Category: Chris Freind

Totally Nutter Tax Policy

Totally Nutter Tax Policy
By  Chris Freind

I swore I was done.

I promised I would never waste another column writing about how pathetic Philadelphia is. And how its complacent residents and businessmen get exactly what they deserve. Washing my hands of all things Philly, I pledged, most importantly, to never again comment on Michael Nutter, who is, without a doubt, America’s most obtuse, clueless and excruciatingly boring mayor.

But I failed.

It is simply impossible not to rip into Tweedle Dee and his latest efforts to drive the final stake into the heart of a once-great city by trying to impose, yes, more taxes! But this isn’t a column about how astronomical taxes actually decrease revenue and further a city’s demise. Michael Nutter has never, nor will ever, understand that, so why bother?

It’s much more fun to look at the mayor’s “legacy” and marvel about how bad he really is.

♦

In 2011, the end of Nutter’s first term, Philadelphia enjoyed the dubious honor of owning the highest murder rate of any large American city (a feat it has accomplished with stunning regularity) – a staggering 32 percent above second-worst Chicago. But in a move that can only be characterized as deceptive, Nutter continues to compare the murder rate each year to 2007, the high water mark for killings.

So when the police department states that murders in 2012 are “down 15 percent,” a reasonable person would assume that was compared to the prior year. It’s not. In reality, 2012 had more murders than any year since 2007. If a CEO didn’t readily disclose to shareholders that 2012 earnings were being compared to financial numbers from five years prior, he would go to jail. But when you’re Michael Nutter, it’s called Business-As-Usual.

Not content to be first in just one category, Philadelphia under Nutter’s direction is also the champion for highest poverty level. And as a bonus, it also leads in “deep poverty,” which is people living on less than half the poverty-line income level.

Then there’s the violent crime rate, the homeless rate, the illiteracy rate, the unemployment rate, the dropout rate, the graduation rate, and the rate of high schoolers not going to college.

Is there anyone who doesn’t know whether these rates are good – or horrendous? Anyone? Bueller? Nutter? Anyone?

Didn’t think so.

And what is Nutter’s go-to explanation, and the only method he uses to “solve” problems? It’s always a two-parter, and it goes like this:

“Cities are hard-pressed to fight (these problems) by ourselves, and we really need partnerships from the state and federal governments as well.” That was his response to the poverty issue, but it’s the same for everything. Look to the state and feds for bailouts and handouts.

For years, the funding flowed, and while the problems only got worse (no surprise there), Nutter could at least spin the tale that the money would make everything rainbows and lollipops – so long as that spigot was kept open.

Well, the Piper came calling, and taxpayers’ largesse has slowed dramatically. So what’s a beleaguered mayor to do? Show initiative by freeing up private enterprise so that it can grow and add jobs? Employ creativity in the way our children – our future – are educated? Demonstrate leadership by making the city operate efficiently and within its means – the same as hardworking families and well-run companies?

Of course not. Because doing so would require courage and a brain. The Wizard of Oz, Michael Nutter is not.

So, like all politicians who never held private sector jobs, Nutter has once again gone to the only playbook he knows: tax, tax, and tax some more.

This time, he wants to raise the liquor-by-the-drink tax to 15 percent and implement a whopping $2 per pack tax on cigarettes so that he can – you know this one by heart – help fund the black hole called Philadelphia schools.

The biggest problem, after you stop laughing, is figuring out which is more insane: the high probability that these taxes will be enacted, or that he actually thinks they will generate a fraction of the $70 million he predicts.

Reasonable people might be asking how Nutter could actually believe these taxes will work, and how they won’t accelerate the already significant exodus from the city.

In Nutter’s case, the answer is easy. When you are proud your city has the highest cumulative tax burden in the nation, more taxes is always the answer.

Nutter’s new taxes would certainly have lots of company, as his cherished revenue streams include taxes on: amusements, parking, business income and receipts, sales and use, hotel, tobacco and tobacco-related products, liquor, use and occupancy, mechanical amusement (distinct from amusement, of course), valet parking (again, different from regular parking), net profits, vehicle rental, outdoor advertising, trash, real estate, and, of course, the infamous city wage tax.

And he tried to get a soda tax, too, because he apparently cared about how fat people were becoming. But his sugary tax soiree was just too saccharine, and it failed.

Of particular interest is that Philadelphians pay not 6 percent sales tax like everyone else, but 8. Yep, that was part of the deal Nutter made with the state Legislature several years ago so that the “extra” revenue that tax would supposedly provide, along with suspending payments to the bankrupt pension fund for two years, would allow the city to regain its financial footing. The plan was to then pay $800 million into the pension to save its retirees from financial ruin.

Ummm, does anyone think that happened, given that the payment was due several years ago. Anyone? Nutter? Anyone?

Didn’t think so.

So many taxes are levied in the name of furthering “public education.” You know, the school system that perpetually runs massive deficits, has zero accountability, and has to cheat on standardized tests to pretend that it’s not the toxic waste dump everyone knows it to be. And despite all the billions spent, how many Philadelphia students pass basic proficiency tests? Here’s a hint. The percentage is much lower than Tom Corbett’s approval rating. And that’s pretty low.

♦

In presiding over the inexcusable lack of snow removal, innumerable police department scandals, violent flash mobs, endless taxation and regulation, and the bottomless pit called Philadelphia schools, Mayor Nutter has taken incompetence to a new level.

Unparalleled history. Ethnic neighborhoods. Great sports fans. Two major river systems begging for development (like the immensely successful riverwalks in San Antonio and Cincinnati). With what had been a world-class city at his feet, Nutter had the opportunity of a lifetime. Had he accomplished just a fraction of what he could have, the sky was truly the limit.

Instead, he crashed and burned on Day One. And it’s gotten worse ever since.

As Clint Eastwood says in Heartbreak Ridge, “You can love me, or you can hate me. Just don’t bore me.”

It’s tough to accomplish two of those three, but Michael Nutter has done so splendidly. Anyone not know which two?

Anyone? Mayor?

Didn’t think so.

 

Totally Nutter Tax Policy

Gaddafi Would Have Prevented Benghazi

Gaddafi Would Have Prevented Benghazi

Nine months ago most people would have guessed “Ben Ghazi” was the name of a professional basketball player. Now, of course, we know it as the Libyan city where four Americans, including our ambassador, lost their lives when terrorists stormed the U.S. consulate on Sept. 11, 2012.

Predictably, both sides have been spinning their version of what “really” happened (while conveniently omitting key facts), what went wrong, and who is to blame.

