Beyond Hyperbole

A GLOVE OF THEIR OWN

2010-07-23T20:09:00.000-07:00

By Diane M. Grassi

“The future ain’t what it used to be.”

– Yogi Berra

The recession of 2008, long documented as the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, has impacted not only Wall Street and the American pocketbook, but the American psyche.

As such, there has been a symptomatic withdrawal not only by the American consumer, but by the American family and thus, by extension, the American neighborhood. And such has left many communities unengaged and in a state of bewilderment, with others steeped within the depths of despair.

It is in such times of crisis that the national fabric becomes torn and many feel displaced and disconnected. Yet, there remain some select individuals who take it upon themselves to offer hope, in helping to present a new paradigm for a collective morale boost, by uniting families with neighborhoods, and in helping to reconnect those neighborhoods with their respective communities; revisiting those values once identified as the essence of the American spirit.

And in that effort, a unique “movement” is evolving by way of a New Jersey father, most proud of his two children, and outwardly dedicated to reaching out to all children, in order that they too may continue to pass on the once held dear concept of “giving back”, as they become adults and raise children of their own. And Salomon and his wife do no less with their own two youngsters.

Bob Salomon is a name you will be hearing about. He is using the concept of children participating in sports as the vehicle to communicate his all encompassing goal of giving back. His first effort has evolved through the game of baseball. More specifically, the illustrated children’s book, A Glove of Their Own, published in November 2008, has caught fire and is the centerpiece of Salomon’s main vision.

The story is about a group of youngsters playing a pick-up game of baseball on a local neighborhood lot. Unfortunately, not all have bats and gloves to properly play the game. But a retired gentleman comes across them playing, only to return another day with a duffle bag filled with used gloves, bats and balls from games gone by, used by his own children. He then donates them all to the group of children. It but sets a good example for the children and serves to inspire them to keep on playing the game they love.

As a direct result of brainstorming with two friends, the eventual co-authors of A Glove of Their Own,
Debbie Moldovan, Keri Conkling and Lisa Funari-Willever, Salomon was presented a written story, and later beautifully illustrated by Lauren Lambiase and published by Franklin Mason Press.

But it was Salomon’s tenacity that convinced Funari-Willever, also Franklin Mason’s publisher, to see his project through, assuring her that she would not regret her involvement. Funari-Willever, herself, has dedicated much of her life to giving back and was the main force behind Salomon’s now realized proposition.

The end result of this collaborative effort was not just that of publishing a nice children’s story, but an extended benefit from it arose. It would serve as an example for children to be forthright, unselfish, giving and grateful. But equally important to Salomon, is that children are reminded to have fun while playing the game of baseball, and all sports, and to point out that just being a kid is okay, too.

Yet, it was only through A Glove of Their Own that Salomon realized his deep-felt obligation to become a facilitator of charitable efforts, not only by continuing to publish children’s sports stories, but by reaching out to a variety of organizations and media entities as well.

The intent is to pique the interest of professional athletes, professional sports franchises, sports-affiliated businesses, community invested corporations, and non-profit agencies, amongst others. And Salomon hopes to meld various partnerships to approach communities. These communities would then become their own facilitators with the intended goal of encouraging children’s participation in extra-curricular organized sports, funded by a combination of various entities and manifesting fundraisers nationwide.

However, the underlying theme, which Salomon insists must remain, is that professional athletes, both active and now retired, start making more of an investment in their local communities in which they play or in which they reside.

And it would behoove these professional athletes, and those now retired from professional play, to become involved on their own accord, rather than, for example, through a required clause in their playing contracts to perform volunteer work, which many Major League Baseball (MLB), National Football League (NFL), National Basketball Association (NBA) and National Hockey League (NHL) professional teams now require as part of player negotiated deals.

Charity is but a gift and giving back should ultimately come from the heart. And Salomon truly believes that children will see through those athletes who are merely going through the motions, thereby not setting a good example for them. He wants to work with those who are dedicated in their intent to reach out to the children in the community, and simply because it is the right thing to do, rather than to garner accolades for themselves.

At such a time when discretionary income is dangerously low nationwide, it is imperative that municipalities, local communities, schools and neighborhoods alike, come together in innovative ways to mobilize future generations to continue to thrive; to return the favors bestowed upon them by enjoining the public with the private sector to a positive end.

Salomon has duly impressed many already in the private sector such as Rich Lampmann, Director of Promotions and Public Relations of Modell’s Sporting Goods. “The memories of the pick-up games in the yard or at the field, stick with us for a lifetime. Bob and his team have taken this a step further and are not only promoting the game…but also using the games as a means of spreading sportsmanship and teamwork for the greater good.”

And Rick Redman, Vice President of Corporate Communications for the Louisville Slugger Museum and Factory notes, “It’s a wonderful story that everyone can learn from; kids and adults. Plus, it’s tied to many great causes and provides the chance to donate funds to your favorite baseball charity. How could we say no to Bob Salomon? He has a drive and passion that’s unmatched.”

There also are many retired athletes who have leant their support to A Glove of Their Own such as former MLB players Craig Biggio, Bernie Williams, Sean Casey, Jason Grilli, Tommy John, Roy White, Phil Niekro, Bud Harrelson, current Los Angeles Dodgers manager, Joe Torre, former Yankee great Yogi Berra and the Yogi Berra Museum and Learning Center, and many others.

And Bob Salomon hopes to collaborate with active MLB players such as Joe Mauer, starting catcher for the Minnesota Twins, and Nick Swisher, the right fielder for the New York Yankees. Both players are dedicated philanthropists in their own right, making giving back through charity a priority in their lives off the field. And there are a bevy of many well intentioned athletes in the NFL, NBA and NHL who Salomon continually reaches out to in hopes of being afforded the opportunity to meet with them on future charitable endeavors.

Salomon is also involved in a collaborative effort with former MLB pitcher, Tommy John, as a producer of a film documentary. It will feature John’s life and center on the now worldwide famous Tommy John Surgery now considered the state-of-the-art corrective surgical procedure for injured elbows, based upon John’s own surgery decades ago. It not only saved John’s career but has extended the careers of countless other players, not only in MLB, but throughout professional and amateur sports.

Those wishing to learn more about A Glove of Their Own can visit its website, agloveoftheirown.com where
one can learn more about all of its affiliated organizations, including corporations, broadcast media outlets, non-profit agencies and other athletes and celebrities touched by the spirit of giving.

And Salomon also wants to ensure that individuals can play a participatory role in whatever way they choose, in order to give back. It does not necessarily have to be on a grand scale or with relationship to an agency or corporate interest, either. Any small acts of kindness and involvement in neighborhoods and communities is the intent of Salomon’s purpose. Or folks may choose to go the route of purchasing copies of A Glove of Their Own and rallying others to participate in that way as well.

As such, books may be purchased through either agloveoftheirown.com or through franklinmasonpress.com. Franklin Mason Press donates $.10 from the sale of each book to the following organizations: Good Sports, Sports Gift, and Pitch in for Baseball. In addition, $3.00 per sold book will be given to any school or non-profit organization that joins Salomon’s effort.

His immediate next project is to publish a children’s book involving football as the theme, this time. But again, his effort is far more than a hyped up version of pay it forward, and rather a rallying cry to nurture our children. In doing so, we will all be better human beings for it will serve to enrich the quality of all of our lives, both locally and nationally, for decades to come. And that should be a priority for all of us.

“Success is not the place one arrives, but rather the spirit with which one undertakes and continues the journey.” – Alex Noble

Contact: dgrassi@cox.net

MLB'S Gaming Sale of Texas Rangers Continues

2010-07-23T20:06:00.000-07:00

By Diane M. Grassi

“If an alternative process is established, we’re going to be guided by the court’s procedures, subject to of course, our ultimate right to approve any owner submitted to us.”
– MLB Commissioner, Bud Selig – July 12, 2010

As this reporter documented here in May 2010, the still impending sale of Major League Baseball’s (MLB) Texas Rangers has suffered no shortage of legal and financial machinations and maneuvers, including political manipulation, for many, many months. Yet, it has been nearly a year and a half since Texas Rangers owner, Tom Hicks, defaulted on a $525 million loan in March 2009, eventually ending up in bankruptcy.

Unfortunately to date, the sale of the Rangers still awaits finalization and most importantly, the investment group to be awarded the final sale of the club has yet to be determined by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court and ultimately to be approved by MLB and its respective owners.

But Mr. Selig’s above referenced recent quote indicates that despite the length of time and resources expended by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, and the hundreds of millions of dollars at stake for the Rangers’ numerous creditors, Bud Selig will fight all obstacles in securing the group he sees fit to own and run the Texas Rangers; namely the Greenberg-Ryan Group. It is comprised of Pittsburgh sports attorney, Chuck Greenberg and present Texas Rangers president and minor league team owner, Nolan Ryan and their entity, Rangers Baseball Express, LLC.

It unfortunately takes far more than a good score keeper to not only understand but to keep track of all of the twists and turns in this case, Texas Rangers Baseball Partners, 1043400, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of Texas, (Fort Worth), even since May 2010.

The upshot is that there will be an auction in U.S. Bankruptcy Court on August 4, 2010. However, prior to that date on July 22, 2010, the Rangers shall emerge from Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Protection, initiated on May 24, 2010. At that hearing, U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge D. Michael Lynn will hold the Ranger’s reorganization confirmation hearing.

Additionally, Judge Lynn will hear complaints on July 20, 2010, regarding new auction rules for the August 4th date. It concerns creditors’ issues primarily due to MLB’s acceptance of the lowest of the three bids previously offered for the Rangers, and its clear preference to award the club to Greenberg-Ryan.

The two previous higher bids were from former sports agent, Dennis Gilbert in collaboration with Dallas businessman, Jeff Beck and the other came from Houston businessman, Jim Crane.

Crane, whose bid was the highest, backed through lender, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., previously filed a motion with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court stating that MLB deliberately blocked his negotiations with the Texas Rangers. In fact, Selig wrote an April 30, 2010 letter to J. P. Morgan Chase & Co. in response to that motion, reiterating his “best interests of baseball” motives, in his attempt to diffuse the matter; albeit unsuccessfully.

And since creditors are owed approximately $576 million on first and second-lien debt, that includes interest, by Tom Hicks’ HSG Sports Group, LLC, they want every opportunity to be given the best chance to recoup their losses.

However, an 11th hour wrinkle has also emerged, which perhaps may be the best resolution of all; according to various financial experts, legal representatives, sports industry analysts and many involved with some business facet of MLB.

And that magic bullet would be none other than Dallas Mavericks owner, Mark Cuban. Cuban made a bid for the Chicago Cubs three years ago, when it was up for sale by the Tribune Co. At that time speculation surfaced that Cuban’s brash outspokenness and aggressive management style would clash with that of MLB’s.

It seems pretty ironic now, given that a former MLB owner, one George M. Steinbrenner, who was eulogized this past week, was but praised for having some of those very same qualities, which Cuban seems to also behold.

Mark Cuban’s recent interest in the past couple of weeks in the Texas Rangers is especially intriguing in that he may have interest in placing his own bid before the August 3, 2010 deadline for acceptance of bids for the August 4th auction.

Or, Cuban may ask to become just one of the investors of a group, by supplementing the capital of one of the other investment group’s bid, since the new auction guidelines require that to qualify a bid must now clear the Greenberg-Ryan bid by $20 million.

Cuban recently stated, “With some of the court rulings, it’s changed the economics of everything…I wanted to make sure that I was at the table, just in case.…I’m hoping I’m more of a backstop than anything else.”

It would be hard to believe that Mark Cuban would want to be anyone’s backstop, no more so than would George Steinbrenner.

But one thing is more certain in this whole messy scenario as concerns the sale of the Texas Rangers and that is that there will be no lack of drama and last minute antics by all parties involved; especially given Cuban’s entry into the fray and just under the wire.

And if U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Lynn still has anything to say about it he said plenty when asked on July 12, 2010 about Bud Selig’s public remarks about his preference for the Greenberg-Ryan bid, “I don’t believe MLB can frustrate this process any longer.” Hopefully Judge Lynn is right, this time.

Once again, stay tuned…

Copyright ©2010 Diane M. Grassi
Contact: dgrassi@cox.net

MLB'S Gaming Sale of Texas Rangers

2010-07-23T20:00:00.000-07:00

By Diane M. Grassi

Back in 1989, it was but a no-brainer for George W. Bush to inject himself into the proposed purchase of the then flailing Major League Baseball (MLB) Texas Rangers. His goals in mind were to propel himself into the governor’s mansion in Austin, TX and eventually to the presidency of the United States, while even making a little bit of cash along the way. And he succeeded on all fronts.

And just a dozen years after the sale of the Rangers by Bush and his investors in 1998, the Texas Rangers organization is again immersed in financial wheeling and dealing, with an upside down ledger. For its expected imminent sale by owner, Thomas O. Hicks, has been met by a major snag from both his creditors and Major League Baseball (MLB), which has injected itself into the middle, with its purported takeover of the Rangers in the very near future.

Should MLB proceed to seize the club, it could be facing an involuntary bankruptcy by creditors, and tied up in court indefinitely while owners of MLB’s 29 other clubs incur the cost of operations of the Rangers. But that prospect does not seem to deter MLB commissioner, Bud Allen Selig, as he believes that MLB’s taking control of the Rangers will offset any bankruptcy proceedings; but another gamble.

But in order to fully appreciate the present predicament of a franchise that has mightily underachieved since arriving in Texas in 1972, from Washington as the Senators, and reaching the post-season only 3 times since, it is worth retracing some highlights of how the Rangers wound up in such a mess.

George W. Bush, with the help of then-commissioner of MLB, Peter Ueberroth, gathered a group of wealthy Texas investors who had political and business connections to his father, then-president of the U.S., George H.W. Bush. In 1989, George W. Bush initially invested his $106,302.00 for a 1.8% stake in the club and later took out a $500,000.00 loan to up his ante to a total of $606,302.00, increasing his interest to 11.8% in the Rangers. While the club eventually sold in 1998 for $250 million, Bush and his investors’ purchase price was a cool $25 million.

In short order, plans for a new stadium were under way, financed completely by Arlington taxpayers, including a surcharge on game tickets and state tax exemptions, totaling over $200 million. And all profits went directly back to the owners.

Of note, however, this model of commandeering stadium construction on the backs of taxpayers has been replicated over and over again both before and since, throughout cities across the U.S., with no greater beneficiary of such corporate profiteering than the New York Yankees.

By the time the Rangers Ballpark in Arlington was opened in 1994, George W. Bush was nearly governor of Texas, as he put his assets into a blind trust, with his interest in the Rangers being the exception.

The upshot being that for his original $606,302.00 investment, George W. Bush got a 25-fold return on his original investment, clearing a $15 million profit. And such got him the capital and gravitas he curried for his run to the White House.

Enter billionaire, Tom Hicks, co-founder and CEO of Hicks, Muse, Tate & First, Inc. from 1989 to 2004, a nationally prominent private equity firm specializing in leveraged acquisitions, including multi-media broadcast entities, banks and real estate. And it was the Hicks Sports Group, LLC of HMTF that purchased the Texas Rangers Baseball Club in 1998 for that $250 million.

Hicks also purchased the National Hockey League’s (NHL) Dallas Stars Hockey Club in 1996, which went on to win a Stanley Cup Championship in 1999. Since then Hicks has been noted for his controversial purchase of a 50% interest in the Liverpool Football Club, an English Premiership League team known as “Britain’s Most Successful Football Club”, purchased in 2007 and much to the dismay of British fans.

Similarly to the Rangers, Hick’s is selling his interest in these other franchises as well. He wants double the price he paid for the Liverpool club and is currently working with NHL commissioner, Gary Bettman, on the sale of the Stars.

But the sale of the Rangers has proven to be far dicier. Bud Selig and MLB have far more to worry about, however, than Tom Hicks at this point, as MLB is now the intermediary in the ongoing negotiations with prospective buyers of as well as the Texas Rangers’ creditors. But a $525 million loan default, threats of court decisions from potential litigation, bankruptcy and the future fiscal health of the team that includes keeping it afloat, will rest with MLB.

What’s next? MLB taking over the Los Angeles Dodgers, while its owners, Frank and Jamie McCourt duke out their divorce decree?

Yet, MLB makes no apology for its policy of sequestering its own books from both the Major League Baseball Players Association (MLBPA) and the public-at-large. For MLB to hold itself in higher regard than Tom Hicks, an evident capitalist who pushed the envelope only as far as his creditors would allow, and at the time with the blessings of MLB, is but the height of arrogance.

However, MLB has invoked its “not in the best interests of baseball” rule, by virtue of the commissioner’s charter, as reason to interfere with the proposed sale of the Texas Rangers. And in that effort, it is willing to accept the least lucrative bid made for the club’s purchase. MLB is determined to guarantee that the Greenberg-Ryan Investment Group which includes Rangers’ president, Nolan Ryan, will ultimately become the eventual owner, in spite of two legitimate and higher bids that were made.

But the “not in the best interests of baseball” rule is a reach at best, given the challenges that MLB will embark upon such as with Monarch Alternative Capital, which has a 57% interest in the Rangers’ debt along with 40 other creditors’ liens against the Rangers, that includes the CIT Group, Inc. They want to make good on the sale of the team in order to recoup their losses and have no fear of tying up the sale in court no matter how long it takes.

