The annual Washington Capitals playoff disappointment has drawn the accustomed debate over how, and how much the team and/or their front office ought to be shaken up.
One recurrent complaint is that the team’s freewheeling, aggressive offensive style of play, which is rather effective in the regular season, fails in the playoffs because the opposing defenses play harder.
Rather than accept this compatibility problem, it’s possible to take a more aggressive strategy. The Capitals should push to have the National Hockey rules modified, or clarified, to address the tactics other teams are using on defense. Theses tactics include sprawling in front of shooters to block the shot.
The risk vs. potential payout ratio for this behavior is too high for defenders during most regular season contests. But with so much at stake in the Stanley Cup playoffs, it’s like you’ve got multiple goalies out there. Imagine if during the Major league Baseball Playoffs and World Series, the position players all started pitching from various locations--it would be pure chaos. Extreme defense trumps a good offense.
That’s an angle the Capitals--and anybody who really appreciates the aesthetics of good sport--could take in arguing their point. Surely the official rules of hockey forbid teams from having more than one goaltender on the ice at anytime. These players who are using their bodies as human shields are de facto part-time goalies.
Do soccer rules permit any player other than the goalkeeper to use their hands to deflect shots on-goal? Of course not! It’s time for hockey officials to review the rulebook and take some appropriate action. A player who goes to the ground of his own accord so as to block a potential shot on goal ought to be penalized.
Goaltending should be for goaltenders only. Sliding proponents might say that we shouldn’t restrict the movement of a player and that it’s not fair to do so since it punishes those who are good at it. My reply is that someone being good at cheating doesn’t excuse it. If a soccer player trips up the one with the ball it’s a foul--no question.
If laying down to block shots is OK, someone ought to bring out a pair of Sumo wrestlers. Together they should be able to effectively seal a 4’ x 6’ hockey net--one is the goalie, the other a defenseman. You could skate 4-on-5 and never lose.
They'd have to change the rules!
Showing posts with label washington dc. Show all posts
Showing posts with label washington dc. Show all posts
Thursday, May 16, 2013
Monday, January 2, 2012
Ideas for Occupiers
Here are a couple of ideas for the Occupy Wall Street movement:Secret Ballot and Trust Bust--both pertaining to Capitol Hill, Washington D.C.
BILL TROUBLE
In the United States Congress, as in virtually any legislative body, there are two kinds of bills: those that pass and those that do not. That is the key difference. A bill that passes becomes law and effects policy. One that does not pass is essentially irrelevant. As the joke goes, “Close” only counts in horseshoes, tidddly winks and hand grenades.
You can talk all you want about raising consciousness for a cause, getting sponsors, etc. but when the bill fails to make it, these efforts are in vain.
Nor does a bill that almost passes achieve anything tangibly more than one that is utterly ignored.
Legislators communicate with each other about voting likelihoods—this is allowed—so that they might often vote in ways that are politically advantageous, whereas if the fate of a bill hinged on their vote, they would go the other way.
A savvy politician may pretend to support environmental preservation, for example, by voting for a forest protection bill that has no chance of passage, in order to curry favor of the "green" constituency.
Congressional turnover in the House of Reps. assures that those bills that legislators do not want to pass (due to the moneyed power interest groups' control over them) will wallow around in various committees, possibly appear to be gaining momentum, but fail to get enough supports to become law. It may appear that the bill's passage is an achievable outcome, but before you know it, whoops, congressional elections have arrived, and the process must start all over again, minus, in all likelihood, several sponsors.
SECRET BALLOT
It's clear that Congresspersons are frequently made to feel beholden to powerful special interests in determining how they vote. The best way to minimize the role of lobbyists is to remove the possibility of a vote being "bought". This is doable by instituting a system of confidential balloting--like is standard practice in trial by jury, and was like used in classical Athens, Greece. It would enable a Congressperson to vote his/her conscience without the pressure of accountability to the special interests.
