Twittering, free speech and sports

I apologize for defying blogging etiquette by not posting for a while, and then jumping in with a self plug, but I thought many of you might be interested in this issue because it touches on aspects of free speech, social media, and regulation as they relate to sports.

I am sure you are aware of last month's NFL incident with Chargers' cornerback Antonio Cromartie, where the team charged him a fine of $2,500 simply for castigating training-camp food on his Twitter page. In fact, coach Norv Turner specifically told Cromartie that he wasn't to say anything critical about the organization on Twitter.

Several other incidents with players saying so-called sensitive or offensive things on the microblog have happened recently. Notable ones were Vikings' Bernard Berrian's tweet, overblowing the consequences of quarterback Tarvaris Jackson's knew injury, and Houston Dynamo star Brian Ching's tweet about a cheating referee. Ching was charged $500 for this.

After several teams tried to disallow Twitter use by players altogether, the NFL finally decided to simply ban tweeting by players within 90 minutes of the start of an NFL game, and until after media interviews following the game. This seems like a more reasonable form of regulation since it involves merely restricting it on the field and during media interactions.

Other than the fact that this sort of content regulation infringes on free speech, however, there is also an opportunistic nature to these rules, considering NFL teams use Twitter to announce updates on events and policies (draft picks were revealed through Twitter, for instance, and ironically, the Chargers scooped their first-round draft pick on the microblogging service). This gives the impression that teams and the organization simply want to cover up anything that might be harmful to the reputation of the organization.

The US Open jumped on the Twitter-regulation bandwagon last week, when it sent an email to all players with a list of dos and don'ts about the kinds of messages that cannot be tweeted. Apparently, the Tennis Integrity Unit is concerned that players might reveal sensitive information that could be potentially used for match fixing and sports betting - information like player injuries, weather conditions, etc.

Again, the US Open itself uses Twitter to promote matches, polls, contests, and even US Open gear. But it has no qualms about regulating what players tweet about. Like NFL players, many tennis stars--most notably, Andy Roddick, the Williams sisters, and Britain's Andy Murray--have taken to tweeting extensively. Both Roddick and Murray were outraged and outspoken about it.

Now, here's my shameless self plug: I wrote about this topic in some detail at the Huffington Post yesterday: do check it out if you can.

Has Labor Been Left Hanging?

At the risk of diving in here when I haven't been posting much to self-promote, my first story is up at the Nation's site. It's about the Philadelphia Museum of Art security guards and their struggles to unionize, and how they're a great example of the need for the Employee Free Choice Act.

There's kind of a dearth of interest in labor issues among the "netroots," as I noticed when Arlen Specter had to bring up EFCA himself while being questioned at Netroots Nation. I've always been proud that this blog tries to address these issues, and while I'm nowhere near as knowledgeable as Erik is when it comes to union history and organizing, I try to do my part. Anyway, here's the beginning and please read the whole piece over there.

The Philadelphia Museum of Art is a recognizable icon even to those who have never set foot in the city. Immortalized in the movie Rocky, when a sweatsuit-clad Sylvester Stallone bounded up the stairs while training for his big fight, the museum became a symbol of the working-class tenacity that Philadelphians are known for.

On September 6, those steps will host a different kind of blue-collar battle: the museum security guards will be holding a rally in support of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) and their right to form a union.

Easy Answers to Stupid Questions

At the New York Times, the headline reads: "Weekend Opinionator: Is Racist Hate Republican or Democratic?"

Easy Answer to Stupid Question: It's neither, assholes. There are racists in both parties, and I could readily provide examples from my own personal experience and from your own newspaper in the past year. Or has everyone else forgotten the primary campaign and then the general election?

There are also racist communists, and racist anarchists, and obviously racist fascists and racist Libertarians and racists in the Temperance Party and the Green Party.

As for the partisan blame-fest, I already said this, and unlike this guy who got paid far more than I did, I actually wrote my own thoughts down instead of cutting and pasting other people's comments.

Miss me yet?

Hi, darlings. I'm getting settled in Brooklyn and at my summer gig, which, if I haven't already mentioned (and by mentioned I mean bragged) is as the web intern at The Nation. So if you don't already read EVERYTHING ON THE SITE, you should start, stat.

