Jul
29
Watching Rome burn
Part 2 in a series
By Katie Kieffer
Capitoline Sunset. Rome, Italy. Image credit: flickr – MarcelGermain.
If Rome was so prosperous and peaceful during the first and second century AD, why did she fall?
You’ve probably heard people say, “Rome was not built in a day.” Well, Rome also did not fall overnight. It took repeated corruption and poor governance over time for Rome to reach a point of such extreme weakness that German barbarians were able to conquer her.
Given how similar America’s balanced constitution to that of the Roman Republic’s and given America’s similar respect for equality and freedom before the law, it is very important for us to understand why Rome fell so that we do not make the same mistakes that she did.
Today, I’m going to share with you how Rome brought on her own destruction. She weakened herself to the point of no return through inflation, excessive taxation, military over-extension and political corruption.
Subsidies
Rome planted the seeds her own destruction when she began subsidizing bread for all Roman males and raising taxes. As early as 58 B.C., Rome started a policy of distributing free grain to Roman citizens. Over time, emperors expanded the dole to include free pork, oil and even wine. Roman politicians subsidized frivolous items for political gain and helped bankrupt Rome.
'Roma nel bicchiere – Rome in the glass.' Image credit: flickr – Geomangio.
High Taxes
Rome needed to charge high taxes to pay for its growing subsidies and military costs. As Rome expanded geographically and became militarily involved in the Middle East, she needed to pay for an army to keep the people in line and make sure they were paying their taxes. The taxes were high and inconsistent. Eventually, free Romans chose to sell themselves as servants to wealthy Roman landowners because they could no longer afford to pay Rome’s taxes.
The Roman government ended up denouncing individual freedoms entirely and began seizing private property such as food or cattle or land. The free enterprise system eroded and Romans became very unhappy and discontent because they were either forced to perpetually work in an occupation or trade dictated by the state or they were forced to join the army – for life.
Inflation
In order to pay for ever-growing military and government costs, many Roman emperors chose to devalue the Roman currency which led to inflation. In truth, inflation was just another form of taxation.
For examle, the denarious was the basic Roman coin. The denarious started out as a 100% silver coin. However, over time, subsequent Roman emperors reduced the silver content of the denarious so that by the middle of third century AD, it had just a 5 percent silver content.
Intervention in the Middle East
Julius Caesar was a military conqueror and he zealously expanded the Roman empire.
Statue of Julius Caesar. Rome, Italy. Image copyright Katie Kieffer. All rights reserved.
By the second century AD, nearly the entire Middle East was under Rome’s military rule. As you can imagine, the Middle East became a huge drain on Rome’s military and Rome’s citizens. Not only was the Middle East a huge distraction for Rome’s commander-in-chief, but it was a huge drain on Rome’s economy.
Does Rome’s intervention in the Middle East remind you of the U.S. government’s drive to spend time, resources and money it doesn’t have by trying to patrol the world like ‘World Police‘ – as the creators of South Park might say?
The Fall of Rome
Eventually, Rome’s citizens became so poor that they could not afford to pay the government’s taxes and maintain Rome’s military. As Rome’s politicians became increasingly corrupt and dismissive of individual liberty, vice replaced virtue in Roman society. Adultery, divorce, prostitution and broken families supplanted the once stable, family-oriented culture.
In the end, Rome fell because she abandoned her constitution and her cultural values. After she had become both spiritually and economically weak, she was conquered by German invaders. Interestingly, many Romans actually welcomed the takeover because the barbarians allowed Romans to return to relative self-governance.
Stay tuned to find out about “Rome’s Ronald Reagan” and the best hope for American free enterprise. For Part 1 in this series, click here.
Primary Sources:
HERITAGE LECTURES: The Lessons of the Roman Empire of America Today by J. Rufus Fears, PhD.
The Cato Journal: Vol. 14, Number 2, Fall 1994, “How Excessive Government Killed Ancient Rome,” by Bruce Bartlett.
Jul
12
Lookin’ at a winner
3 ways the USA dominates soccer
By Katie Kieffer
Pass U.S. the ball. ‘Cause she’s a winner, winner, winner.