And it is there that the rub begins for Bud Selig, who himself appropriated more than $25 million in MLB loans to the Rangers in 2009, $16 million of which went to salaries alone, to keep the Rangers going until June 2010. And since 2009, MLB has embedded itself in Rangers’ management decisions. For example, 1st-round 2009 draft pick, starting pitcher Matt Purke, declined the Rangers’ market value offer and opted to attend Texas Christian University instead, as it was reported that MLB would not permit the Rangers to tender an offer to him for more than the minimum ‘slot system’ specifies, in order to sign him.

If there is no resolution by creditors or a closing date set for the sale of the team soon, this June too could put salaries and bonuses for MLB draftees as well as projected trades for the July 31st trade deadline in jeopardy, as well as put the future of the Texas Rangers franchise in peril for years to come.

MLB and Bud Selig calling all of the shots by fiat presents a clear conflict of interest in terms of the free marketplace. And clearly this is but a bailout by MLB with ramifications similar to those of the U.S. federal government in bailing out financial institutions, car manufacturers and insurance companies. Not only does the government incur a financial stake in these companies but is but purchasing the right to dictate corporate policy. And MLB is no different in that regard in this case.

Yet, on its face, the intricacies are more far reaching than MLB’s takeover of the then Montreal Expos in 2004, now the Washington Nationals. In this matter, after the layers are peeled back, we can see that the “not in the best interests of baseball” rule does not necessarily include taking on Wall Street brokerages, the multi-national banking industry and the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, all the while showing favoritism towards a specific group that wishes to purchase the team.

Volumes have thus far been written over the past year concerning an over-leveraged Tom Hicks. Yet, the same can be said of the entire U.S. economy and its players from Wall Street to Capitol Hill. While that is no excuse for alleged corporate malfeasance, with respect to MLB, cooler heads should prevail. And sometimes that should actually mean that the integrity of the game stands for something other than its bottom line.

In light of the Rangers’ 87-75 2009 win-loss record, far better than in years past, it would be a shame for the hopes and talents of some of its young players to be squandered by reckless decisions on behalf of Bud Selig and MLB. And hopefully, the remaining MLB owners will weigh in and fall on the side of common sense. Stay tuned.

Copyright ©2010 Diane M. Grassi
Contact: dgrassi@cox.net

STATES RUSH TO LEGALIZE SPORTS BETTING & EXPAND GAMBLING FOR REVENUE

2010-05-27T23:45:00.000-07:00

By Diane M. Grassi

With the melt down of the global economy over the past 2 years, multi-national brokerage firms and trusted financial institutions bore the brunt of accusations of gambling away the financial health and futures of investors, primarily through the sale of toxic mortgages with credit default swaps as the vehicle in doing so.

Yet, it is the mainstreaming of gambling on many levels that has created a culture whereby it has become an acceptable norm for not only corporations but governments in the United States, on both the federal and state levels, to literally invest in the gambling industry, with the recession as the excuse for its necessity.

Yet, for years prior to the current recession, brokerage firms such as Goldman Sachs & Co., Merrill Lynch & Co. and Fidelity Investments were already investing their clients’ stocks and mutual fund portfolios, in financing offshore casinos.

The question remains as to whether they skirted U.S. federal law, which prohibits offshore online gambling for Americans, as well as to whether they made reliable investments on behalf of their clients, many of whom remain unaware that such financial instruments are involved in such volatile industries. So, Wall Street was already in on the game.

Fast forward to 2010, where many U.S. states are on the precipice of bankruptcy and are desperate for that magic bullet to increase tax revenues without continually cutting services for their already over-taxed residents. And to that end, many state governors and state legislators are clamoring to push through laws in anticipation of overturning the federal law in place, prohibiting sports betting on both professional and amateur sports, otherwise known as the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992 (28 U.S.C. §3701) (PASPA).

To wit, the state legislature of New Jersey passed State Resolution No. 19 on January 12, 2010, which authorizes its President of the Senate to “take legal action concerning certain federal legislation prohibiting sports betting.” It would repeal the federal ban on sports betting, in all other U.S. states, with the exception of Nevada, Delaware, Oregon and Montana, already permitted to offer parlay-type sports betting. Nevada, however, exclusively enjoys all types of sports betting, statewide, on any professional or amateur sports games, in any capacity.

Basically, New Jersey, and specifically Senator Raymond Lesniak, who originally launched a lawsuit on his own in March 2009 against the federal government, claims that the 1992 law violates the 10th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, in that “It establishes a selective prohibition on sports betting in the U.S.” The argument is that it violates the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution by regulating a matter that is reserved to the States. And that it violates the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution by being unconstitutionally discriminatory against the Plaintiffs and the people of the State of New Jersey.

Lesniak’s case presently resides in the U.S District Court, District of New Jersey, seeking declaratory relief. But the upshot is that New Jersey believes that it “Would benefit significantly from lifting the federal ban and legalizing sports betting in this state, as increased revenues would be generated and numerous jobs would be created for New Jersey residents as a result of sports betting activities at Atlantic City casinos and New Jersey’s racetracks, further enhancing tourism and economic growth,” according to Resolution No. 19.

Prior to PASPA, the Wire Act was enacted in 1961. It was intended exclusively for prohibiting the placement of bets by telephone to bookmakers for sporting events, and was largely put in place by then U.S. Attorney General, Robert F. Kennedy, in order to discourage organized crime and bookmaking. But gaming and its technology has come light years since 1961, and it would appear that the Wire Act’s shelf life has thus expired.

Meanwhile, in the U.S. Congress, House Representative Barney Frank (D-MA), Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, has promoted a federal resolution to legalize and regulate the internet gambling industry in the U.S. (H.R. 2667). That proposal falls on the heels of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA). It proscribes that offshore internet gambling is a violation of federal law.

Furthermore, legislation was passed by the New Jersey legislature in its state Senate to amend the New Jersey State Constitution, allowing legalized sports betting, which the New Jersey voters would ultimately vote on in a referendum as early November 2010.

But this constant back and forth between drafting new law and upholding existing legislation on a federal level to regulate gaming, runs in direct conflict with those states introducing new laws, geared to open up the flood gates for a variety of legalized gaming platforms, including sports betting. In addition, the National Indian Gaming Association, with respect to state Indian gaming contracts, originally authorized by the U.S. federal government, presents other conflicts on both state and federal levels.

Therefore, with the rights of gamblers continually in flux, the question must be asked what about the rights of non-gamblers and the resources that will be expended towards the downside that accompanies a gambling culture, upon which states will necessarily become dependent?

In the state of Nevada alone, with unemployment approaching 23%, for those presently receiving extended unemployment benefits as well as those no longer receiving such benefits, it is the gaming industry specifically that is responsible for such a jobs freefall which accompanies a nearly $1 billion state budget shortfall. Add to that the highest mortgage foreclosure rates in the entire U.S. and there arises a recipe for disaster.

And as gaming drives all other industry including construction, conventions and tourism, primarily in Las Vegas, it would make one wonder what other state officials are thinking when gaming revenues in Las Vegas went down over 20% between 2008 and 2009, and it has yet to come out of its funk.

Las Vegas Strip properties’ construction is at a virtual standstill with over leveraged multi-national conglomerates also reeling from the worldwide mortgage crisis. It appears that it was not only the little guys at the slot machines who gambled with their fortunes over the past few years.

With respect to sports betting on the National Football League’s (NFL) Super Bowl, Las Vegas betting revenues for the past 2 seasons of 2008 and 2009 were down considerably from years past. Nevada casino sports books in 2008 lost $2.6 million on the Super Bowl and in 2010 a total of $82.7 million was wagered with a net gain of only $179,000.00 more for casino sports books than in 2009. In contrast, $94.6 million was wagered in 2006, prior to the recession.

Yet, New Jersey is convinced and presupposes that sports wagering will generate hundreds of millions of dollars in state revenue over the course of a 5 year period, for its state alone. And it remains dedicated to also expand casino gambling in spite of its own realized massive decline in profits over the past 2 years.

But the state of New Jersey is hardly alone in its desire to gamble on gambling with many states introducing legislation and campaigning for both intrastate and interstate forms of gambling, both online and throughout casinos and racetrack locales throughout the U.S.

Currently, 48 states enjoy some form of legalized gambling and/or state lotteries, with the exception of Hawaii and Utah which do not presently permit any type of gambling, wagering or lotteries. However, Hawaii is presently weighing legislation for a stand-alone casino in Waikiki.

States in addition to New Jersey proposing sports betting and some type of expansion of casino gambling, including online gaming, with some states already preparing such legislation regarding sports betting in the event that PASPA is overturned includes: Iowa, Delaware, Massachusetts, California, Texas, Alabama, Missouri, Georgia, Florida, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Maine, New Hampshire, Connecticut, , Michigan, Kentucky, Illinois, amongst others.

In the case of Delaware it won the right in 2009 to offer 3-game parlay style sports betting at its 3 racetracks or racinos for NFL games only, as states that previously offered lottery style or legalized sports betting from 1976-1990 were exempt from PASPA. Yet, after its well fought challenge in federal court in 2009 for Delaware to be permitted to bet on all professional sports a la Las Vegas style without restrictions, it was defeated. But Delaware has not yet given up its fight and its case has been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Iowa is also leading the charge in crafting legislation to allow legalized sports betting. However, Iowa State Senator, Jerry Behn (R-Boone), thinks that gambling is a “Tax on the people who can afford it the least.” Yet, his colleague, State Senator, Jack Kibbie (D-Emmetsburg), on betting on professional sports says, “People say I would love to do what they can do in Las Vegas.”

Perhaps those with the same sentiments as those of Senator Kibbie will not be so game, so to speak, when there remains little discretionary income for such sin taxes to generate anticipated windfall profits.

With respect to California’s new plan there comes an additional rub. It plans to introduce an online gaming network. Yet, it potentially could be in violation of Indian Gaming licenses or compact agreements that California entered into in 1999 with Native American tribes in its state. The compacts gave the tribes exclusive rights to any gambling that involved gaming devices including slot machines, roulette tables and video poker machines, etc.

Furthermore, it took 5 years for California to get the tribes to honor the payment of taxes due to the state of California by virtue of the compacts. The tribes withheld tax payments until 2004, of which some were retroactively paid. However, the state of California still gives such exclusive rights to the Indian tribes through 2030, which remains a binding agreement to date.

Now, the California tribes have threatened to once again withhold paying the government of California its share of taxes due for gaming revenues, should California proceed with its online poker network plans. The state’s position is that the compacts do not include poker and cover only games of chance. Yet, the tribal councils deem gaming devices to include computers used for online gaming, and thus negating California’s plan.

Such a dust-up could resonate through the Native American community, with its 442 tribal casinos operated by 237 tribal governments and Alaska native villages in 28 states. Revenues translate into a nearly $30 billion a year industry for them.

And Congressman Frank’s legislation to regulate internet poker would also be a direct threat to Indian gaming casinos, unless the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 is somehow amended.

Ideally, California wants its poker network to go nationwide, raising revenues by ultimately licensing interstate networks and thereby generating additional profits through the ownership of such various licenses between states. The hope is that it could eventually trump PASPA.

Everything is politics, it would seem. But complicated legislative loopholes aside, basing entire economies – and California’s alone is the six largest in the entire world – on games of chance is quite the risky proposition itself.

And how taxpayers can be expected to trust their state governments to invest in struggling enterprises, already in the red, in order to prop up their cash-strapped states, many nearing junk-bond status due to irresponsible governing, remains the $64,000.00 question.

Time was when Vegas thought gambling was recession proof. And there should be little doubt that Las Vegas now serves as the poster child for that which results when gamblers stop gambling and traveling to destination resorts.

And for public officials to abandon all reason and principles, looking for a quick fix, rather than by relying upon ingenuity for the creation of jobs and revenue outside of the gambling sector, could very well come back to bite them, in the end.

Copyright ©2010 Diane M. Grassi
Contact: dgrassi@cox.net

ROGUE COMMISSIONER: The NBA's David Stern

2010-05-27T23:19:00.000-07:00

By Diane M. Grassi

“Considering the fact that so many state governments – probably between 40 and 50 – don’t consider it immoral, I don’t think that anyone should. It may be a little immoral because in reality it is a tax on the poor; the lotteries. But having said that, it’s now a matter of national policy. Gambling is good.”

No, that high profile quote is not attributable to a member of the U.S. Congress, a state governor nor other public official or public figure. Most people had no clue who said it until it was published on December 11, 2009 in a Sports Illustrated interview that writer, Ian Thomsen, had with National Basketball Association (NBA) Commissioner, David Stern. In it, Stern reveals that his stance on legalized sports betting has softened.

But having been the NBA’s face for the past 25 years, Stern has no less been a shrewd businessman. Moreover, as a studied attorney, he knows the meaning of precedent and its value in proving one’s case.

As such, the prevailing precedent Stern created was his steadfast endorsement of the prohibition of legalized sports betting. And therefore, as he has now seemingly opened Pandora’s Box, if but a crack, his juxtaposition may not be greeted with such warm and fuzzy feelings by the commissioners of the other professional sports leagues as well as the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA).

For it was but a few short months ago, in July 2009, when the NBA joined suit with the National Football League (NFL), Major League Baseball (MLB), the National Hockey League (NHL) and the NCAA in successfully defeating the state of Delaware in its attempt to legalize single game sports betting in its state.

The case in Delaware was based upon the legal theory that the 1992 federal law, known as the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) was not applicable to it. In three court appeals, the last requested before the full 12-judge panel of the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, and later denied, found that Delaware was not entitled to offer sports betting a la Las Vegas style sportsbooks sports betting.

So, Delaware had to settle for NFL only 3-game parlay style betting, which links together two or more individual wagers, but is dependent on all of those wagers winning together, in order for the gambler to profit. In addition, all sports bets must be waged solely at Delaware’s race tracks, Dover Downs and Delaware Park. Aside from a hit that the NFL took, however, the other leagues prevailed in winning their case.

In brief, states that offered lottery style or legalized sports betting from 1976-1990 were exempt from the PASPA, and it provided a 1-year grace period for states, who had allowed sports betting over the previous 10-year period, to create legislation permitting sports wagering. Delaware, Oregon, Montana and Nevada had such exemptions. But Delaware did not act within that 1-year period, thus creating its present dilemma.

Since Delaware offered a 3-game parley lottery on NFL games in 1976, it was offered no more than that which it had previously enjoyed.

The leagues, including the NBA, however, played no small role, along with several members of the U.S. Congress, in winning the case. They all appealed to U.S. Attorney General, Eric holder, in their opposition to grandfathering in any sports wagering of any kind. And in the end, Delaware came up short, where its last act would only be to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. It does not have any such plans at this time.

Back in 2007, Commissioner Stern agreed to hold the NBA’s 2007 All Star Game in Las Vegas, NV, which remains the only state in the Union which allows single bets to be taken at sportsbooks for every league in professional and college sports and for every team. The only exceptions are the NBA’s Sacramento Kings and the Boston Celtics along with the teams they are playing against on any given day. And such limitations are only with respect to specific casino properties.

The reason for that is that the Palms Hotel and Casino is owned by Joe and Gavin Maloof, who also own the Kings and previously owned the WNBA’s Sacramento Monarchs. The other exception is Harrah’s Entertainment, Inc., which owns a minority interest in the Boston Celtics. As Harrah’s own numerous Las Vegas casino hotels, no sports bets may be taken at those Harrah casinos which have sports books, on Celtics games or their respective opponents, as mandated by the NBA. Prior to 2008, the Palms Casino was not permitted to have sports betting on any NBA teams, but the NBA Board of Governors ruled to allow the Palms to join the rest of the Strip properties, doing so in October 2008.

And during 2007, David Stern had talks with Las Vegas Mayor, Oscar Goodman, regarding the mayor’s interest in acquiring an NBA franchise for his city. But the future looked bleak at that time. Now, the NBA’s Summer League is a fixture there as well as a training ground for USA Basketball and the U.S. Olympic team. And by 2008, Stern had decided to allow the NBA owners to decide whether there will be a future for an NBA club in Las Vegas.

Fast forward to 2009 and Stern now says, “Las Vegas is not evil. Las Vegas is a vacation destination resort and they have sports gambling.” He apparently has come a long way from the 2007 All Star Game when he was adamant about blocking any potential ownership opportunities for his league in Las Vegas. Apparently, the Maloof brothers have done a nice job convincing him otherwise.

The Tim Donaghy referee scandal, also in 2007, put a crimp in Stern’s possible growing interest in a potential marriage with games of chance. At that time, Stern ordered the drafting of new policies with respect to NBA referees’ off-season limit on gambling at legalized casinos. It is now permissible. However, sports betting is off-limits any time of the year. Ironically, Tim Donaghy’s alleged gambling addiction started in legal gambling casinos, now endorsed for NBA referees by David Stern himself.

However, NBA referees are now more closely scrutinized and monitored in their off-court and off-season behaviors, requiring more invasive background and credit checks, while under the employ of the NBA.

And now it makes even more sense as to why Stern would insist that Tim Donaghy was a “rogue” or lone referee with regard to passing on inside information to illegal bookmakers and organized crime syndicates. Yet, both the FBI and the NBA’s own internal investigation found that any of Donaghy’s malfeasances did not alter game outcomes. Still, Donaghy was convicted and served 15 months prison time, including a fine of $500,000.00 and $30,000.00 in required restitution to the NBA.

Assuming that Stern had a grand scheme all along to eventually cash in his chips for a piece of the gambling revenue empire for the NBA, Donaghy merely mucked up the works temporarily, as Stern necessarily went into high gear damage control or virtual denial.