Seriously, though, I'm going to be pretty busy so I don't know how often I'll be around, though I'll be required to be even more obsessively informed on the issues of the day, so I'll probably have some rants here and there.

If you've missed me dearly, I've had two pieces up at Global Comment this week in between the unpacking. "No Common Sense, No Pleasure: From Dr. Tiller to The Pill Kills" is pretty much what it sounds like--it's a beginning of some thoughts on how we deal with women's sexuality. (I wish I came up with the title, but Natalia is better at that than I am.)

It’s 2009, and yet we’re stuck on the old terms when it comes to discussion of women’s sexuality. We’re inured now to sex scandals among male political figures, but women are still subject to lectures about their duty to children and families, and even the debate over a new Supreme Court justice hinges on whether or not she is pro-choice. Discussions of birth control and abortion too often leave out the point that sexuality is normal and healthy, and women should be able to enjoy it without being forced to bear children.

We yield to discussions on mournful abortions, or else feel required to admit to absolutely no guilt or second thoughts, lest we unwittingly give the Right some talking-point ammo. We are left with no avenue to talk about the pleasures and pitfalls of adult and adolescent sexuality.

Then yesterday I wrote a quick response to the early reaction to the shooting at the Holocaust Museum. There are so many ways I could've gone with that story, but I got quite annoyed at the bickering on Twitter about whose fault it was that an antisemite got a gun.

Arguing over whose side the killer was on is as simplistic, reductive, and plain stupid as arguing about whether the Columbine shooters were victims of bullies or crazed Marilyn Manson fans (they were neither). It misses the point entirely.

We have a culture, especially in the Obama years, in which a radical fringe feels newly disempowered, and acts of terrorism like this are perpetrated by people who feel threatened. They take up arms in some attempt to go after the ones they blame for their situation. They may believe their actions will change things, or just be angry or disturbed enough to want to go out in a hail of gunfire.

Hope that will tide over anyone who cared. Be back soon.

My Interview with Douglas Rushkoff

Is up at Global Comment.

I really enjoyed this conversation--there was much more we could've talked about, but we discussed the problems with environmentalism for its own sake, local economies, politics, how to save journalism, Karl Marx, corporate libertarianism, and centralized currency. His book Life, Inc. covers a lot more ground, and I'm not exaggerating when I say I think it should be required reading. It comes out June 2, and in honor of Rushkoff's premise, you should get it from your local bookstore.

Here's an excerpt from the interview, and the video preview for the book. Check it out.

S: A lot of the things that you mention as solutions, like buying local, are being tossed around now because they’re environmentally friendly, but you talk about them as good in themselves, because they connect you to the place where you live and the people that you know.

DR: Right. Which would I rather do? Hang out with these pretty girls on an organic farm, get some really bright gorgeous chard, or go into the fluorescent-lit A&P and push a cart around with a bunch of bored people? It becomes an easy choice when you think about it from a sensual level, rather than just an intellectual level. I’m trying to show people that I’m not asking them to live an ascetic life of renunciation and denial, but actually a much more abundant life of fun and pleasure.

When people are doing stuff out of guilt, which is what people get from the sort of Al Gore/”Inconvenient Truth” method of environmentalism or the Noam Chomsky approach to politics and economics, you get the feeling that you have to hole up somewhere and not consume anything. There’s this false dichotomy set up between doing it for the world OR having fun.

S: You talk about the connection to work, whether it’s on a farm or whatever you do—when I say it that way it almost sounds like the classic Marxist argument, that people are alienated from their work.

DR: Marx really did get a lot of it. It got used in some really silly ways and was a terrible basis for a movement. That’s why in the book I speak out against movements in general—you join this whole big thing and then the movement itself becomes a distraction from whatever’s really going on.

Sarah on the Radio

So I got a call the other day asking if I'd like to appear on a labor-oriented radio program to talk about the Employee Free Choice Act and women. Of course I said yes, and if you're interested, you can listen to the whole program here.

Unions, Women and Fair Labor Practices

Jill at Feministe was kind enough to run a guest post from yours truly on the Employee Free Choice Act, unions, and why they're feminist issues. I'm going to give you the beginning here, but ask you nicely to read the rest over there since she gave me the platform.