Team USA did not hoist the World Cup trophy on its shoulders in South Africa. But, what the sports world, even in the U.S., has overlooked, is that Team USA and the U.S. have made soccer the popular and profitable sport that it is today.
Today, the U.S. influences and contributes to the growth and development of soccer more than any other country in the world. Here’s how:
ROLE MODELS
- Safe and fun atmosphere: In America, we are passionate about soccer without becoming obsessed. Players do not need to fear for their lives if they make a mistake like the late Colombian soccer player, Andrés Escobar Saldarriaga. As sports columnist Christine Brennan of USA Today points out, “By not being single-mindedly devoted to soccer, aren’t U.S. fans exhibiting a laudable sense of perspective? They respect the World Cup, mostly — bad calls, bad acting, bad leadership and all — but they don’t live and die with it. One could make a case that this is a very good thing.”
- Sportsmanship: Our team played honorably and stood out from the Ghana players faking injuries and the French handballs that robbed Ireland of a chance at the 2010 World Cup.
- Responsibility: The U.S. soccer team takes their celebrity seriously. As Ronald Bum of the Associated Press reported, U.S. coach Bob Bradley said, “You want to have a team that the people who care about … and follow that team and root for that team and can feel part of. A team that people believe in and a team that people are proud of. And so, that’s part of our responsibility, and we’re excited in the moment that there’s that kind of feeling.”
Team USA head coach Bob Bradley during the FIFA World Cup Qualifying soccer match between the USA and Mexico at Azteco Stadium in Mexico City, Mexico on August, 2009. Image credit: Donald Miralle/Getty Images North America.
$OCCER’$ GREEN MACHINE
- Economic boon for other countries: If it weren’t for U.S. investors, soccer would be a whole different ballgame – one with less glamor, fun and profitability.The U.S. hires foreign-born stars such as David Beckham and Fredrik Ljungberg to play on her teams and recruits British pros like Martin Tyler to analyze her game on ABC/ESPN. Thanks to American sponsors such as McDonalds, Coca-Cola and Visa, and live TV coverage of the World Cup on American networks, there are suddenly millions of Americans are familiar with players from the Republic of Cameroon. Millions of Americans watched Spain’s historic soccer glory yesterday on ABC. No doubt this will prove a boon for Spain’s floundering economy.
David Beckham plays for the LA Galaxy.
- Television coverage & Sponsors: A primary reason TIME Magazine can report that, “Africa was the world’s third largest TV audience for soccer in 2006″ is because of U.S. investment in soccer.FIFA president, Joseph S. Blatter, was able to bring soccer to Africa and Asia because of the U.S.’ success in soccer and investments made based off of that success.Television is “central” to the World Cup and allowed Blatter to make “the game truly global, taking it to Asia and Africa,” says TIME Magazine.Television coverage and financial sponsors for the game came from the U.S.According to TIME Magazine, “The still unsurpassed success of the U.S. tourney allowed Blatter to float TV packages for the 2002 and 2006 tournaments to the highest bidder on a country-by-country basis. Under Blatter, FIFA began soliciting only the biggest brands and corporations, and all rights packages and sponsorship deals were sold for two World Cups at a time, guaranteeing fees against volatility in the global economy. The packages don’t come cheaply: in 2006, Blatter enticed more than $875 million from FIFA’s top sponsors.”
GROWING THE GAME
The U.S. is popularizing soccer at an unmatched pace.
- Fan base: “More tickets to the World Cup were purchased in the U.S. than in any other country except the host nation,” reports Bill Saporito.
- Participants: TIME Magazine reports that, in the U.S., “Soccer trails only basketball in the number of participants.”
- Media: American media giants have helped give credence to soccer as an American and worldly pastime. Vanity Fair has featured foreign stars such as Christiano Ronaldo and Didier Drogba on it’s cover – while the Fox network chose live coverage of an Inter Milan vs. Bayern Munich soccer game over live coverage of a New York Yankees vs. New York Mets baseball game, reports TIME Magazine.
Soccer is thriving in America, and it is alive and well in the world. Much of soccer’s growth is attributable to the passion of American soccer fans and participants – as well as the investments of American capitalists.
