President Obama will be looking to Congress to essentially approve one of the keys to his foreign policy in the Middle East - military intervention against ISIL, which has spread to parts of Iraq and Syria. I wrote about this topic yesterday, and recently also found this article by a man that I have tremendous respect for, and try to read and follow with some measure of consistency - Andrew Bacevich.
Bacevich points out the Obama is seeking ex post facto congressional approval for a military intervention that he already essentially has been conducting.
What this means is that Congress is presented with a unique opportunity to actually debate the foreign policy not just of the Obama administration, but of the United States dating back many years - to at least the Bush administration and, perhaps even dating back to the first Bush administration in regards to Iraq in particular. Here is what Bacevich says, drawing a historical comparison:
Imagine that Congress takes up Nixon’s request and debates whether or not to give its consent to what he has already done. What would be the tenor of that debate? Would members of Congress confine their inquiry to the specific question Nixon had posed: Whether or not to okay the Cambodian invasion? Or would the Cambodian issue open the door to a more searching examination of the premises and conduct of the Vietnam War and indeed of the Cold War itself?
Drawing historical comparisons, Bacevich argues that this request by the Obama White House essentially offers this Congress the opportunity to debate the wisdom of this never ending Global War on Terror, an opportunity denied it in the past with President Nixon's expansion of the Vietnam War into neighboring Cambodia:
Back in 1970, when the predicament was the Vietnam War, those questions demanded urgent attention. Today, the enterprise once known as the Global War on Terrorism, now informally referred to as the Long War or the Forever War or (my personal preference) America’s War for the Greater Middle East, defines our predicament. But the questions remain the same as they were when Cambodia rather than the Islamic State represented the issue of the moment.
We never really got the chance for a public debate on the wisdom, or potential lack thereof, of our Cold War strategy, including the Vietnam War in particular, and the more expansive and draining arms race against the Soviet Union in general. An arms race that supposedly should have ended when Gorbachev disbanded the Soviet Union and, effectively ended the Cold War. Yet, the military budget of the United States these days seems to exceed Cold War-era military budgets!
However, Obama's request gives this Congress that unique opportunity to actually put this strategy into question. The names and locations and specific situations have changed, but the questions largely would be the same: Is our strategy working? How badly is this draining us economically (to say nothing about actual lives lost and destroyed because of the war)? Should we continue pursuing this, or should we begin to rein in our empirical tentacles around the world at some point?
Remember, the American public was sold on the rosy predictions of the Iraq War. We would be seen as liberators, welcomed on the streets with open arms. The war would last days and maybe, at most weeks, but certainly not months. In fact, it lasted over a decade. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld dismissed an estimated cost of $200 billion in total of the war by Bush's economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey, and instead, there were official estimates that suggested that the total costs of the war would instead be somewhere between $50 to $60 billion. In fact, the Iraq War has been estimated to have cost between $2 to $3 trillion!
So, just how costly has this so-called "War on Terror" been (and not just the one in Iraq)? By some estimates, the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan combined that each lasted more than a decade after they began is costing roughly $75,000 for every single American household! Those two wars combined cost an estimated $6 trillion! Again, the war in Iraq alone drained us of somewhere between $2-$3 trillion.
And remember, the Bush administration doggedly stuck to policies of tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans and corporate welfare throughout, and that was while waging the supposed "War on Terror". Of course, this came from the same administration that brought the American economy to the brink of collapse, and it nonetheless entered what has been called "The Great Recession". The Bush years in general saw just a ton of corporate scandals, even if these did not make for juicy headlines gobbled up by the American public like the various sex scandals of the Clinton administration that preceded it. But these scandals, and the scandal of a war fought on fabricated reasons, have obviously cost far more than any sex scandal ever did, in so many more ways. It cost trillions of dollars, and cost thousands of Americans (and over 100,000 Iraqis) their lives, plus seriously injured countless more! Plus, it hurt America's reputation around the world far more than any sex scandal that Clinton was involved in.
Not surprisingly, given the failures of the Bush administration, the outcome of the war was not nearly so rosy as predicted. They did not greet Americans with open arms, and a stable democracy was not what resulted after years and years of a draining and seemingly endless war. In fact, Iraq was further destabilized by the conflict. Is it really that shocking to think that war would destabilize a whole nation, and possibly region, the way that this one did? Hasn't war generally done that throughout history?
