Why Football is better than Baseball: Maher, Marx, Writing, and Apple Pie



In an article titled "New Rule: Americans Must Realize What Makes NFL Football So Great: Socialism", comedian Bill Maher makes this observation about the Super Bowl:

New Rule: With the Super Bowl only a week away, Americans must realize what makes NFL football so great: socialism. That's right, for all the F-15 flyovers and flag waving, football is our most successful sport because the NFL takes money from the rich teams and gives it to the poor teams... just like President Obama wants to do with his secret army of ACORN volunteers. Green Bay, Wisconsin has a population of 100,000. Yet this sleepy little town on the banks of the Fuck-if-I-know River has just as much of a chance of making it to the Super Bowl as the New York Jets - who next year need to just shut the hell up and play.

It's no surprise that some 100 million Americans will watch the Super Bowl next week - that's 40 million more than go to church on Christmas - suck on that, Jesus! It's also 85 million more than watched the last game of the World Series, and in that is an economic lesson for America. Because football is built on an economic model of fairness and opportunity, and baseball is built on a model where the rich almost always win and the poor usually have no chance. The World Series is like Real Housewives of Beverly Hills. You have to be a rich bitch just to play. The Super Bowl is like Tila Tequila. Anyone can get in.

Or to put it another way, football is more like the Democratic philosophy. Democrats don't want to eliminate capitalism or competition, but they'd like it if some kids didn't have to go to a crummy school in a rotten neighborhood while others get to go to a great school and their Dad gets them into Harvard. Because when that happens "achieving the American dream" is easy for some, and just a fantasy for others.

That's why the NFL runs itself in a way that would fit nicely on Glenn Beck's chalkboard - they literally share the wealth, through salary caps and revenue sharing - TV is their biggest source of revenue, and they put all of it in a big commie pot and split it 32 ways. Because they don't want anyone to fall too far behind. That's why the team that wins the Super Bowl picks last in the next draft. Or what the Republicans would call "punishing success."

Baseball, on the other hand, is exactly like the Republicans, and I don't just mean it's incredibly boring. I mean their economic theory is every man for himself. The small market Pittsburgh Steelers go to the Super Bowl more than anybody - but the Pittsburgh Pirates? Levi Johnston has sperm that will not grow up and live long enough to see the Pirates in a World Series. Their payroll is about $40 million, and the Yankees is $206 million. They have about as much chance at getting in the playoffs as a poor black teenager from Newark has of becoming the CEO of Halliburton. That's why people stop going to Pirate games in May, because if you're not in the game, you become indifferent to the fate of the game, and maybe even get bitter - that's what's happening to the middle class in America. It's also how Marie Antoinette lost her head.

So, you kind of have to laugh - the same angry white males who hate Obama because he's "redistributing wealth" just love football, a sport that succeeds economically because it does exactly that. To them, the NFL is as American as hot dogs, Chevrolet, apple pie, and a second, giant helping of apple pie.

You can read the full article here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-maher/new-rule-football-sociali_b_815673.html

While reading Lester Faigley's Competing Theories of Process I couldn't help think about the above article forwarded to me by an old friend. 

You may or may not know, but I did my undergrad in Political Science and spent quite a number of classes listening to lecutures on and reading the works of Karl Marx.  Marx is perhaps one of the most misunderstood historical political thinkers of the Modern Era.  This is partly derived from the fall and failure of Communist Russia (while completely ignoring the fact that China, a communist nation, is a world power). But also derived in part from jingoistic rhetoric produced by anti-socialist propagandists whose goal is - as Marx repeatedly pointed out - to keep in power those that are already in power.  The notion of "pessimistic determinism" mentioned in the Faigley article is borrowed from Marx and Marxist scholars who believed that freedom was little more than illustion crafted, again, to keep status quo for those in power. Capitalism, according to Marx, is a part of that illusion.  Here is something I half-paraphrased, half-direct quote from Lois Tyson's essay on Capitalism while weaving in some of my own conjecture to help explain:

When 10% of the world’s population owns 90% of the world’s wealth how is it the case that free-markets and the capitalism do more to raise the standard of living for people? The wealthy have a vested interest in protecting their assets. And they are good at protecting them - there is a widening gulf between America’s rich and poor. The success of the American dream – the acquisition of a wealthy lifestyle for a few – rests on the misery of the many. Capitalism is a false idea whose real purpose is to promote the interests of those in power. As such, capitalism is a system of oppression. To think otherwise is to suffer at the hands of an illusion crafted by those in power. Any ideology that puts self-interest above the needs – and even above the survival – of others is an oppressive one. By keeping the focus on “me” instead of on “us”, capitalism works against the well-being of society as a whole and of underprivileged people in particular.

The “American dream” is part of the oppressive illusion. The American dream, much like the lottery, opens up the possibility that anyone can win, and like gambling addicts, we cling to that possibility. In fact, the less financial security we have, the more we need something to hope for. The American dream also tells us what we want to hear: that we are all “as good as” the wealthiest among us. It’s not supposed to matter that the wealthy don’t think that we are as good as they are as long as we believe it’s true. And it is not supposed to matter that “as good as” does not mean entitled to the same health care, material comforts, or social privileges, including the privilege of hiring the best lawyers should the need arise. It would be naïve not to think that the wealthy carry an air of superiority in their minds when considering the middle or working class. Just like there are those in the middle class who in all likelihood thumb their noses at the working class for a perceived lack of formal education, and so on.

Consumerism, a by-product or a subset of Capitalism, says “I am only as good as what I buy”. This creates the illusion that I can be “as good as” the wealthy if I can purchase what they purchase or a reasonable facsimile thereof (albeit on credit) not recognizing that doing so fills the coffers of the wealthy who manufacture and sell the consumer products I buy all while reaping the 15-20 percent interest on my credit-card bills. Not buying it (pun intended)? What clothes are you wearing? If we didn’t have this “I am only as good as what I buy” mentality, then we would all be decked from head to toes in Kmart brand or Thrift Store clothes - buying clothes for simply for utility.

The conservative middle class tends to resent the poor because so much middle-class tax money goes to government programs that help the poor. However, they fail to realize that it is the wealthy in positions of power who decide who pays the most taxes and how the money will be spent (in other words it is the wealthy who make the middle class carry the lion’s share of the responsibility). To keep the math simple, let’s say my combined household income is close to $100,000 / year – keep in mind that both partners are working. If we were taxed at 30% (again just to keep the math simple) our net household income is $70,000. Conversely, a couple with a combined household income close to $1,000,000 / year under the current tax laws would be forced to make do with a mere $700,000. Now, at first glance, a surface level analysis would conclude that this clearly demonstrates that the tax system shows no favorites – that $300,000 does more to help the poor than $30,000. But this myopic argument overlooks the fact that these are not aggregate totals. In other words, if the bottom 90% contribute somewhere in the range of $30,000, and there are roughly 300 million citizens, 270 million would be contributing $30,000 (or, approx. $8.1 trillion) Conversely, approximately .1% of Americans earn a gross of $1,000,000 (or more) (source: mybudget360.com). If so, only 300,000 citizens would be contributing $300,000 (or approx. $90 billion) In short, roughly $8.01 trillion MORE of the burden is being shouldered by the middle class. Again, capitalism is a system designed to protect the wealth of the wealthy. It is an oppressive system.

The better solution would be for the middle class to make an alliance with the poor in order to attain, through the democratic process, a more equitable distribution of America’s wealth by shifting some of the tax burden back onto the wealthy. I know that it is considered taboo to utter the phrase, “distribution of wealth”. But wealth IS getting distributed one way or another. The better solution is to side with the politicians who promote policies that favor “us” over “me”.

This is what is meant by "pessimistic determinism" and the illusion of freedom.  What was most revealing (even revolutionary) about Faigley's article is the notion that Language is a social practice - a social construct if you will.  Says Faigley:

...any act of writing or teaching of writing must be understood within a structure of power related to modes of production (661).

