Warrior. In the first case, you had two major babyfaces, including an undefeated giant (in WWE). But two babyfaces? Who do the fans cheer for? As I recall, McMahon played an angle which played on Andre's ego: Hulk Hogan got a huge trophy and Andre got a smaller award. Andre noted that he's undefeated and deserves a trophy at least as big as Hulk's. But Hulk's the champ and you're not: he deserves the bigger trophy--and even when Andre is awarded the trophy, Hulk is there to talk up--well, not Andre, but himself, of course. Andre hired heel manager Bobby Heenan. In the second case, there was the rising dominant babyface Intercontinental Champion Warrior whom challenged the babyface Champion Hogan. (Hogan jobbed (lost) to the Ultimate Warrior.)
The Rock and Cena are both former champions (multiple occasions and/or belts). The plot line is fairly weak: Cena thinks that Rock isn't a true wrestler having forgotten all about his fans in achieving fame and fortune in Hollywood. It's not clear why Rock is motivated to come back--probably to prove to the fans he's still got it, and Hollywood hasn't changed him.
I've already been puzzled by how WWE handled the angle: they booked adversaries Rock and Cena as partners in a PPV tag match months before Wrestlemania. If I was trying to build interest into a once-in-a-lifetime match, I wouldn't have booked the two together in an interim PPV (or other appearance)--which seems to take away from the anticipation of their rare meeting, except for having something like a pro boxing weigh-in where the two fighters start talking trash at each other, and they go after each other in shoot fashion. I also think that if you're trying to push the two as adversaries in a future match, booking them together as a tag team is sending mixed messages. If I was going to book Rock into an angle in the interim PPV, I would have had Rock interfere in a championship match, costing Cena the belt (say, by attacking Cena's opponent), giving Cena more of a motive to go after Rock. (And/or McMahon could have freshened up the Hogan/Andre the Giant trophy storyline, say, by presenting Rock with an honorary "People's Champ" championship belt that Rock could use to taunt Cena.)
I'm mostly intrigued how WWE is going to book the match. It's difficult to book Rock into a win without making Cena, a key draw, look weak; Rock is still young enough to wrestle on an occasional basis, but given his heavy acting schedule, you can't book him into a title (Cena at present doesn't hold a belt). On the other hand, I don't see the logic of bringing Rock back just to have him job to Cena: Cena doesn't need the push, it weakens the Rock character, and Rock could always shrug off the loss by claiming ring rust or it wasn't a title match. I think they want to book Rock in such a way as to set up a future match (say, against current champs Daniel Bryan or CM Punk) at a future Wrestlemania. (For instance, they could run an angle of CM Punk turning heel by interfering in the match's outcome, tarnishing the winner's victory; Punk then could taunt the Rock with his "best wrestler in the world" gimmick, pointing out that taking on Cena didn't prove anything, that Rock was washed up as a wrestler, etc. It might also provide a motive for Cena's pursuit of Punk's championship, which is currently hard to book since they are both babyfaces.)
Cena is an unusual babyface in the sense that nearly half the fans boo him (including myself). I think the WWE has painted themselves into a corner. A heel turn for Cena has been overdue for a long time. Every once in a while WWE will tease a heel turn, e.g., when babyface wrestler Zack Ryder was betrayed by friend Cena kissing Eve, Zack's dream girl. Cena sells so much merchandise as a babyface--and is one of the most requested Make a Wish Foundation personalities--it's difficult to see if or when they can turn Cena. But I think they've run the course with Cena as a babyface.
As for HHH vs. Undertaker: the Undertaker over the last 4 Wrestlemania's has faced HHE DX teammate now retired Shawn Michaels and now HHH. To me, as a fan, Undertaker/HHH #3 at Wrestlemania is just not compelling: been there, done that. I'm bored; changing the match gimmick isn't enough.
WWE doesn't want to book Undertaker into a loss, but having an up-and-coming star job to the Undertaker would be a step back. So you probably want to book someone currently not with WWE with established credibility (prior world champions)--say, TNA's Sting or Kurt Angle, David Batista, Brock Lesnar, or Bill Goldberg. Maybe a revamped Great Khali character, like Mark Henry's (but the Great Khali's ring skills aren't that great, and I'm not sure even the Undertaker could carry him in an entertaining match.)