But at the time, most Americans did not want to hear dissenting voices. Bush himself suggested as much, famously declaring: "You are either with us, or against us." Indeed, if you were against the Iraq war, you were accused of being "weak" and sympathizing with terrorists. There was a stifling lack of debate, and a lack of responsible media presenting the actual facts to the American public. Instead, the media focused on an ugly and aggressive spirit of jingoistic, yellow journalism. France, a traditional ally that happened to be opposed to the war, became the enemy. Instead of concentrating on the factual evidence of WMD's and Saddam's supposed enormous and imminent threat to world peace, and his alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons, Americans were given more fuel to the fire of war fever griping Americans, as a spirit of French-bashing came into vogue. French jokes reined on late night tv shows, and news headlines covered the story of the word "French" being censored in the Congressional cafeteria, being replaced, irony of ironies, with the word "freedom". While gobbling "Freedom fries" and "Freedom toast", Americans happily dove into an ill-advised war. Indeed, so sure of a quick and decisive victory were many supporters, that some Americans sported t-shirts and bumper stickers that suggested that, after Bagdad, the next destination should be Paris.
The world recoiled in horror from this ugly, nationalistic (bordering on xenophobic) Americentrism, and the narrow-mindedness (and blindness) of those who engaged in it.
Again, however, there was really no debate. Major media outlets spoke admiringly of Tony Blair's decision to team up with the United States in the war. Matt Lauer spoke of Blair's bravery, even though some people who were interested in actual news, and not opinions, wondered why Lauer, or anyone else, would chime in with their opinions. Forget that! Opinions were all that mattered. Bush's opinion that we needed to wage war won out, and Americans focusing on being resentful of so much of the rest of the world that opposed our actions won out. Bush's approval ratings were high, and dissenters were labeled "un-American". Remember?
No room for debate there. And the American people gave Bush the authority to wage a ridiculous and unjustifiable war. A war that turned into a fiasco quickly, and eventually, became a more long-lasting quagmire.
Here we are, almost 12 full years now since the Iraq war began, and we are, once again, discussing the possibility of entering another war in Iraq. Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait was the argument back in 1990 in the lead-up to war in 1991. Saddam Hussein's imminent threat to world peace and his non-existent Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD's) were the urgent arguments for the necessity of war in 2002 leading up to war in 2003, even though these claims were unfounded. Now, in 2014 and into 2015, we are told that the Islamic State poses an enormous threat to the region and to American interests.
To those ends, President Obama authorized military strikes, using his executive powers in order to do so. Much like Nixon before him, he went ahead and engaged in the military strike before without seeking Congressional approval. Or, apparently, at least, he did so before seeking Congressional approval, because he is now going to Congress to seek approval, and to seek legitimacy to engaging militarily against the Islamic State.
Let us return to Bacevich's assessment about this rather bizarre scenario and, indeed, as Bacevich refers to it as, an opportunity for the American people and for Congress to actually hold a meaningful debate on the collective wisdom of our strategy in the Middle East in general, and Iraq in particular, and how all of this relates to the "Global War on Terror":
So President Obama’s requested Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) could not have come at a more propitious moment. The proposed AUMF presents the Congress with an extraordinary opportunity — not to rubber stamp actions already taken, but to take stock of an undertaking that already exceeds the Vietnam War in length while showing not the slightest sign of ending in success.
I still find it so ironic that this latest request for a war is to be fought, in all places, in Iraq. We all know that we have gained an extensive history of costly military involvement in that country. Let us remember that this would not be the first, or even the second, time that we pursued military intervention there. In 1991, Americans hailed the outcome of a war there, but it was limited in it's scope. The United States, and the U.N. backed coalition fighting alongside it, only aimed to get Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait, and succeeded. Americans celebrated with ticker tape parades, and declarations that the success of the war vindicated the nation following the debacle in Vietnam.
Yet, 12 years later, there we were again, getting involved in another war in Iraq. This time, we would get the big, bad dictator. We would achieve "regime change", and he would be captured. Indeed, those things happen. But we still would have a hard time viewing that war as a success, because it did not achieve it's aims. Instead of stabilizing Iraq, it was thrown into chaos. Instead of making Iraq a solid partner in our war against terrorism, we made it a hotbed of terrorism.
