Fixing Four Year Events

The closing ceremonies of the 30th Olympics of the modern era is getting ready to draw to a close.  (I suppose to be more correct, I should be saying the XXX Olympiad; but someone is going to have to explain to me why it's more correct to use Roman numerals to describe a sporting event born of Greek traditions some day.)  Somehow I missed the opening ceremonies (I was probably watching a reality show about Pawn Shops buying the contents of storage units in a swamp full of alligators or something important like that.), and with just a bit of planning and luck, it seems likely that I will miss the closing ceremonies tomorrow.

Now having missed these gala outdoor Broadway shows, some might want to believe that I've more than made it up to NBC and its sister stations by immersing myself in the drama of Olympic competition with its 'thrill of victory and agony of defeat'.  (No wait, that's ABC.)  Wrong!  Like "Friends", "Seinfeld", "Everybody Loves Raymond", and "American Idol" before it; I have somehow managed to avoid more than the amount of viewing time contained in channel surfing past.

This is not to decry the achievements of athletes who have dedicated their entire existence to an attempt to stand at the top of the podium in these quadrennial events.  Nor is it a twisted form of protest by a twisted old man engendered by a growing jealousy over his inability to run from the couch to the kitchen, and whose next break of the tape is likely to occur while wrapping Christmas packages.  (OK, maybe a little bit is that.)  My gripe is with the IOC (International Olympic Committee) and NBC (the National Bullshit, sorry, Broadcast Company).

The IOC is after all to sports what the UN is to politics, a self-serving and bloated organization full of graft, bribery, and fiscal irresponsibility.  (Wow, it actually sounds a lot like a government.)  Both organizations are full of petty dictators who seem to meet endlessly, and mostly in secret; with little more decided than to do a more in-depth study and agree to meet again.  Neither the IOC nor the UN gathers any level of world respect, and both manage to go through unimaginably vast amounts of money without achieving anything meaningful in the way of results.  Merging the two together would not only manage to get a far greater number of the villains and thieves in one place, but perhaps by doing so we could move their headquarters to a more suitable location. (I'm voting for any small to medium-sized city in a country whose name ends with 'stan'.)

As for NBC, they lost my respect as a source of information or entertainment even before Johnny Carson blew them a kiss goodbye.  The best that I can say about them is that by using the letters NBC in the many of their network names, they at least warn you of what you can channel surf through without worrying.  They're normal news coverage is shoddy at best, but they fail to rise even to that level of mediocrity when placed up front and center on the world stage, as the Olympics does.  Bob Costas is a nice enough guy, but even he can't make up for failing to cover events that are only noticed, or which shine brightest in these four year venues.  Instead they in insist on filling the limited prime time hours available to 'looks back' at things most have long since lost interest in.  ABC did a better job in the old days, in spite of only having the one-channel flagship network to work with.   

Actually though, my real beef this year has been with the refusal to add political campaigning to the list of Olympic sports.  After all, major elections (in this country at least) are held in Olympic years.  I see no reason why other democratic nations can't bring their political competitions in line with sporting ones.  Not only would this increase world interest in the rivalries, and thereby TV audience and revenue; but it would also increase what's gained by those at the podium's peak.  Not only would they hang a gold medal (not so much gold in them these days) around your neck, but place a gold crown (at least temporarily) on your head. 

And think of the events that could be added!  Presidential campaigns (and many of their lower counterparts) have already become a full-contact sport.  Maybe we could allow teams of their spin-masters to actually take the field and go at it head-to-head.  (It might not be interesting television, but think of the lives that could be saved if they injured each other in such events.)   Debates could be changed to simple 'Rhetoric Singles' matches and VP's could participate in singles competition as well.  Political tickets could similarly debate in 'Mixed Doubles' competition.  

Candidates could receive further approbation and medals for the Olympic version of Political Tap-Dancing (with and without music).  Party spokesman (sorry it's still easier to write than spokespersons) could compete in 'Olympic backpedaling', an event where they walk back or properly interpret the misstatements of their candidates.  Campaign media too could be added to the venue, with Oscar or Emmy like events: 'Best campaign ad with not a shred of fact', 'Best editing in a political ad using their own words to misrepresent the opposition', or 'Catchiest, but most meaningless slogan' come to mind.  Perhaps such incorporation would allow politics to once and for all write down the rules under which such competitions will be held (and not in crayon this time). 

