Brady, Bill and Bob are Again at the Center of the Sports Universe

 

I have lived most of my life within the orbit of Boston so what I am going to tell you about Tom Brady may seem like blasphemy. So, if anyone asks where you read this; my name is Sylvester McGillicuddy, and I’m from Buffalo.

I love sports, my region has been blessed with incredible success in all arenas of professional team competition, ten wins in 14 appearances, I am old enough to remember past eras of feasts and famines with championships–the disappointments are as numerous as the triumphs–and therefore old enough to seem credible in this analysis.

I like Tom Brady. I like the sunshine. But I am pragmatic enough to know that undue credit is given to the sun for rising every day. We must actually thank the spinning earth and its astrophysical properties for allowing each day to arrive. The sun does not really even “rise” so much as it appears, taking credit for earth’s labor. We must also give a shout-out to the horizon itself for facilitating the process.

So, when we canonize only Tom Brady for his impressive rise, we ignore the contribution of circumstance. As he heads to his unprecedented eighth Super Bowl, Brady has indeed defied aging, as brilliant today as he was 14,600 sunrises ago.

But let us now acknowledge; the planet, Bob Kraft; gravity, Bill Belichick; and the horizon, a consistently non-competitive division. The AFC East, against whom the Patriots play six games a year, has been underwhelming the football prognosticators for two decades. Because of this enduring futility, The New England Patriots are almost assured a playoff spot every year, or every trip around the sun if you’re still following the metaphor. This allows for more opportunities to ascend to the Super Bowl. More bites at the apple naturally provides more mouthfuls.                                                                 Statistically, the Baltimore Ravens, New York Giants and San Francisco 49ers have a higher percentage of playoff victories than the Pats. But those teams all play in very competitive divisions, where playoff appearances are less likely and far less common, especially from a non-wildcard position. The Patriots have won nine straight division titles, thereby precluding the need for arduous, opening-round road games. From there, the Super Bowl is a mere two games away.

Brady’s .779 regular season winning percentage is the highest ever among starting quarterbacks. But, in his absence (once for a season-missing injury (2008) and another during a four-game suspension (2016)) Belichick’s Patriots are 14-6, a more than admirable .700 winning percentage. And Belichick already had two Super Bowl rings before arriving in New England, giving him, including this year, an incredible ten appearances in the big game.

Bob Kraft provides an atmosphere for the forces that be to keep spinning, and rising and shining. He can’t control gravity and he sure as heck can’t stop the sun from rising. And it is difficult to know which light will last longer, the quarterback’s or the corona’s.

Time for a full disclosure. As I researched the small details for this article, I gradually acquiesced to the statistical counterpoints to my premise; Brady is indeed a star unto himself. But the other elements still merit mentioning.

Sean of The Dead: Hannity continues to be the mouthpiece for the fact-indifferent

Opinions without facts are like candles without wicks, nice to look at but useless for lighting the way.

It is a rudimentary tenet of journalism that facts make an appearance somewhere within an article, even if it’s just a cameo role. Even “opinion” writing or editorials give facts a little face time. Violation of this basic principle often has no punitive implications, except for maybe loss of credibility.

While columns and op-ed pieces allow writers to include their own voice and express an opinion, to be successful the columns must be grounded in solid research. Research involves acquiring facts, quotations, citations or data from sources and personal observation. Research also allows a reader to include sensory data (touch, taste, smell, sound or sight) into a column. There are two basic methods of research:

• Field research: going to the scene, interviews, legwork; primary materials, observations, and knowledge.

• Library, academic, or internet research: using secondary materials, including graphs, charts, and scholarly articles.

What is even worse, is that opinions which are not grounded in provable data, are subject to change without much coaxing. And whether those opinions are spoken for broadcast or written for publication, a record likely exists.

So, when talk-show hosts–posing as journalists–like Sean Hannity spew off-the-cuff commentary based on the winds of today, time will expose them as fools. A recent montage, compiled by the producers at The Daily Show, reveals the politically-motivated hypocrisy of Hannity. The video clip essentially  shows Hannity arguing with himself about U.S. military action in Syria. While Barack Obama was president, Hannity, speaking without facts of any type, established a hard line against the Syrian regime…and against Obama for not embracing Sean’s brilliant strategy.

Now that Donald Trump is president, Hannity demands humane treatment of the Syrian people. Presumably he is aware of some soft-bombs or harsh-language attacks that hurt only feelings and don’t dismember children.

Hannity is now so enmeshed in the Trump presidency as an apologist and banner-bearer that he cannot possibly back off of his latest remarks. Or could he? If he has proven nothing else, it is that he is capricious. And, given his net worth and massive following, that is all he needs to prove.

Why limit your Twitter followings to people that you agree with?

I am not very active on Twitter but always intended to be. I am now incentivized by academic commitment. The first six strangers that I’ve decided to follow are an eclectic mix of nationally recognized celebrities.

Just because I read “Mein Kampf” doesn’t mean that I am a fan of Hitler. Likewise, just because I choose to follow Alex Jones doesn’t mean that I am insane. It is important to understand why I disagree with someone. So, by following this bloviating trouble-maker, I can fully grasp my disdain for him. @RealAlexJones 

Don Lemon is an interesting political pundit in that he is a self-proclaimed independent (although I’m not sure I completely agree with his opinion of himself). What is great about him is his ability to humiliate people simply by shutting up. He asks a question, then allows his guests to incriminate or bury themselves. He is like a passive hangman who merely provides the condemned with a length of rope. @donlemon

I follow Ann Coulter because…hey even crazy people need some attention. @AnnCoulter 

I am a huge sports fan. My familiarity with local sports writers and broadcasters keeps me locked in homerism. I need a national perspective so I chose to follow Denver Post Dispatch columnist Woody Paige. Despite his personal baggage, he is an entertaining contrarian with a self-effacing wit that I can identify with. @woodypaige