This video showing the reactions of from Team USA fans across the U.S. and around the world to Landon Donovan‘s last-minute winning goal against Algeria. It will shred any doubts of America’s passion for soccer:
World Reacts To Landon Donovan’s Goal – Watch more Funny Videos
Jun
28
Happy 4th of July!
By Katie Kieffer
Image copyright Katie Kieffer. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced or altered.
I hope you like this 4th of July video I created with the help of my filming partner, Charles Eide of Forever Films. Thanks for watching, and enjoy your holiday!
Katie Kieffer’s 4th of July message from Forever Films on Vimeo.
Copyright Katie Kieffer. All rights reserved. No portion of this video may be edited, altered or duplicated without written consent from Katie Kieffer.
Jun
24
I’m back in the USA
By Katie Kieffer
Katie Kieffer on the Cliffs of Moher in Ireland. Image copyright Katie Kieffer 2010. All rights reserved.
I’m back. Back in the USA. It feels good to be home after spending 20 days traveling throughout Italy and Ireland. I have a new appreciation for and understanding of European history and culture.
At the end of my journey, however, I have a renewed pride for America. I’m proud and blessed to say that I’m an American.
What was the one thing I missed the most?
American roads:
I braved driving for five days on narrow Irish roads that wind and curve along cliffs overlooking the Atlantic Ocean. By “narrow” I mean roads that are meant for two cars but only fit one-and-a-half-cars and have no median. The Irish drive quite fast and my assessment is that the most aggressive driver owns the road in the rural areas. 100 km/hr (62.14 mph) was fairly standard on roads that would probably be posted at 35 mph in the U.S. and I could count the number of cops I saw on one hand.
Let’s just say that getting a speeding ticket was the least of my worries. I was more worried about someone hitting me head-on as I rounded a narrow bend – or hitting a lamb grazing along the road – or blowing a tire to avoid a massive tractor barreling down the road. I could use an upper body massage to relieve the tension I acquired on the Irish roadways. Don’t get me wrong – Ireland was absolutely beautiful and I would go there again in a heartbeat. Driving is definitely the best way to see Ireland, but wider roads would make it a wee bit easier.
It’s wonderful to be back in a country where individual freedom reigns and cars have enough room to move along the road.
I’ll share more from Italy and Ireland in the days ahead. Thanks for waiting for me.
May
03
Clamping down on Facebook
By Katie Kieffer
The SEC conveniently had Goldman Sachs to distract the public from its own internal corruption. Now, liberal politicians have embraced “privacy concerns” to reframe their power grab to “protect” Americans from social networking entrepreneurs like Facebook‘s founder, Mark Zuckerburg.
A group of four liberal Senators, including my own Sen. Al Franken, have launched an attack against Facebook’s new tools called “social plug-ins,” and its “Instant Personalization Pilot Program,” claiming that they could violate individual privacy. The FTC even wants to “weigh in” on the debate.
These politicians, led by the same Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who called a flight attendant a “bitch” for asking him to follow in-flight cell phone rules, want to press new rules on Facebook such that all users would have to “opt-in” to Facebook’s changes versus “opt-out.”
Is it necessary that the government control Facebook?
The primary reason liberal senators like Franken say they are opposed to Facebook’s new pilot program, which can share your information with third parties, is not a serious privacy-related allegation at all. Rather, it is that it is too difficult for people to “opt out” of this feature.
Sen. Chuck Schumer
I just opted out of the pilot program myself. Facebook provides directions to “opt out” on its site. It’s easy and it only takes a few minutes to do.
It’s slightly insulting that our Senators think we can’t read Facebook’s simple “opt-out” directions and figure out how to follow them. Will Franken and Schumer start mandating that Apple provide consumers with a personal assistant the first week they own a new laptop or an iPhone to help “train them in?” After all, a laptop or iPhone manual is much more complicated than figuring out how to opt out of Facebook’s pilot program.
Here’s a video showing how quick and easy it is to opt out:
Politicians are likely drooling at the opportunity to leverage more control over elections by framing themselves as “champions of privacy.” If the government had its way, it would probably oversee social networking sites like Facebook. What could be more powerful than access to the data in a social networking site like Facebook for politicians wishing to secure votes in 2010, 2012 and beyond?
