Supreme Court decision sets back consumer safety by a generation.

In one quick stroke, a generation’s worth of work is gone. In the length of time it took to sign a name, the Supreme Court changed our entire justice system.

We have two areas, the criminal system and the civil system. The problem is that some acts are not illegal and cannot be prosecuted in the criminal system (sending people to jail) and therefore must be prosecuted in the civil system (costing them lots of money). There are problems in which the affects take decades to determine. Cases such as the lawsuit again big tobacco prove that. Vioxx is beginning to prove that again. We confuse the two parts of the system. We confuse legality with responsibility: just because something is not illegal, doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be held responsible for the repercussions. This is the basis for class action lawsuits.

A class action is not the same as suing a company for your own mistake as certain high profile cases against prominent fast food restaurants have proven. These are cases where a bunch of people are hurt because of an individual’s or corporation’s negligence or deliberate action. In fact, it is the only way we have to get these wealthy non-persons to pay for immoral actions. Knowingly promoting a deadly and dangerous drug and bribing the FDA to pass it caused Merck to deal with Vioxx. The market does not regulate itself—not when it comes to negligence and deliberate deception. That’s where class action suits make those responsible have to pay for their actions.

The Supreme Court made a recent decision that changes the very nature of the system. As detailed in this article, it says that

“the Supreme Court ruled that punitive damages should not exceed actual damages.”

This, of course, is limited to the current understanding of “actual damages”, which will no doubt be purely financial: medical costs and potentially lost wages, but would not deal with many of the other costs.

This particular case dealt with a fishing town devastated by the Exxon oil spill from 20 years ago that had yet to be resolved in court. The spill devastated the primary industry of the town for years, preventing many from working any job.

“Imagine if the primary industry in your community was wiped out by the actions of another. If you owned a business that depended on that primary industry, wouldn't you feel entitled to a damage claim as well?”

I’ll take up the challenge! Imagine what would have happened in the 1980s or 90’s if the auto industry stopped suddenly because one company ruined steel—for several years—making it impossible for any manufacturer to make new cars in Michigan. Or imagine what would happen to any of our rural communities if a pesticide manufacturer dumped millions of gallons of pesticides on all of the fields of several counties. The level of pesticides would not only kill all of the plants, but would make the land unusable for years.

The environmental and economic impact of the oil spill are directly related—but only the economic one matters to this court.

And according to the court, only the economic interests of a company matter. Your future well being, health, and pursuit of happiness are not important. The level of negligence is stopped at “accident”—meaning there could be nothing worse because of this ruling. Imagine a line graph. At one end is accident and at the other sadism:

Accident--------Unintentional Mistake---------Direct Consequence---------Sadistic Intent

According to the Supreme Court, the intention is irrelevant, so all punishments (in the form of damages) stop at the beginning: accident.

In other words, I could do incredibly malevolent things to our environment, people, and to cute bunny rabbits, but if the only financial damages that can be proven are the breaking of a coffee mug, then all of the irreparable harm I do will cost me $5-10.

Or think about it from the side of Exxon, which in the current climate is taking home record profits, mind you, messed up the environment, had the federal government bail it out for cleanup, was negligent in the disaster (the captain was drunk, remember?) devastated communities, and destroyed countless lives, but the damages that can be leveled against it amount to clean up costs. They have gone into a Cracker Barrell, thrown knick knacks through windows and all they are held accountable for is the cost of the window and the crap broken.

What is to stop a drug company from knowingly harming people (hello, Merck; the next Vioxx is calling!), when the only damages that they will have to pay out are hospital bills? For them $200,000 is an investment!

Damages awarded are the primary means of holding corporations accountable in an era of reduced consumer safety. When our laws are lax and our enforcement underfunded, we are praying that the products we buy are safe. When they aren’t we have to sue the company for excessive damages because there is no other legal repercussion.

How does it feel to have a Supreme Court that not only cares for a company’s well being more than yours, but is actively protecting their interests at the cost of your own?

In a perfect world...

