Fri 8 Jan 2010
FRIDAY FREE FOR ALL
Posted by admin under politics
Although I am finishing this posting late on Friday, and after even more snow and cold here in Northern Illinois, it is time, once again, for another edition of the AWMD Friday Free For All. This is the only time of the week when our arguewithmydad.com readers can control the topic(s) for discussion. All you have to do is get someone else to respond to your suggested topic and then the floor is yours. Don’t be shy and don’t hesitate. Get busy and be sure to let us know your views and arguments so everyone can read and react to them. Right here on arguewithmydad.com. I will make some suggestions for topics, but they are only suggestions. Today is Friday so only you can be the decider. But you need to tell us what you want to discuss. So, what the heck is on your mind today? With all that is going on, how can you not speak your mind?
The first issue that I want to suggest was actually suggested by one of our posters in our Monday Musings thread. Don asked whether Qman or myself thought that Cable News made any impact on policy decisions of our government officials. If I have not paraphrased the question properly, Don can straighten me out. The question is a good one. Does MSNBC or Fox News actually attempt to make or influence policy by the government. I have already commented on our earlier thread that I thought Fox News was actually an arm of the Republican Party. What is your take on Don’s interesting question??
This next news item just made me laugh. It seems that our old friend, Rudy Giuliani made the amazing claim that under the George W. Bush administration there were No domestic terrorist attacks! http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/rudy-we-had-no-domestic-attacks-under-bush-we-had-one-under-obama.php I guess Rudy has a very cloudy memory of a certain little terrorist attack on 9/11/01! Here are his own words: “We had no domestic attacks under Bush. We’ve had one under Obama,” Giuliani said. ” This is the same guy who was Mayor of New York City at the time of the 9/11 attacks and he still makes this preposterous claim. Earlier in the week he tried to claim that the Shoe Bomber attempted attack happened before 9/11! http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1001/06/lkl.01.html I have to admit that after reading these false and crazy claims from Rudy, I actually felt sorry for Rudy and the rest of the Republicans for having to stoop to the lowest and most obvious lies possible to try to claim that Obama took too long to react after the Christmas bomb attempt in Detroit. What is your take on Rudy’s claims? Is it time to call for a straight jacket for him?
I have made my suggestions, and they are just that, suggestions. Let’s hear what You want to talk about. I will be anxiously waiting to see what You want to talk about. It is time to get busy and let everyone know what you are thinking about. Let’s hear from all of You! Don’t be shy and do not delay in telling us what you think. It won’t hurt to let us know what You think.
I’m a little late on the free for all, but the most important sports law case in the last twenty years, maybe in history, was argued in front of the Supreme Court on Friday, and it got little to no major media attention. I was wondering if anyone has found any media that documented/discussed the oral argument. For those of you not aware, I will give a brief synopsis:
A company that had its contract terminated by the NFL, American Needle, sued the league, claiming it used its monopoly power illegally to deny the company from making clothing bearing NFL logos. Despite the NFL winning decisively in both the trial and appellate court, the league endorsed American Needle’s petition for Supreme Court review, and is now asking that the NFL be immune from all antitrust law (and note, this argument would likely apply to the NHL, NBA, and MLB, who filed amicus briefs). The Supreme Court granted cert (despite the Obama administration advising the Court it was not a suitable case to decide such an important issue).
The NFL is claiming that rather than 32 separate teams/companies, it is a “single entity,” and as such, individual teams do not compete with one another, but rather, the league as a unit competes with other forms of entertainment/media . The Sherman Antitrust Act requires a “combination, contract, or conspiracy,” and if considered a single entity, the NFL cannot violate the Act by allowing teams to collude. Without the Act’s control over sports leagues, you can say goodbye to the cases that have established player unions, free agency, and other player/coachs’ benefits.
Now, I would think it unlikely the Court would adopt the NFL’s legal theory, but if not, why take the case in the first place? Certainly, there are at least a few justices who, like Robert Bork, believe that consumers can often benefit from the operation of cartels.
Scary.
A MLB pre Curt Flood? An NBA where Lebron has no choice but to stay in Cleveland? An NFL without free agency? Now, don’t get me wrong, health care, Afghanistan, terrorism, and a load of other issues may be a little more pressing on peoples’ minds right now. Nevertheless, the case could result in precedent changing the role of antitrust law in other industries, let alone Americas favorite form of entertainment. The way I see it, if tougher antitrust regulation is needed after the decision, we may be hard pressed to get it from this congress (see banking crisis, response). We will just have to wait and see.
It is good to hear from you again Tom.
I have to take exception to your claim that the NFL is America’s favorite form of entertainment. I happen to believe that Baseball is America’s sport, no matter what the experts say! It will be an interesting case to watch, especially with the Bush Supremes still in power on the Court. I wouldn’t put any pro-big business theory past them.