It was by mere coincidence, however, that the FBI even stumbled upon Donaghy, and obviously not through the lax mechanisms in place in Stern’s house, which was neither equipped nor anxious to reveal any corruption in his ranks. An investigation by the federal government into the Gambino Crime Family is what prompted the FBI’s findings; and was flawlessly staged as a complete surprise and seemingly unfathomable to the NBA’s Stern.

And although David Stern might be out of step with the other professional leagues’ commissioners, as concerns legalized sports betting, with the exception of his joining them in the Delaware lawsuit, he is right in line with multi-national corporations, global investors, foreign governments, U.S. state governments and gamblers of all kinds in the U.S. and throughout the world.

If anything, one must agree that David Stern is a master at playing both sides of the fence and therefore may not be as inconsistent as many have criticized him for being, since the Sports Illustrated article broke.

Hypocrite or merely an evolved businessman wanting to cash in his chips, so to speak?

It is estimated that in the U.S. alone, nationalized legal sports betting income taxes and sin taxes could generate over $40 billion over 10 years. And that does not include the take that the NBA would stand to gain from ancillary revenue streams.

With the United Kingdom, Australia, other European entities as well as China in the sports betting business, many in the U.S. Congress, for example, believe legalized sports betting and online gaming would but eliminate illegal off-shore gambling and would be a win-win both for the government and private enterprise, while removing the organized crime quotient.

But whether such comes to pass in the near future, remains to be seen, although cash-strapped states remain hopeful. Yet, in this economy it is anyone’s bet. Yes “gambling is good.” But is it not ultimately about greed?

And the NBA’s appearance of duplicity will continue to have its critics:

“Apparently, the NBA is not as a concerned about the integrity of the league when their teams’ owners’ money is at stake.” – Delaware House Majority Leader Peter C. Schwartzkopf (7/28/09)

Copyright ©2009 Diane M. Grassi
Contact: dgrassi@cox.net

BASEBALL, RAWLINGS BRING NEW MEANING TO FREE TRADE: POSTSCRIPT

2010-05-27T22:48:00.000-07:00

By Diane M. Grassi

In 2006, this reporter shed light on the seemingly unfair labor practices taking place in the Central American country of Costa Rica, in a factory operated by the Rawlings Sporting Goods Co., Inc., and now a subsidiary of the multi-national corporation, Jarden Corp. As we embark upon the 2010 Major League Baseball (MLB) season, let us take another look back on this important issue regarding free trade and on that which has transpired since.

At that time, Rawlings was a subsidiary of K2, Inc., primarily a snowboard and in-line skate manufacturer. Then in 2007, Jarden absorbed all of K2’s holdings and Rawlings became one of the many assets of Jarden’s portfolio.

The Jarden Corp.’s holdings, prior to 2007, had primarily been in the consumer household goods industry, such as with Mr. Coffee®, Oster®, Holmes® and CrockPot®. It became pro-active in the purchase of outdoor clothing and camping equipment companies such as ExOfficio and Coleman and then with the purchase of K2, which owned Rawlings, Jarden became a force in the professional sporting goods industry as well.

But much like the way corporate takeovers can surface rapidly and on a global scale, with what appears as little hands-on management, corporations’ goods are then subject to manufacture in far-off lands with little oversight, too. And unfortunately, this accomplished strategy, having culminated primarily over the past 25 years, has enjoyed the muscle and delight of the U.S. government and other state governing bodies of countries throughout the world. Unfortunately, global trade does little to improve the standard of living and human condition of the citizens living in such impoverished countries, where many global giants relocate.
_____________________________________________________

Since this last report, to wit, Costa Rica has become a member of the Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA). Costa Rica, the oldest democracy in Central America, held a voters’ referendum in 2007, giving its citizens a voice as to whether they would like to join DR-CAFTA.

The United States Congress rushed through DR-CAFTA in record time, over several months in 2005, but never expected a country such as Costa Rica to actually fight its demands or to obstruct its rush-through process; for all six other CAFTA countries – El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Guatemala, and the Dominican Republic – were all on board by 2007. As it were, approval for DR-CAFTA was barely passed by Costa Rican voters, and it was not until January 1, 2009 that Costa Rica formally became another Free Trade Zone in Central America.

Few working for or playing in MLB, or for that matter most people living in the U.S., are aware that Free Trade Zones are but a win for the U.S. government and multi-national corporations operating offshore, only. Such corporate entities are not required to pay taxes or tariffs, are allowed to import their supplies duty-free, and electricity and water usage are subsidized. Yet, they are not responsible or required to enforce labor and environmental policies, that would be required had they remained doing business in the U.S.

The following contains parts of the 2006 article, that encapsulates the story of Rawlings Sporting Goods, Inc. and its subsidiary, Rawlings de Costa Rica, S.A., and its manufacture of some 2.2 million baseballs each year made by hand. These laborers work for MLB’s gain, its billionaire owners, and multi-millionaire players, who largely remain mum on this topic to date:

As America’s National Pastime has continued to rake in record high revenues over the past several years – in the billions of dollars each season – MLB continues to remain deaf to its critics concerning the manufacture of its Official Baseball, apparel and other accessories, with regard to unfair labor practices in the Third World.

In 2004, a 60-page report produced by the National Labor Committee (NLC), an international labor rights organization, entitled, Foul Ball, initially exposed the poor working conditions of the Rawlings baseball factory in the remote city of Turrialba, Costa Rica.

MLB had a tepid response to such claims. Then, following the report, life-long consumer advocate, Ralph Nader, wrote a letter to both MLB Commissioner, Bud Selig, and then-Major League Baseball Players Association (MLBPA) Executive Director, Donald Fehr, to address Rawlings’ labor practices. Selig referred Nader’s letter to his legal department and Donald Fehr said he was unaware of such claims. Neither man ever followed up.

In 2005, the United States government entered into the DR-CAFTA, allowing for further tax breaks, duty-free tariffs and Free Trade Zone status for U.S. corporations doing business in Central America, without providing for any policing of unfair labor practices in such offshore locales. Although the Agreement contained language to that effect, there is no enforcement mechanism or political will to instill such.

And instead of it taking the lead in calling-out such a worldwide problem, MLB, through its silence, therefore remains complicit in such exploitation by multi-national corporations throughout the Third World, and especially those that are U.S.-based.
____________________________________________________

The facts are quite stunning as to what goes into the manufacture of a Major League baseball and the sometimes physically debilitating toll workers take in order to produce some 2.2 million balls utilized each MLB season, in addition to the Minor Leagues and the NCAA College World Series, with which the Jarden Corp., on behalf of Rawlings, also exclusively contracts.

Rawlings has been operating its baseball factory out of Costa Rica since 1988, as it gradually transitioned its factories from the country of Haiti, during its period of government unrest in the late 1980’s. Since 1990, Rawlings has produced all of MLB’s baseballs in Costa Rica, with its non-professional baseballs manufactured in China.

Although Rawlings also contracts with the National Football League (NFL) and the National Basketball Association (NBA) in producing some of its balls and accessories, the baseball itself perhaps best symbolizes all-things-American and is therefore worthy of the attention it garners from critics of the Rawlings factory.

The approximate 600 workers at the baseball factory in Turrialba are either “sewers” who stitch the cowhide covers onto the baseball’s sphere, or they are “assemblers” or “winders”, responsible for assembling the core’s parts, made of two kinds of rubber and cork, and the winding of the ball’s four different grades of yarn. Those who stitch are required to complete 108 stitches into the cowhide leather of each ball by hand.

Each sewer must complete one ball every 15 minutes. They are required to reach a minimum quota of 156 balls per week, in a factory without air conditioning, in temperatures exceeding 100°, requiring permission to use bathrooms, and prohibits workers from speaking to each other on the factory floor. The hours that workers put in average 11 -12 per day and they must always reserve their Saturdays for the factory, in the event an “emergency order” comes through. If not available on Saturday, they are subject to termination.

The gross wages per worker average $1.50 per hour. Workers can earn up to an additional $8.00 per week if they reach the threshold of completing 180 baseballs in one week. Baseball factory workers earn more than the country’s minimum wage but are subject the Costa Rican Labor Ministry for any increases in the minimum wage. Provided they reach the minimum weekly ball quota each week, workers are compensated an additional 25-30 cents per baseball by Rawlings. Should they not reach the minimum quota they again risk being terminated.

The physical impact endured by the sewers has left about one-third of them with carpal tunnel syndrome or repetitive stress injuries, including permanent disability, after just two or three years of stitching. And sadly, most MLB players have no knowledge that every baseball manufactured is done so solely by hand under such conditions. Should a worker miss any length of time greater than a couple of days of work, due to illness or injury, they can be easily replaced due to the desperate employment situation. And their healthcare, thereafter, is in doubt.
___________________________________________________

Costa Rica, always reliant upon its agriculture to sustain its people and to provide jobs, was dependent upon coffee and sugar cane as its main exports. Yet, in the past several years, as prices for coffee in particular rose, a good part its coffee exports, including its sugar cane industry, lost out to Nicaragua, as even cheaper labor costs prevail there. Some labor experts directly blame the impact of DR-CAFTA on the erosion of the agricultural industry in Costa Rica; the opposite of DR-CAFTA’s supposed intent.

Because of the loss of agricultural jobs, the baseball factory now largely sustains the city of Turrialba and its population of 30,000. Rawlings has its workers over a barrel, as they know jobs are scarce, with many more willing to endure such a tough and pressurized work environment.

The NLC as well as the International Labor Committee (ILO) have called upon Rawlings of Costa Rica, S.A. to modify some of its working conditions. Rawlings was asked to provide ergonomics training for workers in order to reduce repetitive stress injuries; to provide workers with a better wage and to increase the amount of incentives based upon levels of production. Yet, Rawlings U.S. deferred to Rawlings de Costa Rica, S.A. and the Costa Rican government.

And the NLC emphasizes the need to allow the workers the right to organize in order to regulate problematic issues, without fear of being fired or reprisal, such as forced overtime or forced layoffs after 3 months, before workers can earn any legal rights. Currently, the workers are well aware that any talk of labor unions will get them dismissed and fear that the factory will go the way of its agricultural industry and relocate to a country where labor is cheaper.

Unfortunately, as the result of doing business abroad, corporations are still subject to the labor laws of the respective country in which they do business. In the case of Costa Rica, there remains a lack of oversight, follow-up or initially filed documents by the Labor Ministry for worker complaints, throughout all industries.

With respect to collective bargaining, it is permissible by law, but is discouraged in the workplace, with employers encouraging workers to join “solidarity associations” instead. These groups are allowed to assemble but are prevented from collective bargaining and are partially financed by the employer.

Ralph Nader previously demanded that MLB and the MLBPA, “Adopt internationally recognized workers’ rights standards and effective enforcement mechanisms, as a core condition governing all of its product sourcing and license agreements.” Yet, much like the U.S. government’s claim it cannot fully enforce its Free Trade Agreements, MLB can make the same claim when it comes to its licensees or subcontractors. Thus, passing the buck becomes an accepted practice and it is chalked it up to the price of doing business in the U.S. and abroad.

Ralph Nader, at the time, went on to say that, “We cannot tell you that it comes as a shock to us that MLB properties do not have any workers’ rights guidelines in their licensing agreements. Nor are we surprised by the irony of the Players Associations’ Strike Fund being supported by royalties from products which might be made by Third World workers stripped of their own rights. The irony is bitter.”

MLB stands pat in that, “Our agreements routinely include provisions that require our partners to comply with applicable laws including those related to employment and workplace safety. At the same time, I am sure you understand that we are not in a position to actively regulate the practices of each and every separate company with which we do business.” No, but they could start with the ball; its centerpiece.
____________________________________________________

It is not too late for MLB and its superstars to take a stand on workers’ rights, regardless of lax U.S. laws in the world of Free Trade and its Agreements’ legal loopholes. And important to note – although it has only been 1 year since DR-CAFTA has been realized in Costa Rica – its exports to the U.S. fell 15%, imports from the U.S. to Costa Rica fell 30%, unemployment rose to 7.8% from 4.9% in 2008 and Foreign Direct Investment from other countries fell approximately 30%. Economists will conveniently blame the global recession on these bleak figures, but it represents many Costa Ricans’ worst nightmares coming true.

The sweatshop culture in the U.S. ended with the enactment of labor laws and the rise of labor unions. However, one must ask that private industry as well as the U.S. government be held accountable. For not only are both culpable in the permanent export of U.S. jobs, but both stand by – eyes wide open – as workers in other countries, without many of the freedoms U.S. citizens enjoy, are blatantly exploited. For there is no “free trade,” as someone ultimately pays.

Take a stand MLB! Perhaps now is the time for Rawlings to go.

Copyright ©2010 Diane M. Grassi
Contact: dgrassi@cox.net

NEW HEALTHCARE INFRASTRUCTURE WOULD SUBJUGATE AMERICANS

2009-10-20T17:50:00.000-07:00

By Diane M. Grassi

“This is just one sliver of it, one aspect of it,” President Barack Obama quipped, upon word on August 16, 2009, that his administration is supposedly revisiting the Public Option of its proposed healthcare legislation. Indeed. For virtually missing from the nationwide dialogue on President Barack Obama’s call to reform healthcare as we know it, is any detailed discussion as to how it would essentially operate and be structured; slivers and all.

Perhaps such details have wisely remained absent, as the proposed infrastructure, as laid out primarily in the House of Representatives’ H.R. 3200, known as America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, would not only change healthcare for every American, but would reconstitute its delivery system both for the private sector as well as federal agencies, some of which have yet to be formed.

Inducing Americans into believing that of which fairy tales are made is at worse deceitful and at best disingenuous:

“But what we’ll do is, we’ll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies. And so, that approach, I think is what is going to allow people to stay involved in this process.”
– Presidential Candidate Barack Obama (Cluster, VA - 8/21/08)

_____________________________________________

Unlike federal programs that may less directly impact taxpayers, an individual’s healthcare encompasses very personal and vital information that will be embedded in a complex new system utilizing multiple federal and state agencies in new and unprecedented ways. Such cannot simply be mandated by way of politics-as-usual.

No matter how badly the president and the Democratic Party apply strong-arm tactics to dictate passage of their healthcare legislation, it is such recalcitrance that flies in the face of representative government or good government, and improperly denies the American people of full disclosure on matters so vital to their personal well-being.

This series of reports will attempt to highlight those issues pertinent to Americans that are not being covered clearly, if at all, by the mainstream media nor by elected officials or lawmakers; that which depicts the elemental infrastructure for the implementation of this immense and controvertible proposed body of law.

The proposed layout of agencies or its hierarchy by the Obama administration and presently encased in H.R. 3200 and its various renditions, is draconian in nature. It would encompass up to 31 new federal programs, commissions and agencies, to be touched upon in this report.

Also, keep in mind, that all involved agencies, commissions and appointees will either have some type of systemic control of or access to Electronic Health Records (EHR), which will be a requirement for all healthcare providers and patients; that which is our most personal healthcare information. It is a mandate of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, (ARRA) also referenced as the stimulus package, which became law in February 2009. Such will be more fully covered in the 2nd report of this series.

______________________________________________________________

By now, in the early Obama administration, many Americans are well aware that a broad-based change in the way in which they will access medical care and its delivery system in the United States is coming and in an aggressive manner. But it also requires change in the way the federal government shall be retrofitted in order to deliver such medical care to all.

And it has been seemingly decided by lawmakers and from those on-high that key words such as expenditures, cost containment, choice and privacy rights are no longer allowed into any honest discussion. Unfortunately, the American people will witness unabated unilateral healthcare reform measures, many of which will only be realized by future dates-certain, which will be provided subsequent to such legislation becoming law.

Yet, the term reform falls far short of its intended consequence. For not only will there be an expanse of federal mandates over Americans’ personal healthcare records and data, but necessary systems required to protect such data are still being discussed as we speak, for an initial rollout as early as 2011.

______________________________________________________________

H.R. 3200, as well as its various renditions in both the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives, all provide for the restructuring of certain agencies, new cabinet secretaries, committees, appointees and councils, as key contributors to the impending bureaucratic upheaval. To wit, reinventing Medicare and Medicaid with new conditions for each state to embody in their own statutes.

Key to the new infrastructure is the White House’s heavy-handed dominance in the ultimate plan that waits for ratification by the Congress. The conglomerate for oversight and rule making will firstly stem from hand-picked White House czars, executive branch appointees, and White House and agency committees all chosen by President Obama. Essential to note, however, is that a majority of these appointments by the White House are out of the jurisdictional oversight of the U.S. Congress, nor require confirmation by the U.S. Senate.

Thus far, both the House and the Senate Democratic majority has backed such a re-engineering plan, also considered in the interest of reform. And it will impact multi-levels of both federal and state governments’ current systems.

Wide discretion has been awarded the executive branch in the Obama administration thus far, and in this, for purposes of healthcare reform. But the White House itself is not set up to administer or oversee agencies and legislation. That is the reason the U.S. Congress exists and why cabinet level officers are picked and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. And it is these types of legal complexities and knowing exactly which body of government will be looking out for constituents’ concerns, only heightened by an issue as compelling as their own personal healthcare.

And let us not forget the admission by many lawmakers, however only recently, that they do not read proposed legislation, suffer its details nor consider the future impact it will have on the American people. And in this case, they will not even be consumers of such new healthcare legislation, as their own platinum healthcare plan remains intact.