Since our political climate is now ultra-partisan, we probably will never know the real story of Benghazi. But cutting through the hype, here’s a reasonable analysis:

1. Violent attacks on U.S. diplomatic missions are not rare. There were 13 during the George W. Bush presidency, including a brazen assault on the consulate in Saudi Arabia that left nine dead, and major attacks in Tanzania and Kenya under Bill Clinton. Given that history, then, why is Benghazi still in the headlines? To highlight Obama administration incompetence? To score political points against Barack Obama, and, possibly, preempt a Hillary Clinton run in 2016? To show that American interests need to be better secured? All of the above.

2. Was the budget for diplomatic security cut, in part by the Republican Congress? Yes. Does that make some GOP critics of Benghazi’s security appear inconsistent? Yes. Does that make them responsible for the attack? No, though this is what happens when both parties spend like drunken sailors — not enough money is available for the truly important things because so many trillions are utterly wasted. The piper has been calling but Congress isn’t listening.

3. Was the attack precipitated by an anti-Islam movie made in America? Uh, no. That film may have added to the problem, of course, but while it was used as an excuse to riot and loot throughout the Arab world, it certainly was not the primary reason for the attack. To suggest otherwise, as some administration officials did, belies a gross naiveté, since many Muslim protestors had never heard of YouTube, let along owned a computer or smartphone capable of viewing the “offensive” movie. Being naïve isn’t a crime, but it doesn’t help matters.

4. Is there credence to the view that Obama wouldn’t label Benghazi a “terrorist” act and didn’t respond with more force because it would shatter his narrative that terrorism had been contained under his watch — and that such an attack would help Mitt Romney? That’s laughable. Romney wasn’t going to win, period. Benghazi (along with Hurricane Sandy and Chris Christie) had absolutely nothing to do with Romney’s loss — he took care of that feat all by himself. And quite frankly, the opposite would have occurred. Had U.S. forces beaten back the attack, saving lives in the process, Americans would have overwhelmingly approved of their commander in chief’s actions, totally ending what little chance Romney had of eeking out a victory.

So why wasn’t there a quicker response? Why didn’t the intelligence agencies see the attack coming? And who is ultimately to blame?

For all the blabbering from the talking heads, they still don’t get it.

Obama is solely to blame, because he, and he alone, willfully eliminated the best security system America had in Libya. One that, had it not been changed, would have almost certainly prevented the attack and saved lives.

Muammar Gaddafi.

The minute Barack Obama made the Bush-esque decision to engage in nation-building/regime change in Libya, there was no going back.

You reap what you sow, and the seeds of that ill-fated decision grew into Benghazi. There’s no sinister conspiracy behind why we didn’t act upon intelligence on the ground in Libya — for the simple reason that we didn’t have intelligence in Libya. That went out the window when Obama took out Gaddafi.

The rebels Obama armed in 2011, who gleefully executed Gaddafi in front of the world, are now running the country. Unfathomably, these very same folks were the largest foreign fighting force to engage the U.S. military in Iraq. A naïve question, to be sure, but did anyone in the Obama administration bother to think about that before participating in regime change of a sovereign nation?

Apparently not. And we just paid for that mistake in blood.

Did we really expect the new Libyan government to provide adequate defenses and intelligence to protect our diplomatic missions? For all we know, the attack could well have been coordinated by the thugs whom we put in power, using the very weapons we supplied — not to mention the 20,000 surface-to-air missiles missing since Gaddafi bit the dust.

Let’s be very clear here. Muammar Gaddafi was never an angel. But he became a leader with whom the West could work, even if his transformation was born of self-preservation. He was told to shape up or face the consequences, and he played ball. He admitted complicity in the Pan Am 103 bombing, paid reparations, dismantled his WMD/nuclear program, stopped harboring terrorists, and kept the oil spigots flowing. As a result, Libya was removed from the Terrorism List by the Bush administration, with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice praising it for its “renunciation of terrorism and the excellent cooperation Libya has provided to the U.S.”

But that “excellent cooperation” wasn’t enough. America broke its word when President Obama eliminated a leader who had done everything the United States had asked. Worst of all, there was no benefit to America in doing so, as the U.S. fought Europe’s oil war (85 percent of Libyan oil flows there).

In March 2011, Freindly Fire wrote: “The United States’ involvement in Libya, a nation that did not harm America, sets a dangerous precedent. Ironically, this effort, executed with no foresight and with no endgame, further endangers our security. Playing into the mentality of Muslims that the U.S. seeks to dominate their countries will only inflame anti-American feelings … the result will be chaos and armed factions roaming the country.”

If a not-too-bright commentator saw what was coming, why didn’t the president?

Obama may weather the IRS and AP scandals, but he will have Benghazi blood on his hands forever. And that’s an unimpeachable prognostication.

Martial Law, Facebook Hug-ins In Boston

Martial Law, Facebook Hug-ins In Boston

There’s good and bad news.

The good: If you’re still reeling from the self-imposed trauma of watching nonstop bombing coverage from your recliner, you can go to the Penn Relays this week to recover. Backpacks there are being banned, so you can pretend you’re safe and feel good about yourself! (Although, just like our wildly inconsistent airport security policies, not all backpacks are banned. Go figure.)

The bad news, however, is that if the above sounds good, you’ve contracted a horrible disease: Americanis Moronis.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

The massive and unwarranted reaction of the government, and the media as its all-too-willing accomplice, in finding two punks was infinitely more frightening than the crude bombs they exploded.

The precedent of imposing martial law whenever a relatively small tragedy occurs bodes ominously for maintaining our rights in the future.

Were the events in Boston tragic? Of course. Three people lost their lives, with scores injured. But let’s shove the wimpy, show-emotion-for-the-sake of-showing-emotion mentality aside and put this situation into perspective.

1. This was not remotely close to being another 9/11, despite many “analysts” in the media saying so. It was obvious within minutes that it was amateur hour, unlike the precision attacks of Sept. 11. Comparing Boston to the 2001 attack is the worst insult one could make to the families of the 9/11 victims, as well as to all sane Americans.

2. Government and media officials saying things such as “no one in America can feel safe until these bombers are caught” only feeds into the hysteria, which is totally counterproductive.

3. It was apparent we weren’t dealing with seasoned military operatives, despite media and government officials’ repeated claims (with no evidence) that the bombers had “paramilitary” training, whatever that buzzword means. Why? Because they didn’t surrender, instead fighting the police with guns and homemade grenades. Well, call out the National Guard, because that means we have “paramilitary” forces in every American city, every night. There is another term: Criminals who don’t want to get caught and won’t hesitate to kill. Hey, welcome to Philly.