Think about this: scientists are in virtual agreement, the world opposes it, its replacement already exists—and is not more costly, its ban is supported by mothers and health professionals, its ban is not opposed by manufacturers and the like, and yet…

If there were such unanimous opinion about something from nearly all involved, one would think it would have been resolved long ago (aside from the Iraq Conflict). But there seems to be reluctance to eliminate Phthalates, a chemical compound that makes plastic flexible while maintaining its strength. It has also been proven to cause genetic defects and cancer in those ingesting it—even from irregular acts of sucking and licking (as children do, especially when teething). If you would like more information on this, check out a great article from May here.

What is preventing Congress from banning this deadly substance? ExxonMobil. Manufacturers aren’t crying foul because there are legitimate alternatives. Much of Europe has already banned the substance and is going about their business, while we are stuck in the dark ages brought about a regressive adherence to so-called “free” markets. But here is the real kicker: only ExxonMobil, makers of the most common phthalate are showing their opposition, and throwing the weight of their recently consistent record-level profits.

Take the time to contact your congressperson about supporting a bill to ban this deadly petroleum-based killer by clicking here.

Fundamentalism and the purity code

In light of my previous post about Biblical literalists, I have found something upon which we might reflect. My reading for the day was Leviticus 12-14. I am in the process of reading The Daily Message: Through the Bible in One Year, a daily reading from Eugene Peterson’s translation of the Bible.

Today’s reading was three chapters on skin disease and ritual cleansing. I know what you’re thinking—spirit-filled reading, right? “The priest will pour some of the oil into the palm of his left hand, and with his right finger sprinkle some of the oil from his palm seven times before God.”[1] Riveting! As I called it in a sermon recently, it is God’s divine micromanagement (Oh, P!).

When dealing with fundies, especially the trolls, we tend to go back to our usual pronouncements: it’s the well from which we draw. But here is something else. As our friend suggested in Encompass (my response in the previous post from last week),

“[Self-described] Orthodox Anglicans fervently believe that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and none come unto the Father except through him. Jesus gave us this doctrine himself, and it becomes a litmus test for the theological deviation that has occurred and is progressing at an alarming rate.”

Jesus also said in Matthew 5:17-20:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”[2]

From Jesus’s sermon on the mount, our humble teacher took a pretty defensive posture toward the law as laid out in Scripture. I think our friends would agree that to be a sensible thing. They would argue that we are breaking those laws on a regular basis and that we must be brought back into the fold of conservative churchmanship. They would be ignoring their own duties, of course.

One of the highlights of the Leviticus reading gives detailed accounts of how a priest should examine the skin of the people to make sure each does not have an infection. Despite the obvious metaphorical interpretation of this, not to mention embodying the same remedy: banishing the infected to the wilderness outside of the city: I have not heard of regular blood sacrifices being done throughout the 'orthodox' church (or the real Orthodox churches, for that matter).

But this is my favorite: from the second half of Leviticus 14, we discover what to do about “a serious fungus”:

“When you come into the land of Canaan, which I give you for a possession, and I put a leprous disease in a house in the land of your possession, the owner of the house shall come and tell the priest, saying, “There seems to me to be some sort of disease in my house.” The priest shall command that they empty the house before the priest goes to examine the disease, or all that is in the house will become unclean; and afterward the priest shall go in to inspect the house. He shall examine the disease; if the disease is in the walls of the house with greenish or reddish spots, and if it appears to be deeper than the surface, the priest shall go outside to the door of the house and shut up the house seven days. The priest shall come again on the seventh day and make an inspection; if the disease has spread in the walls of the house, the priest shall command that the stones in which the disease appears be taken out and thrown into an unclean place outside the city. He shall have the inside of the house scraped thoroughly, and the plaster that is scraped off shall be dumped in an unclean place outside the city. They shall take other stones and put them in the place of those stones, and take other plaster and plaster the house.

If the disease breaks out again in the house, after he has taken out the stones and scraped the house and plastered it, the priest shall go and make inspection; if the disease has spread in the house, it is a spreading leprous disease in the house; it is unclean. He shall have the house torn down, its stones and timber and all the plaster of the house, and taken outside the city to an unclean place. All who enter the house while it is shut up shall be unclean until the evening; and all who sleep in the house shall wash their clothes; and all who eat in the house shall wash their clothes.”

I suggest we make sure that our friends in San Joaquin, Pittsburgh, and Fort Worth are keeping up with their demo duties…

---

[1] Translation is The Message.

[2] Translation is NRSV.