_______________________________________________________________

Most notably, the legislation will give new and unprecedented power to the U.S. Surgeon General, which historically has been a position of advocacy, as an appointee by the president, rather than one that yields administrative power over other agencies or officials. There will also be a Health Choices Committee, appointed by the president, a Health Exchange agency, and formidable roles by both the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Department of the U.S. Treasury, each with new directives and capacities specific to healthcare.

In addition, Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) has recently introduced legislation to expand the role of the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, (MedPAC) for determination and implementation of Medicare reimbursement policies. All the more remarkable, at such time in our history, that Senator Rockefeller believes that “It’s time to move MedPAC into the executive branch …. Congress has proven itself to be inefficient and inconsistent in making decisions about provider reimbursement under Medicare.”

Furthermore, Rockefeller believes, “Establishing MedPAC as an independent executive branch agency – which can only change through an act of Congress – is the cornerstone of improving our delivery system reform.”

Therefore, MedPAC will solely be under the auspices of the White House through a five-member independent Medicare Advisory Council, which by mandate would produce two reports per year, establishing Medicare rates for physicians, hospitals, nursing homes and medical equipment.

MedPAC will be remodeled after the Federal Reserve Board. And the only jurisdiction the U.S. Congress would have is to block a recommendation by resolution, provided it is done within 30 days. But the greater veto power would rest with the White House. Presently, MedPAC operates in an advisory capacity only. If that does not remain the case, then MedPAC would act unilaterally without any accountability to the U.S. Congress.

Additionally, under Rockefeller’s legislation, Congress would have even less authority, requiring a 3/5 majority of both the House and the Senate prior to overturn any payment decisions recommended by MedPAC. The MedPAC Council’s priority would be to reform payment rates healthcare providers receive for services for the elderly and the disabled. Secondarily, to date, private sector insurance rates generally follow the established rates approved for Medicare for their own customers.

_____________________________________________________________

A Health Choices Commissioner, also appointed by the president, would oversee a new independent agency noted as the Health Choices Administration. It would be the regulatory agency of health insurance compliance. It does not provide for a collaborative effort with the various states and their set legislation concerning healthcare and would fundamentally require them to abdicate their authority to the federal government.

The new Health Choices Administration would also control the new Health Insurance Exchange, noted in H.R. 3200, Section 201, Title II, which calls for the Congress to establish such under the power of the Health Choices Commissioner. A Health Choices Committee, also appointees of the president, would advise the Health Choices Commissioner on crucial matters such as whether to recommend, for example, expenditures for medical procedures or funding for known cures for specific diseases.

The Health Choices Commissioner must establish “standards for and accept bids from qualified health benefit plans and negotiate and enter into contracts with these qualified health benefit plans, which must offer at least 3 different levels of benefits that are statutorily required with high degree of specificity.”

The Public Option, one of the more controversial elements of the drafted legislation in both the House and the Senate at present, will be overseen by the Health and Human Services Secretary and will involve both the IRS and the Department of the Treasury taking on brand new roles.

__________________________________________________________

And central to the distribution and flow of patients’ confidential medical records will be how it will be accessed throughout the country and the federal government, as mandated in ARRA. Presently, two committees are rushing to suggest a working framework, initially, for how health information systems shall at least be certified.

The National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, David Blumenthal, also a presidential appointee, has wide and sweeping power to make such decisions on IT, along with input from Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Kathleen Sebelius, concerning not only how information will be disseminated but how it will be protected when shared.

But key to centralizing the exchange of medical records is a set of criteria for myriad software applications to be used by healthcare providers. And Blumenthal expects to unveil a framework for such certification guidelines by September 30, 2009.

Importantly, certification of such applications has a direct bearing as to whether Medicare and Medicaid providers will be appropriately reimbursed, a maximum of $44,000.00, if at all, for their cash outlay costs for the required certified software, which can cost an average of $300,000.00 for a 3 physician practice. The software will also be used to receive payments from Medicare and Medicaid for services rendered.

What remains to be decided is if there will be numerous certifying agencies or an additional new oversight agency. Yet, protection of patients’ rights in light of collection and dissemination of their medical information without systems already in place to protect such data has already spurred legal action by patients’ rights advocates. They wish to legally block allocation of the $22 billion provided in ARRA for EHR development. The concern is possible violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) as well as possible violation of Federal Common Law.

___________________________________________________________

As the federal government continues to seize more power, as more and more oversight is designed to originate from the executive branch in the White House, it will but leave states left to succumb to federal authority. To wit, the Health Choices Commissioner’s authority will encumber the ability of states to rely upon their own reforms for health insurance in their local markets, as they see fit. It will not be a relationship of mutual interests but rather one of domination and control by federal statute. And if the word nationalize is offensive to some, then try on the word federalize; perhaps the more correct legal term, yet just as much of a threat to states’ sovereignty.

And finally, this initial report has been an attempt to bring some clarity to an enormous change forthcoming, not only in how healthcare will be consumed by Americans, but the extreme and unprecedented governmental changes put forth in the process and in how the federal government and the White House will conduct the peoples’ business going forward. And that sets the foundation for all aspects of the future of U.S. governance, its management, oversight, accountability and its relationship to the private sector.

Part 2 of this series shall venture into providing more detail of the proposed responsibilities or powers many these fore-mentioned agencies, commissions, appointees, councils and committees will have, or those that have at least been thus far disclosed in H.R. 3200.

And whatever you may hear or read over the next few weeks, keep in mind that you are only hearing but a very small aspect of the real facts; intentionally so.

Copyright ©2009 Diane M. GrassiContact: dgrassi@cox.net

Will MLB's Latest Tech Disserve Game?

2009-10-20T17:34:00.000-07:00

By Diane M. Grassi

As the end of the 2009 Major League Baseball (MLB) season approaches, technological advances, still in their infancy, were instituted in 2009, intended for the game’s future progress; that according to MLB.

Most fans, however, are probably unaware of the new computer technology, mandated by MLB, and its use throughout 2009, that will be precedent setting for seasons to come.

Firstly, the MLB umpires’ evaluation system from 2001–2008, known as QuesTec, was replaced in 2009 by a technology called the Zone Evaluation® system; a supposed upgrade. QuesTec made use of computerized camera technology in an effort to force uniformity between umpires’ strike zones, as well as MLB’s insistence that umpire inconsistency contributed to the undesirable lengthiness of games.

However, only 11 major league ballparks, out of 30, were ever set up with the QuesTec technology for the 7 year period, and its technological accuracy was continually questioned by pitchers, umpires and clubs alike. Many felt that the strike zone was too small and varied from stadium to stadium, and especially between those ballparks that had no such technology at all. And through it all, MLB was fervent in its declaration that QuesTec was merely a tool for the umpires.

During the 2008 MLB season, the PITCHf/x camera system was installed in every major league park – with certain exceptions made for the last year of Yankee and Shea stadiums in New York, as both the Yankees and Mets relocated to new stadiums in the 2009 season. The object of the PITCHf/x system was to gather data from the stadiums in order to composite requisite information for the camera system technology to go live in 2009.

Data was collected during the 2008 season by the PITCHf/x system that included tracking nearly all pitches thrown for the entire season for supposedly all 30 teams, totaling approximately 700,000. And that data is now being used as the base measure to evaluate MLB umpire accuracy for 2009. – Unfortunately, the umpiring data for the new Yankee Stadium and the Mets’ Citi Field was not included; unaddressed publicly by MLB. –

PITCHf/x takes 25 pictures of the ball in flight between the pitching mound and home plate. Sportsvision® software then uses a ‘best fit’ algorithm in order to calculate compensation for different variables of the ball’s flight path, including the position of the ball when it crosses the plate.

But here is where the disparity arises, as a strike is not called at the front of the plate but where it crosses the plate as it makes its way into the catcher’s glove. The camera, however, starts reporting data 5 feet in front of home plate; reminiscent of the ill-timed traffic light camera that incorrectly tickets a driver for going through a red light while traveling through the tail end of a yellow caution light in an intersection.

MLB Rule 2.0 defines the strike zone, and presently remains in effect as follows:

"The Strike Zone is defined as that area over home plate, the upper limit of which is a horizontal line at the midpoint between the top of the shoulders and the top of the uniform pants, and the lower level is a line at the hollow beneath the kneecap. The Strike Zone shall be determined from the batter's stance as the batter is prepared to swing at a pitched ball."

Yet, the calls in that strike zone have given way to a technology that cannot be assimilated by the naked eye. Thus, judging an umpire’s accuracy by a standard that may not even be humanly commensurate is foolhardy at best.

Moreover, many players and team personnel reportedly were unaware until the 2009 season got under way that a new camera system was even being used for the strike zone, let alone in all 30 MLB stadiums.

During QuesTec’s reign, an umpire who failed to reach a 90% accuracy rating in a game was notified by MLB that he had called a “bad game.” And such game ratings of 90% or lower averaged over the course of a MLB season would make an umpire ineligible for post-season assignments.

Jimmie Lee Solomon, MLB’s Executive Vice President, Baseball Operations, commented at the beginning of the 2009 season that the Zone Evaluation system “Has given us much more data, much more granular, and it provides many more camera angles for the pitch track. We only had one view with QuesTec. Now we have multiple views… that will allow us to pull up various trajectories.”

In 2009 when umpires arrive at ball parks they receive a printout of how many balls or strikes they called right or wrong for the game the day before, according to Zone Evaluation. Yet, in the early part of the 2009 season, umpires had a learning curve needed to get acclimated to the new system, not to mention in combination with the two new ballparks in NYC. Therefore, umpires’ season averages for accuracy may be markedly different from 2008 when QuesTec was still in use or from the upcoming 2010 season, after having used the new system for a year.

And even though the World Umpires Association – the union for all MLB umpires – approved the change from QuesTec to Zone Evaluation, any objection it has will be addressed for certain during the negotiations with MLB over their next Collective Bargaining Agreement, expiring after the 2009 season.

Umpires’ quality of accuracy was documented as quite high with QuesTec, as they proved there was little difference in their calls between parks that had QuesTec technology and those that did not. Therefore, the need to upgrade such technology by MLB seems less about reining in umpires and more about diminishing the human factor in adjudicating baseball games.

For after PITCHf/x, the upcoming HITf/x will be used for scouting in the not too distant future by MLB teams and it also will be a supposed tool that will measure every aspect of every player’s mechanics. Such technology will put sabermetrics to shame and will again rely upon technology which again, the naked eye cannot see on its own. “Every moving event within an actual game will be tracked,” according to Sportsvision’s General Manager of Baseball Products, Ryan Zander. It will track the pitcher, the ball and the fielder with individual stats.

And it will beg the question of MLB of whether or not umpires and advance scouts will be less and less depended upon as the years go on. Furthermore, such data will eventually be available to fans via paid subscription through MLB Advanced Media, (MLBAM) its internet and electronic media property, which brings fans MLB.com, the MLB Network and its MLB.TV computer subscriptions for live games over the internet.

The Sportsvision software will utilize 2-4 cameras for HITf/x which has been gathering data throughout the 2009 season, while presently installed at the San Francisco Giants’ AT&T Park. It is expected to be installed in all 30 MLB stadiums throughout the 2010 MLB season, with the intent of gathering enough data to eventually go live by the 2011 season.

Future Hall of Famer, NY Yankee Derek Jeter, was scouted in high school at Kalamazoo Central High, out of Michigan, by Dick Groch, and was eventually selected in the first round of the 1992 baseball draft by the NY Yankees with their 6th pick. Back then, Groch did not carry a laptop computer, and cell phones were several years away from reaching the mass market. Yet, Groch was still remarkably able to successfully do his job.

What may come as a surprise to many was that Groch had to convince NY Yankee management not to use their 1st round pick on a player other than Jeter, as he did not have stats which necessarily jumped off the page. Yet Groch insisted that, “The ceiling is only left to the imagination,” when it came to Derek Jeter.

Fast forward to the 2010 season and beyond, should a Jeter-like prospect become available. He may never have a shot to ever play in MLB, for not only will he not necessarily fit the statistical profile, but scouts may no longer be considered useful to MLB clubs.

And what a shame it would be for the game of baseball to lose those intangibles which contribute to the elements of its mystique. And it is through its imperfections that allow for a new script for every game played, making us ever more appreciative of its outcome and yet continually indebted to the human element in its sport.

Copyright ©2009 Diane M. Grassi
Contact: dgrassi@cox.net

MLB Sportswriter Scoops Self to Remain Relevant

2009-08-12T20:09:00.000-07:00

By Diane M. Grassi

At a time when rumor and innuendo in sports journalism has arguably never been more pervasive, one would hope that the current active senior statesmen of their craft would still have an interest in maintaining their once high standards.

As prominent newspapers in cities large and small are folding, to wit, Denver’s Rocky Mountain News and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, sports coverage is being depleted. In addition, many regional newspapers are sharing content and sending fewer personnel to cover Major League Baseball (MLB) games this season. In Los Angeles for instance, only 2 newspapers, the Los Angeles Times and the Daily News of Los Angeles are covering the Dodgers; down from 12 a decade ago.

The New York Times is cutting back on MLB road trips for the NY Yankees and the NY Mets, in the publishing capitol of the world. The Washington Post and the Baltimore Sun are sharing stories for coverage of the Baltimore Orioles and the Washington Nationals.

Over all, the number of baseball writers in the Baseball Writers Association of America (BBWAA) is down 65 writers from 2008 and its total is now 725, including non-active members. That does not include those sportswriters who are not members of the BBWAA.

The argument will wane as to whether this is all relative specifically to the economy, exacerbated by the expanse of the internet. Perhaps newspaper proprietors, generally corporate holding companies that preside over numerous assets and businesses, are using the economy as an excuse to downsize.

Whichever it is, however, when a journalist perhaps sees the writing on the proverbial wall, does he or she then deliberately bend the rules to remain relevant? Such apparently appears to be the case as evidenced in a July 27, 2009 NY Daily News column written by highly regarded sportswriter, Bill Madden. The piece was titled, MLB Commissioner Bud Selig Mulling Pardon For Hit King Pete Rose. The NY Daily News still enjoys the 5th largest newspaper circulation in the U.S. and remains an exclusive property of publisher, Robert Zuckerman.

In Madden’s column, published the day after the 2009 Baseball Hall of Fame induction ceremony, he “broke” the story that MLB Commissioner, Bud Selig, “is said to be seriously considering lifting Pete Rose’s lifetime suspension from baseball.”

The source of his information? Madden goes on to say, “The tipoff that Selig may now be inclined to pardon baseball’s all-time hit king was Hank Aaron’s seemingly impromptu interview session with a small group of reporters….on Saturday.”

Aaron also spoke publicly regarding his stance on steroid users. But what Madden honed in on was when Aaron spoke about Pete Rose. Aaron said, “I would like to see Pete in. He belongs there.” That quote was apparently enough for Madden to frame a complete story and to put the whole broadcast media and press corps in a tizzy.

Here is his own logic: “It is no secret that Selig considers Aaron one of his closest friends and values his opinions over perhaps all others…..It was also learned that in a meeting of the Hall of Fame’s Board of Directors, two of Rose’s former teammates on the Board, Vice Chairman, Joe Morgan and Frank Robinson, also expressed their hope that Selig would see fit to reinstate Rose.”

Madden goes on to say, “Another Hall of Famer familiar with the situation” also joined the chorus for Pete’s admission back into baseball, which potentially could allow his admission into the Hall. And Madden added, “According to another source, the behind-the-scenes lobbying process began 5 years ago, but stalled because Selig was still not satisfied that Rose was ‘reconfiguring’ his life.”

This prompts the question: Was that Madden’s version of a journalist’s “Who, what, when. where, why and how? Not to those journalists who take such questions seriously.

Madden apparently had doubts himself when on the following day, July 28, 2009, he wrote a NY Daily News column titled, MLB Commissioner Bud Selig Will Not Ease Up on Pete Rose. Since Madden’s first article’s title was fancied to purport fact, it came as a surprise that the very next day he would write a column almost as if someone other than himself had written the supposed news the day before.

However, prior to his near “retraction” article on July 28th, Madden’s name bounced across America from television and radio networks to new media outlets online to other newspaper dailies, and Madden was promoted as the guy who got the “scoop.” Pretty clever, eh?

As momentum built, before sunset on July 27, 2009, it was a “fact” that Selig was entertaining reinstatement for Rose. And everyone knew that Bill Madden got the exclusive.

The only problem? No one had told Bud Selig about his supposed intention. And for a guy covering NY sports for 30 years, Madden erased any doubt that he was not now well known. Unfortunately, no so for his best work, but for arguably committing a neat publicity stunt of sorts.

Given the climate of broadcast and newspaper outlets offing their talent near retirement age, it makes sense in some circles that Madden would want to gain instant and unabated relevance. And few ever read or heard about Madden’s follow-up column the next day on July 28th which he began with, “Despite growing sentiment from a number of influential Hall of Famer’s – most notably Hank Aaron – that 20 years has been a sufficient sentence for Pete Rose for betting on baseball, Bud Selig insists nothing has changed from his stand point.”

But most curious is Madden’s conclusion in the first paragraph as he denotes, “And I’m coming to the belief that he’s going to remain so as long as Selig is commissioner.” He goes on to state, “The image Selig has been carefully crafting for himself over the past 2 years is that of no-tolerance….So how would it look now if he pardoned someone who broke baseball’s cardinal rule?”