The Constitution can be construed as providing an opening. Article 1, Section 6, Paragraph 2; states that "and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place." A Congressperson who reports repeated intimidation from strong-arming lobbyists or from other politicians should be able to be protected via a secret ballot.
The entrenched, standard policy of posting the vote result in Congress on a name-by-name basis, applies, constitutionally, only to votes following a Presidential veto (U.S. Constitution Art. 1, Sect.7, P'grphs 1-2). So Congress could enact a rule giving itself confidentiality in routine matters. An amendment could subsequently be adopted to cover veto-overrides.
Granted there would be no accountability to John Q. Constituent, either, but nobody really believes their voice matters anymore anyway unless they're tapped into the Lobbocracy, so this proposal might just level the playing field.
TRUST BUSTING
If Congress can't reform itself, it may be time to "break up" the parties—Dems., and Repubs., because they are too big and overconfident (as well as over-cautious), decadent, set in their ways, uncreative, reactive rather than pro-active, and so on.
It's a healthy thing to do—like pruning a bush that has grown too tall too fast. Cut it back some and you might notice how it tends to sprout multiple shoots where snipped—growing back fuller and thence more sturdy and more substantial, less susceptible to wind/snow/ice/pest damage.
Such an action would probably come about as some sort of antitrust argument in the courts--leading ultimately to a Supreme Court ruling to break up the parties like they did AT&T. Clearly they represent a duopoly of the business of political governance. To illustrate, recall the treatment of H. Ross Perot's independent presidential candidacy a few years ago. Even though he was leading in the polls, the two parties conspired to keep him out of debates.
SALARY EQUANIMITY
Towards greater economic equality: one goal of a fair society could be to establish a salary structure that reflects the reality of the workplace. Rank occupations according to how odious, tedious, exhausting, dangerous (to self & others), stressful they are to the average person. Compensate workers accordingly. Also factor-in a position’s complexity, training requirements, etc. And holders of so-called “dead-end” jobs would be rewarded for their dedication and devotion.
Salary structures are not carved into stone, as the labor union movement has proven.
P.S. Note the reality TV show cerca 2008 where the bosses tried doing the dirty work for a week or even a day, with considerable difficulty. It's coming back on in 2012. .
BILL TROUBLE
In the United States Congress, as in virtually any legislative body, there are two kinds of bills: those that pass and those that do not. That is the key difference. A bill that passes becomes law and effects policy. One that does not pass is essentially irrelevant. As the joke goes, “Close” only counts in horseshoes, tidddly winks and hand grenades.
You can talk all you want about raising consciousness for a cause, getting sponsors, etc. but when the bill fails to make it, these efforts are in vain.
Nor does a bill that almost passes achieve anything tangibly more than one that is utterly ignored.
Legislators communicate with each other about voting likelihoods—this is allowed—so that they might often vote in ways that are politically advantageous, whereas if the fate of a bill hinged on their vote, they would go the other way.
A savvy politician may pretend to support environmental preservation, for example, by voting for a forest protection bill that has no chance of passage, in order to curry favor of the "green" constituency.
Congressional turnover in the House of Reps. assures that those bills that legislators do not want to pass (due to the moneyed power interest groups' control over them) will wallow around in various committees, possibly appear to be gaining momentum, but fail to get enough supports to become law. It may appear that the bill's passage is an achievable outcome, but before you know it, whoops, congressional elections have arrived, and the process must start all over again, minus, in all likelihood, several sponsors.
SECRET BALLOT
It's clear that Congresspersons are frequently made to feel beholden to powerful special interests in determining how they vote. The best way to minimize the role of lobbyists is to remove the possibility of a vote being "bought". This is doable by instituting a system of confidential balloting--like is standard practice in trial by jury, and was like used in classical Athens, Greece. It would enable a Congressperson to vote his/her conscience without the pressure of accountability to the special interests.