I haven't even addressed the issue of alienation of labor, I have much more to say about this topic but feel as if I have outgrown the scope of a blog.  Even Faigley's idea of a Synthesis is borrowed from Marx's notion of dialectical materialism (thesis + antithesis = synthesis).  What I hope I've accomplished in this blog is to shed some of the taboo and the mystique that surrounds Marxism for those that approached Marx in full MOPP (mission oriented protective posture) gear so that you might reconsider Marxism as an honest intellectual approach to theory.

"Die Vampire Die!"

When I think I am suffering from writer's block, it may instead be something much worse:

You Can't Handle the Truth!

So, Macrorie wants things to be both True and Light.  I wonder if this is what he had in mind:

Shakespeare was wrong. Farting, not death, is the great equalizer. I fart. And like it or no, whether you are President Obama, Brad Pitt, Oprah, Tom Brady, J.K Rowling, Lady Gaga, Darth Vader, Osama Bin Laden, Sarah Palin, Captain Kirk, Mr. Rogers, Big Bird, or Mother effing Theresa, you fart too. Farting is a natural, biological process. Like breathing.

Unfortunately, when it comes to farting in public, there is an air of surliness that lingers in the obdurate hearts of the masses. We turn our noses to it. It is a social more that few are ever brave enough to break, and that plain stinks! We suffer enough stress day to day, why add needlessly to our burdens? And, as it turns out, farting freely has been the key to solving a majority of the modern citizen’s problems.

Experts have shown that holding a fart in causes a physical discomfort which triggers a complex chain reaction within the body that ultimately leads to a violent psychological disturbance of our otherwise mentally/psychically balanced selves. If we allowed ourselves to jake-brake freely, war, poverty, discrimination, and hatred would all cease to exist. Marriages would last longer. Literacy would increase. The economy would rebound. And as it turns out, unabashed farting is actually good for you too. In a highly scientific study just conducted by my brain, 99% of those who fart freely live healthier, longer lives.

Have we become that enslaved to certain social mores? I say no more to abruptly excusing yourself from your date to rush off to the public bathroom! It is only when we find the courage to fart in front of our partners that love becomes real. Farting makes the world a less frightening place (just think of OBL farting in some remote cave in Pakistan). Embrace the rapture, the pure sweet relief that comes with unencumbered release. Loosen up that sphincter and let ‘em rip. Dare to be the pioneer who makes a board meeting a little more interesting, who passes gas while sitting in class, who crop dusts while teaching class, who rocks the casbah while sitting on a flight from Pittsburgh to Paris, who unleashes the thunder from down under while acting on stage, who airbrushes their boxers while defending their dissertation. Rid your trunk of the ephemeral flatulent junk. Let ‘em fly. Let ‘em rip. Become a public farting advocate - you’ll gain my vote and my respect. I’ll be doing a lot more farting in the future. And whether you admit it or no, you will be too. Tear down the walls that have been holding relief hostage. The world needs more farters in it. Your sphincter will thank you. The world will thank you, and I with it.

Bottoms Up!

[Full disclosure: This was a post I wrote for a different blog assignment for a different class of Julie's.  My classmates were not very good at leaving useful feeback, so I thought I would recycle the post]

The Third Thing You Should Know About Me

My son's name is Luke.  Right away you are probably, based on my first two posts, jumping to the conclusion that this is undoubtedly a result of my affinity for Star Wars.  You might even be sending thoughts of empathy to my fiancee, Luke's mother as you read this.  The problem is, it is not entirely true.

My Grandmother, who is in her mid 80s, is the matriarch of a very large family.  My Grandmother is Catholic.  I am the oldest grandson in a family that consists of Kevins, Katies, Patricks, Timothies, but none more appealing (namewise) to my grandmother's devotion to her religion than Matthew, Marc, and John. Three of the four canonical first books of the New Testament.  Years ago, at a youngish age, grandma pulled me aside.  This was quite out of the ordinary, but I loved the extra attention - something not easily garnered in a larger family - so I did not mind.  The important matter she had to confide in me was one of progeny.  In our family, there is no Luke.  My grandma wanted me to promise, at the ripe age of 13ish, that if I ever have a son, I would name him Luke.  Nearly 20 years later, I was able to keep my promise.  And my grandma is still alive to enjoy it.