So now, here we go again. A massive movement that Obama assures us consists of terrorists, and not religious leaders, has taken over much of Iraq, as well as Syria. It's time to go to war again, and this time, we will throw out these terrorists, this Islamic State.
Let us do this time what we failed to do last time. Namely, let us think. Debate. Ask questions. Scrutinize how much we are being told the truth by authorities with vested interests in the conflict. Let us actually learn from the lessons of the past and, given the checkered history of our military involvement in the region in general, and Iraq in particular, let us give some real pause for thought before committing to yet another costly (in every sense of the word, surely) military conflict. Let us not simply dive headfirst into yet another war that we cannot win.
Here is the article on Bill Moyers webpage, written by Andrew Bacevich, that got me on this particular topic (for a second day in a row, admittedly):
Obama’s ISIS War Request Is an “Extraordinary Opportunity” for Congress February 14, 2015 by Andrew Bacevich:
http://billmoyers.com/2015/02/14/asking-right-questions/
Here are just a few of the articles on the actual costs (in dollars) of the war, which should be revealing for many Americans, if they actually were provided with this kind of black and white, monetary figure, in order to be made to understand how much these wars actually bleed from our tax dollars as the years pile up:
US Wars in Afghanistan, Iraq to Cost $6 trillion by Sabir Shah for Global Research New, February 12, 2014:
Can the U.S. afford another $3 trillion war? By Linda J. Bilmes, Special for CNN, August 27, 2014:
The $3 Trillion War BY JOSEPH E. STIGLITZ AND LINDA J. BILMES
Iraq war costs U.S. more than $2 trillion: study BY DANIEL TROTTA NEW YORK Thu Mar 14, 2013:
Thursday, February 19, 2015
Wednesday, February 18, 2015
Iraq Envoy to UN Claims That Islamic State May be Killing for Organs
One of the problems with fabricating a war, and then being exposed for it later on, is that it becomes extremely difficult to take any allegations by the offending government, or almost any source, seriously thereafter.
Such is particularly the case with Iraq, where the absurd invasion of 2003 took place. It was meant to get rid of the most famous tyrant of his day, Saddam Huseein. But the White House, the British government, and many of the supporters for the cause of invasion and "regime change" loudly built up a case for the war on very trumped up charges, which makes it difficult to not be at least a little skeptical about allegations made by future US and British governments, or indeed, even any major news coming out of Iraq - particularly when it comes to efforts to get the rest of the world involved.
I know that ISIL, or ISIS, or the Islamic State, are not good guys. They may even be the most extreme regime, of sorts, that the Middle East has ever seen - and that's saying something!
The problem is you just do not know what to believe.
Are they really that bad? Or, is this another version of Weapons of Mass Destruction and 45 minute response time? Are they really, as I once heard them referred to as, potentially a "genocidal regime", or are such allegations hyped up, if not outright fabricated, much like the "yellow cake" charges, and other suggestions at the time that Saddam was the next Hitler or Stalin, for all intents and purposes, and posed such an imminent threat to world peace, that the invasion needed to take place ASAP. No time to really think about what we are getting into or the long term impact, as well as costs.
Just jump right in and go to war.
Of course, history cannot be changed. I was highly skeptical, as most people were at least outside of the United States) regarding just how much of a threat to the world Saddam's Iraq posed. But Bush and his cronies pushed for it, Blair went with it, and numerous other government agencies and corporations went along with it, too. They got their way, and many (but most likely not all) of their lies were exposed. The allegations upon which the justification for the invasion rested were balloons that popped loudly, and the effort that clearly went into the strategy to eliminate Saddam Hussein's regime was not matched by the same kind of effort with the occupation, the transition to democracy, or an exit strategy. The war went on and on. It was far, far longer than the days or weeks that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld infamously predicted. Iraq was a quagmire. It constituted a huge and embarrassing, not to mention highly visible, failure for American foreign policy, and the world took notice.
How could it fail to take notice?
True, now, we have a less brazen administration. We no longer have the president who boasts that we do not need a permission slip from the United Nations to invade Iraq. We no longer have the president who spread his arms and urged the terrorists to "bring 'em on", as if this were some wild west shootout, or something. As if the world was his oyster.