Don’t our elected officials have anything better to do than monitor people who are smart enough to tend their Farmville crops multiple times a day but somehow need assistance from the government to figure out how to manage their Facebook Privacy Settings? Our country is in the middle of a devastating recession and our politicians are spending precious time and taxpayer money monitoring and controlling Farmville users.
Perhaps Facebook should change some of its policies, or at least make them more user-friendly, but its own users will speak loud and clear if they dislike them. A Facebook group with over two million members has already popped up lobbying the Facebook Site Governance to change its rules – without the government needing to step in and oversee social networking.
No one is forcing us to participate in Facebook. No one is charging us to participate in Facebook. So, Zuckerburg doesn’t owe us an apology if we simply don’t want to take the time to “opt out” of Facebook’s new pilot program.
Participation in social networking sites like Facebook is not a Constitutional right. If we dislike the rules or we can’t figure them out, we are free to set up a profile on a different site or even form our own social networking site. Rather than “protecting” Americans from new media entrepreneurs like Zuckerburg, our politicians should focus on protecting our country’s national security and our small businesses.
Facebook image credits: Scott Beale / Laughing Squid.
Apr
28
Who’s Who in South Park
By Katie Kieffer
South Park creators, Matt Stone and Trey Parker. Image credit: Michael Yarish/Comedy Central.
If you felt like you were watching an episode of South Park instead of the signing of Obamacare into law when Vice President Biden famously pronounced, “This is a f-ing big deal,” you had good reason. The f-bomb is like oxygen for the cartoon characters in Comedy Central‘s animated sitcom that is currently ensnared in a free speech controversy.
South Park’s creators, Trey Parker and Matt Stone keep nothing off-limits. South Park has found fans by refusing to play political games and by poking fun at grown ups who act worse than children by telling other grown ups what to do.
Remember when Parker and Stone brought us the movie, “Team America: World Police, Putting the “F” back in Freedom?” In this movie, South Park’s creators took Hollywood elitists like Michael Moore to task for thinking they have the solutions to the world’s problems and ridiculed American politicians who try to police the world.
Apparently, Parker and Stone are unimpressed by self-aggrandizing socialites like Hugh Hefner and Gov. Schwarzenegger who pulled $12.5 million together, not for charity, but to “preserve” the historical Hollywood sign from urban sprawl. Stone once famously said that he and Parker are, “more right-wing than most people in Hollywood,” and “I hate conservatives, but I really (expletive) hate liberals.”
Make no mistake, Parker and Stone take shots at both the right and the left. They have targeted nearly every religion with their satire. But, what they also do, is fearlessly thumb their noses at politically correct (PC) culture, elitist snobbery and bureaucracy. Watch Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart explain the current controversy that South Park’s creators find themselves in for ignoring PC culture and exercising free speech:
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| South Park Death Threats | ||||
|
|
||||
In the third video below, Parker and Stone discuss their fearless philosophy behind depicting the Prophet Muhammad in South Park’s 200th episode, which compiled some of the sitcom’s most controversial moments over time. They depicted the Prophet in their “Super Best Friends” episode in 2001, and again after the Danish Cartoon controversy in 2006 (although Comedy Central refused to air the full image in 2006). So, Parker and Stone included a caricature of the Prophet, hidden in a bear suit, in South Park’s 200th episode.
But, when a radical New York-based Muslim group sent threatening messages to Parker and Stone, Comedy Central ended up pulling episode 200 from online streaming channels and also released an “episode 201″ depicting “censored” images of the Prophet Muhammad.
Whether or not you enjoy South Park’s potty humor and dark satire, the politically incorrect sitcom is an example of what free speech fosters: Creativity, open dialogue, discussion and debate. Disagree with South Park’s message if you will, but please don’t have the audacity to live in New York, enjoying American freedoms, and then dole out death threats to American artists who exercise the right of free speech.
We need to preserve South Park’s free speech in order to help preserve all free speech. Not to steal South Park’s (and Biden’s) favorite letter, but it’s time to put the “F” back in free speech.
