"Family" is a Synonym for Tyranny

I can't think about or watch an episode of The Sopranos without thinking of the concept of "family."

 

Tony Soprano and Co. are a family. This means they will look after you. This may include breaking your fucking head, but hey, that's what family is all about. Capiche?

 

The only difference between the Sopranos and your typical American family is that the typical American family doesn't threaten to whack you if you fail to conform. But they have other sanctions they employ which amounts to talking a lot of shit about you or nagging you to death.

 

When it comes to people, there seem to be two options--

 

A. Loneliness

 

B. Aggravation

 

Being alone sucks, but the upside is that no one is around to bother you. But the only cure for loneliness is company which means dealing with aggravation.

 

Aggravation comes from the desire to control others. This could be your desire to control others or their desire to control you. But either way, that's where the frustration comes in. And the closer you get to certain people, the more control (and aggravation) you experience. That's why every married man I meet tells me that it is tough.

 

I hate to be controlled. I hate when people try to exert force over me or influence me to conform. I hate to be nagged. And I definitely don't want to be told how to live my life. Now, friends and coworkers usually respect these "rules" of mine but not family. Your family members think they have a right to govern you, your beliefs, and your behavior. They force their values upon you until you either obey, or you lash out.

 

I can't stand this shit. I especially can't stand it when I get lectured to about reading and thinking too much by a bunch of shitheaded illiterate clusterfucks. I also can't stand getting a fucking lecture about my personality and all my "deficiencies." And believe me, nothing makes me want to punch out someone's grill more than when a family member who I tolerate with all their bullshit hangups and failings without a word of criticism decides to issue some judgment about me usually about a problem they have but which they have projected onto me.

 

Family is a tool of tyranny. We can thank former Vice President Dan Quayle for highlighting this relationship with his "family values" rhetoric from long ago. But a family is merely another term for the Collective. Or as the Borg would put it, "Prepare to be assimilated. Resistance is futile."

 

I don't want to be controlled. I don't want to be told what to do. And I don't want advice unless I ask for it. Conversely, I'm not interested in policing other family members. I genuinely honestly don't give a fuck about what a relative may do. Their lives are their own. But none of them ever extends the same courtesy to me.

 

This principle is most clearly highlighted in the marriage relationship. Despite the high rate of infidelity which is virtually ubiquitous, irreconcilable differences is the primary reason cited in divorce. Why is this? Because a marriage is a constant powerplay with someone trying to wring conformity from them. Wives nag husbands, and husbands beat wives. . .er, argue back.

 

People will tell you that what you need in a marriage is compatibility and compromise. Both of these are closely related to conformity. Basically, if you want to be happy in a marriage, just shut your fucking mouth and do what you're told. Pardon me if I'm not particularly eager to jump into this shit.

 

I am not interested in running someone else's life, and you better believe I am not interested in having someone run my life for me. That is really the genesis of all conflict. The nagging wife, the bitch mother-in-law, the bastard father, and the nagging mother are all archetypes in society. They are fodder for endless comedy, and it is because they are so recognizable.

 

I don't want to be in a family anymore, and this is because family members think they have a license to rule over you. The best relationship is friendship. I have had friends who have been more brother to me than any sibling I could ever have. They were there for me without judging me or telling me what to do. I respected their autonomy, and they respected mine.

 

Is loneliness the price of being an individualist? I don't think so. I make friends everywhere I go. And I have encountered quite a few laidback females who were like me. They just wanted to be friends, have a good time, and maintain their own lives. Like me, they believed in freedom as a lifestyle, and they were a bit quirky. But I must admit to being a dumbass and letting them go by while wasting my time on the more autocratic females.

 

The loneliness/aggravation thing was a bit of an epiphany for me, but it makes sense. The answer is to apply my wider belief in freedom to the more personal areas of my life. I find I get along much better with people because I don't go around telling them what to do. And I also don't hesitate to let people know that I expect the same courtesy in return. Live and let live.

 

 

 

 

Read More

Show Me 97 Percent of The Money: NFL Agent Maximum Fee to Remain at 3 Percent

Street and Smith's Liz Mullen reports that the NFLPA's Board of Player Representatives (which is comprised of this Executive Committee) has decided against lowering the maximum agent fee from 3 percent to 2 percent for most player-agent agreements, although did lower the fee for franchised and transitioned players. (Mullen, "NFL Union Keeps Maximum Agent Fee," Street and Smith's Sports Business Journal, Mar. 27, 2006 (registration required)). A number of players had advocated that the maximum fee be reduced for all contracts, contending that some players, and particularly new NFL players, unknowingly and hastily agree to the 3 percent fee without exploring other representation options (such as hiring a lawyer to do their contract representation on an hourly rate basis, or simply finding an agent who would agree to 2 percent). To illustrate this concern, Kellen Winslow Sr. recently opined that agents are duping young players into signing player-agent contracts with 3 percent fees:

Anyone who is paying 3 percent for contract negotiation I can tell you is being ripped off. [Eligible draft picks] decide to sign with an agent because agents have sold them a bag of goods of what they can do for them. All an agent can do for you at the combine is to run around and use your name so they can recruit other players.