Compromise and Fundamentalism

In conflict resolution, I used to be a big fan of compromise. It seems like a decent way of doing things. I want X and you want Y, so I get X-1 and you get Y-1. Fair all around.

Of course, better yet is finding ways where we both win. Roger Fisher’s Getting to Yes makes just such a suggestion.

And then there’s this: Democratic Congress vs. Republican President. It’s a showdown except there is no real showdown.

The more prominent story is the FISA bill, which is yet another example of Democrats blinking in the face of a Republican game of chicken, but here is one more insidious to me.

Remember last year when we successfully rid ourselves of the worst Attorney General (Alberto Gonzales) ever? Michael Mukasey was put forth as a compromise pick. Unlike AG as AG, Mukasey was smart. Unlike AG, he was willing to talk and compromise. That was the spin. Despite his refusal to answer any of the tough questions, Democrats gave him the nod.

From moment one he refused to be an upgrade for Gonzales, pushing the Bush agenda from a post that needs to be independent from the president as chief prosecutor. Then this was brought to my attention.

Maybe he’ll show up under the threat of arrest. Or not.

We’ve let others declare themselves immune for having had lunch a couple of times with the President. Mukasey ducked the hard questions and the Democrats gave him a free pass to further obstruct justice.

So it begs the question: why try to compromise?

Is there a point in which compromise only hurts you? Is there a time when it is preferred to
accept the game of chicken?

The problem is the Republican ideology has changed from

sensible agreement to obstinate confrontation: and for over a decade it has worked. This was a chief strategy of the Gingrich/Delay Republican Party and has shown to be of great use to the Bush administration. The reality of the situation is that is works for them, so they will keep doing it.

So what can the Democrats do to create a more compromising
Congress? Should they even try?

The ideology of win-at-all-costs loses as an ideology when it stops working. Not only handing them losses, but forcing gridlock on their most important issues (preventing them from winning), and forcing them to vote against their own legislation because of their unwillingness to compromise. These strategies, when combined together will certainly force their hand. Then there is always the option of using the law as it is intended.

Impeaching the President and Vice President or pursuing them for war crimes, murder, and felony eavesdropping once they leave office serveas both the legal repercussions of their actions and discourage future bad behaviors.

The FISA compromise serves as a perfect example of folding before the President, blinking when you should be standing firm. I get Sen. Obama’s position and the position of other Democrats that see putting FISA back in place as more important than immunity, but what is being ignored is that this president will ignore the law anyway. Making FISA the rule of the land again is not as important as making the president act a certain way. He broke the law before, he’ll break it now; but making him a repeat law-breaker is not as important as curtailing the action in the first place. Secondly, Sen. John McCain has taken Bush’s stance on nearly everything, but especially on matters of “intelligence”. Putting this law back in place in expectation of the next president abiding by it is not terribly important when a potential Pres. McCain would ignore it anyway (and Democrats refuse to raise impeachment proceedings). Even a wider Democratic majority is just as unlikelyto go after McCain for breaking the law as they have been with Still President Bush.

Compromise, as a concept is impossible in such an arrangement. In this case, as in every
important case of the last 7 years, the Democrats have folded. They blinked. They cried “uncle”. They showed the world that they are willing to let a school-yard bully beat them up and take their lunch money. And then do it again. And again. Then they let another bully beat them up, again and again. Then they hand over the money without a fight—worried that the bad press will hurt them more—or that it will make Bush look bad. Since when has public opinion prevented Pres. Bush from doing anything?

Compromise is still a pretty good concept. Especially when it is a tool to help us get to yes. Compromising your values in the face of tyranny isn’t.

So what do we do?

Crime: Being Accurate

Did you hear the one about the librarian that got kicked off of public property?

Ms. Carol Kreck was escorted from the line to get into the "town hall meeting" held by Sen. John McCain in Denver (sight of this year's Democratic National Convention. First she was harrassed by McCain's rent-a-cops, then by actual officers that wrote a ticket for tresspassing.

"Why?" you ask.

Look at the sign. Ms. Kreck then told a reporter that she wasn't sure why John McCain, who sought the support of the President and campaigned for his reelection would be offended by her sign. She wasn't sure why any Republican that voted for Bush would have a problem with her sign. Funny enough.