Mar
15
Misers break ballers’ ankles
By Katie Kieffer
Image credit: Ben Woloszyn Photography/www.benwphoto.com
If you can’t buy a bucket, you have no business in the NCAA Basketball Tournament. I blogged here about how the NFL is corrupting itself with perverse “equalizers” like the Rooney Rule. I wrote here and here about Congressional plans to force college football to switch from the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) system to a playoff system.
Although Big East Commissioner John Marinatto is getting chatty court-side with former president Bill Clinton and ESPN did an extensive story and video stepping us through President Obama’s bracket, the NCAA doesn’t need politicians to break its players’ ankles and short-sell its fans – it’s doing it on its own.
The NCAA is currently considering expanding its tournament from 65 to 96 teams. The 96 expansion option is a good analogy for what can happen when bureaucracy, greed and politically ambitious snobs multiply, whether in business, politics or entertainment.
Scrambling for pennies
The NCAA generates 90 percent of its income through the NCAA tournament. Now, some sports analysts and coaches are accusing the NCAA of trying to boost profits by expanding March Madness to include more teams at the expense of the sport, players and fans.
“Jim Isch, the N.C.A.A.’s interim president, and the 18 university presidents and chancellors on the Division I board decide” whether to change the tournament’s format to the 96 team system, The New York Times reports. If they do, it will likely have the following repercussions:
- Hurt students. ESPN analyst, Dick Vitale, says it best, baby!
ESPN sportscaster, Dick Vitale. Image credit: Associated Press
“To mess with something that is so good is absurd. What they should be doing is concentrating on the integrity of the game and doing something about the current student-athlete. For example it is an absolute disgrace to the term ‘student athlete’ in the manual of the NCAA guide when we look at the one-and-done scenario.
The one-and-done is simply a situation of players playing to put their skills in front of NBA people and hoping to go to the next level and could care less about academics, could care less about the value of an education. They should be concentrating on that.
They should be concentrating on violations and things happening within our system that have led to the embarrassment and humiliation at Southern Cal, what happened in the Memphis situation. All of that should be in consideration not spending time trying to ramrod 96 teams and to blow up something that has been so fantastic to so many people. It is the greatest three weeks in all of sports. Why don’t we just go to all 300 and let everybody in?”
Furthermore, Davidson Coach Bob McKillop told The New York Times:
Davidson Wildcats head coach Bob McKillop. Image credit: REUTERS/John Gress.
“Isn’t this whole thing a window into society? We’ve diminished so many other things. We’ve diminished test scores. We’ve diminished admission policies. We diminish so much for reasons that are not accentuating excellence and performance. It’s almost too inclusive.”
- Water down the tournament.The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that ESPN’s resident bracketologist, St. Joseph’s Joe Lunardi: “…recently put together a mock 96-team bracket for this season. Carolina was one of the last teams in, and 13 of the 16 Big East teams made it.”
ESPN bracketologist, Joe Lunardi. Image credit: AP.
“I think that’s silly,” Lunardi said. “I really don’t know how else to say it, and that’s no disrespect to the 13th team. . . . From a basketball standpoint, [expansion] is absolutely not necessary. No team that has a legitimate chance of being a national champion is excluded now. It’s not like we need a bigger field to make the champion more legitimate.
“I hope they give it considerable thought. How great is it when a late regular-season game has so much meaning or a conference tournament game has so much meaning? To a large degree, that will be diluted if the most dramatic expansion plan goes into place.”
- Let down fans. As Michael Hiestand of USA Today puts it:
“Diminishing the Big Dance and popping debates about who’s on the bubble would inevitably devalue college basketball’s regular-season, conference tournaments and its NCAA selection show.
And other than gratitude from coaches hanging onto their jobs because grade inflation got them into the tournament, what would the NCAA get in return? Probably lots of new games of little interest to casual fans nationally — thus lots of low ratings.
Consider that CBS’ first-round NCAA time slots last year, which combined regionalized audiences from overlapping games, averaged 4.2% of U.S. TV households. Showing teams that wouldn’t make the tournament in its present format likely would produce smaller ratings.”