While we're at it, why not borrow (unapologetically steal) from those oh so popular TV talent competitions by using celebrity judges and allowing the audience to vote for winners and losers by an 800 number.  We've complained for years that we were sick of medals being robbed from worthy competitors because the French or East German judges were in the tank.  Maybe we could get Sean Hannity and James Carville to sit at the scoring table from the political right and left respectively, pair them up with Bill O'Reilly and Michael Moore (neither of whom will let anyone else get a word in edgewise), and toss in a bit of Chris Matthews to let us know who gives him a leg tingle.  And to balance off the ongoing and spirited competition (mostly for the spotlight, air time, and attention by the judges themselves), we could allow Mr, MS, and Mrs World to vote for winners and losers.  It may not mean much to a lot of the rest of the world, who take their RIGHT and OBLIGATION to vote far more seriously than Americans; but it seems highly likely to at least increase the numbers of those going to the polls in this country. 

Many have been complaining for years that it's long past time to do something about what's gone wrong with the Olympics.  Many have also said for years that politics is passed due for change and improvement.  Combining the two might not exactly meet the goals of those complaining the most or the loudest, but it would likely make either temporarily a bit more entertaining while we come up with better ideas for both.
       
    

Government Non-Compete Clause

The Winter Olympics just wrapped up in Calgary and far too many spent far too many hours glued to a television watching hockey games, ice skating, and people going down hills on various types on skis, snowboards, sleds. Few of us have the talent to compete in these events or comprehend the commitment to training required to reach this exalted level of excellence. We do however, love to root for the them as they exhibit their skills and revel in the spirit of competition that they exemplify. 

It's a pity that this tremendous example of competitive fervor in western Canada did not inspire the government that some of these athletes represented to catch some of the spirit of the games. Our government it unfortunately appears, has a different concept of competition, either legislating against it or rigging the results of the game before it begins.

Take the US Postal Service as an example. Once a vital part of transmitting information from place to place in this country, it was founded in 1775 by Benjamin Franklin as an instrument vital to the national interests. Over the years however, it has become increasingly unnecessary, especially so in this age of the Internet. While the Postal Service grows less useful and increasingly more expensive however, it remains as a government mandated monopoly for everything but package delivery, and expends as much effort to insure this continued lack of competition as it does for anything else. Even the containers to which it delivers, though purchased and owned by citizens, are forbidden by law for use by any other entity.

Consider the education process as yet another example. Once all education in this country was a privately contracted business between citizens and teachers, with a fee being paid for a service provided. Today we have a massive education system run and funded by government money (you know, ours). And while there are still private education institutions at the university levels that are lauded, all other attempts to compete with what many now consider little more than government indoctrination camps are continuously attacked. Private schools face increasing scrutiny in spite of their successes at providing the same service at a consistently lower cost than their publicly funded counterparts, charter schools are being all but regulated out of existence to remove them from the game, and home schooling is now under increasing attack in spite of its successes. It seems that parents who take take a personal interest in their childrens' education are essential, unless they attempt to compete with the government monopoly of the process.

Now the federal government is looking closely at controlling the ways that banks and credit card companies compete for business, is attempting to all but eliminate the competition for health care insurance by becoming a player itself, and is attempting to enter into the competition of every business in every way by regulating the use of power and level of emissions in this country. And believe me when I tell you that once this two hundred pound gorilla enters the the field of play, all of the other players will be forced to step aside.

What we need to understand is that when it comes to deciding who is going to make the rules for the people of the country, the federal government does not much care to compete. Four years of the bloodiest war in this country's history (the Civil War) proved that pretty effectively. They were fought to declare very clearly that while People and States have rights guaranteed under the Constitution, those rights do not include challenging the government that their union formed (in spite of language that says otherwise in the Declaration of Independence). And while the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution declares that: “The powers delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” that's is not always the case. If you don't believe me, try running it by Washington DC when they want to set your speed limits or pass another unfunded mandate for Medicare spending.

While it appears that the citizens of this country glory in the spirit of competition, the government that they empowered has far less interest in it (at least where their operations are concerned). And while I cannot find one in The Constitution after constant study, there appears to be an invisible non-compete clause somewhere in this document that the government operates under.