You have to love this guy. A day later he draws a conclusion as if the original article never existed, but based upon his own reporting and history with Bud Selig on the Pete Rose saga. So the only conclusion we can conclude is that Bill Madden knew better, but needs to be part of the national spotlight, whether his reportage is accurate or not or even belies what he really knows.

The underlying point of citing Bill Madden here is that it sets a bad precedent not only for sport journalists but the state of journalism generally. For if a guy, supposedly well regarded and one of the most powerful sports writers in New York City, has to stoop to such rubbish to bring unearned attention to himself, then what kind of example does it set? It goes against the Journalist’s Creed, which is incumbent for the survival of the Fourth Estate.

And you will be interested to know that Bill Madden is one of 3 finalists for the J.G. Taylor Spink Award to be voted upon this November and to be awarded at the 2010 Hall of Fame induction ceremonies. The award is the highest one bestowed by the BBWAA to its membership. However, winners are not “inducted” into the Hall of Fame but rather “enshrined” by way of a permanent exhibit within the Hall’s library. And Spink Award recipients also enjoy lifetime membership on the Hall of Fame’s Veterans Committee that elects those players who are past their 15 years of eligibility on the ballot, as well as non-player candidates.

So why Madden’s self-scribed hype? To keep his job? To get another job? To win the Spink Award? Or to do it because he can get away with it given his good reputation? Whatever the reason, he certainly was not thinking of his journalist brethren and those who strive to report the facts and for whom it still matters. It would be refreshing to hold on to that last bastion of good journalism, given the times in which we live.

Copyright ©2009 Diane M. Grassi
Contact: dgrassi@cox.net

The Fourth Estate is Dying

2009-07-04T19:07:00.000-07:00

By Diane M. Grassi

It was on June 21, 1788 that the United States Constitution was officially adopted with its ratification. And it was at that time that its ratification was contingent upon suggested changes be made to the Constitution, thereafter.

Leading up to the Constitution becoming effective, there were numerous debates among the states, namely that the Constitution did not go far enough in protecting personal rights and liberties and would provide for a necessary buffer from infringement by the government on the fundamental rights of the people.

The document simply failed to specify what fundamental rights would be protected from abuse of power, by the federal government and especially in times of emergency.

And it was in the first session of Congress in 1789 in which 12 amendments were proposed of which 10 were ultimately ratified on December 15, 1791. These amendments became known as the Bill of Rights.

The people were rightfully concerned that the Constitution must remain true to its intent; to prevent the misuse of its powers and to protect those very fundamental rights it was charged to protect.

Not the least of such rights was Amendment 1, and its often referenced freedom-of-speech clause. Its main purpose is to provide protection or a deterrent against censorship by the government and its officials. And it is implicit that the First Amendment be invulnerable when a law or government action is at issue.

And it is crucial that the press remains the watchdog of the people, in order to help decipher fact from fiction and for it to report the facts.

If we fast-forward 250 years, we still have two Houses of Congress, more unaccountable than any time in our history, an Executive Branch, creating its own shadow government within the very walls of the White House, and a judicial branch which has evolved into an activist judiciary. And most unfortunately, we have a press corps, a/k/a the media, which no longer remains accountable to the people and at every turn fails to remain objective in its reportage.

It was Thomas Jefferson who noted in 1799 that, “Our citizens may be deceived for awhile, and have been deceived; but as long as the presses can be protected, we may trust to them for light.”

But sadly on June 24, 2009, in perhaps the most egregious exercise in blurring the lines between fact and fiction. ABC News, one of the three largest news broadcasting networks in the U.S. and throughout the world, broadcasted its programming from the Blue Room in the East Wing of the White House.

But even more stunning and unprecedented in White House history, it broadcast a prime time special titled, Questions for the President: Prescription for America, an ABC News production. President Obama answered questions, pre-selected, pre-scripted and censored, by ABC News and the White House.

The intent was to “inform” the people of Obama’s new healthcare plan, which has not been seen nor discussed by the Congress, in an open forum, and remains a mystery as to its details, not publicly disclosed. No opposition questions or representation of any ideas other than those of Obama’s, ABC’s or the Democratic Party were permitted.

So essentially, conservatives and Republican lawmakers felt justified referring to it as a paid infomercial, not a “news” program. Usurping the Congress and the will of the people is anathema to abuse of power.

The nationalization of U.S. healthcare, as important and personal a matter as it is to every American has now been hijacked, along with the public’s airwaves. If Obama’s intentions for the American people cannot withstand honest and unscripted dialog and discourse but rather necessitates an imposter shilling as a news network, then it will fail the American people.

But do remember if you decided to tune in on Wednesday, that, “The most effectual engines for pacifying a nation are the public papers…A despotic government always keeps a kind of standing army of news writers who, without any regard to truth or to what should be like truth, invent and put into the papers whatever might serve the ministers. This suffices with the mass of the people who have no means of distinguishing the false from the true paragraphs of a newspaper.” – Thomas Jefferson (1816)

Copyright ©2009 Diane M. Grassi
Contact: dgrassi@cox.net

Shut Car Dealers Impact Tomorrow's Baseball

2009-07-04T19:05:00.000-07:00

By Diane M. Grassi

“See the USA in your Chevrolet...,” was once as much a theme song for the American leisure lifestyle as it was an advertisement for one of General Motor’s (GM) most celebrated automobiles. And not to be overlooked is the relationship that the auto industry, and more specifically GM, has forged with Major League Baseball (MLB) over the past many decades.

In the mid-1970’s it was “Baseball, Hot dogs, Apple Pie and Chevrolet,” in a then-famous multi-faceted advertising campaign and jingle, and it was updated again in 2006 to accommodate the times.

The point of such Memory Lane nostalgia is to impart that the relationship between the auto industry and MLB began most historically with the advent of television broadcasts of games and the booming car industry sales of the 1950’s.

But further to corporate relationships and revenues is the importance of car sales at the local level, otherwise known as the car dealership. And over the years, from small towns to large, they have been bedrocks of their communities along the byways and across the highways.

For dealerships, and their respective service departments, provide payroll taxes, sales tax revenue, pay real estate and property taxes, pay state and local income taxes, among other required government fees and obligations, to their local governments. And equally important, they provide employment that provides health insurance, pension and other benefits for their many employees.

On May 14, 2009, Chrysler, LLC formally announced the immediate elimination 789 Chrysler dealerships nationwide. On May 15, 2009, GM formally announced the first 1,100 casualties of its expected 40% reduction of its dealerships or over 2,600 expected before the end of 2010. In addition, 2000 GM Pontiac dealerships were permanently ordered shuttered, as Pontiacs will no longer be manufactured again.

Unfortunately, Chrysler’s dealerships had only until June 9, 2009 to fire staff, sell off inventory and parts and to notify its customers with vehicles under warranty that they are going out of business. GM, at least, is allowing its dealers far more time to wind down operations, sell off inventory, advise customers and give the unemployed a leg up. All of this is of course taking place when these jobs, which are not expected to return, impact entire towns in some cases, during the worst “recession” since the Great Depression of the 1930’s.

There could have been a temporary reprieve for Chrysler dealers, from an often disengaged U.S. Congress, by way of a legislative amendment to the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009. It would have preempted allocation of a second round of bailout funds recently promised Chrysler, unless they provided dealers with at least a 60-day notice to help sell off their inventory and to allow appropriate closure of sales operations. Unfortunately, this never came to pass.

So What Has This Got To Do With Baseball?

As previously noted, as loyalists to the community, historically car dealerships, by extension, have supported numerous other businesses; from local parts suppliers, to supporting local newspapers through advertising, to creating business for local proprietors through their employees.

Additionally, car dealerships have always maintained being major sponsors for charities within their communities. These include support for numerous extra-curricular school functions, recreation department activities, animal welfare causes, volunteer fire department programs and any number of fund raisers.

Most notably, Little League Baseball and various other youth baseball programs throughout the U.S. have been traditionally supported by car dealerships. It is a win-win as uniforms and T-shirts help with advertising for the car dealer and keeps it involved locally, while being a big part of financing the numerous expenses incurred to run local teams and to help keep kids active and out of trouble.

In parts of the U.S., a small town may have only one or two dealerships or authorized service centers for vehicles within a 100-200 mile radius. Therefore, the closure of a Chrysler or GM dealership could virtually take a whole town with it.

At a time when youth activities have already been compromised due to limited funding, since the crash of the economy in late 2008, the prospects for youth baseball and athletic activities of any kind have not been good. Transportation, team membership dues, and provisions for uniforms and equipment all require funds. And parents, many of whom who are unemployed, under-employed or fearful of becoming jobless, have been forced to put participation in organized sports for their youngsters on hold.

And as all charities compete for donations in these hard times, it is often sports and recreation which are the first to be stricken from the ledger as well, when it comes to businesses solicited for funding. And as if the auto industry was not hurting badly enough, GM will be closing all of it U.S. plants for 9 weeks this summer, and all of its suppliers will see down-time as well.

By 2011, there will be hundreds of thousands of U.S. auto industry workers joining the unemployed, and that does not include the businesses which profit as a direct result from either the U.S. auto industry or its employees.

Similarly, to other youth organized athletic programs, the Reviving Baseball in Inner Cities (RBI) organizations, in many cities throughout the U.S., are operating in the red. RBI provides organized baseball for youth, traditionally for middle school and high school boys, although a few are now including 6 -12 year olds.

Most RBI organizations are dependent upon most, if not all, of their budgets from their own fundraising efforts. MLB, although a sponsor of RBI, contributes minimally to RBI funding and functions more as an endorser of the program than anything else.

Ultimately, the success of any one RBI program is a labor of love by individuals within communities, and largely maintained by single mothers. Yet, transportation to and from games, equipment, uniforms, fees for coaches and umpires, food and drink, upkeep of fields – which very often is done by the parents – still are associated costs, similar to those of Little League Baseball.

Some have asked, “What about the youth baseball travel teams, AAU clubs and youth suburban leagues?” Well, this recession, as previously stated, is like no other since the Great Depression. Therefore, it has impacted all sectors of industry and all pay scales of workers, from Wall Street to every street in America.

As previously reported by this journalist in numerous documentations with respect to sponsorships being off throughout MLB in 2009, GM has ended relationships this season with the Pittsburgh Pirates, a community deeply hurting in this recession, the Detroit Tigers, Ground Zero for the auto industry implosion and even the New York Yankees – for whom there is probably not much sympathy these days.

As the result of struggling families, MLB stadium attendance thus far in 2009 for April and most of May is down nearly 6% nationally when compared to the same number of weeks into the 2008 season. Yet, with tickets in many cities still too costly for many, with less discretionary income available, that means less youngsters will be attending MLB games.

One industry that curiously has been spared in this recession is the business of government, from the Beltway and beyond, which keeps adding jobs. And also unlike previous recessions it has included intrusive government policies which have only led to more plant closures, car sales jobs lost and essentially the vaporization of the U.S. car industry, which will never be the same again.

Were the car business not so embedded in the American way of life, perhaps it would be less tragic, but its fallout will be felt for decades to come, on many levels, and few communities will be spared.

And with respect to MLB, it cannot be stated enough times that more than any other professional sports league it has enjoyed multi-billion dollar revenues of $6 – 7 billion dollars each of the last several years. Additionally, MLB Commissioner, Bud Selig, earned the highest salary of any professional sports league commissioner in each of the last several years; $15 million for 2006 and $18.5 million for 2007.

Selig’s 2008 income has yet to be publicly disclosed and may very well not be divulged, as MLB is not required to do so. In fact, Selig was furious when his 2007 salary was leaked to the press earlier this year.

Therefore, it would seem pertinent to MLB’s development and outreach, as it looks forward, that it should not just limit its focus to bottom lines, its number of sponsorships, its broadcast TV deals or escalating player salaries. For if MLB remains as shortsighted as it has been the past several years, not only will the younger generation of potential players and fans erode, but they will permanently vanish.

So too, that which once were dependable American vocations – jobs in both the auto industry’s factories and showrooms – are no longer givens.

And similarly, MLB’s future hangs in the balance. If children are no longer able to afford to play the game, unable to afford the cost of a stadium ticket or even unable to afford current and impending expensive pay-TV packages in order to even watch a game, since very few MLB games ever appear on network television anymore, baseball as we know it will become but a footnote in the history books.

And it would serve MLB well to reinvest in its future right now.

For MLB has gotten greedy, fat and lazy during Bud Selig’s reign, yet it has not gotten too big to fail, as it has already compromised its generations to come.

Copyright ©2009 Diane M. Grassi
Contact: dgrassi@cox.net

MLB Ramps Up Casino Sponsorships

2009-07-04T19:03:00.000-07:00

By Diane M. Grassi

It was 30 years ago when baseball legend, Willie Mays, was banned from Major League Baseball (MLB). Four years later, NY Yankee great, Mickey Mantle, met with the same fate as did Willie. And what was their supposed fall from grace? They each became promotional spokesmen for two Atlantic City casino hotels.

Willie Mays had a deal with the Park Place Casino – now Bally’s Park Place – and Mantle contracted with Del Webb’s Claridge Casino Hotel. The roles both played were as pitchmen for the resorts as they appeared in television and print ads for the respective properties.

At the time, it was MLB Commissioner, Bowie Kuhn, who made both then Hall of Famers “permanently ineligible” to participate in any capacity with MLB. In 1985, after Kuhn’s retirement, then newly appointed Commissioner Peter Ueberroth exonerated both Mays and Mantle, thereby lifting their banishment. Ueberroth proclaimed, “A lot of people will misinterpret my position as being soft on gambling. My stance is as strong as any Commissioner’s going back to Judge Landis. But there’s a need for new rules.”

And the argument could be made back then that both Mays and Mantle were not front-men for gambling, but rather were promoting entertainment interests of hotel resorts.

Fast forward to sometime around 2006 when MLB supposedly relaxed its rule on permitting direct relationships with gambling casino interests and its MLB teams. However, most such deals blossomed for this year’s 2009 baseball season that includes large casino hotel properties as well as many lucrative agreements with Indian reservation hotel casinos.

Sponsorships and the financing of such throughout professional sports as well as amateur athletics are drying up by virtue of the worst recession in 70 years. Added to that is the negative public perception that corporations receiving federal tax bailout dollars should not be dabbling in multi-million dollar contracts for advertising at sports venues nor buying skyboxes and over-priced season tickets at stadiums.

However, there now appears to be a new revenue stream, largely untapped, yet quickly assembled by many MLB teams and with Commissioner Bud Selig’s blessings. But in order to fully appreciate the precariousness of such contracts that MLB has already approved, it is helpful to revisit MLB Rule 21:

(a) Any player or person connected with a club….or who being solicited by any person, shall fail to inform his Major League President and the Commissioner
(d) Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform, shall be declared “permanently ineligible.”

And now the question must be asked. How does MLB oversee such sponsorships between MLB teams and those casino operations which allow legal sports betting on their premises, such as Harrah’s Entertainment, which has become a major sponsor for the NY Mets’ new Citi Field, most prominent in its outfield stands?

Harrah’s is now a Signature Partner of the Mets and has a 12,000 square foot 900 seat capacity full-service restaurant called the Caesar Club. Harrah’s hopes to recreate the atmosphere it provides at its Caesar’s Atlantic City property. Harrah’s will also benefit from naming and branding rights and orchestrate theme nights for baseball fans throughout the season.

It is important to note that Harrah’s casino hotel properties that it owns in Las Vegas, such as Caesar’s Palace, the Flamingo Hotel and Casino, Bally’s and its Rio Hotel and Casino which is host to the World Series of Poker, among others, all have sports books where sports betting on all professional and amateur sports is legal. And such includes sports betting on MLB.

At the new Yankee Stadium, the Mohegan Sun Hotel & Casino also has a presence in its center field stands. Its Mohegan Sports Bar is a 4,900 square foot full-service restaurant with major signage and a naming rights deal with the Yankees. In addition, Seminole Hard Rock Entertainment will own and operate the NYY Steak restaurant as well as the stadium’s new Hard Rock Café. The Seminole Nation is the primary proprietor of all Hard Rock Café and hotel casino properties worldwide, with the exception of the Hard Rock Hotel and Casinos in both Las Vegas and London.

The casino sponsorships for both the Yankees and the Mets are quite lucrative and in the millions of dollars, although MLB clubs do not necessarily accurately disclose the amount of their sponsorships, nor are they required to do so. But the NY teams are hardly in the minority when it comes to lining up for casino riches in the form of sponsorships. The Milwaukee Brewers inked a deal over the winter with the Potawatomi Bingo Casino of the Potawatomi Tribe.

The Brewer’s deal with the Potawatomi Tribe is just second to its deal with Miller-Coors Beer. And in MLB’s logic according to MLB’s Chief Operating Officer, Bob DuPuy, “There is no sports book associated with Potawatomi and casino gambling is now part of the entertainment landscape in 40-plus states and a number of clubs have had advertising and sponsorship relationships with local casinos.”

Perhaps DuPuy does not realize that Harrah’s is in the sports betting industry?

In Detroit there appears to be a long-standing conflict of interest with respect to the ownership of the Detroit Tigers as well as the Motor City Casino, purchased by Ilitch Holdings, Inc. in 2005, which purportedly owns both entities simultaneously.

Michael Ilitch and his wife, Marion Ilitch, are listed as the Tigers’ owner and the Motor City Casino owner, respectively. The question arose when it was revealed that Marion Ilitch is Vice Chairman of Ilitch Holdings, Inc. which also owns the Detroit Tigers. But Ilitch friend and Commissioner Bud Selig overlooked the proprietary conflict and asked his staff to stand-down.