It's hard to believe that they will book Undertaker to lose his first Wrestlemania bout. They've been teasing an ego conflict between Michaels and HHH: will Michaels really validate HHH beating the Undertaker, something he himself couldn't do in his last two Wrestlemania's? This has all the earmarks of Michaels coming out of retirement to settle issues with HHH. Actually, Michaels and HHH did feud in the past, and I always thought it was unusual that when Michaels first left the WWE for an extended period, HHH as the new leader of DX cut an obnoxious promo mocking Michaels' leaving, but WWE never did anything with that, even when they feuded years later. (But there were other storylines left dangling: for example, TNA owner/wrestler Jeff Jarrett clocked Hogan in 2003; there must have been some contractual issues, but when Hogan eventually did join TNA, the promotion never did run a revenge angle on Jarrett.)
Some general comments/criticisms:
- I never liked the way WWE handled the WCW acquisition. I think it's was petty and bad business: McMahon generally booked WCW wrestlers into squash matches (losses). I would have probably continued to hold the established brand, retooled Nitro in place of the current Smackdown and retained some of the key PPV concepts, like Halloween Havoc and Starrcade. I would have probably run an inverted outsider-like Wolfpac, not unlike how the upstart rookie group Nexus was initially booked. I thought that the way McMahon booked post-merger WCW devalued the promotion. Similarly, the ECW acquisition was mishandled.
- I never liked the McMahon family storylines, particularly as wrestlers and some of the degrading gimmicks (like the "kiss my ass" line). I thought there were better ways to handle the family ownership angle, e.g., a Godfather-like McMahon hiring a team of heel wrestling goons to enforce his wishes, offering babyfaces bribes or guaranteeing belts if they would just turn heel, etc.
- I thought the CM Punk "leave WWE" shoot interview angle was one of the freshest ideas in years. But I think they completely botched Punk's return. I would have probably dragged it out, showing "independent" defenses of the WWE title with a new WWE champion named--with a title reunification angle down the line. I do think Wrestlemania's bout is inspired, with Jericho and Punk two of the best technical wrestlers around--and egos to match. But CM Punk's championship reign and mike work have been uninspired to date.
- I wasn't sure at first about babyface Daniel Bryan's hypocritical, exploitative use of his title shot via Money in the Bank, but his transition as a heel has been brilliantly conceived and executed. It has grown on me to the point I think it's the best angle right now in WWE and I look forward to his goofy self-congratulatory entrances. It would be a mistake to take the belt off him tomorrow. That being said, the self-superior vegan diet angle is more annoying than anything else. I would probably run an angle where he claims to be better than his adversaries or the fans. I don't know--claim, for instance, that he scored perfect college board scores, he's beaten better competitors or run clips from opponents' common foes with the foes mentioning Bryan as the better wrestler.
- WWE's competition TNA heel champion Bobby Roode, originally half of the babyface Beer Money, arguably the best pro tag team in years, is an inspired character, even showing open disrespect for the TNA owner Dixie Carter. He's very believable as a heel, right down to his facial expressions, along with Bryan, among the best distinctive heel characters in years.
- Former Olympics strongman Mark Henry has finally been booked into an all but unbeatable heel. I've always wondered why the WWE never booked a battle royal of big men like Henry, Khali, Big Show, and Kane and/or created a super-heavyweight belt.
I probably won't cover wrestling news as a regular feature in this blog. But there is a bit of nostalgia there. I remember watching it with my grandfather on a Christmas visit during college. He was amazed by Andre the Giant. Then there was my grand-aunt Ida, Grandfather's sister, whom would marvel at Lex Luger's "torture rack". My favorite tag team in the mid-80's, while I was finishing up my dissertation was the heel Jake "the Snake" Roberts and the Barbarian (John Nord) duo going after heel Ted Dibiase and the late Dr. Death Steve Williams' tag team titles. I like the little stories of good vs. evil, David vs. Goliath, etc. It's not so much who wins or loses, but the storyline. The fact that Ultimate Warrior (or simply 'Warrior') happens to be an outspoken conservative is just icing on the cake.
Of course, probably 90-95% of WWE fans and most of the wrestling radio shows will probably tell you that I don't know anything about pro wrestling. Fair enough.
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
Doobie Brothers, "Listen to the Music"