4. Why the brothers did it is to be determined, and while Muslim fundamentalism may be at the core, it seems more likely that they were two pampered kids mad at the world, desperate for attention. How do we know they weren’t highly trained terrorists? A.) No disguises, despite knowing they would be captured on video. And if they didn’t know that, they’re really dumb; B.) You don’t bomb a city in which you live; C.) Exit strategies are somewhat important, yet they neglected planning one; and D.) Robbing a 7-Eleven in the city where you live and just bombed might raise a red flag.

5. So was it really necessary to impose martial law, locking down an entire metropolis and, topping it all, imposing a no-fly zone? Where are we? Iraq? And if such an extreme measure is used, why publicly announce it?

Even though the media redefined “overkill,” their news helicopters could have aided in finding Tweedle Dee as he scurried below like a scared coward.

6. The biggest irony? You can bet every Massachusetts liberal (that’s pretty much everyone) screaming “gun control” either was wishing they had a gun or, more likely, grabbing their firearm. Such hypocrisy has no bounds.

The baseball write-up in Sunday’s Philadelphia Inquirer stated that the Red Sox “defiantly” returned to Fenway. That’s nice. Though who and what they were “defying” remains a mystery since neither the Red Sox nor Fenway were affected in the slightest.

Opening your heart to a tragic situation is one thing. Making it all about you is another. But that’s what Americans do.

We have become a nation of narcissistic sissies, whining and living in fear (perversely liking it), all while seeking constant positive self-affirmations and “likes” on Facebook about the trauma we (actually don’t) suffer. When did we embrace the delusional need to always hug each other (and post a corny motivational quote about it), while alternately, A.) attending our 17th candlelight vigil, B.) observing so many moments of silence that we can barely speak and C.) dancing in the streets?

Do these people have the faintest clue what they are celebrating? Given the trite, canned responses of “we’re all just pulling together … drawing on each other’s strength … we won’t be stopped,” the answer is a resounding “no.”

Worse are employee-support services stamping their imprimatur on such absurdities. Sorry, but you don’t need a grief counselor or bereavement specialist to cope with the Boston bombings. If you’re still experiencing anxiety, sadness, anger, fear or any of the other meaningless pyschobabble traumatic conditions, then move to France.

It’s time America finds itself again, kicking butt and taking names, not coddling from cradle to grave, refusing to ban things just to make people feel good, and not exponentially overreacting every single time something happens. In doing so, we wouldn’t be giving terrorists the recipe, as we just did, for how to paralyze a nation.

If we don’t wake up, the next time a major attack occurs, you can kiss the American way of life goodbye. And no amount of hug-ins will bring it back.

 

Martial Law, Facebook Hug-ins In Boston

Iron Lady Thatcher: Last From A Great Era

Iron Lady Thatcher: Last From A Great Era

There is a fascinating book by Irving Stone entitled, They Also Ran, the story of men defeated for the presidency. Stone, an historian, also analyzes the races to determine if the people chose wisely.

It’s a fascinating concept, as readers are left pondering how history may have been altered had there been a different outcome.

The opposite also holds true — how history would have changed had the winner not been victorious.

Reflecting on the the passing of England’s Iron Lady, Margaret Thatcher, it seems obvious — for so many reasons — that the Brits did indeed choose their leader wisely. And for the most part, the world owes them a debt of gratitude for doing so, for it is far safer because of Maggie.

With both Ronald Reagan and Thatcher now gone, the pangs of sadness resonate with the ending of a golden era. For those who lived through superpower showdowns and nuclear war games, it is impossible not to give Thatcher a special place in your heart. As America’s greatest ally in the Cold War, she never wavered in looking the mightiest Evil Empire of all time right in the eye, saying, “Give me your best shot — I can take it.”

*****

Every generation has a tendency to view the past through rose-colored glasses, remembering the good times while letting the bad melt away.  It’s a human trait that allows us to move past traumatic events so that life can continue.

However, one can make a strong case that, rainbows and lollypop reminiscing aside, the 1980’s truly were a remarkable decade, an enviable time when the country was unified, evidenced by substantial electoral victories by Reagan (and Thatcher). It was an era marked by monumental events thought unthinkable just a decade prior. The malaise of the 70’s had significantly eroded people’s faith, not just in their leaders, but in themselves.  Optimism for a better tomorrow hit a brick wall in America and Britain, and for good reason: runaway inflation; interest rates of 20 percent; rationed gas; an aggressive Soviet Union; and the Iranian hostage crisis (444 days long). The pinnacle of failure came during the calamitous rescue attempt, which, in addition to the gut-wrenching loss of life, was an embarrassment of epic proportions.

It was this widespread self-doubt and loss of hope that led to the election of Reagan and Thatcher. They took the helm of a West in search of its identity, and carried the dreams of billions on their shoulders. In charting a new course, they once again lit the beacons of hope, resurrecting the West to become that famous shining City Upon A Hill.

And they succeeded. Big time.

Hostages were freed, militaries were beefed up, and economies roared back to life.  With work came prosperity — hopes and dreams were not just restored, but realized. Peace through strength became the mantra, and though that policy was wildly effective (it eventually bankrupted and destroyed the Soviet Union, freeing hundreds of millions), it was not without its tests.

Who could forget Thatcher’s decisiveness in immediately dispatching the British fleet to reclaim the Falklands after they were invaded? That act of war by the Argentinians, by the way, was calculated on the belief that Britain had neither the resources nor the stomach to wage a conflict half a world away.

Were they ever wrong.

A throwback to another era — and likely the last time we’ll ever see it— Ships of the British Line steaming 8,000 miles in the mold of Nelson and Hornblower, freeing the people and routing the Argentinians. Perhaps most significant, Thatcher’s bold action put an exclamation point on the undeniable fact that British Pride was back.

Years later, Thatcher took considerable heat — but never faltered — when she allowed American bombers based in Britain to attack Libya after Gaddafi’s acts of terror. And of course, her chiding of George H.W. Bush as he wavered about helping Kuwait after Iraq’s invasion will forever define her testicular fortitude: “Remember George, this is no time to go wobbly!”  Classic Margaret Thatcher.

Back home, she embarked on the Herculean task of reviving the sluggish, bureaucrat-laden economy, succeeding by instituting labor reforms, free-market principles and privatization initiatives. Just like Reagan, she endured some very tough days before things turned around, but she held fast, declaring to doubters in her own Party, “You turn if you want to…this Lady’s not for turning.”

Turn she did not. And she was reelected twice.

*****

As effective as Thatcher was, she had her drawbacks, none more significant than her handling of Northern Ireland. Declaring “crime is crime is crime; it is not political,” she let Bobby Sands and nine other Irish prisoners die from their hunger strike as they protested their deplorable conditions and political status.