The Constitution can be construed as providing an opening. Article 1, Section 6, Paragraph 2; states that "and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place." A Congressperson who reports repeated intimidation from strong-arming lobbyists or from other politicians should be able to be protected via a secret ballot.
The entrenched, standard policy of posting the vote result in Congress on a name-by-name basis, applies, constitutionally, only to votes following a Presidential veto (U.S. Constitution Art. 1, Sect.7, P'grphs 1-2). So Congress could enact a rule giving itself confidentiality in routine matters. An amendment could subsequently be adopted to cover veto-overrides.
Granted there would be no accountability to John Q. Constituent, either, but nobody really believes their voice matters anymore anyway unless they're tapped into the Lobbocracy, so this proposal might just level the playing field.
TRUST BUSTING
If Congress can't reform itself, it may be time to "break up" the parties—Dems., and Repubs., because they are too big and overconfident (as well as over-cautious), decadent, set in their ways, uncreative, reactive rather than pro-active, and so on.
It's a healthy thing to do—like pruning a bush that has grown too tall too fast. Cut it back some and you might notice how it tends to sprout multiple shoots where snipped—growing back fuller and thence more sturdy and more substantial, less susceptible to wind/snow/ice/pest damage.
Such an action would probably come about as some sort of antitrust argument in the courts--leading ultimately to a Supreme Court ruling to break up the parties like they did AT&T. Clearly they represent a duopoly of the business of political governance. To illustrate, recall the treatment of H. Ross Perot's independent presidential candidacy a few years ago. Even though he was leading in the polls, the two parties conspired to keep him out of debates.
SALARY EQUANIMITY
Towards greater economic equality: one goal of a fair society could be to establish a salary structure that reflects the reality of the workplace. Rank occupations according to how odious, tedious, exhausting, dangerous (to self & others), stressful they are to the average person. Compensate workers accordingly. Also factor-in a position’s complexity, training requirements, etc. And holders of so-called “dead-end” jobs would be rewarded for their dedication and devotion.
Salary structures are not carved into stone, as the labor union movement has proven.
P.S. Note the reality TV show cerca 2008 where the bosses tried doing the dirty work for a week or even a day, with considerable difficulty. It's coming back on in 2012. .
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
DC Voting Rights---an Idea Whose Time has Come
The Christmas season is a time for concern towards those less fortunate than us. In a nation that prides itself on its democratic principles, the residents of the District of Columbia certainly qualify. They are nowhere in Congress represented with a vote on national issues.
When I, a Virginian, wrote to one of my Congressman (one of my Senators, actually) several years ago about the DC voting rights issue, I got back this nice letter saying that all is well on Capitol Hill. The US Constitution--Article 1, Section 8--mandates that Congress control Washington, DC. The exact wording is "The Congress shall have Power to exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District."
So, in essence, what he was saying was "don't fret about DC being left out in the cold, all of Congress is looking out for her." But about the only time one ever hears about a Congressperson doing something notable in the D of C it's a sex scandal.
The federal government admitted that the Constitution was wrong about slavery, citizenship and voting rights when it passed the 13th through 15th amendments. And it went partway in recognizing the inequitable situation of DC when it passed the 23rd amendment giving Washingtonians a say in presidential elections. If they're allowed to vote for the presidency but have no vote in Congress, that's a glaring inconsistency!
When I, a Virginian--or a Texan, Iowan, New Yorker, Missippian, Arizonan, Minnesotan, Californian, North or South Dakotan, North or South Carolinian, Hannah Montanan, Georgian, Missourian, Floridian, New Mexican, Minnesotan, Pennsylvanian, etc.--want to query or comment to someone in Congress, I've got three people at the top of my list and they've all got a vote--my two Senators and my Congressional District Representative. And they're accountable to voters like me because I voted them into office and I can vote them out.