McCain's response to the whole thing proved the sign's accuracy, however, as this article points out:

This episode by McCain's Secret Service appears to be a rerun of
McCain's 2005 town hall in Denver with President Bush in which the
Secret Service had three Denver citizens removed from an "open" event
where McCain was campaigning with Pres. Bush for his plan to privatize
social security.

Do you think the irony is lost on wingnuts?

So that's why I'm evil! I had no idea!

When I was in high school, I learned of a great way to get my endorphins running. No, not what you’re thinking. I watched the McLachlan Group. Watching two slightly rational people arguing with two idiots and a blowhard was surprisingly amusing for me. I enjoyed getting angry enough that I would yell at the TV. “Tony! You’re an idiot!” I would say. “Just stop talking for once!”

I have chosen more useful outlets for my pseudo-news, but I had not found a place to reveal such ire until recently. The American Anglican Council, the schismatic support group that remains within the Episcopal Church, but loves fanning the flames, puts out a monthly newsletter called Encompass, which is quite amusing. Aside from the regular jargon and the liberal use of the term “orthodox” and “orthodox anglicanism”, it is very telling about where the conservative mind has wandered to. But my favorite part has to be the regular column “A Message from the President”, written by the Rt. Rev. David C. Anderson, whose titles are “AAC President & CEO”. Classy stuff.

Like listening to talk radio or Bill O’Reilly, you get the sense that Anderson is less interested in the issues up for discussion as he is in taking advantage of the opportunity to be crass. We aren’t merely talking about a little mudslinging, but overt misrepresentation of facts with the intention of defamation. Then he throws in some pretty saucy language.

Let’s take a look at the most recent issue (which is not yet on their website): May/June 2008.

Anderson begins his column by claiming “the spin regarding the crisis in Anglicanism is dizzying”, with pejorative references to the Episcopal Church (TEC) and the Lambath Conference as proof of this ‘spin’.

But then he makes a truly remarkable point. He argues that

“The situation is complex and can’t be explained in a soundbite. So when outsiders look at the crisis in the Anglican Communion they often default to the easiest understanding—sex.”

But isn’t that what you’ve been saying?

“I have explained to journalists at length that the sexuality issues in North America are derivative of the theological errors of the Episcopal Church (TEC) and the Anglican Church of Canada (ACoC).”

Oh, so it isn’t about sex, but how we think about sex. It isn’t the sex, per se, but what we say, think, respond to, and appreciate about sex. But it has nothing to do with the sex.

“Orthodox Anglicans fervently believe that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and none come unto the Father except through him. Jesus gave us this doctrine himself, and it becomes a litmus test for the theological deviation that has occurred and is progressing at an alarming rate.”

So what did the ordination of Bishop V. Gene Robinson have to do with this? And gay marriage in Canada has what to do with a theology that is more concerned with the means of salvation than the road to salvation?

“We believe that Holy Scripture has the authority to speak into both our spiritual and our “secular” lives, and to provide not only the words of eternal life, but also the proper ordering of our behavior and discipline.”

Oh, so God doesn’t influence us today, as/through/by the Holy Spirit, but by the Holy Scripture! I get it! God is dead!

You don’t think that’s what he means? Why else would we think that the only use for the Bible is as a how-to guide and behavior manual.

But now we get to the meat of it:

“The great divide we face is that the liberal revisionists who lead TEC and ACoC no longer believe this, and it is a very significant departure from classical Christianity.”

I’m not sure to what “this” he is referring. I’m assuming he is using the “easiest understanding” of the “soundbite” Biblical literalism or the Bible’s sole authority or some other shortcut to suggest that they are the keepers of the faith and that we have Bible burning ceremonies out in the woods. But then again, his earlier statement suggests how far he is removed from tradition…

“In their view, Jesus is the way to the Father, but you can pick the path that works best for you.”

I’m not sure why this is part of his argument, but sure, we think ecumenism is a positive thing…

“Likewise, scripture is written by the church and can be rewritten and reinterpreted by the church to mean different things than it has for the past two millennia.”

There we go. The signal. Yes, the Bible was written by the church between 1000 BCE and 200 CE. It is nearly universally held that humanity was inspired to write this love story about faith, but if you want to take the position that the Bible dropped out of the sky, go for it. Fundamentalism at its finest! The second half of the statement suggests that the Bible has only been interpreted one way from the beginning. This doesn’t just mean that our “reinterpretations” about slavery were wrong—but there has always been only one (orthodox?) interpretation about every pressing issue of all time. Has he read anything from the first 600 years of Christianity? Or perhaps that pesky Reformation?