So our economy is falling apart, right? And the government keeps bailing out these massive financial firms while talking Very Sternly to the auto company CEOs about how they need to restructure and cut costs. Of course, the number one cost CEOs and reporters love to talk about is the “labor cost,” all the while nicely avoiding mentioning that “labor cost” is what real people make in wages and other benefits.

Unions, in other words, are a convenient bogeyman, yet they do and have done more to improve the living standards of American workers than anything else. And 44% of union workers are women. According to the Center for Economic and Policy Research:

“If the share of women in unions continues to grow at the same rate as it has over the last 25 years, women will be the majority of the unionized workforce by 2020.”

There’s a bill in Congress right now that you’ve probably heard of called the Employee Free Choice Act. Briefly, the bill would allow three things: it would allow workers to form a union simply by signing a card—the so-called “card check” provision; it would provide binding arbitration for employers and workers when they cannot agree on a contract; and it would strengthen penalties against employers who seek to intimidate workers trying to form a union.

And I believe it should be a feminist issue.

Read the whole damn thing.

WAM! 2009

Hi Alterdestinians. I'm off at the WAM! Conference in Cambridge this weekend and I'm livetweeting the panels I'm attending, if you're interested in following along.

You can also check out the #wam09 feed for everyone tweeting from the conference.

Shameless Self-promotion blogging: EFCA style.

My EFCA piece over at Global Comment.

In his press conference Tuesday night, Barack Obama took pains to emphasize that comprehensive solutions were needed to the economic crisis, and that working families were suffering and needed help to create real wealth.

Congress has before it a bill that would help lessen the inequality in America and support those working families by helping workers organize into unions. That bill is the Employee Free Choice Act, H.R. 1409, introduced on March 10 by George Miller of California, with a who’s who of congresspeople as cosponsors.

Economist Mark Price of the Keystone Research Center in Pennsylvania says,

“Unions make sure that as productivity rises the wealth which this increased productivity creates shows up in the paychecks of workers. Unions do this because they give workers more bargaining power and that bargaining power translates into higher wages.”

Price also notes that a stronger labor movement is key in creating a sustainable economy once the crisis is stabilized. “Like the need for increased financial regulation, a stronger union movement is critical to making sure that when the economy does recover that recovery produces widely shared gains.”

EFCA, as it is known, is shaping up to be the biggest battle over organized labor since 1947, and big business is pouring millions into advertising and lobbying against the bill—including Citigroup and other bailed-out businesses. The irony of using taxpayer dollars from working people to defeat a bill that aims to help working people is not lost on EFCA supporters.

Read on.

I schooled Bobby Jindal

It's over at Global Comment, but I'll post some of it here to get you to go read it over there.

...Infrastructure spending is the backbone of the stimulus bill, which includes $98.3 billion in funding for transportation and other building projects. $2 billion of that is headed for the Army Corps of Engineers, with an additional $375 million just for the Mississippi river and its tributaries. The Corps are the ones responsible for maintaining the levees around New Orleans that failed so dramatically during Hurricane Katrina. Also designated for Louisiana is $73.5 million for public housing, which could go to rebuilding homes destroyed by the storm or torn down in its aftermath...

By rejecting the last two provisions, Jindal is denying unemployment benefits to nearly 25,000 citizens of his state, as projected by the National Employment Law Project. He’s also incorrect that he would be forced to raise taxes on businesses in order to maintain the benefits after the federal money runs out.

Jindal’s fact-stretching continued with his claims in his speech that the stimulus bill was funding a high-speed train from Las Vegas to Los Angeles—not true, money budgeted for high-speed rail has not been allocated yet—and will be allocated by Republican Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. He also disparaged “volcano monitoring,” which coupled with other U.S. Geological Survey facilities and equipment, was a rather small area of the stimulus bill at $140 million.

Jindal will be accepting 98% of the federal stimulus dollars earmarked for his state, so his stand on the unemployment benefits looks far less like a principled stand against government spending and far more like political posturing for a rumored 2012 presidential run.

Read the whole thing.

Shameless Self-promotion blogging: The Economic Crisis as Security Concern

Another piece of mine went up at Global Comment this weekend.

Those “Oh my god, the Bush era is over” moments are getting fewer and farther between now as the Obama administration settles in.