No, we do not have that president anymore, and I, for one, am thankful. But we do have the same system in place, and we do have a president in office that resembles that last president far too much. A president that kept in place many of the same destructive policies that he admittedly inherited and which were not unique to him, but which he also nonetheless failed to get rid of.. The same corporate interests that were in control back then are in control now. Defense still accounts for more than 50% of the government's budget. All of those weapons that we build, we intend to use, one way or another. Another war against an exaggerated threat might help to justify such a grossly bloated military budget. And if we go to war yet again, then we are proving, yet again, that the United States is by no means a peace-loving nation.
I know that this article is not from President Obama or the White House. But it is from the same media that remained so complacent during the Iraq war, that indeed went to such lengths to lend an aggressive chickenhawk White House some credibility in it's claims for war that were undeserved. That president back then is gone, but neither he nor anyone in his administration were ever truly taken to task for what they did, for how they lied in order to pursue an unjustifiable war of aggression.
Indeed, maybe this Islamic State really is the devil incarnate. maybe they are a genocidal regime, the Islamic extremist answer to the Nazis. Maybe they really are farming people for their organs.
Or maybe this is, yet again, a highly elaborate distraction, and the beginnings of yet another justification for an unjustifiable war. Surely, we will at least be spared the most obnoxious displays of chickenhawk behavior from the supposedly most responsible authorities in government. But if we get ourselves entangled in yet another conflict, in Iraq, yet again, of all places, then how stupid are we going to look as a people if things go wrong, yet again?
I know that the Islamic State and their fighters certainly do not look like angels at this point. But does that mean that we need to go to war in Iraq, yet again, to remove an evil threat?
Because it sure looks like that is where we are heading. Yet again.
And I, for one, am starting to think that no White House administration should ever again petition the American people for a military attack in Iraq. We fought against Saddam during the first Bush administration, dropped bombs on Iraq and imposed an economic embargo that apparently killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis while keeping Saddam in power, then went to yet another high profile war in Iraq under the second Bush administration under false charges. Iraq keeps growing more unstable, and we already showed that we are not interested in staying there long enough to make sure that stability has been established. We might have to be there forever to see that happen, and do we really want that?
Yet again?
Iraq envoy to UN: Islamic State might be harvesting organs. By CARA ANNA February 18, 2015:
Such is particularly the case with Iraq, where the absurd invasion of 2003 took place. It was meant to get rid of the most famous tyrant of his day, Saddam Huseein. But the White House, the British government, and many of the supporters for the cause of invasion and "regime change" loudly built up a case for the war on very trumped up charges, which makes it difficult to not be at least a little skeptical about allegations made by future US and British governments, or indeed, even any major news coming out of Iraq - particularly when it comes to efforts to get the rest of the world involved.
I know that ISIL, or ISIS, or the Islamic State, are not good guys. They may even be the most extreme regime, of sorts, that the Middle East has ever seen - and that's saying something!
The problem is you just do not know what to believe.
Are they really that bad? Or, is this another version of Weapons of Mass Destruction and 45 minute response time? Are they really, as I once heard them referred to as, potentially a "genocidal regime", or are such allegations hyped up, if not outright fabricated, much like the "yellow cake" charges, and other suggestions at the time that Saddam was the next Hitler or Stalin, for all intents and purposes, and posed such an imminent threat to world peace, that the invasion needed to take place ASAP. No time to really think about what we are getting into or the long term impact, as well as costs.
Just jump right in and go to war.
Of course, history cannot be changed. I was highly skeptical, as most people were at least outside of the United States) regarding just how much of a threat to the world Saddam's Iraq posed. But Bush and his cronies pushed for it, Blair went with it, and numerous other government agencies and corporations went along with it, too. They got their way, and many (but most likely not all) of their lies were exposed. The allegations upon which the justification for the invasion rested were balloons that popped loudly, and the effort that clearly went into the strategy to eliminate Saddam Hussein's regime was not matched by the same kind of effort with the occupation, the transition to democracy, or an exit strategy. The war went on and on. It was far, far longer than the days or weeks that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld infamously predicted. Iraq was a quagmire. It constituted a huge and embarrassing, not to mention highly visible, failure for American foreign policy, and the world took notice.