“Sexuality issues are the presenting symptom that indicates a visit to the doctor’s office is needed, but they are not the disease. Departure from the historic Christain faith is the disease, and sexual perversions, dealings in witchcraft and the occult, and other manifestations are the consequent result. It is hard, if you are not here to witness it, to see how wacko the Episcopal Church is getting.”

Wait. Hold on. WTF? Did he really just say that a living, vibrant view of faith is not only a “departure from the historic Christian fiath”, but that it leads to witchcraft and the occult? Is he serious? This is like the guy driving a minivan that stopped by a Habitat for Humanity building site in Saginaw to pass out pamphlets telling us that Harry Potter is the work of the devil. This is the same stuff he’s shoving at us. And by throwing this in front of the reference to TEC, he is suggesting that the church is endorsing occultism and wicca. That’s it. He’s lost it.

He concludes that statement by suggesting:

“We couldn’t make this stuff up—“

Though he did.

“so we will just report it to you to underline our point: as bad as the homosexuality issues are in the church, the bizarre theology is even worse.”

His point seems to be that not only will gay people ruin your marriage if they engage in domestic partnerships and important leadership roles in the church, but our theology will do real damage.

Then Anderson gets really personal, attacking our neighbors to the north in the Diocese of Northern Michigan. It must be pointed out that this is one of the most rural and sparsely populated places in the country. It gets incredibly cold and its tourist season is almost entirely June-August. Through the leadership of a truly great bishop, Jim Kelsey, (who died last year in a car accident, driving between his distant churches) and diocesan leadership, they became a pioneering diocese in the use of mutual ministry, a tool to empower the laity and solve a financial issue. With that forward, let us continue.

In the diocesan response to the draft Anglican Covenant, Northern Michigan made a faith statement with which Anderson and David Kalvelage (The Living Church editor) took issue. It is this:

“Our faith is that we, like all creation are continually being born again from above (John 3:1-17). We are continually being re-born as created co-creators, created co-receivers, created co-reconcilers. We are continually being reborn as incarnations of the living Trinity.”

A powerful and incredible statement that is truly inspiring, I think! What else is our relationship with God, but for the opportunity to collaborate on bringing the Kingdom of God? Are we not called to this continued ministry?

“This is one of many non-scriptural New Age pronouncements in the statement that Kalvelage takes to task.”

Huh? Didn’t you catch the scriptural reference? You clearly missed it because you said it was non-scriptural. Perhaps we have a literacy problem… Anderson then quotes Kalvelage when he wrote in the May 11, 2008 issue of The Living Church:

“As I’ve written in the space before, trying to explain the Trinity is a task well beyond my limited insight. But I think even I could make more sense of it than this does.”

I don’t think that this was a response to a seminary Systematics exam that asked students to “Explain the classical definition of the Trinity”. Is he really that stupid, or is he using that strategy perfected by the Bush administration as pretending like they don’t get the point. “You claim to be making a genuine faith statement, but it just sounds like a bunch of gobbledygook to me!” But if that were really the end…

“It reads as though one of the authors of some of the fuzzy theology that came out of the ‘70s suddenly had been re-energized and was determined to escape from retirement.”

I bet that killed at the comedy club! Go for big laugh line!

“Or perhaps the severe winter experienced in the upper Midwest prevented diocesan leaders from thinking clearly.”

Hoozah! There it is! He brought it home. He nailed the bastards!

Or he is being incredibly insulting. Have they been to the Upper Peninsula? Has it ever occurred to them what church must look like in such an environment? Ah, but they’re biblical literalists. Anderson is too busy worshiping God in His holy land of Georgia in his blended fabric robes.

But the quote from Kalvelage continues:

“The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is a declaration of the Christian faith.”

Well…technically this may be seen as true, but he is making the doctrine of it more important than the theology used to create doctrine. Not to mention, our doctrine on the Trinity is pretty vague. Lost in this discussion is Northern Michigan's description of purpose; they weren't crafting an academic theology, but a living theology which affirms them.