But it is fun to say,"Luke, I am your Father."

Jedi Training

The Millenium Falcon

Because I think the metaphor works, it is back to that galaxy far far away.


For the purposes of this post, anything that relates to the "establishment", writers block or plagiarism we can equate to the Empire.  Thus, Process Pedagogoy (and concepts like concept-transference) necessairly make up the Rebel Alliance.

Process Pedagogy is the style of teachership I wish to incorporate into the class room, and these readings have had the feeling of initiation into a pedogological training.  I am an ardent supporter of Sir Ken Robinson's philosophy of education - we must shift the paradigm.  The one in place is outmoded and no longer works.  The current assembly-line-approach is the Dark Side of learning that stifles creativity and growth.  Perhaps the most poignant argument made in our readings in defense of Sir Robinson's position is made by Rohman and Wlecke when they suggest that "the basic reason we taught students to write was to allow them greater self-actualization through better-thinking" (219).  This assumption is based on an understanding of cognitive thinking ala George Lackoff (Yoda):

It is important to note that the authors weren't primarily concerned with better writing, but better thinking, and that experience was their key.  The implication for aspiring teachers seems to be that if we can somehow manage a way to channel experience (the Force) we can become better Jedi (teachers/writers).  We know enough to know that, though elegantly simple, nothing is quite that easy.  We could get tripped up on a desire to give in to the Dark Side (comfort zone of manufactured, teacher-focused pedagogy), or we might re-invent ourselves as detectives trying to sleuth out plagiarism - a fate that could consume us to the point where it overwhelms actually teaching (not unlike Luke Skywalker's failure in the cave):

But I feel that, as good as the suggestions in the readings are, they ultimately fall short.  If Roham and Wlecke are correct, and the level and depth of our experience predicts how well we construct sentences, then there needs to be a real push to change the culture (within the Academy) as it currently exists.  I have solutions which include Indian food, Jazz, the Capital building, and Zombies. If you like, we can talk about these in class.

The Second Thing You Should Know About Me

I am magnetically and scientifically drawn to words with "ST" as a part of their core structure.  For example:

My fiancee's name is ST-ephanie.
My favorite football team are the ST-eelers.
I enjoy being a ST-udent.
I enjoy both ST-ar Wars and ST-ar Trek.

And my favorite ST-yle of beer is a ST-out:



Yeah, I couldn't wait to have a few sips. Delicious!



The Darkside of Academia: A New Hope

The Darkside of Academia

The first half of the Lynn assingment reads like a long lost Lucas script: A Long Time Ago in a Galaxy Far Far Away, Rhetoric and Composition were pillars of the academic universe until the Darkside overwhelmed and eventulally consumed what remained of the Old Republic.  Its gutted and rotting carcus was replaced by the sterile, clean, and mercifulessly efficient Empire of scientific knowledge (and other disciplines closely aligned). Any and all rebels, wishing to reassert Rhetoric and Composition among the Empire's pantheon, were ruthlessly hunted down and destroyed.

But there was hope. An ancient Jedi prophecy foretold the coming of one who would bring balance back to the Academy: "...'[Composition Studies] can analyze broad social questions better than literary studies can'. This assertion of superiority leads Yoda (Schilb) to look forward to the day when composition is "not a plodding servant of other disciplines but a key FORCE [emphasis added] in the diagnosis of the contemporary world" (31).

Now, with the aide of Jedi Knights Bartholomae, Williams, Lynn, Elbow, Emig, and Schilb - guardians of the Old Republic - an alliance is being formed capable of ending the tyranical reign of the Empire and restoring peace and order to the galaxy:

But, The Reading did get me thinking of my own education and the role that Rhetoric and Composition played in
the creation of my own knowledge base

Clever

I've just finished reading the North introduction and have just started on "The Winds of Change" article and had a thought that I had to get out on "paper" before continuing. We are learning the paradigms and modes of inquiry not just to familiarise ourselves with what has already been said, but also because we are "preparing for membership in the intellectual community" as well. Very clever.

The first thing you should know about me

My middle name is Atlas.