The author makes a very good point, proposing this scenario of an owner swap, Snyder leaving the Redskins and taking ownership of the Nationals. I can only imagine how good ole Danny Boy would drool at the thought of no salary cap. He could throw all the money he wants at old, difficult, controversial, and worthless players and not have a league telling him he needs to stop. Now... "buying" a championship is the main reason so many people (myself included) hate teams like the Detroit Red Wings and the New York Yankees. But it is clear that the reason we hate them is because they aren't our team and we have this feeling of "That's not fair. They shouldn't be allowed to just buy a trophy like that." But a championship is something DC sports fans haven't seen in a while (sorry DC United, I wish you were a legitimate sport consideration in this city and country too, but the truth is we don't care about your MLS Cups). DC is a city of "what have you done for me lately?" and a city caught up in what's going on politically that supporting sports teams is done on special occasions, not as a way of life. But would this change if Snyder owned the Nationals and was paying big money for big names? If it comes down to the highest bidder, we all know Snyder has the bankroll to land names like A-Rod, Soriano, Sabathia, maybe even Pujols... Just think how different the concept of Washington Nationals baseball would be if you had some big time players at the plate every night?
And that's why baseball is a totally different playing field for the team owners. Now, would the opposite work in the favor of the Redskins, to whom I devote my loyalty? Well, as the author notes, Ted Lerner is pretty new to this ownership thing, so how could we know? But, considering the track record of Daniel Snyder, his over-involvement, his poor decision making, his seemingly indifferent disposal of NFL Draft picks year after year, his financial investments in NFL fossils.... I can't see how Lerner would be worse than Snyder is. Perhaps his lack of experience as an owner would be to the advantage of the Skins organization because he would be forced to keep his mouth shut and let other people do the thinking and deciding for the team's best interest. A novel idea for an NFL owner...
So, would it work? For the Nationals, potentially yes. They could go from the worst team in baseball to the best in a matter of a couple years. Would they be vilified by the rest of the MLB fan base? Probably. No one likes a team that buys a championship. Unless that team is your team. So I think the DC fans would be fine with it and would pack the Park in Southeast every night for years to come. So that would be good for DC sports in general. For the Redskins, it is possible it could be a good thing too, hinging on the question of exactly what kind of owner would Ted Lerner be and would he let the coaching staff build a championship caliber team without his interference?
Here's a T-shirt idea in response to the Murky Coffee customer service meltdown from earlier this week. Nothing quite like being savvy of local cultural news and have a shirt to match! Thanks, Nick Cho! Priceless!
Yes. That is right. "We The Best" is the official slogan of this custom wheel dealer. Wow. Classy. I am not going to sit here and make assumptions or stereotypes about your target audience for this piece of marketing, but I think by emblazoning that on the side of your van, you have said plenty. Wow. Good work.
Marc Fisher of washingtonpost.com wrote a great, mocking article about the Virginia state legislature's inability and unwillingness to pass any bill to help solve the painfully horrible Northern Virginia traffic problems (the DCist commented on this epic fail here). Fisher referenced Virginia Governor, Tim Kaine's, soundbite equating the ineptitude of the Good Ole Boys in Richmond to an episode of Seinfeld, saying "it was doing nothing taken to an art." But then Fisher goes on to spell out the incredibly important things that the General Assembly did get done during these sessions. Much much more important than investing in the reform of roads and transit in the most densely populated portion of the state. Things like tributes to high school golf teams and dedicating overpasses are the kinds of bureaucratic BS that mean nothing ever gets done.
The traffic situation in Northern VA and the DC Metro area as a whole is atrocious. The fat cats down in Richmond can be shielded from our saturated and antiquated roads, from the excessive and ever-increasing volume our bridges and overpasses have to bear. They can take the taxpaying dollars from all across the state and pad their pockets while wasting time patting their buddies on the back and handing out medals. Is that what these people are elected for?
But sadly, as Governor Kaine knows, this was expected. The General Assembly has vigorously and continuously opposed funding any sort of change or help for the transportation in NoVa (or Hampton Roads for that matter). As my continuously-brilliant father says over and over again, it comes down to the fact that all the legislators from all the small, rural jurisdictions in Virginia don't want to pay to fix the roads up in Northern VA because it doesn't impact their constituents at all. In their eyes, those fast-talking, crazy-driving, sonsa-bitches up thar in The North have grown up and grown up and it's their own damn fault that they don't have enough roads built fast enough. Me and the residents of Dickenson County aint gonna pay for no high-falutin' Lexus drivers to have better roads.
And while that is a valid point, the rural folks and the General Assembly continue to advantageously ignore the fact that the majority of Virginia state taxpayer dollars come from Northern VA. So they just want to sit back and rake in all the money from the successful business people and government workers up in the DC area (who are paying a butt-load more in cost of living and Dickenson County, thank you very much) and then distribute it throughout the state as they see fit. Not allocating an equal percentage of funding and legislation to support their sugar-daddies in Fairfax and Arlington. No, essentially the General Assembly and all the other counties in the Commonwealth stick their hand out for cash like an ungrateful teenager (sorry dad) and then take the keys, flick off the parents, and go out on the town with their friends, spending the money on whatever the heck they want. Anything and everything but that which is most important to the people who pay them the most.
All this talking about the General Assembly makes me wonder about a couple things. Firstly, I am reminded of a news piece about the Texas state legislation's voting practices and whether taxpayers can really trust that their legislators are really voting for the bills that are getting passed. At the time a local news station featured the video below and followed up the piece by saying Virginia and Maryland legislators anonymously admit the same practice often happens in their sessions. See the video below:
Secondly, it makes me quietly wonder if the General Assembly, or the state capital for that matter, should still be located in Richmond. I mean, is it still there because of secessionist nostalgia when Richmond was the capital of the Confederacy? I mean we have to pay homage to Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee, right? Is it because of geographic location? Somewhat central in the state, on the James River (which ceased being important with the invention of the railroad), and yet far enough away from Washington, DC so them Yanks can't tell us what to do.