“We may not understand how God can be one in three persons, but we can find in holy scripture passages that can strengthen our belief.”

Is he supporting proof-texting here?

“For the Diocese of Northern Michigan to put its own spin on 2,000 years of Christian teaching and tradition—“

Is great!

“—only adds to the confusion being experienced by many Episcopalians and other Anglicans.”

I actually don’t get his point on this one. Is he suggesting that:

a) the theology has an affect on people that causes confusion,
b) their developing a genuine theology that relates to their environment means they
are ‘putting another theology out there’, which conflicts with other theologies in
that same environment,
c) that too many choices cause confusion, or
d) that differing from the only teaching that has ever existed in the history of time
and space that has remained unchanged for 2,000 years [that means pre-Jesus] is
a truly confusing concept?

Or maybe he is suggesting that

a) he is confused by multiple choice questions,
b) his friends are confused by multiple choice questions,
c) Sally in Boston is confused by a theology with which she has never engaged [and
probably never will],
d) Jesus taught the doctrine to his disciples in actually not teaching it to them,
e) the Bible clearly has only one thing to say about the Trinity,
f) as has the Church,
g) that Kalvelage is actually confused that he is in such a minority of opinion in the
United States—and that he’s uncomfortable with his friends [in a whispered
tone]…from Africa,
h) or all of the above.

Anderson actually isn’t done yet, though!

“People’s eternal life is being put at risk because teaching such as this is disseminated by diocesan sources, and those who believe and act on it are at peril.”

So Anderson is really a hero! Encouraging massive breaks from canon, supporting the most ridiculous position on both the Bible and on his role as a priest in the one, holy catholic church are not nearly as dangerous as free thought. Does Anderson need to rent Footloose or is that occultish?

He ends with some pretty shameless backpatting and support for the work of the schismatics for attempting to break off from the church. I particularly like this statement:

“I see an unwavering commitment to follow Jesus who is The Way and to do so using Holy Scripture to teach, rebuke, correct and train in righteousness. I see a willingness to look the hard issues in the face and begin trying to work on them. Is the task formidable? Absolutely!”

That hard work of schism really takes a lot out of him, but he’s willing to do it for you, True Believer! He’s just that kind of guy! It’s the hard stuff that he’s good at, but the easy stuff—like loving one’s neighbor, showing mercy, and learning from the example of the apostles—he just can’t keep it all straight! It’s like spelling and grammar. Who needs it?

In describing GAFCON, he says that

“We will gather in Jerusalem to fellowship and proclaim the transforming love of Christ, to develop renewed understanding of our identity as Anglican Christians, and to prepare for an Anglican future in which the Gospel is uncompromised and Christ-centered mission is a top priority.”

He is such a good foot soldier for Jesus! And it is so precious! He is entirely focused on the plan to undo the workings of the Spirit of the last several decades (as perpetrated by witches and occultists) that creating something new in order to eliminate that new thing from before is just the risk he is willing to take. And clearly, Jesus would do this, right? He would certainly have a separate meeting, refuse to go to Lambeth, and refuse to commune with his neighbors—that’s total J-Dog. And because they are the elect, the super-orthodox, the chosen ones, with their precious gnosis, they can only talk to each other. Now that’s Jesus’s favorite teaching.

And the church certainly has nothing to teach us about that...

The 1990s as told by Major League Baseball

It is interesting how the present forms into themes that we don’t understand until it is past.

The book on the 1990s is still being written, of course. We need the benefit of distance to get it right. But some things are starting to emerge.

• In the 1960s, we had to deal with major cultural shifts that were as necessary as the civil war and the New Deal.
• In the 1970s, we learned to adapt to those new cultural norms.
• In the 1980s, conservatives rejected many of the new norms and recast society as an individualistic and consumer society.
• In the 1990s, we expanded this concept.

I was thinking about it this morning, and the best example of this is actually baseball. No kidding! Baseball personifies the mistakes, miscalculations, glory, and dysfunction of the 90’s.

With Bud Selig as commissioner, we saw the problem of putting a businessman in charge of bureaucracy (I know you are thinking Bush better personifies this than Clinton, but politics lags behind public opinion, remember).