There is indeed no shortage of casino sponsorships throughout the major and minor leagues of baseball. The Atlanta Braves, the Arizona Diamondbacks, the Los Angeles Angels, the Los Angeles Dodgers, the Florida Marlins and the Chicago Cubs all have contractual sponsorships with Indian casinos, gambling interests or state lotteries.

So what impact does this state of affairs have on the “best interests of baseball?” One could say that it was precipitated by Commissioner Ueberroth’s comments“…there’s a need for new rules.” Or did Bud Selig’s multi-billion dollar empire become too greedy for MLB’s own good by accepting a strong presence of gambling partnerships throughout the leagues? Has the appetite for big bucks clouded Selig’s judgment and has he crossed the line?

For MLB must be careful not to step on that 3rd rail; that which endangers its integrity. After all, MLB itself has already gambled on fan loyalty after nearly 20 years of the Steroid Era, also on Selig’s watch.

And finally, if the apparent overlap between gambling interests and MLB is not clear to the MLB Commissioner, then why is he so clear on keeping Pete Rose “permanently ineligible” and forever denying his chance of realizing his place in the Baseball Hall of Fame?

Copyright ©2009 Diane M. Grassi
Contact: dgrassi@cox.net

FALLOUT FROM THE ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005 -A Synopsis-

2009-04-17T19:37:00.000-07:00

By Diane M. Grassi

“Energy independence from foreign sources.” A mantra repeated over and over again by those responsible for establishing United States energy policy. But it remains a contradiction in terms as the topic is never broached candidly by lawmakers as to how much of the U.S. energy infrastructure and lines of transmission have been consumed by a constant stream of foreign direct investors and diversified holding companies.

Also unbeknownst to most consumers is that legislation which led to such deregulation of U.S. public utilities is hailed from Wall Street to Capitol Hill as the answer to resolving U.S. energy woes.

Now, foreign investors have been granted even greater leeway as now realized by such mandates of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005) which essentially eliminated the Public Utilities Holding Company Act (PUHCA) of 1935. Yet, EPAct 2005 has continually escaped public scrutiny and a lack of accountability in both houses of the U.S. Congress.

U.S. energy policy and the generation of power is a complex web of public policy, law, economics, infrastructure and ever-present globalization. So for purposes of this report, and in order to best comprehend current U.S. energy policy, it is helpful to take stock of the more recent evolution of such and to examine its many and varied elements which have changed post-2005.

EPAct 2005 amended Section 203 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) which mandated how future transactions in the energy industry will be handled by the U.S. federal government and will impact matters of states’ sovereignty and ultimately regulating costs to consumers.

For over 70 years, federal laws have played a vital and critical role in the operation, production, distribution and protection of the U.S. electrical power grid. Federal laws in concert with state laws and regulations have necessarily dictated that the power grid be shielded from market manipulation and criminal behavior.

Yet, the 100 year old power grid is faced with increased power demands simultaneously with deregulation by mandate. And deregulation has led to less and less necessary preventative maintenance, upgrades in technology as well as necessary investment in research and development.

The basic structure of the North American transmission system is made up of over 140 control centers and approximately 3500 utility providers covering over 200,000 miles. Utility generating plants, transmission and sub-transmission systems, distribution systems and customer loads traveling over a two-part power grid; one in the east and one in the west. Texas has its own grid.

Compounding the vast network and intricacy of the grid is the interconnectivity and delivery of power that in many cases is incompatible with widely varying levels of equipment integrity, data systems and personnel training.

It is the secondary system which supplies the distribution of electricity to consumers, where most of the power failures occur, and that which require time to repair. And the network of sub-stations feeding electricity to neighborhoods, via feeders which flow to transformers, is where most problems arise during local outages, further exacerbated by ill-maintained equipment.

U.S. deregulation of the utility industry began over two decades ago, and it was the 1992 Energy Policy Act which changed the way electricity was sold to local consumers for the first time. Energy companies were permitted to install their own plants and sought customers throughout the country, but not necessarily in the same geographic region. Energy brokers then entered into the picture and utilized the open market to buy and sell power. And thus came the onset of potential unreliability of energy delivery.

Purchasing power from plants hundreds of miles away from a respective region put unprecedented burdens upon the transmission system, raising the likelihood of power failures at the local level. Most importantly, the U.S. electrical grid was not originally designed to absorb the transmission of high voltage capacity across the continent, especially in absence of comparable and upgraded systems in place.

Although Enron became the poster-child for electrical power market manipulation, which came to light after the rolling blackouts of California in 2000 and 2001, U.S. public policy and lawmakers must be held responsible for even further erosion of federal regulations and mandates now realized in EPAct 2005.

Instead of increasing the odds that such market threats would not reappear, the U.S. government has but relaxed the law, its regulations and oversight even more, with the repeal of PUHCA 1935.

PUHCA 1935 became law after the height of the Great Depression and after the stock market crash of 1929 and was a cornerstone of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal industry legislation. It called for the prohibition of market manipulation, specifically to curtail then super-sized utility conglomerates, and to prevent monopolies from overtaking geographic regions. And just as importantly, PUHCA 1935 made it unfeasible for non-energy corporations to purchase a public utility.

The emergence and formation of the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) in 1934, together with PUHCA 1935 became essential in safe-guarding the public trust and in protecting consumers and investors alike, as PUHCA 1935 delegated multi-state utility ownership regulation to the SEC.
With the official repeal of PUHCA 1935, in EPAct 2005, the SEC vacated its regulatory authority over multi-state utility ownership by holding companies and only retains the ability to protect investors, not utility consumers and will carry little weight over multinational holding companies.

It is the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) that will now hold individual utilities accountable through self-policing and self-reporting policies of any irregularities such as cross-subsidization.
EPAct 2005 now allows multi-state transactions and mergers of distribution facilities, utilities merging with non-utility corporations, and including foreign ownership over domestic utilities. Oil companies may now own electricity and natural gas utilities, paving the way, yet again, for the formation of cartels. Construction and infrastructure companies, from abroad, are eager to partake in being afforded acquisition of U.S. public utility operations as well.

No individual state or federal agency will have the jurisdictional efficacy to regulate the finances of U.S. public utility assets. Required oversight of parent holding companies such as investment banks, which speculate and invest in far riskier businesses with utility rate-payer revenues, is not established nor mandated in EPAct 2005.

The cost? The reliability standards of U.S. public utilities, which could have grave ramifications on U.S. national security, the U.S. economy and the well-being and safety of the American people; all with the blessings of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the U.S. Congress and the global stock market.

EPAct 2005 does set forth specific mandates, unprecedented with respect to U.S. energy law, states’ constitutional rights and sovereignty, as well as interstate commerce. Specifically, Section 1221 of EPAct 2005 updates Section 216 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) for a National Transmission Congestion Study which paved the way for the mandated National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors (NIETC). The Secretary of Energy may designate “any geographic area experiencing electric energy transmission capacity constraints or congestion that adversely affects consumers as a national interest electric transmission corridor.”

The DOE then created as a direct result of the study two transmission corridors which consist of the Mid-Atlantic Area National Corridor and the Southwest Area National Corridor and finalized in October 2007.
Many state governors, state representatives, many federally elected members of the U.S. Congress, consumer advocacy organizations, and environmental and historic preservation organizations, oppose such corridors.

The enormity of the construct of the Mid-Atlantic Area National Corridor will impact states legislatively, constitutionally, economically, environmentally and historically. The Mid-Atlantic Area National Corridor states include the entireties of New Jersey, Delaware, and Washington, D.C., most of Maryland, most of New York; most of Pennsylvania, most of West Virginia, and major areas of Ohio, and major areas of Virginia.
In contrast, the Southwest Area National Corridor includes parts of California and parts of Arizona, albeit the most heavily populated areas of these states.

The NIETC lays the groundwork for supplemental transmission siting approval in the construction of High-Voltage Direct-Current (HVDC) Transmission lines, above ground, throughout all the NIETC designated states, whether or not that particular state in fact has an electricity congestion problem itself. Additionally, the entirety of the U.S. power grid, as it presently exists, uses High-Voltage Alternating-Current (HVAC) Transmission lines.

Only 2% of the 200,000 electrical transmission line miles throughout the U.S. are HVDC. According to the Government Accountability Office Report of February 1, 2008, (GAO-08-347R) with respect to HVDC, there will be “higher costs for short-distance lines due to the cost of equipment needed to convert DC into AC electricity used by residents and a lack of electricity benefits to consumers living along these lines –unless converter stations are installed at intermediate locations – because such lines are generally not connected to local electricity lines.”

The rationale for designation corridors is not to facilitate or dictate how the states’ regions, transmission providers or electric utilities should meet their own energy challenges, according to the DOE. But the truth is quite the opposite.

“The process is geared more toward expediting the approval and siting of transmission corridors than it is geared toward respecting states’ rights about their residents’ energy future and needs…and by a heavy-handed centralized one-size fits all approach..,” according to Congressman Maurice Hinchey (D-NY). And it is precisely such sentiments that have been raised to the Secretary of Energy, Samuel Bodman, by both federal and state lawmakers on both sides of the aisle in all 10 states and Washington, D.C. that will be directly impacted by the NIETC.

This EPAct 2005 legislation enables eminent domain law over states by the federal government on a scale unlike the U.S. has ever seen and is historically unprecedented, and with respect to the federalization of U.S. power transmission.

As such, the law provides for the DOE to assign the FERC siting authority. In other words, the U.S. federal government shall dictate to individual states the transmission of their own energy and by extension, the loss of state price controls. For state Public Utility Commissions always represented consumers and oversaw pricing and maintenance standards.

The FERC is given authority “to issue permits for the construction or modification of transmission facilities in a National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor if FERC finds that: (1)(A) a state in which the facilities are to be constructed is without authority to approve the siting of the facilities or to consider the interstate benefits expected to be achieved by the project; (B) the applicant for a permit is a transmitting utility that does qualify for a permit federally but does not qualify for a permit under state law because it does not serve end-use customers; or (C) the state has siting authority but (i) it has withheld approval for the later of one year after the filing of an application; or (ii) conditioned approval in such a way that the proposed construction will not significantly reduce transmission congestion or is not economically feasible.”

And, “If a permit holder cannot obtain the necessary rights-of-way for the project, the permit holder can acquire the rights-of-way through an eminent domain proceeding in the federal district court where the property is located….A right-of-way acquired in an eminent domain proceeding is a taking of private property for which the landowner must receive just compensation, which is the fair market value on the date of exercise of eminent domain.”

However, any fluctuation or rise in real estate property values during the course of the proceeding and including any period of time due to litigation arising from such a proceeding to the time of completion of the project, if finally approved, would be locked in at the fair market value of the initial date of the proceeding, which could potentially take years to resolve.

Historically federal jurisdiction of the siting of transmission lines in states has been reserved solely for federal lands within respective states. Again, it is the state public utility commissions of each given state which have otherwise been the regulators of siting permits and applications.

Reasonably understood is the anger and angst that states’ governors and states’ legislators feel having recently learned of the fate of their states’ own power resources and transmission, and in such an injudicious way. In his letter to the U.S. Secretary of Energy, Samuel Bodman, in November 2007 after the NIETC was finalized, Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell wrote, “These transmission lines will be on our land and depreciate our property values, but they may not offer any benefit to Pennsylvania consumers. This designation and action by the federal government is a blatant abuse of states’ rights.”

Already the first official challenge to state transmission siting authority given to the FERC or federal government, as prescribed by such EPAct 2005 mandate, has been filed for appeal. A Southern California Edison (SCE) application to the Arizona Corporation Commission, (ACC) the public utility commission of Arizona, was rejected in May 2007 by the ACC. SCE merely wanted to run a 230-mile transmission line from Arizona to California at a cost of $242 million to Arizona ratepayers.

And the benefit to Arizona? None, as it would specifically serve only Californians and their growing energy needs, not the residents of Arizona. The ACC described SCE’s project as “a 230-mile extension cord” into Arizona’s generation supply.

This likely is just the beginning of struggles ahead, exemplifying a dysfunctional remedy, to “fix” the U.S. power grid’s growing national energy needs and the need for alternative power resources. EPAct 2005 will create an ultimate power grab for power both literally and figuratively, the sights of which the U.S. has never seen.

Now, the U.S. justice system, by use of its federal courts, will bear the brunt of such misguided energy policy, in which the American people had no role. Meanwhile, the infrastructure and power needs of Americans remain at risk from both corporate greed and political intimidation.

Copyright ©2008 Diane M. Grassi

Military Ballots Remain Problematic

2009-04-16T19:50:00.000-07:00

November 30, 2008

By Diane M. Grassi

“At a time when these young people are defending our country and its free institutions, the least we at home can do is to make sure that they are able to enjoy the rights they are being asked to fight to preserve.”

These words were penned to members of the United States Congress during the Korean War when then President Harry S. Truman was expressing his discontent that the votes of active duty soldiers in theater overseas were in jeopardy of their votes not being counted in the Presidential election of 1952.

And although the Presidential election of November 4, 2008 will be official come December 15, 2008 when the Electoral College casts its votes and later tallied by the U.S. Congress on January 6, 2009, remnants of the November 4th election remain with a few states yet to certify their Congressional district vote counts, while a runoff election is set for December 2, 2008 in Georgia’s U.S. Senate District 1.

And in that regard, absentee overseas ballots of serving U.S. military members could ultimately be far more meaningful. With several close races not officially certified, military absentee ballots now play a greater role in those last few razor-thin vote counts ongoing in Minnesota’s Senate District 63 between Republican incumbent Norm Coleman and comedian, Al Franken; Virginia’s 5th Congressional District, presently involved in a court decision, between six-term Republican Virgil Goode and Democrat Tom Perriello; California’s 4th Congressional District between Democrat Tom McClintock and Republican Charlie Brown, who has not yet conceded; and the runoff election in Georgia, featuring incumbent Republican, Saxby Chambliss and Democrat Jim Martin.

Unfortunately, the Minnesota election may either be decided by the courts, similar to the case in Virginia, or could even wind up determined by the U.S. Senate itself, due to contested absentee ballot vote counts and their legal status.

But once again, 8 years removed from the controversial and unprecedented Presidential election of 2000 and its involvement of the U.S. Supreme Court over a disputed Florida ballot count, and 56 years since Harry Truman’s plea to the Congress, the overseas absentee military ballot election process remains terribly flawed and needlessly archaic.

And although the Congress in 1952 did not heed the outcry from President Truman, the 110th U.S. Congress also gets a failing grade in that regard. Legislation designed to specifically expedite the mailing and transit process for troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan for the November 4th election was passed by the Senate on October 1, 2008.

The Military Voting Protection Act (MVP Act) S. 3073, was introduced by Senator John Cornyn (R-TX), of the Senate Armed Services Committee, in May 2008. The Act’s purpose is, “To amend the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) of 1986, to improve procedures for the collection and delivery of absentee ballots of absent uniformed overseas service members and overseas voters and for other purposes.” It would ensure that U.S. military service members be fully able to participate in the electoral process.

The legislation would also require the Department of Defense (DoD) to track each ballot and materials sent between serving military and the various U.S. states to make sure that they properly arrive. And the DoD would be mandated to research the implementation of secure electronic voting mechanisms, most likely via the internet. More specifically, as in its companion bill, H.R. 5673, introduced in the House of Representatives on April 1, 2008, by Representative Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), it allows for the use of private contractors for express shipping instead of the U.S. Postal Service.

Over 500,000 military service members are presently deployed outside the continental U.S. and about 200,000 make up the total serving in Iraq, Afghanistan and other unaccompanied tours of duty. However, that number does not include the spouses of military service members who total approximately 120,000. They, too, face the same hurdles given the present voting process for personnel overseas.

On October 8, 2008, Representative Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) along with 30 other co-sponsors of H.R. 5673, sent a letter to House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, imploring her to move quickly for passage of H.R. 5673, in order to ensure that overseas military votes in this year’s election be received for the November 4th election.

Rather than ratifying passage of the legislation that would have been the best guarantee that self-sacrificing military service members fighting for U.S. liberty abroad could have had, Speaker Pelosi left the legislation on the table as she did its companion bill, S. 3073, passed by the Senate on October 1, 2008.

Interestingly, but sadly so, out of the 54 sponsors of H.R. 5673, 53 were Republican members of the House. And of the 30 co-sponsors of S. 3073, all were Republican members of the Senate. It clearly speaks volumes about the Democrats’ lack of concern about the rights of the U.S. fighting military. And if such lawmakers on Capitol Hill had hoped to correct such a public impression, they have but failed in that regard as well.

As stated by Congressman Bartlett, “It’s very sad that the House leadership blocked a vote on a bill approved by the Senate that would make it easier for American soldiers deployed in harm’s way to vote in federal elections. In 2006, only one-third of the absentee ballots requested were counted because the current system is too cumbersome and complicated.” And Congressman Trent Franks (R-AZ) added, “Knowing that we have experienced problems with counting the absentee ballots from our soldiers, Speaker Pelosi and Democrat leadership have no excuse for disenfranchising our overseas military.”

The complex system that offshore military personnel endure involves 50 states and select territories all with their own unique voting statutes that cover everything from voting registration to obtaining military absentee ballot applications and materials, to the receipt and delivery of the actual voting ballot. For example, some states do not send out absentee ballots until 35-40 days prior to the day of election. Other states such as Rhode Island and Massachusetts send ballots out just 21 days prior to the election, and is certainly not enough time for troops serving in the Middle East or even for troops changing posts stateside, to cast their votes.