A better strategy
Hard work, sacrifice, perseverance and a positive attitude are traits of leaders. Minnesota Gopher basketball coach, Tubby Smith, motivated his players to ignore the naysayers and overcome team challenges to achieve a berth in the NCAA tournament.
Smith pushed his players to come together as a team and demand respect from the college basketball community. He set the bar high, and his players responded. High, yet realistic expectations are the best motivators in life.
In our government, as in sports, there is a tendency to lower expectations so that “everyone is a winner.” Some people and some teams are losers and they don’t deserve a trophy, get over it. They won’t work hard, they have negative attitudes and they are unwilling to make sacrifices to achieve goals.
Likewise, the NCAA needs to trust that the money will come if it does right by its players and fans and sets high levels of performance expectations. This will improve the game and bring long-term money to college basketball. Otherwise, its unchallenged ballers will be running to Kobe Bryant for ankle insurance that covers their weak, unchallenged ankle tendons.
Mar
08
How Playboy denies men
By Katie Kieffer
John Mayer copycats beware. You may think you are playing the field, but your field is limited. If you’re a Playboy fan, you might be missing out on an entire species of spectacular women. Playboy is not the bare-all industry you thought it was.
You may need to go on a safari and wear your night vision goggles to find the type of woman I describe. She doesn’t have a blaze orange spray tan or flaunt a Playboy Bunny cotton tail. She’s elusive, confident, strong, independent and smart. And, yes, she’s intimidatingly attractive.
The type of woman I describe is a ravishing conservative woman. Playboy hates this type of woman because she is a threat to the image of women it wants to portray. A conservative woman is independent. She does not rely on a sugar daddy – male or Congressional – to make her decisions. She believes that her body is her own property and no one, especially the government, has the right to tell her what to eat, how to eat or when she should abort her children.
This past June, Playboy released – and then quickly pulled – an article by Guy Cimbalo entitled: “So Right It’s Wrong: The Top 10 Conservative Women We Love To Hate,” lambasting opinionated, outspoken, and gorgeous conservative women including:
- Michelle Malkin, described by Cimbalo as,“This highly f—able Filipina.”
- Michele Bachmann, for whom Cimbalo violently announces,“Chemical castration has begun to look appealing.”
- Laura Ingraham, judged by Cimbalo to be an “insipid” “racist and sexist.“
- Mary Katharine Ham, regarding whom Cimbalo warns, “You get this one pregnant, she stays pregnant. Karma’s a bi—, isn’t it?“
My assessment is that Playboy cheats men by pushing them to “hate fu–” conservative women and look for these key attributes in partners:
- Immature and girlish. As your girlfriend(s) grow old, be like Hef and trade them in for a new, younger set, preferably twins for double hanky-panky. According to Playboy, women should live in Neverland and never grow up, along with Peter Pan and the Lost Boys. Women should tether themselves to men 50 years their seniors who serve as R-rated “grandfathers,” not soulmates.
- Image from “The House Bunny” starring Anna Faris.
- Stupid. Take it from a few of the Las Vegas Club Palms Playboy Club Play Bunnies themselves:
- What is your favorite way to waste an afternoon?
HOLLY: Watching Divorce Court – and eating. - What is your favorite book?
JANNAH: Jennah Jameson‘s autobiography. - Who is your biggest inspiration?
JANNAH: My mother…and Hugh Hefner, of course! - What was the hardest part about learning to become a dealer?
MELISSA: Counting all the numbers; they all started looking the same!!!
- What is your favorite way to waste an afternoon?
- Apathetic. No opinions please, just shake your bunny tail and bring me a cocktail!
- Submissive. Sure, they might have their own reality show or modeling agent, but at the end of the day, women are the property of Playboy Enterprises, Inc. Playboy upholds women who flaunt their looks and make themselves objects so that Hef can profit. Playboy is helping men idolize “yes-women” and despise women with true intellectual and physical appeal. Playboy needs a new model of women that is based on reality, independence and equality.
Jacuzzi in the Hugh Hefner Sky Villa, Palms Casino Resort, Las Vegas
Mar
04
Westminster’s absolute tosh
By Katie Kieffer
British models. Image by Tim Walker for British Vogue.