Winslow also argued that while many agents promise to help players secure loans, top draft prospects could save themselves the commission by simply going to a bank and easily obtaining a loan on their own.

Nevertheless, a group of agents convinced the NFLPA that a reduction in the maximum fee would prove disastrous to their practice and also severely impair their ability to provide players with certain services, such as training to prepare for the NFL combine and the NFL draft. But their persuasion only went so far, as the NFLPA passed a resolution that lowers maximum fees from 3 percent to 2 percent for franchised and transitioned players, and agreed to futher reductions when a player is franchised or transitioned a second and third time.

Rick Karcher has written extensively about player representation and agent fees. For a preview of his forthcoming article in the Willamette Law Review on that subject, check out his post from February:

As players' salaries keep increasing, so do the agents' fees because they are paid on a commission basis. Simply, the agent's fee far exceeds the legitimate legal work and negotiation involved with a player contract, and the players are essentially funding the solicitation expenses incurred by agents. With such a huge commission at stake, agents have an incentive to invest an incredible amount of time and resources in client solicitation. And many of the reasons or justifications typically cited for paying a fee on a commission basis in other industries are not applicable to the player-agent relationship.

We look forward to Rick's law review article. And are players being duped by certain kinds of agents or do they simply lack personal responsibility in pursuing representation? Or both?

Read More

The Truth About Dave Chappelle

Is Dave Chappelle insane? The short answer is no. Here's the long answer.

 

For most people, all they see is the $50 million. I must admit that this is all I see, but Chappelle had opportunities to sell out long ago. It isn't about money but artistic direction. Since reading interviews with the man and such, I've gotten an idea as to why he pulled his disappearing act, and why he is reluctant to return and fulfill the commitment he made to Comedy Central to do a third season of his show.

 

To understand Chappelle, you must understand why he is so funny. The secret to his success is racial humor. Like it or not, the man got to where he was by doing what all white people recognize as "nigger jokes." Prior black comedians like Richard Pryor, Eddie Murphy, the Wayans clan, and Chris Rock have all edged into this territory, but none embraced it as much as Chappelle did. Dave Chappelle got popular by using the stereotypes of his own race as fodder for his comedy. The same show done by a white comedian would have resulted in a large outcry by both the black and the general community as being racist and probably would have been pulled by the network.

 

Chappelle's comedy has primarily appealled to white people while making black people a bit uneasy. Though they can make such jokes amongst themselves, they are justifiably concerned when it is disseminated for white consumption. Dave Chappelle makes black people look bad. He can't tell you this because this would require a public repudiation of his work. So, he is caught in a bit of a dilemma. I base this upon Dave's claim that he got to thinking about all of this when he saw a white cameraman laughing a bit too hard at the material Dave was doing.

 

The reality is that a Ku Klux Klan member would have little trouble watching some of Dave's material and getting a laugh from it. From beginning to end, black people are portrayed on Chappelle's Show as being criminals and drug addicts. His two most popular sketches involve a drugged up black celebrity (Rick James) and a crackhead (Tyrone Biggums.) Lesser characters like Tron also continue the stereotypes.

 

So, where does this leave Dave Chappelle? Here are his two options:

 

1. Collect the $50 million and keep doing his song and dance for the man which made him so popular.

 

2. Collect the $50 million and change his act which would mean not being funny anymore.

 

Dave is in a bit of a fucked up situation. It wasn't a problem when he was a relative nobody in the world of comedy. Now, he is in a situation that even I don't envy. Sad to say, much black entertainment that goes mainstream ends up being a bit of the Steppin Fetchit routine. Old shows like Good Times and The Jeffersons went this route as black people began to make cariacatures of themselves. If you want to know why JJ's dad disappeared and JJ became the focus of GT, now you know. It was the return of the minstrel show.

 

Much of this stuff could be hurdled if black people could get beyond racial collectivist thinking. But they can't. It was never Chappelle's intention to be so popular among white people by appealling to their sense of racial stereotypes much as it is not Jeff Foxworthy's attempt to appeal to Yankees' sense of Southern stereotypes. It just ended up that way.

 

I don't have a solution to Dave's imbroglio. I can see where the man needs time to think all this through, but people never give you time to reflect and get your mind right. I know this myself. What I can say is that you should never ridicule anyone or anything without having some sense of a personal philosophy to go by. This is what the creators of South Park have. Much of their worldview reflects my own which is largely libertarian and skeptical. Since they have this worked out, they do not run into the same self-doubts that Chappelle runs into. Plus, they aren't a one trick pony like Chappelle is. They skewer everyone including themselves. Chappelle is pigeonholed as merely a black comedian doing the race thing. I don't see him ever doing jokes about Muslims, the Iraq mess, North Korea, Jesus, or what have you.