How could it fail to take notice?
True, now, we have a less brazen administration. We no longer have the president who boasts that we do not need a permission slip from the United Nations to invade Iraq. We no longer have the president who spread his arms and urged the terrorists to "bring 'em on", as if this were some wild west shootout, or something. As if the world was his oyster.
No, we do not have that president anymore, and I, for one, am thankful. But we do have the same system in place, and we do have a president in office that resembles that last president far too much. A president that kept in place many of the same destructive policies that he admittedly inherited and which were not unique to him, but which he also nonetheless failed to get rid of.. The same corporate interests that were in control back then are in control now. Defense still accounts for more than 50% of the government's budget. All of those weapons that we build, we intend to use, one way or another. Another war against an exaggerated threat might help to justify such a grossly bloated military budget. And if we go to war yet again, then we are proving, yet again, that the United States is by no means a peace-loving nation.
I know that this article is not from President Obama or the White House. But it is from the same media that remained so complacent during the Iraq war, that indeed went to such lengths to lend an aggressive chickenhawk White House some credibility in it's claims for war that were undeserved. That president back then is gone, but neither he nor anyone in his administration were ever truly taken to task for what they did, for how they lied in order to pursue an unjustifiable war of aggression.
Indeed, maybe this Islamic State really is the devil incarnate. maybe they are a genocidal regime, the Islamic extremist answer to the Nazis. Maybe they really are farming people for their organs.
Or maybe this is, yet again, a highly elaborate distraction, and the beginnings of yet another justification for an unjustifiable war. Surely, we will at least be spared the most obnoxious displays of chickenhawk behavior from the supposedly most responsible authorities in government. But if we get ourselves entangled in yet another conflict, in Iraq, yet again, of all places, then how stupid are we going to look as a people if things go wrong, yet again?
I know that the Islamic State and their fighters certainly do not look like angels at this point. But does that mean that we need to go to war in Iraq, yet again, to remove an evil threat?
Because it sure looks like that is where we are heading. Yet again.
And I, for one, am starting to think that no White House administration should ever again petition the American people for a military attack in Iraq. We fought against Saddam during the first Bush administration, dropped bombs on Iraq and imposed an economic embargo that apparently killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis while keeping Saddam in power, then went to yet another high profile war in Iraq under the second Bush administration under false charges. Iraq keeps growing more unstable, and we already showed that we are not interested in staying there long enough to make sure that stability has been established. We might have to be there forever to see that happen, and do we really want that?
Yet again?
Iraq envoy to UN: Islamic State might be harvesting organs. By CARA ANNA February 18, 2015:
Tuesday, February 17, 2015
More Debate on Tom Brady
With his list of accomplishments, you might think that Brady would have earned the respect and admiration of everyone, much like Joe Montana before him.
Not so.
Despite the mass praise of Montana himself, as well as another famous "Joe" at quarterback - "Broadway" Joe Namath, many still feel that Brady is undeserving of the respect accorded to other incredibly accomplished quarterbacks. Only two other guys have won the Super Bowl as quarterback as many times as Brady has -Montana and, of course, Terry Bradshaw of the Pittsburgh Steelers.
Plus, Brady's legacy is not yet complete. He will play more, and add more to his numbers and, possibly even more titles. We may see him yet in another Super Bowl, and possibly winning another one, too!
So, why do I get the feeling that, even if he does, there will still be no shortage of detractors trying to take away from his incredibly long list of accomplishments?
Here are some links taking different vantage points regarding Tom Brady and his legacy:
Joe Namath says no one's ever been better than Tom Brady February, 16, 2015 Feb 165:00AM ETBy Mike Reiss | ESPNBoston.com
http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/new-england-patriots/post/_/id/4778221/joe-namath-says-no-ones-ever-been-better-than-tom-brady?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Tom Brady Has Been Exposed as a Fraud By Alec Shane on Jan 14, 2015:
http://www.patspulpit.com/2015/1/14/7549471/tom-brady-has-been-exposed-as-a-fraud
Joe Montana wins every best-ever argument over Tom Brady By Bill Bender @BillBender92 Email RSS Last updated on February 2, 2015
http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/story/2015-02-02/super-bowl-xlix-joe-montana-tom-brady-peyton-manning-debate-best-ever-quarterback-super-bowls-records
Kurt Vonnegut Documentary Nearing, But Still Needing, Funds for Completion
Here is a bit more on the documentary about Kurt Vonnegut that we are suddenly hearing so much about.