The easy-to-accomplish changes have happened, and now the hard work has set in. Congress fought bitterly over the economic stimulus plan, and a second nominee for the Commerce department has dropped out before confirmation hearings.

But in the car Friday morning, I had one of those moments where I pounded the steering wheel and cheered for the voice on the radio again.

The voice this time belonged to the new director of national intelligence, retired four-star admiral Dennis Blair. And what he said was, “The primary near-term security concern of the United States is the global economic crisis and its geopolitical implications.”

The director of intelligence, the person in charge of keeping the United States safe from external threats, said that the economy is the biggest security concern.

read on.

Also, my partner in crime Matt has a great piece up there about Avigdor Lieberman and the Israeli election.

Blagojevich

Hey kids. Sorry I haven't been around so much--it's been finals week, and between writing papers about Sarah Palin and about arresting journalists at the RNC, and studying for my Law final (which is today) I've been tied up for a while.

I did manage to squeeze out a piece for GlobalComment on Blagojevich. Because he's hilarious, and it gave me an excuse to talk about Rahm Emanuel more.

“There were too many investigations and allegations to not believe that his time in office was not going to end badly,” Joe Wolfe, Chicago resident, said of Blagojevich. “I think I speak for most Chicago and Illinois residents who have followed the governor’s story when I say that I wasn’t so much shocked at the arrest as I was STUNNED by the charges.”

Wolfe, who twice voted for the Democratic governor, continued. “No one expected that the laundry list of charges brought against him December 9, 2008 were for actions committed just since Obama was elected president! The nature of Blagojevich’s alleged crimes border on pathological.”

...Rumor even had it that Rahm Emanuel was the one who tipped off the United States attorney to Blagojevich’s blatant scam, but a source close to Rahm has denied it. Perhaps he just sent a dead fish instead.

In addition to trying to auction off a Senate seat, Blagojevich is also accused of pressuring Chicago Tribune management to fire writers critical of him, and using the Tribune’s bankruptcy and a deal with the sale of the Chicago Cubs, owned by Tribune Co., as leverage.

And if all this wasn’t enough for you, December 9 was also International Anti-Corruption Day. And December 10 was Blagojevich’s birthday.

Read it.

Wish me (and Karthika!) luck on my final. I'll be back in action soon, I promise.

Also, everyone congratulate Karthika--she's about to be finished with yet another degree.

Why I'm More Optimistic than Erik

My piece on Obama's foreign policy team and why I've come around to it is up over at GlobalComment.

For a while, people scoffed at Barack Obama’s run for the presidency, writing him off as a naïve idealist who could never make it halfway through the primaries, let alone into the Oval Office. His rival Hillary Clinton criticized his foreign policy suggestions as simplistic and even dangerous.

Yet over and over again, Obama has overcome obstacles with what seems to be an inner talent for realpolitik that could impress even the likes of Bismarck. Unlike Bismarck though, Obama seems determined to shape the future of the U.S. not through war, but through diplomacy.

So his foreign policy team at first seems to be an odd bunch for Obama to choose to enact his plans. His former rival, the one who chided him on the trail for being inexperienced and naïve, and perhaps lost her bid for the presidency because of her hawkishness on Iraq, is now his Secretary of State. He’s retaining the Defense Secretary of the current administration, the one he so often harshly criticized at rallies. And his national security adviser is a retired general who has worked for both parties.

At first, peaceniks like me had our hackles raised by these choices.

We’d campaigned against Hillary Clinton primarily because of her foreign policy differences with Obama, and as Yglesias noted, there were indeed substantive differences. And keeping Bush’s defense secretary? We’d rather have Sarah Palin in charge of energy policy.

Read the rest.

Light Reading

I'm exhausted today, so I'm giving you links to read. Because they're good for you.

Yes, the first one is something I wrote over at GlobalComment. Inspired by Rachel Maddow, I did my own Lame Duck Watch:

George W. Bush is still in office and still has all the powers he did for the first seven years of his presidency, though his ability to set an agenda is diminished and he can give an exclusive interview to CNN that gets less hype than one from Sarah Palin does.

It’s been tradition for a while among presidents to save their shadiest business for their lame duck period, since our celebrity-worship culture will be enamored of its shiny new plaything, the president-elect.