Across the pond, the ministers of the Crown have a competition going on. A competition with the U.S. Congress. It appears that Westminster is downright determined to show Washington that it can grow government faster.
Her Majesty’s government appears to be a bit threatened by the way American politicians are acting like aristocrats. Keen on maintaining its reputation as the most proper “modern monarchy,” the British government has decided to go off its trolley in a mad attempt to expand its power over citizens.
The Brits are reminding wannabe aristocrats like Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Harry Reid who the real aristocrats are by bringing the power of government into the realms of fun and vanity. While American politicians try to control health care and the environment, the British, who have already regulated these “fundamentals,” are hastily taking steps to regulate the frivolous.
Don’t hit me with that pint glass!
Count on an aristocrat to come up with a cosmetic solution to Britain’s binge-drinking culture. The land of starched Buckingham Palace guards is deft at creating an image of control and perfection. This month, the British government revealed that it had designed two new shatterproof glasses for pub drinkers. Government officials praised their investment of time and research in developing these new glasses as a way to save billions in health care costs from glasses that couldn’t “double as a lethal weapon,” the Associated Press reports.
British Home Secretary Alan Johnson showcases prototype shatterproof pint glasses. AP Photo/PA, Stefan Rousseau
According to the British government, “‘glassing’ attacks cost the National Health Service roughly $4.3 billion per year.” Unfortunately, the government seems more concerned with aesthetics than with actually saving money on health care or ending pub violence:
Consider that the British government would not even consider advocating economical plastic pint glasses because the look and feel would not appeal to drinkers, admitted the government’s design squad creative director, Matt Cotterill, of Bridge Design. Consider also that the new rock-solid pint glasses could still be used as deathly weapons to knock out fellow pub patrons – without having to contend with glass shards flying up in your own face during the act.
Elephant's Head Pub in Camden, North London.
Creating shatterproof glasses almost seems like a way to enable rowdy pub crawlers to see what they can do with the new glasses. When Brits get rat arsed, they are still going to be inclined to violence. If they can’t use their pint glass, they’ll use their plate, chair, purse, or cell phone. Should the government encourage bars to strip patrons of all belongings at the door, bubble-wrap counters, and replace high-top stools with bean bag chairs to eliminate pub violence?
Government-sponsored shatterproof glasses are a waste of taxpayer dollars and a step toward insanity. The government has better things to do than design glasses that won’t break in the hands of drunken sailors.
Britain’s Design Council chief, David Kester, maintains that “We are launching the redesign of a British classic, the pint glass. We tried to find ways to make life better while saving money. We’re a creative nation.” Leave the creativity to private small businesses, Britain. You will save money and free up time to focus on core government functions.
There’s no way she can be that hot
Apparently, flawless models are a menace to society. If you gaze upon too many airbrushed models in magazine ads, you may be duped to believe that these people are physically flawless. And, this belief will cause you undue distress. Apparently, a mistakenly over-altered Ralph Lauren image, like the one below, causes disproportionate psychological distress in young women, say the Brits.
Problems to such a proposal include:
- How do you enforce this? What are the limits? Will advertisers be forced to include a disclaimer for minor alterations like crops or lightening the sky behind a model?
- How detailed does the disclaimer need to be? Anyone familiar with Adobe Photoshop knows that there could be hundreds of changes made to a single photograph before it is published, so the disclaimers themselves could be pages long. Are we going to start seeing ads for clothing and makeup that have two-page disclaimers similar to ads for drugs to treat depression?
- Advertisers will find ways to avoid posting disclaimers on their ads, such as using models that do not require airbrushing, as London-area fashion photographer, Paul Cable, warned. Models will be forced to take even more drastic dieting and plastic surgery measures to compete in the industry.
- Just in case you still think this British proposal has an ounce of credibility to it, consider that this study was authored by “psychologist and media personality Linda Papadopoulos, (who) said that “when girls evaluate themselves against unrealistic airbrushed images it cultivates a feeling of falling short, of not being ‘good enough.’ She recommended that ratings should be affixed to such images to make clear if and how models had been altered.” So, yes, if this proposal passes, Brits will see two-page disclaimers attached to a simple ad showing a model wearing a Ralph Lauren sundress.