• Early on, we had a work stoppage that was so pro-owner that we saw the failed use of scabs and the further damaging of the sport’s reputation.
• The post-lockout period was dominated by successive home run chases, first the McGwire/Sosa battle, then Barry Bonds.
• Pitchers had the worst statistics in decades, making offensive numbers so, ahem, offensive. Many jokes about the scores looking more akin to football.
• Player salaries balloon as free agency becomes a crack addiction for owners.
• Bud Selig uses blackmail and economic pressure to force cities and states to pay for new stadiums for across the country.
• Selig encourages half-brained schemes to boost interest with neither regard to tradition or logic, including interleague play and the all-star game determining home field for the World Series.
• Attendance soars, owners turn wild profits, players make crazy money: ticket prices shoot through the roof.
• And steroids.

As everything, the 90’s and 00’s bleed together, but most of the above issues take root and grow in the 1990s, in no small part due to the leadership of Commissioner Bud Selig. The leadership, like the 1990s was about two things: market manipulation and making money. The Selig Era has shown no interest in the sport, tradition, or in legacy. It has taken as irrelevant the wishes of the fans, communities, players, managers, or umpires, leaving only owners. Here are my thoughts on the issues (and how they relate).

The lockout showed the increasing position of the government to prefer the freedom of owners and companies to the rights of the workforce. This includes the ever-expanding difference between the extreme wealthy and the rest of us. But worse is the fundamental shift in extreme prejudice toward one wealthy person’s right to hold his/her labor force hostage over the worker’s basic right to a decent wage and working conditions. I know this seems far-fetched with pampered professional athletes, but unions are unions and businesses are businesses. The decreasing power of unions is not due to ability, but the preference of one person’s rights (the owners) over another’s (the workers). This is even more aggregious when the preferred person has inherent advantages (wealth and ownership [independence]) over the worker (much lower income and job dependent on others)

The home run chase, the steroids issue, and minor rules changes all lead to a fundamental intention of the Selig Era: increased scoring. Selig was often quoted as suggesting that what people watched baseball for was the homerun. It is an idea that is akin to suggesting that people like football for touchdown passes, hockey for slap shot goals and basketball for dunks. Though all of these things are exciting, and “innovations” in each of the sports, appearing in some cases in the latter half of the 20^th Century, but none is, by itself, anybody’s real reason for watching a sport. If it were, homerun derbies and slam dunk contests would be the most watched events. The manipulation of the game to increase offense using the above reasons, but also expansion and dilution of the pitching throughout baseball plus the potential of a juiced baseball (treated by the media as a conspiracy theory, despite some compelling evidence) all lead to more offense; and ridiculously long, less compelling games. It led to the late 90’s Athletics truly exciting game plan of getting on base and letting the next guy hit a homerun. Yes. Baseball was never as riveting as this. People love true competition. They love underdog Davids toppling Goliaths—not two Goliaths slugging it out for 4 to 5 hours before getting too tired to stand up, let alone punch each other. In our financial system of the 90’s, we developed a similar principle: market manipulation is bad when it means parity and fairness and broad competition, but good when it means expanding the wealth potential of the über-rich and minimizing competitive and market forces. Think about the narrow sense of the “free marketeers”: they are interested in competition as a rationale for their dealings only, but have sought favorable rules changes to allow them to eliminate competition. Put in another way, competition comes from a variety of factors, not the least of which deals with how one automates, purchases goods with which they will manufacture a product, markets their product, and sells that product, not merely whether another company makes a similar product. Free marketeers think there is competition when another person or company has the potential to produce a similar product and may at some point be competition to them. Any other aspect of the market can and should be manipulated in their favor. Meanwhile, the consumer receives an inferior and inefficient product.

Player salaries outpace the increase of salaries in other markets. This dovetails with the overpayment of services rendered by our celebrities of all types, regardless of industry. In the 1990s, the most important people in the country are not our politicians, innovators, diplomats, doctors or any other leader or visionary or care provider, but our celebrities. We developed an unhealthy demand for relationship with our baseball players that finds us disappointed when we find out Mark McGwire and Roger Clemens are/may be cheaters. We are happy that Barry Bonds is a cheater because it justifies our dislike for him anyway. We want to know who Derek Jeter is dating because we don’t want him to be a heroic golden boy, but the womanizer and partier of another Yankees great, Babe Ruth. The salaries themselves don’t represent sound business decisions. We are only beginning to see that teams can build through the draft and completely forgo free agency.