Octogalore schools Larry Summers (and Ann-Marie Slaughter, too):

Then Larry gets into the area he’s most known for. He says overall IQ and mathematical and scientific ability vary based on gender. He looked at sex ratios in the top 5% of twelfth graders and says this group is “50% women, one woman for every two men.”

Now, Larry, here I have to point out, the alma mater we share did not do very well by you. 50% women is one woman for every one man. A group where there is one woman for every two men would be 33% women. Listen, I know you had to change from Physics to Econ, which at our school was basically a humanities class, but come on, man.

jdg at Sweet Juniper talks about why we need to save the auto industry(h/t Bitch, Ph.D):

I'm no apologist for the Big Three or their ridiculous missteps and lapses of judgment. But I do care about the regular people who work for these companies and who played no role in those poor decisions. Where is the compassion? Consider the charities that receive donations from both corporations and individuals connected to the auto industry and the people those charities help. Some of the moments when I was most proud of my fellow Americans were when people stepped up in the wake of natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina or the Asian Tsunami and gave what they could to help fellow human beings who were suffering. Three years after Katrina, New Orleans is starting again to look like New Orleans again.

It hardly looks like Detroit at all anymore.

...For Detroiters, of course, it is hard to separate all this talk of "buy local" economics from the misery of the auto industry, and not be frustrated with those Prius-driving yuppies in the Pacific Northwest calling for the death of this massive American industry while patting themselves on the back for buying butter made from the milk of organically-fed Oregon cows.

hilzoy makes a decent argument for keeping Gates at Defense.

Basically, I think that there are two main reasons for keeping Gates. The first is that it's very important to get bipartisan cover for the withdrawal from Iraq if we want to avoid some future conservative "if only the Democrats had let us win" story. (Likewise, bipartisan cover would be very useful if Obama decides to cut some weapons systems.) The second is that by all accounts the military have a lot of respect for Gates; keeping him on, therefore, would allow Obama to bypass the need to establish his own credibility and that of his Secretary of Defense with them. (Yes, I know: this shouldn't be necessary. But it is.)

Finally, a bit of news that makes me happy (h/t Feministe):

Ellen Moran, executive director of EMILY's List, will serve as Obama's communications director.

Moran worked for the AFL-CIO, coordinating "Wal-Mart corporate accountability activities," before returning to EMILY's, an organization dedicated to helping Democratic women get elected to office.

Barack Obama, 44th President of the United States

I still can't say it without breaking down a bit.

Wrote this for Global Comment before bed last night:

Barack Obama will be the 44th President of the United States.

To type those words brings back the euphoria of the first few minutes after the words flashed on the blurry screen of the projector lugged in at the last minute to update all of us at the Northeast Philly headquarters on the results.

I have been awake for many, many hours.

I woke up at 4:30 AM to arrive at my staging location by 5:30.

Like millions of others across the country, I spent the whole day working. I watched the polls, knocked on doors, brought coffee and donuts to poll workers, and I talked to hundreds of voters.

There was a little high every time someone smiled at us and said, “I voted this morning!”

There was an even bigger high when the pollworkers told us that turnout was double what they normally see.

There was an almost unbeatable high when our state was called for our candidate almost as soon as the polls closed.

But nothing comes close to the feeling we got when, in a roomful of people who’ve worked those same long hours, the screen told us: Barack Obama will be the 44th President of the United States.

READ THE REST (because you love me)

proud to be American. what a weird feeling.

Election Time!

I don't think that anyone who reads this blog needs a reminder to vote on Tuesday, if you haven't already, but just in case you need one: DO IT.

I probably won't be updating much because I'll be out knocking on doors and hanging out at the polls watching for shenanigans. I hope you'll be doing the same. Especially if you're a lawyer or legal type. They always need more people to ensure people can vote.

Also, go download Greg Palast's "Steal Back Your Vote" investigative comic, because Palast is my hero and protecting our democracy is both his and my passion.

I'll try to toss things up on Tumblr as they happen, and no doubt will be twittering.

"Socialist" scare tactics (at GlobalComment)

So the McCain campaign won’t let go of Joe the Plumber. He’s still being trotted out in speeches by McCain and Palin. They mention again and again how Obama wants to “spread” Joe’s wealth.