Debating the England-Ireland issue is for another column. It is clear, however,  that while Thatcher made some progress for peace in Northern Ireland, it wasn’t nearly enough.  True, the conflict didn’t originate on her watch, but as a strong-willed leader, she could have and should have done more to rectify that situation.  Too many —on both sides — died, too many families were needlessly ripped apart, and too many lives were ruined in Ireland during Maggie’s reign.

With few exceptions, the British Empire left the places they occupied considerably better off than when they found it.  Not so with Northern Ireland, and the troubles occurring there in the 1980’s remain a black mark on what is otherwise a legacy for the record books.

*****

Reflecting on the 1980’s, it is clear that both Americans and Brits were far more unified in their respective countries. Sure, there were political rivalries and disagreements, but not nearly as mean-spirited and downright uncivil as today. Thatcher and Reagan could have a knock-down, drag-out fight with an opponent during the day and share a beer — and a laugh —that evening.

Maybe that was because we weren’t the only superpower back then. We knew the sobering capabilities of our enemy — and the consequences of failure in meeting its challenges. Maybe it was because, despite our political differences, that Cold War kept us sharply focused, binding us together as a people facing the ultimate threat.

But even more, it was because we had great leaders, true visionaries who believed in a hell of a lot more than themselves and their next election. Great communicators, Reagan and Thatcher were principled, God-fearing stalwarts who made us once again believe in something that had been lost before they came along: ourselves.

Gipper, your best friend is with you again. Iron Lady, thank you. Rest in Peace.

Chris Freind is an independent commentator who operates FreindlyFireZone.com.

Pennsylvania Liquor Control Conundrum

Pennsylvania Liquor Control Conundrum

In 2010, Gov. Tom Corbett was elected by a wide margin, in part because of his insistence that the state-controlled liquor system be privatized — an issue on which he was absolutely correct.

Despite that being a cornerstone of his campaign, nothing was accomplished during his first two years, even though he enjoyed historic Republican majorities in both legislative chambers.

Since privatizing liquor is one of the few issues that enjoys a large consensus, it’s baffling why it took so long for the Republicans to put forth a plan. Now they have finally done so, yet it’s so ill-conceived that state-store union employees are punch-drunk with elation.

For now, though, it’s important to realize why privatization is so long overdue.

Sometimes the grass really is greener elsewhere. For Pennsylvanians, that “green” is all the money saved by consumers in other states because they aren’t gouged when buying alcohol.

For the uninitiated, here is a primer for how Pennsylvania’s alcohol monopoly works:

Pennsylvania is the largest purchaser of booze in the country. The state government, through the Liquor Control Board (LC, controls the purchase, distribution and sale of all wine and liquor. You might think that with such immense clout, we would have outstanding selection and competitive pricing. But as we all know, that’s clearly not the case.

Interestingly, the LCB is charged with two distinct, and inherently contradictory, roles. While it is responsible for raising revenue through the sale of wine and liquor, it is also charged with controlling the sale of booze throughout Pennsylvania. By definition, if the LCB is succeeding at one, it must be failing at the other.

The major reason why alcohol is so expensive is courtesy of an 18 percent “temporary” tax. So a $10 bottle jumps to $11.80 — and that’s before the 6 percent sales tax is calculated, making Pennsylvania inherently uncompetitive. But since it’s a government monopoly, the bureaucrats don’t care. Oh, and why the 18 percent levy? To rebuild Johnstown after its second flood.

Which occurred in 1936. So much for “temporary.”

Anyone traveling outside Pennsylvania knows how refreshing it is to enter a grocery store and, remembering you need a bottle of wine, browse the plethora of vino at your fingertips. Since others accomplish this feat with little difficulty, it’s incomprehensible that the nation’s sixth-largest state can’t — or, more accurately, won’t — do the same.

It is infinitely more efficient when a private company, responsive to the needs of the free market (instead of bureaucrats), stocks its shelves with items that consumers actually want, at a fair market price. It is the core principle on which America was founded.

But Pennsylvania remains stuck in the Dark Ages, choosing to remain there. It hasn’t dawned on the politicos that they are losing untold revenue because of their Draconian system, as millions cross state lines to fill their liquor cabinets.

And despite protections from the Interstate Commerce Clause, if you are caught bringing alcohol into Pennsylvania, it’s a criminal offense. In fact, such “criminals” used to have their cars confiscated for doing so.

To be fair, today’s LCB has made substantial progress. Not too long ago, customers had to place their orders at the counter, since browsing was not permitted. The clerk would disappear into the bowels of the store, only to return 10 minutes later, more often than not stating that they were “out of stock” and asking for another choice. Now imagine that scene at Christmas, with 30 people in line.

But that’s not all.

Nothing was chilled. No ancillary items such as tonic water were sold. No employees were permitted to offer advice. And credit cards were not accepted.

And all this because former Gov. Gifford Pinchot, who as a young man became violently sick while imbibing overseas, became determined to make alcohol as difficult as possible to obtain.

But the LCB’s improvements amount to being valedictorian of summer school. The whole system has to be scrapped. The ultimate irony is that the Keystone State, birthplace of American democracy and cradle of liberty, continues down the path of state control and government regulation, to the detriment of its 12 million citizens.

Pennsylvania Liquor Control Conundrum

Current Liquor Privatization Plan Unworthy

Current Liquor Privatization Plan Unworthy

“I don’t know…he’s either very smart or very dumb.”

– Quint, in ‘Jaws,’ trying to figure out the shark.

Quint’s
famous line perfectly sums up both Gov. Tom Corbett and the
Republican-controlled House as they push their liquor privatization
bill. They’re either very smart, trying to pull a fast one on
Pennsylvanians who expect better selection and lower prices (which they
know cannot happen with this bill). Or they’re very dumb, actually
believing the bill they’re peddling will actually accomplish those
things.

Here’s betting on the latter.

♦

No offense to Chris Christie, but anytime Jersey can do something better, you know you have problems.

And
clearly, buying wine and liquor is better there. Of course, that’s not
saying much, as 48 states have markedly better ways to buy liquor and
beer than Pennsylvania. Only Mormon-heavy Utah is also state-controlled.
Gee, what great company.

So huge numbers of Pennsylvanians
continue to stock up in other states, especially tax-free Delaware, to
the detriment of state coffers.

The fact that Corbett and the
House Republicans think that situation will change with the current bill
(which passed the House on Party lines) makes you wonder if they were
drunk while crafting such bad legislation.

Let’s review:

Despite being overwhelmingly
elected in 2010, in large part by promising to privatize liquor, Tom
Corbett did nothing in his first two years. Actually, that’s not true.
His big foray into that issue was commissioning yet another blue-ribbon
panel to – ready for this? – study liquor privatization.

Just thinking about that gives you a hangover.