Let me introduce you to Dr. Papadopoulos herself, star of the UK documentary, My Big Breasts and Me, who you can see has it all “together” when it comes to class and fashion (see below). Let’s learn from this aristocratic nonsense and demand election reform, limited government, free market principles and adherence to the Constitution from our U.S. elected officials. We do not want to give up our freedom to live in a regulated cocoon like our European neighbors.
Dr. Linda Papadopoulos. Photo by Dan Kitwood/Getty Images.
Feb
24
Should’ve said no Taylor Tax
By Katie Kieffer
Taylor Swift
Do me a favor and turn on your radio. Wait five minutes and you’ll probably hear a DJ venting about the recording industry’s push for legislation that could effectively tax the next Taylor Swift or T.I. off free local radio.
I think local radio DJs are right to question this proposed legislation, since this hefty “tax” or fee would make it difficult for new artists to emerge. It would work as a financial disincentive for radio stations to take on the risk of featuring new artists.
The fee that current legislative proposals ask radio stations to pay in order to air a record would be split between the performer and the copyright owner. While some performers own the copyright for their record, often times a foreign-owned record company owns the copyright. So, in addition to moving cash away from the emerging artistic community, the performance tax would move capital out of the U.S. during a recession.
On the other hand, it is difficult for me to sympathize with music-based free local radio. Similar fees are already imposed on the more technologically advanced digital radio broadcasters, but traditional analog radio broadcasters think they deserve a break. Music-heavy local analog radio cannot expect to receive special treatment and exclusions from music distribution fees because it offered the “first” broadcast format. There should not be “squatters’ rights” in music distribution.
Local radio frames its concern over the proposed performance tax legislation thus: “The recording industry wants to impose a performance tax that would financially hurt local radio stations, stifle new artists and harm the listening public who rely on free local radio.” I think local radio needs to offer up a more convincing argument, or at least prove that the “listening public” will be harmed if “free local radio” disappears.
Free local radio should have to compete – and I mean really compete – with digital radio. If I can listen to the songs I want, when I want, on my iPod or computer, local radio needs to show me why I should tune into a local station with commercials and self-aggrandizing DJs that repeat Top 40 hits all day long.
Unless you are an antique radio collector, you’re probably not going to sit down and stare at a refrigerator-sized radio (like the girl below) when you could be multitasking with your sleek iPod playlist at the gym or blasting your personal set of tunes from Pandora on your laptop as you make dinner.
Image credit: Franklin D. Roosevelt Library Public Domain Photographs
There is no Constitutional right to listen to free music on the radio. There is also no evidence of inevitable “public harm” if the crass DJs who monopolize the local morning airwaves with ridiculous games and “news” consisting of celebrity gossip suddenly disappeared.
The public might breathe a sigh of relief if blasé local radio stations went extinct. Silence might be better than having Bad Romance perpetually in your head because it was played for the umpteenth time – in one hour – on multiple stations. Clearly, free local radio needs to make a better case for why it deserves an exclusion from the performance tax.
That said, government intervention will not resolve the issues facing the radio industry and the recording industry today. The government negatively intervened in satellite radio by severely restricting the number of radio spectrum licenses to two. This is why we only have one major mass-market broadcaster of satellite radio in the U.S., Sirius XM Radio, Inc., when there could have been multiple competing providers.
It is inconsistent for many elected officials to protest performance tax legislation where local radio stations would pay a fee to air records, while they seem to have no issue with fees imposed on digital radio, the modern broadcast format.
Let’s bring radio broadcasting back to a free market system where internet radio and free local radio compete with each other on a level playing field, and consumers can vote with their ears. In talk radio, the results just rolled in: Of the top ten radio talk show hosts, nine have conservative leanings.
Top conservative talk radio hosts, Hannity, Beck and Limbaugh. Image: Diamond/WireImage; Corkery/News; Lovekin/Getty
Neither the government nor the recording industry should be able to stalemate the future careers of up-and-coming young artists with a performance tax, impose a monopoly on new forms of radio or have a double standard for local and internet-based radio.