In addition, each state has varying rules on how many days past Election Day they allow in order for received ballots to be counted and if the date of receipt is the controlling date or the postmark on the ballot is the date used. In Florida, where 10 days post-election is allowed, only federal races count for those ballots received and not for state or local races, which is the case for all states receiving a Federal Voting Absentee Ballot (FVAB) returned in the mail in lieu of a state produced ballot.

Making it more cumbersome is the combination of the Military Mail Service Agency with the U.S. Postal Service that is used for all mailed overseas military ballots. It is a requirement of all states with the exception of those states who accept faxed ballots, but in outposts in the Middle East, fax machines are not used.

Yet, the U.S. Postal Service and its representative union, the National Association for U.S. Postal Inspectors (NAPUS) has lobbied Speaker Pelosi and members of the Congress in an effort to prevent private contractors from being used for expediting the delivery of military ballots as proposed in both H.R. 5673 and S. 3073. And other members of Congress believe that it directly influenced Speaker Pelosi’s decision to completely drop the legislation.

The number of possible obstacles in the mailing process can be exacerbated by mail getting lost between the U.S. Postal Service and the Military Postal Agency. Mail is initially shipped by military channels and can prove undeliverable based upon periods of heavy combat, that can obstruct supply convoys, as well as replacing mail with higher priority cargo such as weaponry.

The DoD is expressly responsible for the adequate flow of getting essential voting information to troops in addition to overseeing the mail delivery process, known as the Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP). And unfortunately, according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in a June 2007 report, the Election Assistance Commission under the purview of the DoD failed to proceed with an internet based absentee voting system as requested by the Congress, although $25 million was allocated for it.

In the 2006 election, of the 6 million overseas military service members and eligible overseas voters, only 16.5% of them were able to request an absentee ballot. And of the one-third of the total ballots requested by such voters, only 5.5% were able to cast absentee ballots. This was according to the DoD Inspector General and the Election Assistance Commission Report, available in 2007.

Yet, in spite of the tabled legislation earlier this year, the Pew Center on the States has several initiatives it has been working on over several years such as the “adoption of a uniform state law on military and overseas voting” using the Uniform Commercial Code as a basis.

And going forward, Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) currently is preparing legislation, for the next session of Congress, requiring federal funding for states and counties in order to provide internet voting to U.S. citizens overseas. It is the opinion of proponents of electronic voting that since the military depends upon electronic transmission for high security data that certainly a like type of system could be used for the security of electronic voting.

With regard to Virginia’s 5th District seat in the House of Representatives between Republican incumbent Virgil Goode and challenger, Democrat Tom Perriello, Perriello has been certified as the winner by a 745 vote margin. However, Goode has filed for a recount which has yet to be completed for certification.

However, on November 3, 2008, the McCain-Palin Campaign filed a lawsuit against the Virginia Board of Elections and 8 counties, over 4,750 absentee ballots. The issue is pertinent to the inclusion of military and overseas absentee ballots which remain uncounted. The suit contends that UOCAVA requires that ballots be mailed to military voters in foreign countries at least 45 days prior to Election Day, which this year would have been September 20, 2008. It also alleges that Virginia did not mail out the ballots until 35 days prior to the election, or in October, thus preventing sufficient time for voters to mail them back in time for Election Day.

But the state of Virginia contends in the lawsuit that, “There is no federal right to have absentee ballots mailed out 45 days before an election. The plaintiff’s claim is based on mere suggestion by federal officials, and suggestions are not enforceable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.”

Virginia law requires that overseas absentee ballots be postmarked by Election Day and received no later than 10 days thereafter. Yet, the Virginia Board of Elections, as well as most states, does not keep data on how many overseas military members are even registered to vote.

Secondly, the McCain campaign claims that a federal law overrules Virginia state law that requires that a witness address be listed on absentee ballots. Both the state and federal forms issued by the state call for the signature of the witness to provide verification that the signature on the ballot is that of the registered voter. But the FVAB, which may be used in place of the state ballot, does not require the address of a witness, nor is there a space for it, causing even further confusion.

At a hearing on November 4, 2008, U.S. District Court Judge Richard Williams ordered all tardy ballots, in the 8 Virginia counties receiving overseas absentee ballots, be preserved. And on November 17, 2008 he removed McCain-Palin 2008 Inc. as the plaintiff and replaced it with the U.S. Department of Justice. So it will now be up to the U.S. Attorney General’s Office to pursue the contention that the nearly 5,000 ballots be counted. However, the exact number of military ballots remains unknown.

And Tuesday, December 2, 2008, as multi-million more dollars have been doled out for both candidates in Georgia, the remaining contest in 2008 for the U.S. Senate, between Republican incumbent, Saxby Chambliss and newcomer Democrat, Jim Martin, will hopefully be decided.

But the short turnaround time between November 4th and December 2nd in order to mail out ballots again to overseas destinations or even for the return mailing for those soldiers who were able to at least download the form either through the Overseas Vote Foundation website or from the Georgia Board of elections website, time may be too short. All ballots have to be postmarked by December 2, 2008 and received no later than December 5, 2008.

And prognosticators do not believe the Georgia election to necessarily be finalized on December 2nd, either. For short of its certification date, if it too proves to be a razor-thin count margin, expect military and overseas absentee ballots to again be thrown into the mix.

Finally, U.S. voters will be glad to know that NASA astronauts were able to cast their votes on time for this year’s November 4th elections onboard the International Space Station. In fact, a U.S. astronaut voted from the Russian Space Station as far back as 1997. And before this year, 4 different astronauts have successfully voted from outer space.

Digital ballot files are sent to NASA’s Johnson Space Center Mission Control Center which then sends them to the Space Station. The astronauts are then directly e-mailed encrypted credentials and passwords. When completed the encrypted ballots are e-mailed back to Mission Control.

– And for U.S troops overseas protecting the voting rights of Americans stateside? They can only hope.

Copyright ©2008 Diane M. Grassi

Freedom Of the Press

2009-04-16T19:24:00.000-07:00

“The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure.”

–Thomas Jefferson (1823)

It is important to note that democracy has never guaranteed freedom nor specific rights to a people. And in United States history, the misconception has been that the United States Constitution, signed in 1787, in particular, did not give people the right of free speech or freedom of the press, for example, and in fact did not give people any rights at all.

Rather, the U.S. Constitution protected pre-existing fundamental rights and provided for democratically elected officials, vulnerable to abuse their power, over such fundamental rights.

Therefore, it was with the construct of the U.S. Bill of Rights, ratified in 1791, known as the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution, which provided for express restrictions on the interference with those rights, which pre-existed both the formation of the U.S. government or its Constitution.

Although the U.S. Bill of Rights rests on the principle that a democracy does not dictate that freedom is guaranteed, it does serve as a buffer from the government and its officials from censorship over private entities, for they may exercise their rights of private ownership and liberty, fundamental rights the government is required to protect, not that of what they may or may not publish.

And in 18th century America, it was newspapers and the printed word which framed the U.S. Bill of Rights, and specifically the First Amendment, and was a key component in the argument that the Bill of Rights should become a part of the U.S. Constitution.

Primarily, it was Thomas Jefferson, the 3rd U.S. President (1801-1809) and the primary author the U.S. Declaration of Independence, who was insistent that a Bill of Rights was necessary to prevent the government wielding too much power, without any amendments to the Constitution.

And it was perhaps Jefferson who said it best, “Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”
–Thomas Jefferson (1787)

Written by Diane M. Grassi
Copyright © 2008 Diane M. Grassi

Fallout from '05 Energy Policy Act Pt. 3: The Nuclear Option

2009-04-16T19:19:00.000-07:00

June 18, 2008

By Diane M. Grassi

In this third chapter of this ongoing discussion and analysis of United States energy policy and its ramifications both realized directly and indirectly from the U.S. Energy Policy Act of 2005, (EPAct 2005) it would be irresponsible not to include U.S. nuclear energy policy in such analysis.

As such, the EPAct 2005 and its previously referenced and unprecedented mandates, in prior chapters of this report, play a role with the reformulation of the regulation of U.S. nuclear energy and its projected and rather overwhelming imminent comeback.

The nuclear energy industry has become a global proposition given the changing geographic demands of energy needs in newly industrialized nations such as India and China. And it would be foolish for the U.S. to assume that it operates in a vacuum and that its future energy needs and demands will not be impacted by such changes in a global economy; one in which the U.S. is now primarily at the receiving end of offshore manufactured goods, including more and more of America’s food supply.

But the global economy has but given the U.S. government and in particular in this case, the U.S. Department of Energy, (DOE) an excuse to take the proverbial lid off of sound national security policy which has necessarily dictated U.S. energy policy for decades, until now, for the safety of the American people and the integrity of its critical infrastructure.

Although the first large scale civilian nuclear plant started providing electricity in 1957, it was basically between that time and the late 1970’s when all of the current operating nuclear reactor facilities were constructed. And with an average lifespan up to 60 years for each, most of the currently operating 104 U.S. nuclear plants are either in or have applied for their 2nd 20-year licensing period extensions.

Since the last U.S. nuclear reactor was ordered in 1973, those handful that were completed, after 1978 and post-3 Mile Island, were ordered prior to 1973. To wit, in 1996, the last U.S. plant constructed, the Tennessee Valley Authority’s Watts Bar 1 reactor in Tennessee, was the result of a revived dormant license from 1970. And there are plans to build the Watts Bar 2 from another previous license from dating back to1973.

Since U.S. nuclear energy policy has nearly come full circle today, it is important to take stock of its history. The Atomic Energy Commission, (AEC) was formed through the Atomic Energy Act of 1946, originally to specifically oversee the military’s and civic atomic energy programs. And it was given the expanded responsibility, for the first time, to assume dual oversight and regulation of atomic energy both militarily as well as commercially through the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.

But it was through the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, that created the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the present U.S. nuclear regulatory agency, to assume the oversight authority from the AEC. It now regulates most U.S. commercial nuclear activities, including nuclear power reactors and the use of radioactive materials in industry, medicine, agriculture and scientific research as well as fuel cycle facilities and nuclear waste management.

The 1974 law was seen as an opportunity to put trust back into the oversight agency which took on the dual task of both promoting nuclear power while safeguarding the American people, initially in 1954. And it was after that point in time that the American people had already begun to lose trust in the agency’s ability to do so. Apparently, the U.S. government thought that changing the acronym of the agency would calm the public’s displeasures.

But it was during the late 1960’s and early 1970’s when the nuclear plant construction boom was in full gear and simultaneous reassurances from the federal government to keep safeguards in place fell on the deaf ears of energy consumers. Most importantly, the agency was designated to walk a fine line of both promoting commercially viable nuclear energy as well as handling all of the required licensing for new construction of nuclear power plants.

And in this global economy, at a time when the U.S. is seeing extraordinary growth in the foreign direct investment and acquisition in U.S. critical infrastructure, it appears reaped with conflict for the licensing agency to also be able to independently assess potential security risks both civilly and criminally.

Unfortunately, the notorious Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant fire in 1975 in Decatur, AL could have been avoided and was the result of human error rather than an unexpected meltdown. A mechanical technician foolishly was looking for reported air leaks within the reactor with a lighted candle which ultimately started the fire.

But Three Mile Island Unit 2 (TMI-2) nuclear power plant near Middletown, Pennsylvania, on March 28, 1979, was the most serious nuclear plant fiasco in U.S. history. The reactor sustained the melting of half its core, which was later found to be a combination of technical and human error and allowed for released radioactive gases into the atmosphere and putting its employees immediately at risk.

The 3 Mile failure was followed in 1986 by the misfortune of Unit 4 of the nuclear power station at Chernobyl, Ukraine in the former USSR. It emitted radioactive material, far more deadly an accident that 3 Mile Island, affecting 52,000 people in the vicinity, immediately killing 30 people and possibly impacting up to 5 million others.

Nevertheless, it was 3 Mile Island that provided the final nail in the coffin for skittish investors in U.S. nuclear technology, although nuclear facilities throughout the U.S. still provide 20% of electrical power generation. It remains very low in greenhouse emissions and is considered a form of clean energy.

In spite of the NRC’s own damage control to restore safety measures in nuclear plant facilities over the past 30 years, its ill-repute remains along with remnants of trepidation in reinvesting in nuclear energy. Therefore, the apparent overnight reverse course by the DOE in lining up investors to submit license construction applications for nuclear energy plants, with some 20 expected by mid-2009, has set off alarm bells of another sort.

And that brings us back to the EPAct of 2005 which provides for a vast assortment of givebacks, subsidies and federally subsidized loan guarantees including risk insurance packages to the brokers and investors who come a-callin’, totaling billions of dollars worth of incentives. And once again, foreign owned holding companies, foreign government-owned entities and foreign-U.S. joint ventures, acquisitions and mergers will be the recipients of these U.S. taxpayer provided benefits.

The nuclear energy industry not only remains a hot-button issue because of its sullied past, but because of a heightened internal as well as public awareness of its ever-present national security risks it now poses in a post-9/11 world. In addition, there is the issue of the failing power grid infrastructure, which has not been improved in decades, and minimally maintained, along with a continued U.S. deregulation policy from which the American economy may never recover.

All of the aforementioned but creates for a perfect storm, all the while U.S. foreign policy dictates to other nations and regions on the ways in which they may engage or use nuclear material, whether for weaponry or for electrical power distribution.

The first step in trying to comprehend this multi-faceted and current energy policy, based upon both its history as well as current law, is to understand the revised NRC application process. Although the regulation revisions date back to 1989, the most recent and final rules were not certified and published in the Federal Register by the NRC until August 2007 (10 CFR Part 52).

The revisions have changed the entire regulatory review process and framework for the construction of new nuclear reactors and facilities. And over the next 18 months, such changes in the regulation process, with ink barely dry, will be tested in a paint-by-numbers fashion.

The EPAct 2005 while not intrinsic to the actual changes in NRC rule making, has played a consequential role in incentives for investors and ultimately the NRC’s seeming rush to finalize regulation revisions over a matter of months, after many years they were held in virtual abeyance.

And now the one time 2-step licensing process created for its thoroughness and for compliance with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as well as providing enough time to have the appropriate number of public hearings, has been whittled down to a 1-step process; one that appears less investigative in scope and more equivalent to drive-through governance.

In order to supposedly bring an improved regulatory model for U.S. nuclear energy construction, which the NRC believes to be more efficient, the COL, or combined license application, early site permits (ESP), and standard design certifications pushes the process along more quickly. However, also cut in the process will be preoperational hearings on plant construction qualification that would be limited and not required by the NRC, and minimizing public input.

The ESP procedure includes site safety issues and emergency plans apart from the plant design. The NRC’s and nuclear industry’s reasoning is that the new process will cut down on delays, cost overruns and reduce the application process down to 42 months. In that regard, there is some speculation that the next nuclear plant could break ground in the U.S. by the end of 2010 and perhaps be completed by 2015.

In the final part of this series, the actual players or investors in new U.S. nuclear plants construction will be addressed as well as who and from where from these entities hale. And the mechanisms mandated in the EPAct 2005 for lucrative financial rewards to these corporations will be discussed. Whether or not such investors will be even remotely close to ensuring the fiscal as well as environmental health of the American people is an important question which will be asked.

And finally, that which is most crucial in this entire changing energy landscape, that being the national security of the U.S, was etched into law in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 in 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2011 (1954) as follows: “Aliens and entities owned, controlled or dominated by aliens or foreign governments may not engage in operations involving the utilization of energy. This restriction applies primarily to nuclear reactors and reprocessing plants extracting plutonium.”

Yet, as will be analyzed in Part 4 of this series, we will see that through the use of joint ventures, foreign holding companies, license transfers and majority subsidiary investment mergers, rubber-stamped by virtually all branches of the U.S. government, historically held energy law no longer remains the watchdog it was once meant to be. Therefore, the best interests of the American people are now marginalized and the future national security interests of the U.S. may be forever compromised.

Copyright ©2008 Diane M. Grassi
Contact dgrassi@cox.net

U.S. TROOPS INSPIRE PROS OF THE DIAMOND

2008-06-04T18:09:00.000-07:00

By Diane M. Grassi

On the heels of Memorial Day 2008 and in anticipation of the 232nd celebration of United States Independence Day on July 4th 2008, Americans traditionally give thanks to our nation’s military service members.

And traditionally, Major League Baseball, (MLB) partly due to where its season falls on the calendar, including May and July, through its various teams provides public ceremonies and military displays prior to game times, during 7th inning stretches and with post-game fireworks on these holidays, in honor of U.S. active-duty troops and veterans alike.

But given the times in which we live, nearly seven years since the terrorist attacks on U.S. soil on September 11, 2001, followed by the War in Afghanistan, referred to as Operation Enduring Freedom, and in the War in Iraq, referred to as Operation Iraqi Freedom, our military remains fully engaged in fighting our enemies and the war on terrorism in two countries in the Middle East.

For purposes of this report, political ideology and foreign policy will not be discussed, but rather it will be devoted to how important it remains for Americans to maintain a connection with our fighting men and women not only in the Middle East, but around the world as well as stateside.

One way in which troops remain motivated, as we all do, is by following our favorite sports and our favorite players. Fortunately, many MLB players have made a commitment to help boost troop morale in support of our troops in various creative ways, which will be highlighted here.

For as we take pause on these holidays to salute our military, we must be more conscious to do so throughout the year, not simply when we are reminded on holidays or during the good times.