And
now that they are officially on board with privatization – which is the
right thing to do – they vomit a bill that will neither increase
selection, nor, most significantly, reduce prices.

Only in Pennsylvania.

This
bill is a non-starter, and should it pass the Senate in its current
form – far from certain, since Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi, R-9, of
Chester,  is lukewarm and the GOP lost 10 percent of its seats in the
last election – the people will be vastly disappointed upon realizing
that prices will be the same, or even higher.

Here’s why:

The
whopping 18 percent Johnstown Flood tax (established to rebuild that
city after its 1936 flood) remains in place, on top of which is the
state sales tax. End of story for lower prices.

Being hamstrung
by such an onerous tax gives the wholesalers and retailers absolutely no
wiggle room, forcing them to keep prices substantially higher than
stores in neighboring states.

There are only a few players in the
nation with the capital to buy in at the wholesale level, which will
cost tens of millions just to get a seat at the table. And that’s just
the beginning.

Funny thing about liquor – it’s bulky and very
heavy. Transporting it across 45,000 square miles will take one hell of
a lot of trucks and drivers, neither of which come cheaply. There
will be the need for huge warehousing space in multiple locations.
Personnel requirements will be substantial, and the costs associated
with distribution networks and other ancillary logistical issues will be
considerable. And last we checked, fuel costs were near record highs.

These companies are not in business
to break even or lose money. Translation: you won’t be buying liquor
any cheaper than you can today.

Making this bill even less than
gin-dandy are the pie-in-the-sky revenue projections related to
licensing. Beer distributors would be able to sell wine and liquor, but
for a substantially priced initial license fee (and subsequent
renewals). Great, except for three big problems:

1) Most beer
distributors are small, undercapitalized mom-and-pop operations. They
have a hard enough time making ends meet, so where exactly are they
coming up with the cash required for a license? With so many licenses
up for grabs, most banks will balk at loaning the necessary funds to
acquire a license, as it is will be seen as far too risky.

2)
Assuming a distributor could get a license, the capital outlay would
jump again, as they would have to add considerably more square footage
to their existing stores, or lease/buy a much larger space altogether.
Wine and liquor take up a lot of space, and recession notwithstanding,
that space isn’t cheap.

3) Distributors know nothing about wine,
so, in order to compete, they would have to hire additional staff with
knowledge of vino.

One of two things will occur. Many
distributors can’t or won’t apply for licenses, and for those who do,
their prices will increase to make up for their additional costs. When
you add in the mandated Flood Tax, it becomes obvious that overall costs
have to rise, perhaps dramatically. Distributors would also have to
compensate for the loss of revenue associated with the widespread
availability of six-packs and the elimination of the
buy-beer-by-the-case law.

♦

Granted, many politicians are
slow, but this one should be a no-brainer. Eliminate the 18 percent tax,
and you eliminate the need to cross the border and give other states
Pennsylvanian’s money.

Some will ask where the revenue shortfall
would be made up should the tax be rescinded. That’s easy. First, you
don’t keep a tax that is wrong just because you happen to rely on the
revenue it provides. You fix it. Second, that’s the Legislature’s job
every budget: decide how much money goes where. If there’s a shortfall,
other slices of the pie get smaller. Tighten the belt like families do.

Most
important, there wouldn’t be a shortfall. If the incentive is taken
away to go to other states, untold millions – which would be “new
revenue” – would find their way into Pennsylvania because of the massive
volume in liquor sales that would occur. Remember, as it stands now,
the state is getting zero from the millions currently flowing to other
states.

Corbett and the Republicans need to
put down the bottle and either rectify their error of pushing a bill
they think is good, or stop the political expediency of rushing a bill
they know is bad but can deceivingly trumpet as a success purely for
re-election purposes.

Do liquor privatization right, or not at all. And you don’t have to be blitzed to know that.

 

Current Liquor Privatization Plan Unworthy

Will New Pope Face “Age Old” Problem?

Who says the Catholic Church can’t change? By electing Jorge Bergoglio of Argentina, the conclave of Cardinals just made history.  The list of “firsts” is impressive:

-First Pope from the Americas;
-First non-European in 1,200 years;
-First Latin American pontiff;
-First to take the name Francis.

Most amazing, he’s the first non-Catholic pope.

He’s a Jesuit.

*****

Jokes aside, the selection of Bergoglio is an interesting choice. His accomplishments are significant, from modernizing the Argentinian Church to having the guts to clash with President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner on important issues.  Infinitely more attractive to the world’s 1.2 billion Catholics, though, is how he conducts his daily life.

He is a genuinely humble man who serves God with the utmost seriousness — truly a testament to the Saint whose name he chose, Francis of Assisi, who renounced a life of privilege to serve the Lord.

Criticism of the Church is at an all-time high, and millions have left because of what they view is an inconsistent, and often hypocritical, message, especially regarding the sex scandals and cover-ups. So the selection of a leader who embodies a “practice what you preach” ethic could not have come at a better moment.

And anyone who believes that ethic is for show, think again. In his wildest dreams (prior to the resignation of Benedict), Bergoglio could never have imagined himself becoming pontiff. Popes rarely step down (only four in 2,000 years), and had Benedict served just another few years, Bergoglio would have been 80 — out of contention for the next papacy.

Which makes his humility all the more real, as his lifestyle clearly wasn’t a ploy to ingratiate himself with the College of Cardinals.  It was, and is, what he believes is right.

Until his election as pontiff, he cooked his own meals. He lived in a one-room apartment. More often than not, he walked or took public transportation. (Though, on this last point, we can give many American Cardinals a pass.  Could you imagine Your Eminence in Philadelphia taking the El or Broad Street Subway, or walking to his next meeting on Girard Avenue? It’s great to have God on your side, but honestly, a Glock .45 “on his side” would serve him better.)

Upon becoming Pope, Bergoglio clearly showed the world, at risk of alienating ultra-traditionalists, that the courage of his convictions still reigned supreme.

He didn’t don the typical red papal mozzetta vestments, but a plain white robe. He wasn’t laden with gold and jewels, but adorned a simple wooden Cross. He asked the throngs in St. Peter’s Square to pray for him. Rather than preaching in liturgical platitudes, he actually spoke to the flock. He eschewed the special chair on a raised platform, choosing to greet each Cardinal on the same level, showing he was still one of them.  Forsaking the Pope Car, he rode to the hotel on the bus with all the Cardinals, later invoking laughter as he toasted them: “May God forgive you!”

And upon checkout, he paid the hotel bill himself and carried his own luggage.

Not a bad start.

*****

While praying one day, St. Francis heard Christ speak to him: “Francis, repair my Church.”

In that regard, Pope Francis has his work cut out for him.  As one of “God’s Marines,” as the Jesuits are known, he will have to fight every day to repair a fractured Church. Modernize without compromise, apologize and sanitize, and organize and proselytize.