Ana Navarro’s ideology is agreeable to mine but that is not the reason I follow her. We are both former Republicans; I converted because of Dick Cheney, she because of Trump. She is often angrier than the situation merits and, because of this anger falls into the common practice of believing her opinions to be bona fide facts. So, I will follow her to fact check her slanted claims. I think she exploits her heritage and offers no unique or valid position on anything. @ananavarro

Brian Karem is the normalest person that I follow. He is clearly a liberal but is very credible, and thorough in his support of his opinions. I like his no nonsense, direct and fearless approach to journalism. His past is speckled with some controversy; but whose isn’t? @BrianKarem

Twitter, and life, would be boring if we only tuned in to birds of our feather. As a liberal, I must embrace ideological diversity.

 

Post office makes a profit Congress won’t let it keep

Before maligning the United States Postal Service’s operational practices and financial feasibility, unwrap the entire package of variables that affect it. On paper, the USPS shows massive losses every year. But those superficial numbers are misleading and don’t deliver the whole truth.

For whatever reasons, economists and those who commentate on economic matters, routinely disregard the underlying facts behind the “supposed losses.” Even “Forbes Magazine,” which is known for its accuracy and integrity, fails to present the entirety of the complex fiasco in its article from November 2017.

The raw numbers do in fact show significant losses, over many years. But the organization actually operates in the black and always has. A 2006 congressional mandate requires that the USPS fund its pension program for 75 years into the future. The mandate essentially states that money must be spent before factoring it into the ledger.

This directive to “pre-fund” future retirees is unique to the USPS. And, further exacerbating the financial losses…and consequently clouding the balance sheet and the opinions of those who write about it, is this simple fact. The directive hampers the USPS by, “depleting its operating funds to make these payments and instead allow an internal transfer of funds from its pension surpluses.” According to National Association of Letter Carriers President Fredric Rolando.

And as losses mount, the payments toward those future pensions also lag, creating an unrelenting cycle of financial dysfunction. All the while, the post office remains the only federal organization that uses absolutely no taxpayer dollars. So, the question remains. Why do media not report on all the dynamics involved in the quagmire? Fox Business and just about every other merchant of information continues to use a two-dimensional viewpoint to draw a three-dimensional picture.

It is difficult to discern what a news outlet has to gain, or lose, by incompletely reporting the facts and events. There is no political edge to be gained, nothing overt anyway. There is no stock value to affect or product pricing to manipulate. There is not a collective outbreak of journalistic laziness; or we should hope not. But postal insiders at all levels know to the letter how things really are.

The saddest part of the entire ordeal is that the matter is solvable, if the USPS could return to autonomy; without legislation messing with the business model. And, according to Postmaster General Megan Brennan, taxpayer money may need to be used at some point to right the ship. She announced that foreboding in an article from August 2017.

But it is not merely the legislators who shoulder the load for the confusion. Irresponsible media outlets offer an incomplete narrative. Consumers believe the reinforced stories then base their opinions on those canards. The politicians in turn use that manufactured ignorance to further impugn the USPS, thus creating a need for more government intervention. It is a grand conspiracy that no one is aware they are participating in.

Hey border-wall supporters: Mexicans have ladders

By Scott Shurtleff

The insistence on building Trump’s wall is based on the silly canard that Mexicans don’t have ladders. The idea of a person conquering a $20 billion structure using a $20 apparatus is both comical and humiliating. There are also several other ways to circumnavigate an unwatched wall. Tunnels are easy enough to build. Passageways can be cut into any known materials, using the simplest of common tools. Drones fly over and boats go around.

So, when data-ignoring writers like Ann Coulter use baseless mathematical formulas to promote the false need for the wall, I become inspired to delve deeper into their/her catalog of justifications. At this point though, the wall has become little more than a trope for xenophobia and a concrete symbol for white nationalism.

Coulter is dismayed at President Trump’s recent capitulation to Democrats on the sensitive issue of immigration. She, like many of his supporters, feels betrayed by the slow progress of the physical wall and by Trump’s oscillation on DACA. Her disappointment is a sense of glee to a great many people; mostly because the only wall being built is the one dividing the Republican party.

Although she makes no mention of the wall in her latest posting from January 11, Coulter’s unambiguous disdain for foreigners keeps her fanbase loyal and attentive. She is, if nothing else, consistent in her controversial viewpoints. And Trump’s betrayal of that has Coulter running into the arms of like-minded, disgraced former Trumpion, Steve Bannon.

   “In order to prove he doesn’t have dementia, as alleged in a recent book, President Trump called a meeting with congressional leaders on Tuesday — and requested that it be televised.
He then proceeded to completely sell out the base and actually added to his problems by appearing senile.”  She wrote in an article she titled, ‘It Turns Out Bannon Was Trump’s Brain.’

But, whatever accounts for Coulter’s staunchness and Trump’s capriciousness, no evidence supports either the need for, or the effectiveness of such a wall. Former Secretary of Labor during the Clinton administration, Robert Reich, summarized the idiocy in his web article from January 2017. He mentions, among other things, that the wall is not even necessary, as undocumented immigration has been in steady decline since 2008. And, these illegal entrants don’t “steal” jobs from Americans, nor do they commit more crimes than U.S. citizens.

Lifelong Republican John Dean calls the project, “Impractical, impolitic, impossible.” Even as Trump himself seems to have softened—at least for today—his rigidity on the matter, his base will not be swayed…by facts or cost or pragmatism. Coulter is the mouthpiece for this movement and if she won’t acquiesce an iota, then neither will her followers. And if the rift between she and Trump continues to grow as a result, then that is a victory for decency.