This really looks like something special. We have cameras following Vonnegut around during the last 25 years of his life. With the extra work done since, that means that this documentary has been well over three decades in the making!
That alone would make it interesting to see, particularly since it is Kurt Vonnegut, one of the most unique authors that the United States has ever produced, and a great contributor to American letters.
Still, it is far from being a done deal, and needs a little help yet to see the light of the day.
Here are some links about the documentary, including a link to help fund it, if you are so inclined.
A 33-Year-Old Kurt Vonnegut Jr. Documentary Turns to Kickstarter for Completion by Don Steinberg, February 10, 2015:
http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2015/02/10/a-33-year-old-kurt-vonnegut-jr-documentary-turns-to-kickstarter-for-completion/
Kurt Vonnegut: Unstuck in Time by Robert Weide & Don Argott
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1468288415/kurt-vonnegut-unstuck-in-time
Kurt Vonnegut Documentary Gets Final Push From Director Robert Weide by Cynthia Littleton Managing Editor for Variety, February 13, 2015:
http://variety.com/2015/film/news/kurt-vonnegut-documentary-gets-final-push-from-director-robert-weide-1201433727/
This Kurt Vonnegut Jr. Documentary Has Taken 33 Years...And It's Not Done Yet By Paula Bernstein of Indiewire, February 10, 2015:
http://www.indiewire.com/article/this-kurt-vonnegut-jr-documentary-has-taken-33-yearsand-its-not-done-yet-20150210
Is the 33-Year Wait for a New Kurt Vonnegut Documentary Coming to an End? By Boris Kachka
http://www.vulture.com/2015/02/kurt-vonnegut-documentary.html
This really looks like something special. We have cameras following Vonnegut around during the last 25 years of his life. With the extra work done since, that means that this documentary has been well over three decades in the making!
That alone would make it interesting to see, particularly since it is Kurt Vonnegut, one of the most unique authors that the United States has ever produced, and a great contributor to American letters.
Still, it is far from being a done deal, and needs a little help yet to see the light of the day.
Here are some links about the documentary, including a link to help fund it, if you are so inclined.
A 33-Year-Old Kurt Vonnegut Jr. Documentary Turns to Kickstarter for Completion by Don Steinberg, February 10, 2015:
http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2015/02/10/a-33-year-old-kurt-vonnegut-jr-documentary-turns-to-kickstarter-for-completion/
Kurt Vonnegut: Unstuck in Time by Robert Weide & Don Argott
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1468288415/kurt-vonnegut-unstuck-in-time
Kurt Vonnegut Documentary Gets Final Push From Director Robert Weide by Cynthia Littleton Managing Editor for Variety, February 13, 2015:
http://variety.com/2015/film/news/kurt-vonnegut-documentary-gets-final-push-from-director-robert-weide-1201433727/
This Kurt Vonnegut Jr. Documentary Has Taken 33 Years...And It's Not Done Yet By Paula Bernstein of Indiewire, February 10, 2015:
http://www.indiewire.com/article/this-kurt-vonnegut-jr-documentary-has-taken-33-yearsand-its-not-done-yet-20150210
Is the 33-Year Wait for a New Kurt Vonnegut Documentary Coming to an End? By Boris Kachka
http://www.vulture.com/2015/02/kurt-vonnegut-documentary.html
Should the NFL Pay Taxes?
So, the National Football league (NFL) does not pay taxes, and has not for many decades now, because it is considered a non-profit institution.
Seriously.
Here's the thing: of course, it is well known that the NFL makes tons of money. Head over heels, frankly. Between the television coverage, the advertisement, ticket sales, highly priced merchandise, and all other things that the league does to rake in massive amounts of dough, it is safe to say that the NFL makes tons of profits every year, and has for decades now.
Yet, they do not pay taxes.
Hmmm....
This seems so obvious, that it is truly shocking that the NFL could have escaped public notice for so long, let alone that of supposed watchdogs within the government.