Aside from the condescension (yet again) implicit in McCain’s reduction of Joe to a stereotype (and leaving out any of the frenzied investigations into just who Joe really is), I want to look a little closer at what the Joe the Plumber rhetoric really means.

Joe, of course, is white. He’s from Ohio, a state connected with middle-American whiteness, as opposed to the cities that McCain likes to emphasize in reference to Obama (”I don’t need any advice from a…Chicago politician!”).

The city is black; Middle America is white.

Read the rest. Because you love me.

Volunteering for Obama: What it's Really Like

I’ll say it right away: the campaign trail is not for the thin-skinned.

You will have doors slammed in your face, sometimes by sweet old ladies who take one look at your button and scream “NO!”

You will see people peer out through a crack in the blinds and then pretend they’re not home.

More than that, on a presidential campaign, you will have to use the things you like least about your candidate as selling points to “swing” voters. You will have to choke down your anger at blatant racism and sexism to try to keep smiling and convey your point.

You will have to keep yourself honest.

Read the rest at GlobalComment.com

On the Palin ethics probe

Once again, I have more up at GlobalComment.com

It’s official. Sarah Palin was found to have abused her authority in the firing of a public official who would not fire her state trooper ex-brother-in-law, according to the probe released Friday.

Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan refused to fire Trooper Michael Wooten, who was involved in a divorce and custody dispute with Palin’s sister. The report cites repeated attempts and pressure by Palin’s husband, Todd, the “first dude” of Alaska, to have Wooten removed from his job.

The real question is, is this having any effect on the race?

The investigation has been under way since July, and Palin originally promised to cooperate. Yet after McCain asked her to join his ticket, Republicans began to claim that the investigation was politically motivated, even despite Republican dominance in Alaskan politics.

The Wooten probe has been, until now, just another punchline in the story of McCain’s largely unvetted Veep pick: the pretty conservative with the sharp tongue and folksy manner who couldn’t name a single newspaper she reads and didn’t know what the Bush Doctrine is.

Now that it’s out, will it change anyone’s mind?

Read the rest.

Debate reviews!

Karthika and I both, independently of one another, wrote debate reviews. Of course, we did watch the debate together, along with some fried chicken and a bottle of really cheap champagne, so it may not be entirely surprising that we came up with similar conclusions. Though she's always been more skeptical of Obama than I have, so the fact that she agrees with me made me feel better. ;)

If anyone wants to see snark in real time, I live-twittered this debate and plan to do so on Thursday night with the Veep debate. As this one should offer even more opportunities for hilarity, I invite anyone on Twitter to play along. Suggestions for the Palin/Biden drinking game are welcome.

Until Thursday, then.

Karthika's review:

Often in debates, Barack Obama has been known to be a tad uncomfortable and evasive. He has been accused of being too deliberative in his responses, sometimes talking out loud while mulling over them, and answering in meandering fashion – a fashion that does not conform to the 30-second sound bite, the most effective quantum in presidential horse races. But on Friday night, the junior senator from Illinois defied these charges against him - he was pithy and to the point, calm and collected, effectively making the claim that he was ready to be president.

John McCain, on the other hand, slouched and glowered, sighed and snickered, and never once looked at his Democratic opponent.

I hate to put it down to gestures and posturing, but luckily, I don’t have to. For McCain wasn’t exactly winning on substance either.

If Obama has spent the last few weeks roping McCain in with George Bush on the campaign trail, at the debate, he firmly tied the knot on that relationship. “We [have] to recognize that this is a final verdict on eight years of failed economic policies promoted by George Bush, supported by Senator McCain,” he said in his very first answer to Jim Lehrer’s question on the financial recovery plan. READ MORE

My review:

McCain’s repeated references to not being “Miss Congeniality” ended up a bit confusing—a veiled reference to his running mate? An attempt to paint Obama as shallow? Some sort of dogwhistle to beauty pageant parents that I’m not familiar with?

Or maybe it was just an acknowledgement that presidential campaigns since, at least, Kennedy have become a sort of beauty pageant interrupted by demands to know which candidate is a better drinking buddy. However, if this campaign is going to be a beauty pageant or an image contest, McCain’s got a ways to go on his appearances, and his command of substance isn’t nearly good enough to make up for it. READ MORE