A herculean task, and one compounded by his age. He is 76. Put another way, he is 24 years short of the century mark.

Is such a consideration discriminatory? Age-ist?  Unfair?

Absolutely.  But also true. Like it or not, age, and appearance, matter.

Maybe 76 is the new 56. Maybe Pope Francis will be photographed fist-bumping a 10-year old. Maybe his charisma knows no bounds, allowing him to resonate with all generations, reinvigorating the faithful and inspiring the departed to return.

But it will take an extraordinary amount of energy and strength, attributes which clearly had left Pope Benedict. Will Pope Francis have the necessary stamina, and if so, for how long? Time will tell.

And let’s be clear about something. For this pope to be effective, he must be a globetrotter, racking up huge miles. And yes, that means regularly visiting that not-so-obscure country accounting for not just millions of Catholics and billions for Church coffers, but one that also happens to be the leader of the world. It’s called the United States, and papal visits every decade don’t, and won’t, cut it.  Benedict’s first — and last — visit was in 2008, three years after becoming Pope. Because of his frailty, more numerous trips didn’t occur, and that perfectly illustrates why age matters.

Both flock and clergy need to see their leader on a more frequent basis, but such a schedule takes a toll. And let’s not forget that the Pope is not just the leader of a religion, but a Head-of-State, as the Vatican is its own sovereign country.

Those who criticize the questioning of age are not dealing with reality. Age was a major issue with numerous presidential candidates, not just from a health standpoint, but also relatability. John McCain and Bob Dole both lost to younger, more charismatic opponents. And an old-looking, frail FDR could never have been elected in the age of television because he was wheelchair-bound, weakened by polio.

However, if anyone proved that age could be overcome, it was Ronald Reagan. Despite being on death’s door after the assassination attempt, the nation’s oldest-elected president nonetheless traveled the world, rebuilt a battered economy, and defeated communism, in the process freeing more people than any other person in history.

But Francis begins his papacy only one year younger than when Reagan left office. Age will become a factor, and we may be choosing another pope within a decade. Is this the new precedent? Is it a calculated move to ensure that massive media coverage of the Church continues? Is choosing a new leader every few years necessary to adapt with the times, hoping a fresh perspective will keep Catholics interested? Or will such a practice lead to a “been there, done that” tedium? Too soon to tell.

One thing is certain. Pope Francis can either be a great communicator by preaching worldwide, or he can stay in the Vatican and clean house, cutting its massive bureaucracy and reforming the Church from within. But he can’t do both.

Here’s hoping he appoints some kick-ass, take-no-prisoners lieutenants to do the latter, and resurrects the global force for good the Church was, prior to the scandals. And since he is 76, there’s no better time than the present.

*****

I am lucky enough to have stayed in Assisi, Italy. In between imbibing Umbrian wine with the locals, I traced the footsteps of Francis: where he performed his deeds, where he lived and often went hungry in the caves above town, and where he lies buried under the Basilica. It was impossible not to become immersed in his almost-too-amazing-to-be-true life.

Given that Jorge Bergoglio chose to emulate such a model human, the Cardinals may have, in fact, chosen wisely.

And since the rain that had been pouring on St. Peter’s Square just happened to stop the moment before Pope Francis was announced to the world, it seems The Big Guy agrees.

Chris Freind is an independent commentator who operates FreindlyFireZone.com . He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com

 

Slash TSA Knife Policy Would Be Cutting Edge

Slash TSA Knife Policy Would Be Cutting Edge

If the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) could compete for an Emmy, it would definitely be a winner.  Its “Security Theatre” has become a cutting-edge soap opera, replete with comedy, drama and ultimately, tragedy.
And the latest episode is making the biggest headlines yet.
The TSA has sliced and diced a prior position, and is now permitting passengers to carry knives onto planes.
Yes. Knives. Those sharp, pointy things that can puncture a pilot’s jugular in a heartbeat, make flight attendants talk like Stephen Hawking, and create total pandemonium at 35,000 feet.
If so many people’s lives, not to mention the entire economy, were not jeopardized by this warped decision, it would be funny.  But this is definitely no joke.
However, you can take solace.  The TSA has shown great sensitivity to the 9/11 attacks by keeping box-cutters banned, despite the steely fact that their blades are but a fraction of those on the permissible knives. Another oxymoron we call “TSA Consistency.”
Even more comical is the TSA’s criteria for the knives. If the blade is no more than 2.36” long and a half-inch wide, it will fly the (un)friendly skies. The blade must also be one that folds away, which is, presumably, because the TSA thinks a 2.36” folded blade (which is locked when opened) can’t kill someone. More reassuring, the knife cannot have a molded handle, which should be a huge relief to everyone — except those who actually fly.
Why the monumental shift in TSA policy? In addition to wanting to be more in-line with Europe (honest to God, that’s no joke), it says security lines are congested because TSA screeners are confiscating thousands of such knives, and these items don’t pose a 9/11-type threat anyway.
Oh. So because druggies and shoplifters create logjams in our courts, we should just give in and make their actions legal?
And how exactly will lines be shortened with TSA screeners now using tape measures to ensure that 2.37” knives don’t slip by? Although, truth be told, they could all just emulate the Philadelphia Airport, where everything seems to get through.
The TSA is convinced that a 9/11 hijacking can never occur again because so much has changed: steel cockpit doors, a vigilant flying public, air marshals and better intelligence.  And there you have it: TSA’s  “risk-based” security plan. Which is really great, except the parts about the steel cockpit doors, a vigilant flying public, air marshals and better intelligence.
Let’s review:
1. Yes, cockpit doors are strengthened, but since there aren’t self-contained bathrooms in the cockpit, pilots are absolutely vulnerable every time nature calls.
2. Is the TSA expecting passengers to work “fight-the-knife-freak” duty? And how many people are the TSA willing to sacrifice? It’s not just the doped up or drunk passenger who stabs the flight attendant because he hated the in-flight movie. It’s a handful of Mohammed Attas coordinating a vicious attack, each wielding several legal weapons. Sound familiar? It should, since box-cutters were legal on 9/11.  Once the attack commences, then what? Maybe they gain entrance to the cockpit, and maybe not. But when you’re dealing with fanatics who can’t wait to meet Allah and all those supposed virgins, it’s going to be a bloodbath. And since sophisticated terrorists always utilize surprise, they will gain the upper hand immediately.
Can’t wait for the TSA press conference after an aircraft lands with 300 dead passengers and crew. “Yeah, they all got stabbed to death. But hey! We didn’t lose the plane!”
And guess what? The economy would collapse anyway.
3. Air marshals? Sorry, they’ve been sequestrationed, and only fly on a small percentage of flights anyway. For the record, they vehemently oppose the TSA knife policy. Next.
4. Better intelligence. Really? Where? Like in New York in 2010, when the Muslim fundamentalist Times Square bomber was caught by Lady Luck? You may remember him. After fleeing Manhattan, he went to the airport, bought a one-way ticket to the Middle East — in cash —, boarded the plane, and almost almost took off. And best of all, he was on the No-Fly List!
Or the 2009 Christmas Day underwear bomber who, only through sheer ineptness, didn’t bring down a jumbo jet over the U.S. He was also on our watch lists, and his own father repeatedly warned our intelligence communities of his son’s intentions, yet he too almost succeeded.
Out of curiosity, does that “better intelligence” include the countless alphabet-soup agencies that still wage turf wars with each other and don’t share information? Just wondering.
*****
Of course, there is a much better solution. It’s called profiling, and it works really, really well.  Just ask the Israelis, who know a thing or two about terrorists. (El Al has only been hijacked once).
But out of deference to possible hurt feelings, we refuse. In fact, because of our affinity for political correctness, we do the opposite. The TSA actually announces who doesn’t have to take off their shoes (all children under 12), and who won’t be subject to pat-downs (children, the wheelchair-bound, and pretty much anyone who complains). Which is all well and good except that the Brotherhood of Mohammed Atta has no problem sacrificing their kids, so guess on whom they will hide their explosives?
*****
In 2007, the then-TSA chief lifted the ban on lighters and matches, admitting that policy was “security theatre.” Nothing has changed, as the TSA continues with policies that not only aren’t keeping the skies safe, but actually make them more dangerous.
Unfortunately, Security Theatre has become an all-too-true reality show, playing out every day at thousands of airports. And it’s only a matter of time before it crashes and burns.

