Why Tiger isn't Muhammad Ali

Original article, by David Zirin and subtitled Comparing Tiger Woods and the scandal he's embroiled in to the personal and professional savaging that Muhammad Ali suffered is more than insulting, via Socialist Worker (US)

"Boxing is nothing, just satisfying to some bloodthirsty people. I'm no longer a Cassius Clay, a Negro from Kentucky. I belong to the world, the Black world. I'll always have a home in Pakistan, in Algeria, in Ethiopia. This is more than money."--Muhammad Ali

The fascination with Woods should not be of any surprise. He's one of the great and powerful who have been caught, and we feel better when that happens. It makes our stodgy little lives feel a bit better to see one of the great and powerful brought to heel.

It's a shame really. It's all part of the societal pressure bleeding the needs to be done to keep docile America from erupting. And in this brave new 1984 world in which we live, pressure needs to be vented until it is too late for any significant mass movement to arise before the complete collapse of the state. We're going through that collapse now, and so the venting becomes more obvious.

CAN ESPN please declare a company-wide moratorium on comparing current athletes to Muhammad Ali? I thought it was unfortunate when columnist Jemele Hill wrote that anti-choice icon Tim Tebow was "as courageous" as Ali. But that comparison is inspired compared to recent comments by "ESPN's The Sports Guy" Bill Simmons.

Woods isn't important, actually. He could have been. He could have used his lofty perch like Ali did. He chose not to. That's the sad part about this, I think. This could have been happened (and will) to just about any celebrity. In the long term, it will make an interesting episode on Oprah. Nothing more and nothing less.

Simmons wrote that Tiger Woods's return to golf from "sex addiction" would be tougher than Ali's return to the ring after being banished for opposing the war in Vietnam. Yes, for Simmons, Ali's efforts to resist the military draft are dwarfed in importance by Tiger's efforts to resist nookie.

I'll let you read the rest of the article. Zirin's right, of course. It's damning of our society that this has gotten the play it has. It's part of the smoke and mirrors used to keep us docile, and well allow it. The society, as we have allowed it to become, deserves no better. Period.

We can change that. The only important question is if we will.

Snow joke under capitalism

Original article, by Beatrice Windsor, via Socialist Appeal (UK):

Why does Britain grind to a halt as soon as we get a few snowflakes? Answer – capitalism. Here are the facts. Road Salt, what the gritting lorries pump out to make our roads safe, is produced for the UK by two private mining companies, the Salt Union in Cheshire, and the Cleveland Potash company.

Perhaps your city or county manages to stockpile for times of snow emergencies. The first big snow of the season nearly crippled Indianapolis (only 4 inches) because they hadn't stockpiled enough salt for the roads. It looks like the same thing happened in Britain.

The Salt Union can produce 5,000 tonnes of Salt a day, and Cleveland Potash 3,500 tonnes. The problem is, when snow covers the whole country (as it has been doing in January and February) we need 80,000 tonnes a day, and that’s just to cover primary A and B roads. You do the sums - that’s why everything grinds to a halt. The Salt Union is part of the US conglomerate, Compass Minerals, and has clearly been subsumed by the ‘Just In Time’ production culture. Although it signed contracts to supply most local authorities with salt when they wanted it, it clearly never occurred to them there could be snow in more than one part of the country at the same time. Who’d have thought!

Welcome to the real world! Roughly 9 days worth of mining to cover 1 days worth of snow. It should be easy to stockpile enough salt for such a situation. At least you would think so.

I'll let you read the rest of the article. Needless to say, the bosses of the salt companies are to interested in the bottom line to be interested in fulfilling their contracts with the various local governments. Ah...good ol' capitalism. Let's hope that the British learn their lessons.

Obama applauds firing of Rhode Island teachers

Original article, by Jerry White, via World Socialist Web Site:

In a speech before the US Chamber of Commerce in Washington, DC on Monday President Obama hailed the decision by school authorities in Rhode Island to fire the entire teaching and support staff at Central Falls High School.

It's to be expected by a corporatist. As I read the article, I get the impression the board stays. Surprise. But that's the way the world works.

The mass firings ordered by state school officials were part of a national plan developed by the Obama administration to deal with so-called “failing schools.” Seventy-four teachers and 19 other school employees were dismissed after they rejected a “turnaround” plan—authored by Obama’s education secretary Arne Duncan—which would have torn up their contract and forced them to work longer hours without additional pay.

First off, it's the state that should be in charge of the school if there're are any levels above the district. Second, if the teachers go, so go the bureaucrats. Third, we know that the corporatist mentality is bankrupt and have seen the failure they lead to. Obama should be ashamed.

In fact, with the firing of teachers and use of federal funding to blackmail school districts into accepting an expansion of charter schools, the Democratic president is carrying out an attack on public education that the far right of the Republican Party has supported for decades but could never impose because of widespread popular opposition, including from teachers and other school employees.

Obama's only advantage coming out of this is he's not a Republican. The Democrats are as bankrupt as the opposition (as they've shown the last three years). The question is are the Democrats ready to toss out the corporatists or are they to enthralled with the power they currently hold?

I'll let you read the rest of the article. Don't be surprised. Obama's governing as a conservative and a neoliberal. It's time for an alternative. It looks like we have the Paulites on the right. Who will we have on the left?