I propose we re-evaluate the location (and therefore local influence and experience) of the capital and General Assembly, picking the most advantageous and politically relevant location. Yes. I am proposing Fairfax become the new capital of the Virginia.
Now... is that a joke? Somewhat. Would it be a nightmare? Probably. But, I am trying to make a point, so hear me out. Fairfax, Loudon, Arlington, Prince William, and Stafford counties (as well as Fairfax and Falls Church cities) ranked at the top of median household income in 2003. Therefore residents of Northern Virginia continue to pay more taxes and have a higher cost of living than the rest of the state, so the Assembly's funds are coming from Northern VA families. But how do legislators from Richmond, let alone rural Virginia, understand the issues and pressures felt by their most wealthy and financially-supportive constituents from so far away? Don't you think that if the General Assembly met in Fairfax County and had to drive on these roads and in this traffic every day, they would be more willing to invest in reform?
It is questions like these that have led many Virginians to question the fairness of the Assembly's representation and lawmaking. There is even a group called the Fairfax County Taxpayers Alliance, which strives to fight for fair taxing in Virginia and keeping the legislators accountable. Talk of this kind always rekindles the flames of Northern Virginia seceding from the Commonwealth due to tax and revenue disputes with the legislature (also see this blog post devoted to the concept. The logic isn't flawless, but it is interesting). Wikipedia has a concise description of these dissenting remarks, even if they usually only go so far as tirades and grumbling over a beer:
In nearly all recent cases of efforts at state secession, the impetus for the proposal comes partially from strong regional identities within the state, coupled with a frustration from one region that the state government, in the other region, is out of touch with and underserving the disgruntled area. Conversely, more urban regions may mull secession ideas over tax flow issues, where the urban side disproportionately subsidizes government spending on the rural side. Often these regions also hold distinct political values from each other, usually with rural/conservative areas seeking to split from urban/liberal areas or vice versa.
That seems to sum it up pretty well. The political, economic, and social climate in Northern Virginia is significantly different from the rest of the state, specifically Richmond, the seat of the Legislature. Is that cause for secession? Probably not, but the fact that there is such discussion and dissention among the residents of this Commonwealth should be noted and taken into consideration by the General Assembly. You can't turn a deaf ear and a cold shoulder to the seat of your wealth and population. You can't pull a Seinfeld and just do nothing. It is almost comical (if it weren't so infuriating) that they spent weeks and months agreeing on recognitions and awards instead of working together to affect change where it is needed most. Isn't it time for the people of Northern VA, repeatedly scorned by the lawmakers, to demand fair representation? What would the rest of the state do without our tax dollars? No, seriously. Think about it.
And now for an installment of "Oh come on, are you serious?" A couple news items from today that make me feel like our culture, egged on by media coverage like this, has become way too sensitive about way too many things. I was starting to think that obsessive political correctness was starting to fade in popularity, being replaced by people simply thinking before they spoke. But now it seems that I may have spoken too soon.
Oh wow. I am both excited and somewhat hesitant and scared of what this might be like.
Jose Saramago's book, Blindness, is one of the best books, both powerful and chilling, that I have read in a long time. The intentionally ironic eye-opening nature of this novel and it's social commentary on human nature is so raw and well done, in Saramago's own unique style, that I am afraid that even acclaimed director Fernando Meirelles will be unable to capture the true essence of the book.
Sure, we all "know" that in general the book is better than the movie version. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to lead us to read more and watch less. But I feel that when certain film adaptations come along, particularly when it is a book we have always loved, they bring with them an increased level of trepidation and doubt. I would love to see this movie, because, as I cannot say enough, I absolutely loved this book. But will the movie live up to the awesome power and composition of the book? Almost assuredly not. So... why should I wipe away the images and emotions and raw feelings generated by my imagination while reading this book, that would be otherwise forever associated with that world, and replace them with what could turn out to be a well-attempted, but vapidly poor collection of images and feigned emotion? Can film ever come close to paying homage to the original literary work?
This is why I have reigned back in my initial burst of excitement at seeing this trailer. I am worried it will be a disappointment. It won't be as good as the book. And the frightening, intricate mural that Saramago painted in my long term memory will be wiped away and painted over with a county-fair-air-brushed summary. A poor excuse for a representation of the original work. Of course there have been other films that have awoken similar fears, such as Lord of the Rings, The Chronicles of Narnia, even Into the Wild. Of those, I guess LOTR was the only adaptation that I thought was done well enough to justify its production.
The underlying question to me about our culture in general is, if we know that the film isn't going to be as good as the original piece of literature, why do we continue to go see the movies instead of reading the books? Is it because we are too busy and don't want to sit still for hours or days to read a book when we could just sit in a dark theater with hundreds of strangers and see the "whole" story (or at least the good parts) in a matter of hours? It is because we want to be visually stimulated, as in being force-fed the reality of the story, instead of mentally stimulated such that our imagination is the one painting the vivid pictures for us? Do we just want to see our favorite actors and actresses (each bringing with them a veritable train of subconscious character associations from previous films we have watched) slide into a new costume and claim the face of a character we previously pictured as looking very different? Or are we on some level convinced that our own perception and the images we generate while reading could not possibly be as good as those manufactured and created by a film producer with the help of special effects? After all, he is a professional... right?
I don't know. I guess I need to leave it at that, but as you can tell, I am really worried about this movie. A feeling that has suppressed my excitement about seeing this amazing story on the big screen. I have felt the same way about other film adaptations in the past and I just hope this one can live up to the greatness of the novel.