Of course the NFL is a for profit corporation! I have never known it to be otherwise, frankly.
Frankly, just having seen the way that the NFL conducted itself throughout a season filled with controversies and quick sand controversies suggests that they were doing whatever they could in order to get back to the business that clearly really mattered to them the most: that of making money. Controversies such as the Ray Rice video may get in the way, and Goodell only really seemed to do the minimum that he could to actually address them, choosing instead to concentrate on damage control for the image of the league, and for himself as the commissioner. In other words, they responded like a major corporation when profits might be compromised.
Does that seem like a non-profit agency that still needs more assistance, such as the tax breaks that it apparently currently gets?
To my knowledge, the NFL rakes in billions of dollars of revenue every year. It is a huge, corporate conglomerate at this point, and has tried to expand their business overseas. In fact, they are still trying, having recently announced that London might be a possible site for a future Super Bowl (although who knows when?).
Yes, it is obviously a for profit corporation and, as such, needs to start paying taxes, just like the rest of us.
The NFL shouldn't be tax-exempt.
http://act.credoaction.com/sign/nfl_goodell_testify?t=1&akid=13101.4308982.2MONWn
The Real Super Bowl Question: Should The NFL Be A Nonprofit? by Tom Watson, January 30, 2015:
http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml
How the NFL makes the most money of any pro sport Ike Ejiochi, special to CNBC.com Thursday, 4 Sep 2014
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101884818#
Super Bowl XLIX Was Most-Watched Show In U.S. Television History The Huffington Post | By Catherine Taibi Email Posted: 02/02/2015
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/02/super-bowl-tv-ratings-2015-patriots-seahawks_n_6595690.html
Seriously.
Here's the thing: of course, it is well known that the NFL makes tons of money. Head over heels, frankly. Between the television coverage, the advertisement, ticket sales, highly priced merchandise, and all other things that the league does to rake in massive amounts of dough, it is safe to say that the NFL makes tons of profits every year, and has for decades now.
Yet, they do not pay taxes.
Hmmm....
This seems so obvious, that it is truly shocking that the NFL could have escaped public notice for so long, let alone that of supposed watchdogs within the government.
Of course the NFL is a for profit corporation! I have never known it to be otherwise, frankly.
Frankly, just having seen the way that the NFL conducted itself throughout a season filled with controversies and quick sand controversies suggests that they were doing whatever they could in order to get back to the business that clearly really mattered to them the most: that of making money. Controversies such as the Ray Rice video may get in the way, and Goodell only really seemed to do the minimum that he could to actually address them, choosing instead to concentrate on damage control for the image of the league, and for himself as the commissioner. In other words, they responded like a major corporation when profits might be compromised.
Does that seem like a non-profit agency that still needs more assistance, such as the tax breaks that it apparently currently gets?
To my knowledge, the NFL rakes in billions of dollars of revenue every year. It is a huge, corporate conglomerate at this point, and has tried to expand their business overseas. In fact, they are still trying, having recently announced that London might be a possible site for a future Super Bowl (although who knows when?).
Yes, it is obviously a for profit corporation and, as such, needs to start paying taxes, just like the rest of us.
The NFL shouldn't be tax-exempt.
http://act.credoaction.com/sign/nfl_goodell_testify?t=1&akid=13101.4308982.2MONWn
The Real Super Bowl Question: Should The NFL Be A Nonprofit? by Tom Watson, January 30, 2015:
http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml
How the NFL makes the most money of any pro sport Ike Ejiochi, special to CNBC.com Thursday, 4 Sep 2014
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101884818#
Super Bowl XLIX Was Most-Watched Show In U.S. Television History The Huffington Post | By Catherine Taibi Email Posted: 02/02/2015
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/02/super-bowl-tv-ratings-2015-patriots-seahawks_n_6595690.html
Monday, February 16, 2015
London Takes Status as "Best City in the World" From Paris
This is a little outdated, admittedly. Also, I do not know that any city, much like any country, can truly be quantified and judged in any real sense as the "best" or the "greatest" in the world. After all, numerous times, I have launched arguments against Americentrist arguments and sentiments that have expressed that the United States is "God's Country", or the "greatest country in the world" and so, similarly, I reject the notion that any given city can and should be declared better than all others.