But in the meantime, in the hope that Security Theatre can jump to the big screen, the least we could do is suggest some appropriate movie titles. Not sure if the copyrights have expired on these, but here’s taking a stab at it:
Jagged Edge, Blade Runner, Con Air, Fight Club, Skyfall, Airport ’13, and, in honor of when TSA officials fly, Snakes On A Plane.

Chris Freind is an independent commentator who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com  His self-syndicated model has earned him the largest cumulative media voice in Pennsylvania. He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com

Slash TSA Knife Policy Would Be Cutting Edge

Pope Resigning Is Miracle For Church

Thank God for small miracles. Or, in this case, huge ones.
The decision of Pope Benedict XVI to step down — the first resignation in 600 years and only the fourth in history — has given the Catholic Church an unprecedented opportunity to save itself. And since the eleventh hour is upon the Church, the Pope’s action could not have come at a better time.
Whether the conclave of Cardinals takes advantage of this blessing or blows it all to hell remains to be seen.
As one of the Catholic faithful, I desperately want to believe it will choose the right path.
I want to believe the Church, without hesitation, will do whatever is necessary to rebuild the greatest, most benevolent institution the world has ever known.
I want to believe the Church will admit and address, head-on, that its hard times — the scandal, corruption and genuflecting at the wrong altar (that of political correctness) — are sins of its own making.
I want to believe the Church has finally learned to practice what it preaches, that humbleness will replace arrogance, and that it fully appreciates the value of not just forgiveness, but asking to be forgiven.
I want to believe that the new Pope will inherently understand that, in order for the Church to survive, it must adapt — not in ways that undermine the pillars of its divine theology, but by approaching its critical “earthly” issues with an honest, fresh perspective.
I want to believe that the Church will strive to better understand the value of perhaps the most powerful tool in the 21st century: public relations.
And I want to believe that the Catholic Church, once and for all, will cease being a paper tiger, resurrecting its once mighty political power.
But at the risk of sounding like Thomas, I have my doubts.
Given its recent history, the Church does not exactly inspire confidence that it has learned from its mistakes and gained the wisdom (and will) to embark on the path to growth. A gambling man would wager on the next Pope being Business-As-Usual, radiating the status quo and reluctant to make waves.
That would be a good bet, but it would be a losing hand for the Church, relegating it to a house of cards.
*****
So what should the Cardinals do to ensure the survivability of the Church?
1.  For starters, choose the right-looking leader. Honorable as he may be, Pope Benedict makes John McCain look downright boyish, so picking another frail, gray-haired/white-haired/no-haired Pontiff is a surefire way to completely lose the middle-aged-and-younger generations. Like it or not, appearance matters. And that is infallible.
Proof? FDR could have never won in the television age because America would not elect a man in a wheelchair. JFK’s youth and good looks gave him a substantial advantage over Nixon in the debates. Bob Dole versus Bill Clinton? Not even divine intervention could have helped Dole in that matchup. And since the death of European Christianity has largely occurred under older pontiffs, maybe it’s time to go younger.
However, choosing a pope on ethnic appearance would be a huge mistake. Sure, a black pope helps bolster Africa (the new battleground in the vicious Christian-Muslim wars), as a Latino does for Central and South America.  But that vision is short-sighted, as it wouldn’t actually address, let alone solve, the Church’s problems.
2. Select an articulate, charismatic pontiff who, in both perception and reality, can effectively communicate that he is in touch with the true heart and soul of the Church — the rank-and-file. The new pope cannot afford to be aloof or insulated, since these are the very qualities that contributed so mightily to the Church’s decline. How bad has it become? One in ten Americans is an ex-Catholic, and the 30 million who have left the Church, if counted as their own religious group, would be the third-largest denomination in the country. Vocations are a fraction of what they once were, and the obvious stigma associated with entering the seminary keeps even more away. And the stark reality is that, within a decade, Catholic education will be largely gone, leaving churches that much emptier.
3. Ensure the new pope apologizes in an unprecedented upfront, straightforward manner, not just for the scandals but the cover-ups. And that apology should extend down to every parish. Countless Catholics are still waiting for a genuine apology, and many parents feel that they are being put through the ringer because of priests’ sins. Praying in mass for the pedophile clergy, and those who covered up their salacious activities, is one thing. But the many priests who still view the scandals as overblown makes the sin mortal, as the continuing Catholic exodus and dwindling coffers attest.
4. Start talking about the positive aspects of the Church, restoring the credibility that has been shattered by years of sex scandals, shredded documents and cover-ups. The Roman Catholic Church is the largest provider of social services in the entire world (second in America behind only the U.S. government) and administers the world’s largest nonpublic school system, yet most people are unaware of those phenomenal achievements — a massive failure in public relations. It’s time to tell that magnificent story and educate the world — again — on what it really means to be Catholic. Unequivocally, pride in Catholic identity leads to fuller schools.
5. Flex political muscle. From keeping its schools open (which saves billions in taxpayer money) to fighting government healthcare insurance mandates for abortion and birth control, success in the public arena only occurs when muscle is flexed It’s time for Catholics to take their rightful place at the political table, as all other religions do (despite having far fewer members). But that means playing hardball, unabashedly making its issues front and center in primary and general elections. The power of a newly awakened tiger — one that has shed its paper skin — would be an unmatched political force. But that power will only exist if people once again believe in their Church.
6. Allow priests to marry.  And yes, consider allowing women to enter the priesthood.  This would ease the resentment felt by many women towards a Church that treats them like second-class citizens. Even more important, women and married priests are the only measures that can ensure the Church’s survival. We can play with the numbers, pretending that seminary vocations are up, but the stark reality is that if nothing changes, there soon won’t be a Catholic Church in the traditional sense. The cock has been crowing a lot more than three times — more like 30 years — and yet the denials from Church leaders continue. The clock is ticking.
An all-male, celibate clergy has its origins in human, not divine, history. Forget Dan Brown theories as to whether Jesus was actually married. Priests were married (and possibly even a Pope or two), and were for centuries, with some historians placing that practice at over 1,000 years. While it was abolished for “religious” reasons, the real impetus was rooted in property rights. But since God invented annuities and life insurance in the 20th century, that problem has been solved. Married clergy certainly seems to be working in the other religions (who don’t have nearly the old age and pedophile problems), so the Church needs to get with the times.
*****
Keep the faith but fight the corruption.  That should be the ultimate factor in choosing the next pope.  It doesn’t get any simpler, or more poignant, than that.
If such a leader can preach a positive message, modernize without compromise, and wield a political sledgehammer, then prayers for a reinvigorated flock will be answered, keeping Christ’s Church alive far into the future.