 

I think Dave will get his mind right, but he will no doubt disappoint someone in the process. Welcome to fame, my man. It is a real bitch.

 

Read More

Perjury Investigation of Barry Bonds: More Bark than Bite?

According to Ted Rowlands of CNN, the United States Attorneys' Office in San Francisco is investigating whether Barry Bonds perjured himself while testifying before a grand jury in 2003. During that testimony, Bonds admitted that he had used a clear substance and a cream provided by trainer Greg Anderson, but stated that he believed they were flaxseed oil and arthritis balm. He also disclaimed any knowledge of substance-usage records, such as doping calendars from BALCO which indicated that he had used banned drugs, and denied ever paying Anderson for steroids or knowingly using them. As we discussed last month, the new book "Game of Shadows" paints Bonds as a knowing and habitual user of steroids and performance-enhancing substances.

Keep in mind, perjury charges are typically very difficult to prove. Perjury is the act of knowingly, intentionally, and materially lying to a court after taking an oath to tell the truth. So the prosecution must establish that a defendant knowingly and intentionally misstated a material fact, rather than having merely suffered from 1) a faulty recollection while answering a question; 2) a misunderstanding of the question being asked; or 3) a misunderstanding of his own response to the question. Moreover, an intentional lie must have a consequential effect on the case's ultimate outcome, a hurdle which can also be difficult to establish.

On the other hand, and assuming that Bonds did in fact lie under oath, his reputation for being meticulous about what goes into his body would seem to undercut any faulty recollection defense. But then again, did he understand the questions being asked of him? And did he fully understand his own answers? And how can the prosecution show that he did?

Read More

The $35,000 Question: Will Lower NBDL Age Limit Matter?

The National Basketball Development League (NBDL), which in part serves as the NBA's minor league system, announced today that it will lower its minimum age requirement from 20 years of age to 18 years of age, effective next season (note: the current 20-year old NBDL rule exempts players who are at least 18, had been drafted by an NBA team, and who were later cut or re-assigned by the NBA team). The NBDL age limit is different from that of the NBA, which now requires that an amateur American player be at least 19 years old on December 31 of the year of the NBA draft and that at least one NBA season has passed from when he graduated from high school, or when he would have graduated from high school, and the NBA draft.

The lowering of the NBDL age limit may reflect criticism that the NBDL's 20-year old limit is in violation of federal antitrust law, and specifically Section 1 of the Sherman Act, which prohibits agreements that unreasonably restrain trade, such as those impairing a relevant labor market (in this case, players). Back in 2002, sports agent Chris Brown of Orpheus Sports & Entertainment (and also adjunct sports law professor at Boston College Law School) wrote in the Metropolitan Corporate Counsel:

Under federal court precedent, the NBDL Rule most likely constitutes a “group boycott” that is illegal under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, exposing the NBDL to a potential fine of Ten Million Dollars ($10,000,000.00).

The harm resulting from the application of the NBDL Rule is threefold. First, teenage athletes not drafted by the NBA will be excluded from the market they seek to enter, the NBDL. Second, competition in the NBDL will suffer due to the fact that potentially superior athletes will not be afforded an opportunity to play in the NBDL. Third, by pooling their economic power, the individual member teams of the NBDL, like the NBA, have, in effect, established their own private government, and the NBDL possesses market power in a degree approaching a shared monopoly.

The NBDL will be hard pressed to convince a federal court that the NBDL Rule excluding athletes from trying out for a team based on the fact that the athlete is under twenty years of age does not constitute a group boycott under the Sherman Act . . . Utilizing a strict age requirement over merit will eventually lead to judicial scrutiny.

It will be interesting to see if the lower NBDL age rule attracts any star 18-year old high school basketball players who would otherwise have jumped for the NBA but can't because of the new NBA age limit, and who don't want to play in college (perhaps because they would rather make money for themselves and their families than for the NCAA/CBS/ESPN/Nike/videogame companies etc. which profit considerably from college hoops). But keep in mind, the average NBDL salary is about $35,000 (in comparison, the average NBA salary is about $4,900,000 or 139,000% more than the average NBDL salary), and NBDL players travel by bus and stay in motels. And perhaps save for a few, nobody knows who they are. In other words, life in the NBDL is nothing like life in the NBA, and they are obviously not comparable employment opportunities.

But for some players, the NBDL might still seem like a better option than going to college (similar to how for some persons, going into a trade out-of-high school is a better option than going to college). After-all, while $35,000 a year might not seem like a lot to most, someone from a family below the poverty line (which, for a family of four, is one that earns just under $19,000 a year) might have a very different reaction to that salary.