Now imagine you're a schoolteacher in the District of Columbia--assigned to give a civics lesson on democracy. What are you going to tell them? That at the time the Constitution was written, Washington DC was not a city? That the founding fathers didn't expect Congress to be in session more than a couple of months per year? That DC is a hostage to partisan politics? That home-rule was a failure? Though true, these are not very satisfying answers.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to notice that something is wrong with this picture. Anytime you're calling somebody a "shadow delegate"--she can walk and talk all she wants, she just can't vote--you know it's a farce.
A Public Relations Nightmare
It's a bad thing for the United States--not only because it's wrong, but because it's downright embarrassing. How can you project your image across the world as the defender of democratic ideals, and an enforcer of democratic elections, when within your own nation's capital, the entire populace is disenfranchised? That's about 600,000 people! It's absurd!
Don't think that this disparity between what we say others should do and what we do ourselves--this apparent hypocrisy--escapes the world politic. There are plenty of media outlets covering the US for an international audience these days. Every vote in Congress against DC Voting Rights, and every rally for it, gives networks like Al Jazeera and R-TV another excuse to take a potshot at ole' Uncle Sam.
Surely there's room for compromise. To wit, DC gives up its bid for statehood & senators in return for a full-fledged voting member in the House. Call it the US congressional voting district of Columbia. Making it happen this year would be a good New Year's resolution.
steve kearney
When I, a Virginian, wrote to one of my Congressman (one of my Senators, actually) several years ago about the DC voting rights issue, I got back this nice letter saying that all is well on Capitol Hill. The US Constitution--Article 1, Section 8--mandates that Congress control Washington, DC. The exact wording is "The Congress shall have Power to exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District."
So, in essence, what he was saying was "don't fret about DC being left out in the cold, all of Congress is looking out for her." But about the only time one ever hears about a Congressperson doing something notable in the D of C it's a sex scandal.
The federal government admitted that the Constitution was wrong about slavery, citizenship and voting rights when it passed the 13th through 15th amendments. And it went partway in recognizing the inequitable situation of DC when it passed the 23rd amendment giving Washingtonians a say in presidential elections. If they're allowed to vote for the presidency but have no vote in Congress, that's a glaring inconsistency!
When I, a Virginian--or a Texan, Iowan, New Yorker, Missippian, Arizonan, Minnesotan, Californian, North or South Dakotan, North or South Carolinian, Hannah Montanan, Georgian, Missourian, Floridian, New Mexican, Minnesotan, Pennsylvanian, etc.--want to query or comment to someone in Congress, I've got three people at the top of my list and they've all got a vote--my two Senators and my Congressional District Representative. And they're accountable to voters like me because I voted them into office and I can vote them out.
Now imagine you're a schoolteacher in the District of Columbia--assigned to give a civics lesson on democracy. What are you going to tell them? That at the time the Constitution was written, Washington DC was not a city? That the founding fathers didn't expect Congress to be in session more than a couple of months per year? That DC is a hostage to partisan politics? That home-rule was a failure? Though true, these are not very satisfying answers.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to notice that something is wrong with this picture. Anytime you're calling somebody a "shadow delegate"--she can walk and talk all she wants, she just can't vote--you know it's a farce.
A Public Relations Nightmare
It's a bad thing for the United States--not only because it's wrong, but because it's downright embarrassing. How can you project your image across the world as the defender of democratic ideals, and an enforcer of democratic elections, when within your own nation's capital, the entire populace is disenfranchised? That's about 600,000 people! It's absurd!
Don't think that this disparity between what we say others should do and what we do ourselves--this apparent hypocrisy--escapes the world politic. There are plenty of media outlets covering the US for an international audience these days. Every vote in Congress against DC Voting Rights, and every rally for it, gives networks like Al Jazeera and R-TV another excuse to take a potshot at ole' Uncle Sam.
Surely there's room for compromise. To wit, DC gives up its bid for statehood & senators in return for a full-fledged voting member in the House. Call it the US congressional voting district of Columbia. Making it happen this year would be a good New Year's resolution.
steve kearney
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