Chris Freind’s work can be found at FreindlyFire.Com

 

Pope Resigning Is Miracle For Church

Sue NFL For Concussions? Get Your Head Examined

Now that the Super Bowl is over, the really big game begins. And it’s going to be a head-knocker.

On one side we have the raiders. No, not Oakland, but the Trial Lawyers, who delight in raiding everything good and decent in America. They are representing former NFL players in their fight against the evil empire, a.k.a. the National Football League. At stake? Upwards of ten billion dollars, and possibly, the existence of the NFL itself.

And what is the nerve center of this federal lawsuit, filed in Philadelphia, that have the plaintiffs so mad they’re seeing double? What went so wrong that these former players, given a life of royalty by the NFL, now want to ring the League’s bell?

They suffered concussions playing football.  No lie.  That’s actually the basis of the lawsuit.

The sheer stupidity of such a suit makes you wonder if they really did get hit too many times, because no one of sound mind could dream up something like this.

It would seem, therefore, that their motive is rooted in something else. In the preferred legalistic nomenclature, they’re looking for a handout.

Maybe they’re bitter because they didn’t play in the era of massive contracts. Maybe it’s because they can’t function as “regular” guys after being worshipped for so long, which, for many, started in grade school. Others may feel lost, with football the only thing they know. But their commonality is thinking they are entitled to something.

****

The outcome of this lawsuit should be a no-brainer. But given the insanity in America’s civil legal system, a jackpot jury award is definitely possible.  (NFL Properties and helmet maker Riddell are defendants, too.)

The players claim the NFL hid information linking football-related head trauma to permanent brain injuries (such as dementia and Alzheimer’s disease). In addition to monetary damages, they want the NFL to assume responsibility for the medical care involved for those players suffering from those health problems.

Let’s look at the case objectively:

1. This sense of entitlement is not just misguided but inappropriate. No one held a gun to players’ heads to sign lucrative contracts and become celebrities to play football.  They’re big boys, and chose their profession — with its risks — of their own free will.

2. And yes, there are risks. Plenty of them. Football is not a contact sport; it’s a collision sport. It is an intensely physical, violent profession. That’s why God made pads and helmets, but any third grader can tell you that those things only help to minimize injuries, and can never totally prevent them. The NFL is not a flag-football league, but one with punishing hits. That’s the game. Players can take it or leave it.  Not surprisingly, they take it.  Always.

3. The pass-the-buck, take-no-personal-responsibility attitude so prevalent in America is once again on full display. Players knew the risks, reaped immense rewards, and now, after the fact, want to blame the NFL for their issues. And are we really supposed to believe that the NFL willfully engaged in a grand conspiracy to keep players in the dark about the effects of hard tackling? To swallow that, we must assume that the League had every doctor in the country on the take, preventing them from speaking to any player who had questions about concussions. And that it somehow inhibited medical professionals from conducting research into concussions and brain injuries.

4. Did the NFL, the medical community and our society know as much about concussions several decades ago? No.  Is there a concerted effort now to better understand brain trauma, and to make all sports — including NFL football — safer? Absolutely.  That’s not malfeasance. It’s progress.

5. Is the NFL culture one that glorifies big hits, highlights them on NFL films, and encourages playing through injuries? Yes, but so what? Fans love when players get leveled, and players love delivering big-time jolts, which often help their team. Gutting it out has always been a source of pride for players, who do it not to secure the next big contract but because they love the game.  An admirable choice, but a choice nonetheless.

6. Where does it end? Should a firefighter who gets burned sue the fire department? Is a baker responsible because an obese donut-eater develops heart disease? And should office workers who develop carpal tunnel syndrome have legal standing to sue their company?

Some jobs have higher risks, and playing NFL football is one of them. But given the lavish rewards, it’s an acceptable risk to players — past and present.  And regarding former players who state that, if they had today’s knowledge back then, they would have opted out — give us a break.  Not a chance in the world.

7. The NFL (and the Players Association) has spent more than a billion dollars on pensions, medical and disability benefits for retired players.
The NFL also operates numerous health programs for current and former players, and offers medical benefits to former players, such as joint replacement, neurological evaluations and spine treatment programs, assisted living partnerships, long-term care insurance, prescription benefits, life insurance programs, and a Medicare supplement program, according to the League. Equipment has improved, and safety has increased, including outlawing certain types of hits.

****

Is it sad that some former players have trouble walking, concentrating and living a “normal” life? Sure.  Is it a tragedy when a few commit suicide? Absolutely.   But it’s time that these players stop blaming others for their situations and look in the mirror. They made their choices, and for most, lived a fairy tale.

If they now choose to feel sorry for themselves, or regret their choices, fine.  But it’s a personal foul to ruin the game not just for current and future players, but for the ones who allow the League — and its former players —to be so successful: the fans.

And you don’t need your head examined to see that.

Chris Freind can be found at FreindlyFireZone.Com

 

Sue NFL For Concussions? Get Your Head Examined