That said, certain cities do tend to possess certain qualities that can allow them to stand out. Being French personally, and with a family that came from the greater Paris area, I had many opportunities to explore Paris and get familiar with it, and so my own views might be slanted. Also, admittedly, I have never (yet) been to London, although it is definitely on my list. If given the chance I would love to visit such places as the Tower of London, Tower Bridge and the buildings of Parliament across the Thames, The British Museum, and, of course, Abbey Road (I'm a huge Beatles fan, after all).
Still, I ran into this article some time ago that suggested that London overtook Paris as the "best city in the world" and thought it interesting. Interesting enough to share, in any case.
So, here it is, the blog (admittedly outdated) that was in storage among so many other unpublished blog entries from the past. Just happened to stumble upon it while looking for something else entirely, and figured that maybe this link deserved the light of day.
I have heard numerous arguments for what would qualify a city as being, or achieving the status of by some organization or another, "the best in the world". Beauty, to me, would earn high marks. Affordability and livability, assuming we are discussing cities not just to visit, but for real people (and not just millionaires) to live in.
Also, strong public transportation would be a must. Proximity to some clear spaces and untamed lands or woods. Numerous other factors also would have to be taken into consideration, although when I heard an official debate on this topic many years ago, the specifics escape me now.
A fascinating topic, however, and one that I thought would be interesting to share!
Here is the link:
London steals title of best city in the world from Paris
http://news.yahoo.com/london-steals-title-best-city-world-paris-082514726.html
That said, certain cities do tend to possess certain qualities that can allow them to stand out. Being French personally, and with a family that came from the greater Paris area, I had many opportunities to explore Paris and get familiar with it, and so my own views might be slanted. Also, admittedly, I have never (yet) been to London, although it is definitely on my list. If given the chance I would love to visit such places as the Tower of London, Tower Bridge and the buildings of Parliament across the Thames, The British Museum, and, of course, Abbey Road (I'm a huge Beatles fan, after all).
Still, I ran into this article some time ago that suggested that London overtook Paris as the "best city in the world" and thought it interesting. Interesting enough to share, in any case.
So, here it is, the blog (admittedly outdated) that was in storage among so many other unpublished blog entries from the past. Just happened to stumble upon it while looking for something else entirely, and figured that maybe this link deserved the light of day.
I have heard numerous arguments for what would qualify a city as being, or achieving the status of by some organization or another, "the best in the world". Beauty, to me, would earn high marks. Affordability and livability, assuming we are discussing cities not just to visit, but for real people (and not just millionaires) to live in.
Also, strong public transportation would be a must. Proximity to some clear spaces and untamed lands or woods. Numerous other factors also would have to be taken into consideration, although when I heard an official debate on this topic many years ago, the specifics escape me now.
A fascinating topic, however, and one that I thought would be interesting to share!
Here is the link:
London steals title of best city in the world from Paris
http://news.yahoo.com/london-steals-title-best-city-world-paris-082514726.html
Peyton Manning Informs Denver Broncos That He Wants to Play in 2015
Okay, so, Peyton Manning has announced that he is ready and willing to play another season in the NFL, and informed his team, the Denver Broncos, of this decision. Given the long list of credits and distinctions to his name, you might think that the Broncos would jump at the chance, much like they did around three years ago at around this time, when they won out in a league wide race to get the elite quarterback.
But you would be wrong.
Denver seems to be at least flirting with going another direction entirely.
Interesting situation, and there will surely be much speculation as to how this thing will play out.
Please take a look at the article that I wrote on this subject for GLV. Also, there are some related links as well below:
Peyton Manning Ready Play Again for Broncos
http://guardianlv.com/2015/02/peyton-manning-ready-play-again-for-broncos/
Report: Peyton Manning lets Denver Broncos know he's ready to play Eric Edholm By Eric Edholm 22 hours ago Shutdown Corner
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/report--peyton-manning-lets-denver-broncos-know-he-s-ready-to-play-002346807.html
The Case for Peyton Manning and the Broncos to 'mutually part ways' By benito.mejias on Feb 14, 2015:
http://www.milehighreport.com/2015/2/14/8040069/the-case-for-peyton-manning-and-the-broncos-to-mutually-part-ways
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)