We'll see.

Read More

The Case for Banning Smokeless Tobacco in Major League Baseball

As we know, Major League Baseball is determined to eradicate steroids and performance-enhancing drugs from the game. Both politicians and fans have expressed disgust at the thought of players cheating, especially when those players break or threaten to break storied records. Politicians and fans are also worried that young people will watch their baseball heroes gain success and acclaim by bulking up through illegal means, and will thus feel that they should do the same. I discussed that latter topic in an article published last year in the American Journal of Law and Medicine.

But where is the uproar over young persons watching ballplayers chew and spit smokeless tobacco, especially when over 70 percent of ballplayers do so? After-all, long-term users of smokeless tobacco increase their risk of mouth cancer by 400 percent, and approximately 50 percent of those who use smokeless tobacco developed the habit before they were 13. Just as troubling, 20 percent of high school males use it and a higher percentage of high school athletes do. Smokeless tobacco is also known to discolor teeth and to cause gum recession and tooth decay.

So why not the same uproar over smokeless tobacco? Is it because steroids are about cheating while smokeless tobacco is about personal habit? Is it because many steroids and performance-enhancing are illegal while smokeless tobacco is not? Is it because too many players chew and it is thus too widely-used to stigmatize? The explanation doesn’t appear to be about health concerns, as smokeless tobacco is arguably more harmful and its use among young persons appears to be more prevalent. Even worse, we've already seen baseball players greviously harmed by smokeless tobacco (e.g., former Anaheim Angles minor leaguer Rick Bender; former high school baseball player Gruen Von Behrens), but bursts of outrage directed toward it don't seem to last. **Note: the photos of Bender and Von Behrens show horrifically-saddening consequences of smokeless tobacco, so be warned before clicking on their links.**

These are questions implicated by a new study authored by Harvard Professor Gregory Connolly on tobacco use during the 2004 World Series between the Boston Red Sox and the St. Louis Cardinals. (Stephen Smith, “Team of Destiny had a Dirty Habit,” Boston Globe, Apr. 11, 2006). Professor Connolly and his researchers analyzed videotapes of Game 4, and found that the Sox and Cardinals provided what amounted to $6.4 million in free advertising to the smokeless tobacco industry. So no, not a good example for impressionable kids.

Professor Connolly calls on Major League Baseball to ban smokeless tobacco, but Major League Baseball claims it cannot do so without consent from the Major League Players' Association (does that explanation ring a bell?). It would be great to think that Congress would show the same resolve in tackling smokeless tobacco that it has in combating steroids--particularly since the threats of Senators John McCain and Jim Bunning clearly had an effect on both Bud Selig and Donald Fehr--but given the lobbying and political-fundraising strength of the tobacco industry, I'm a tad skeptical that we’ll see the same Congressional willpower this time around.

Thanks to Bill McCann for alerting me of the Connolly study.

Read More

Cigarette Taxes

I fired this off to The State over the weekend, and I am failry certain it will never be published. I share it here for your edification:

 

Dear editor,

The State recently published an opinion piece by Dr.
Oscar Lovelace calling for a cigarette tax increase.
In addition, such a proposal is being considered in
the General Assembly.

Now, I'm not a smoker and do not intend to ever smoke.
In fact, I think it is a disgusting habit that people
would be better off to leave alone. But unlike Dr.
Lovelace and his ilk, I don't make it my business to
police the lifestyle decisions of other people. If
they want to smoke and suffer the consequences, then
so be it.

Essentially, the tobacco fascists operate on two
assumptions. The first is that the state has a duty to
police these activities for the sake of people's "own
good." This paternalism is simply nauseating. I
suggest we put a tax on busybodies to curb their
inability to mind their own damn business. I think
this would be good for everyone.

The second assumption is that these taxes would be a
financial boon for the state. At this point, I am
unable to keep my lunch down, and I have vomited all
over my keyboard. It would be preferrable to see this
state go bankrupt than to soak its citizens as
punishment for actions that the state deems "immoral"
or "unhealthy." It is truly amazing how these fascists
can justify such blatant theft.

The reality is that government has actually subsidized
tobacco farming, profited from it already from taxes,
and were awarded large settlements from lawsuits
against tobacco companies which were supposed to go
towards curbing smoking among young people but were
instead funneled towards other government projects.
Now, they want more money. The bad habit here isn't
smoking but the insatiable greed of politicians who
come up with innovative ways to soak the public for
every penny they can get.

I'm not fond of smoking, but I believe in a person's
right to do as they please as long as it doesn't hurt
other people. Raising the cigarette tax is simply a
way to punish people for exercising their freedom of
choice and rewarding politicians for being the leeches
they are.

Read More