The half-brained schemes that are Selig’s trademark show how off-the-mark Selig’s strategies really are. Like his move for more offense at the expense of a watchable game (which seems like Microsoft’s corporate MO), the changes of virtually no practical significance that dramatically alter the culture of the game served as a short-term money-making ploy. The idea being to get teams that never play each other, but are territorial rivals (ie New York’s Yankees and Mets and Chicago’s White Sox and Cubs, for instance) would be matchups that people want to see. And they did: for a couple of years. Now they’re just games. Not to mention Detroit playing Arizona seems to have virtually no value. This move was intended to maximize short-term profits, which is the 1990s MO. Butchering profitable companies for short-term personal gain for the board, leaving the shareholders (the fans) left to pick up the pieces.

This leaves the worst mark of the Selig Era: the stadium gambit. As commissioner, Selig has certain powers. He encouraged the realignment, expansion and put some teams on notice for contraction a few years ago (including the Minnesota Twins and the former Montreal Expos). His most dictatorial and disgusting move has been using the threat of relocation as a bargaining tool (less like a “chip” and more like a metal rod jammed somewhere) so that the city in question will build a new stadium. Renovations are not enough. There must be new stadiums. This was sold to the people with the incentive of increased revenue. They looked at Baltimore’s Camden Yards and said, “if it can work for Baltimore…” and then Cleveland struck proverbial gold. By building a young core of players along with a new stadium, the Indians went to a World Series with record profits. This became the template for all teams that Selig believed needed that boost that come from a new stadium. Since Baltimore and Cleveland’s builds in 1992 and ’94 respectively, Atlanta, Cincinnati, Detroit, Houston, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, Texas, and Washington have all built new stadiums. Plus the Yankees are building a new one for next year. Unlike the previous comments about short-term profits, this serves as the ultimate money-making scheme. First, you get the people to pay for your facilities, putting the financial risk on not only the fans, but on the local community. Second, the owners, not the taxpayers or even players or personnel of the team, benefits directly from the short-term boost in attendance. Third, teams are often given a sweetheart deal in purchasing the stadium (as Texas did under the direction of George W. Bush), meaning the team gains the benefits of ownership (no rent, plus being able to rent it out to others generating additional income in the offseason or during road trips), while taking virtually none of the cost. They also used Enron-style accounting, which was made possible in the 1990s by a Republican Congress. Lastly, raising prices of tickets mean an increase in profit per ticket, as building costs are quickly offset. The true crime in this has not even been these questionable contracts that many of these cities have gone into for the building of stadiums, but the blatant and despicable requirement on the part of the commissioner to demand new stadiums be built: in the case of some, the old one was not only tremendously serviceable, but a true icon (such as Tiger Stadium) or is still “new” by building standards (The Metrodome in Minneapolis was built in 1982). Neither team in Los Angeles or the Boston Red Sox is being threatened with relocation, despite the age of their stadiums are all over forty years old (Fenway is 96). This demonstrates the use of “laws” and restrictions to manipulate the outcome in the way that is preferred by a political party or a collective of wealthy companies. It is like the continued “deregulation” of media ownership rules that allow mega-corporations to own more and more networks, news outlets, newspapers, and radio stations in the same city. The future potential of industry giants to manipulate the news and directly influence local situations to their direct benefit is unprecedented.

Selig’s manipulation of the stadium vs. relocation issue is intended to directly benefit the owners and Major League Baseball, but has the side effect of driving fans away and jeapordizing the long-term value of the sport. With rising ticket prices, fans are no longer able to go to 10-30 games a year, dropping by the ballpark because they have an afternoon free or taking the kids each Saturday. This is an essential component of a season that sits at 162 games. Making each game an event sure seems strange when you are sitting in a half-empty park in early May watching a meaningless interleague game or in September for a team that is far from playoff bound. The visit to the ballpark is now more spectacle and event than ritual and participation. Other examples, such as in Montreal should serve as a serious warning. When threatened with contraction or relocation, the fans in Montreal chose to let the team leave: they stopped going to the stadium, making their already low attendance drop through the floor.

I’m tired of waiting for Bud Selig to leave office and he certainly should have been impeached long before now. But like many of the things from the 1990s, it will take a long time to fix things for the new present and for the future.