This reporter received a press release on May 16, 2008, sent by a United States Air Force Public Affairs officer serving in Bagram, Afghanistan. The unclassified memo detailed an event which took place at the Bagram Airfield on Mother’s Day, May 11, 2008. Through the efforts of Pro Sports Marketing, Ventures & Promotions (MVP) of Colorado Springs, CO, and its Heroes of the Diamond Tour in conjunction with the Morale, Welfare and Recreation division of Bagram Airfield, four MLB player retirees were afforded a visit with over 400 troops located there.

The four players making the trip were former relief pitcher, Jeff Nelson, of the Seattle Mariners and NY Yankees fame, who retired in 2007, joined by Tim Salmon, former outfielder for the Los Angeles Angels and retired in 2006, along with 3rd baseman, Dean Palmer, who last played for the Detroit Tigers and retired in 2003 and Mike Remlinger, former relief pitcher who ended his career with the Atlanta Braves in 2006.

The journey to visit the troops in Bagram, while not without complications and prior delays, required a commitment from the athlete visitors and the ability for them to be flexible with their plans, as traveling to a war zone comes with its inherent dangers requiring additional security details. But as Jeff Nelson recalls, “I’d heard stories of people going and how it can be life-changing.”

Nelson was originally on tap to travel to Bagram in 2007, but due to military concerns, the trip was postponed until April 2008, when it was postponed again until May. Nelson was not as concerned about his safety knowing that, “They’re going to try and keep you out of harm’s way.”

In my correspondence with U.S.A.F. Tech. Sergeant, Kevin P. Wallace, assigned to public affairs at Bagram Airfield, he disclosed that he got to spend some time visiting with Tim Salmon and relayed that all four players autographed baseballs, posed for photos which they also signed, and hung out with and talked with as many of the service members as possible at the Bagram Airfield Clamshell and various stops in Afghanistan and other deployed locations there where troops are serving, over a period of 10 days.
“I have been watching Tim Salmon since I was a kid, said Army Sgt. Jeff M. Lucenti. “It means a lot because I was at the last game he played in,” he said. Dean Palmer recalled that being able to talk with the service members and listening to the things that they experienced has been one of the best experiences of his life.

Air Force Lt. Col. Rob Rocco emoted, “Today is Mother’s Day and yet they sacrificed time to be here with us.” Mike Remlinger stated before the troops that, “We wanted to come and show how much we support you.” He later recalled that, “Being here with these soldiers and listening to their stories makes me realize how real this war is.”

And while giving of time to actually visit deployed U.S. troops, in this case by retired MLB players, is probably the most meaningful to U.S. service members, as well as for the athletes, there are other active MLB players who have taken on personal missions to support U.S. troops stateside.

Among MLB players making commitments, both financially and through dedicating time with active-duty troops, veterans and their families are Barry Zito of the San Francisco Giants, Scott Linebrink of the Chicago White Sox, Jeff Suppan of the Milwaukee Brewers, Jamie Walker of the Baltimore Orioles, Aaron Harang of the Cincinnati Reds and the San Diego Padres organization. In fact, the Padres are the only MLB team with a dedicated military marketing department.

Probably receiving the most attention is Barry Zito’s organization, Strikeout for Troops, started in the 2005 season, which encourages MLB players to pledge a dollar amount donation for every pitcher’s strikeout or a batter’s every RBI, homerun or hit throughout the entire season. Donations are used for the care of returning wounded troops as well as their family’s needs.

White Sox reliever, Scott Linebrink is hosting military veterans each month of the 2008 season at U.S. Cellular field. His outreach program, Scott’s Heroes, in conjunction with the Wounded Heroes Foundation, Inc., gives VIP treatment for two veterans to meet Linebrink, meeting with them on the field before batting practice and providing each with 5 tickets to the game. Linebrink, who comes from a military family, simply feels that, “I think it’s something that a lot of us need to do to voice our support for these troops.”

Jeff Suppan, the Brewers pitching starter, introduced Soup’s Troops, in partnership with the Milwaukee Brewers and the USO of Wisconsin. It benefits military service members to attend Miller Park games in the 2008 season. The Brewers donate 4 field-level seats to active military personnel as well as families of fallen soldiers. And Suppan and his wife Dana pay the tab of up to $200.00 worth of food and merchandise for each group. He also pledges $100.00 per strikeout throughout the season to the Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund, with each amount matched by the Brewers Charities foundation. It benefits children of fallen soldiers.

Jamie Walker, relief pitcher for the Baltimore Orioles, donates money to the U.S. Army Emergency Relief Fund and provides a luxury box at Camden Yards to host soldiers and wounded veterans returning from the Middle East, with food and drinks on him.

Aaron Harang, starting pitcher for the Cincinnati Reds and his Aaron’s Aces program hosts 30 military family members per game at Great American Ball Park, and they attend a meet-and-greet session in the Red’s bullpen where Harang signs autographs, gives the fans T-shirts as well as vouchers for concessions. These fans are also put on the JumboTron scoreboard in the 2nd inning. Harang importantly notes, “If we start getting other teams and players involved, we can expand it. It would be great if a bunch of guys got together to do this at different stadiums.”

Harang, who grew up in the military city of San Diego, CA and Scott Linebrink, who previously played for the San Diego Padres there, both realize the importance of service where San Diego has the largest active-duty military members’ concentration in the U.S. As such, the San Diego Padres organization has been steadfast in the support of the military community in San Diego and around the world, noted as the Team of the Military by the U.S. Department of Defense.

The San Diego Padres has joined the America Supports You program of the U.S. Department of Defense in numerous charitable causes in addition to many others ways as it remains not only the only franchise in MLB with the only dedicated military affairs marketing department but the only professional sports franchise in the nation with one.

As dedicated and generous as these aforementioned efforts matter and mean to the various players, teams and the beneficiaries of such good causes, it is frightfully deficient when looking at the big picture. And as well-meaning such philanthropic and outreach programs are, such efforts require momentum and a constant stream of like-efforts in order to remain sustainable.

Praise is deserved for those MLB players who have personally taken it upon themselves to raise awareness of the needs of our active-duty troops, veterans and their families and largely with their own funding and ingenuity. But in researching these efforts it has but crystallized the dearth of such funding and efforts generated by MLB, Inc. as well as the MLB Players Association and other MLB teams. Perhaps shortsighted on their part is that lifting the morale of U.S. troops provides a reciprocal benefit for players’, teams’ and fans’ morale as well. It is but a win-win which should be encouraged.

For as Barry Zito has expressed, “Sometimes, in a world where professional sports and celebrities are front-page news, it’s easy to forget who the real heroes are in this country.” Let us never forget.

Copyright ©2008 Diane M. Grassi
Contact: dgrassi@cox.net

LOSS OF JAMIEL SHAW'S LIFE TRANSCENDS SPORTS

2008-06-04T18:01:00.000-07:00

By Diane M. Grassi

–“I’m safer, somewhat, in Iraq than my son is on the streets of the United States. …My country let me down.” –Sgt. Anita Shaw, United States Army

March 2, 2008 in Los Angeles, CA was no different than any other in the crime-ridden areas of the City of Angels where the homicide rate has risen by 27% since the same time period in 2007. What differentiates March 2, 2008 from other days, however, is that in areas not well known to be crime-ridden, where residents in communities try to get by in doing right by their neighbors, there is a war brewing for which they are unarmed.

Jamiel Shaw, Jr., a 17-year old Los Angeles High School football star running back, finishing his junior year in high school as the Southern League’s most valuable player, was celebrated by family, friends and his community. But Jamiel Shaw, Jr. was not only celebrated for being able to run with a football or beat county records on his track team, but as one who also represented ideals that every family strives for such as his commitment to his education, his devotion to his church and his loyalty to his family.
Unfortunately, on March 2, 2008, Jamiel Shaw, Jr. was slain three houses down from his own home at 6 o’clock on that Sunday evening after returning to his neighborhood by public transportation, following a weekend football symposium in which he participated. In fact, he was talking to his father on his cell phone minutes before he turned the corner prior to walking up his block.

Within minutes, Jamiel’s father, Jamiel Shaw, Sr., heard what he thought was a back-firing vehicle on the nearby interstate, poked his head outside of the front door and saw a crowd gathering in the direction in which his son was walking. Jamiel Shaw, Sr. ran down the street, only to find his son mortally wounded with a bullet hole in his head, lying on the ground.

The national mainstream media and numerous media outlets throughout Los Angeles, primarily the week that Jamiel was murdered, reported it as another ghetto crime as the result of gang violence. That caption, however, was not only inaccurate and incomplete but was a disservice to the real issues underlying this important story on a number of fronts. But such could not be handily fit into a headline sound bite for sensational purposes. So, the story angle was spun to fit an agenda.

Important to note, however, is that the essence of Jamiel Shaw, Jr. was not simply that of an aspiring athlete, already accepting football recruitment inquiries from Stanford University, Rutgers University and Arizona State University. For Jamiel Shaw, Jr.’s family did not raise Jamiel as a footballer but as a good human being, in order to excel in whatever path he chose for his life and to hopefully inspire his friends to do the same.

The family of Jamiel Shaw, Jr. included his dedicated father, raising him and his 9-year old brother while his mother was serving her 2nd tour of duty in Iraq as a Sergeant in the United States Army. He also had an involved extended family, including school friends and church members, in what is now considered an old-school community, where folks still look after each other. And no, Jamiel did not live in a crime infested gang-banging ghetto.

The story of Jamiel Shaw, Jr., as reported, is not that of sensation but rather that of the war between our communities and our federal, state and local governments. For they have dropped the ball, not Jamiel, not his family, not his neighborhood.

Non-observation by local law enforcement and corrections officials, in confirming the legal immigration status of prisoners in U.S. county, state and federal prisons violates federal law and puts our citizens at risk. And it goes without saying that the non-arrest of persons illegally entering U.S. borders who then go on to commit criminal acts against Americans is but an act of criminality unto itself.

Such criminal and illegal aliens incarcerated in U.S. jails and in prisons serving time, upon such completion of their served time, are to be turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) authorities, an agency of the Department of Homeland Security. They are then to arrange for the immediate deportation of such criminals back to their country of origin. Such is a requirement and a duty mandated by federal law.

The now arraigned, alleged murderer of Jamiel Shaw, Jr., Pedro Espinoza, is being held in lieu of a $1million dollar bond on first degree murder charges with a special circumstance, as an active participant in a criminal street gang, where the murder is carried out to further the activities of the criminal street gang.

But the legal status of Pedro Espinoza, a 19-year old illegal alien from Mexico, was not confirmed either by California law enforcement or the California Department of Corrections, prior to his release from the Los Angeles County Jail on March 1, 2008. He had been serving a prison term of less than 4 months for assault with a deadly weapon, possession of an unregistered handgun, carrying a concealed weapon without a license and resisting arrest. Moreover, he was never charged with being in the U.S. illegally.

Had the system worked properly, Pedro Espinoza would not have been let back into the community from which he was supposed to have been deported, and within 24 hours of his release he would not have been able to acquire another handgun, only to murder Jamiel Shaw, Jr.
Furthermore, when Jamiel Shaw, Jr. was gunned down in cold blood, it was not simply a matter of another street gang statistic.

For Pedro Espinoza belonged to the 18th Street Gang, a trans-national organization with direct ties to the Mexican Mafia. And some of Mexico’s largest drug cartels, with human smuggling and para-military weaponry operations, and some of the most powerful in all of Central and South America have direct ties to the Mexican Mafia gang.

Mexican drug cartels are now utilizing U.S. based Mexican gangs to aid them with the illegal U.S. importation of cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine, all of which wind up on American streets. No, the 18th Street Gang is not your garden variety neighborhood gang-banger operation.

But the convenient and continual spin by both Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Los Angeles Police Commissioner William Bratton is that policing by enforcing immigration laws and obtaining gang members’ legal status but violates their civil rights.

They refer to Special Order 40, originally passed by the Los Angeles City Council in 1979 in order to encourage illegal aliens at that time to report crimes within their neighborhoods. Nearly 30 years later, and now a much different world, due to the neglect of our federal government in protecting the U.S. southern border, Special Order 40 has but backfired on the very people it was intended to protect. It designated Los Angeles as a “sanctuary city” for those illegally entering the U.S. and now by extension to felons of trans-national organized crime. It has outlived its intended purpose.

Since the death of their son, Jamiel’s parents have become pro-active in working to amend Special Order 40, in proposed legislation called Jamiel’s Law, through the efforts of prospective Los Angeles mayoral candidate, Walter Moore. Also, through a motion introduced by Los Angeles Councilman, Dennis Zine, to the Los Angeles City Council on 4/08/08 similar revisions were submitted. The goal is to eliminate the unabated and federally unlawful protective status accorded illegal aliens, now overwhelming the 9,600 member police force of Los Angeles.

The Shaw Family will now utilize this moment to help elevate all of us as Americans in coming together, not to divide our cities, unlike our politicians and bureaucrats who so relish in doing so. The Shaw Family’s hope is to engage our law enforcement officials with the very communities they purport to protect.

And Jamiel’s father believes that he has a calling not only on behalf of his now deceased son Jamiel, but his young son, Thomas, who no longer wants to be a footballer like his big brother was, but “a scientist” so that he can “invent a time machine” and turn back time in order to spare his big brother’s ultimate fate.

Copyright © 2008 Diane M. Grassi
Contact: Dgrassi@cox.net

Fallout from the Energy Policy Act of 2005 Pt. 2

2008-04-09T21:58:00.000-07:00

Energy Department Trumps States' Rights

(Part 2 of A Series)

By Diane M. Grassi

As discussed in Fallout from the Energy Policy Act of 2005 Part I of a Series, the United States federal government is taking a more and more integral role in the distribution and transmission of electricity and in the energy sector throughout the U.S.

And such is the result of both federal regulations and laws mandating the deregulation of public utilities as well as the repeal of the Public Utilities Holding Company Act (PUHCA) of 1935, as mandated in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005). It will prove to have profound impacts on the future of not only the fiscal health of public utilities but the oversight of their maintenance and the future construction of transmission lines.

This Part II continuing report, on the exploration of EPAct 2005, will focus upon a section of the law which has not been clearly articulated for the American people by either the Department of Energy (DOE) or members of either the U.S. House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate. Yet, this complex and important body of law represents but an ad hoc and unilateral takeover of not only the direction of energy policy but the very delivery system which Americans rely upon in order to live.

EPAct 2005 sets forth specific mandates whose ramifications are unprecedented with respect to U.S. energy law, states' constitutional rights and sovereignty, as well as interstate commerce. Specifically, Section 1221 of EPAct 2005 updates Section 216 of the Federal Power Act (FPA).

It provides for, among other things, the requirement of a National Electric Transmission Congestion Study, first completed in August 2006, a year after enactment of EPAct 2005. Such a Congestion Study will then be repeated every 3 years thereafter.

And it is the National Transmission Congestion Study which paved the way for the mandated National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors (NIETC). According to Section 1221(a) of EPAct 2005 (Section 326 of FPA, 16 U.S.C. Section 824p) the Secretary of Energy may designate "any geographic area experiencing electric energy transmission capacity constraints or congestion that adversely affects consumers as a national interest electric transmission corridor."

And the DOE then proposed as a direct result of the study two transmission corridors which consist of the Mid-Atlantic Area National Corridor and the Southwest Area National Corridor. The draft NIETC was issued in April 2007 and finalized in October 2007 by the DOE.

Why you may not be aware of such transmission corridors and their intended purpose can be answered simply because the public and consumers of public utilities were given little or no notice of opportunities to weigh in and attend very limited public hearings, abruptly announced in May 2007 by the DOE to take place in the very same month. That gave little time for proper public notice for participation by residents, lawmakers, ratepayers and consumer advocates, to name but a few.

Even more disconcerting is that the DOE claims that EPAct 2005 does not require it to hold any public hearings regarding the NIETC. And in spite of over 2000 written comments and reports submitted to the DOE by state governors, U.S. state and federal elected representatives, consumer advocacy organizations, and environmental and historic preservation organizations, which all protested such corridors because of the lack of public input, the DOE would have none of it.

Instead, the DOE made no changes or acted upon any of the recommendations it received on its draft proposal by finalizing the NIETC in October 2007, as originally drafted.

In terms of the enormous implications in the construct of the Mid-Atlantic Area National Corridor, on paper at least, there now exists an exact list of those states which are encompassed by it and will be impacted in a variety of ways; legislatively, constitutionally, economically, environmentally and historically.

Following is a list of those states and counties designated in the Mid-Atlantic Area National Corridor: the entireties of New Jersey, Delaware, and Washington, D.C.; 22 of 24 counties in Maryland and all of Baltimore City, MD; 47 of 62 counties of New York; 7 of 88 counties of Ohio; 52 of 67 counties of PA; 15 of 95 counties and 7of 39 independent cities of Virginia; 42 of 55 counties of West Virginia.

By contrast, the Southwest Area National Corridor includes 7 of 58 counties of California and 3 of 15 counties of Arizona, albeit the most heavily populated areas of these states.

The NIETC lays the groundwork for transmission siting approval in the construct of High-Voltage Direct-Current (HVDC) Transmission lines above ground and throughout all NIETC designated states, and whether or not that particular state in fact has an electricity congestion problem. Initially problematic is that nearly the entirety of the U.S. power grid, as it presently exists, uses High-Voltage Alternating-Current (HVAC) Transmission lines and allows current to automatically reverse direction at regular intervals if necessary. HVDC requires an operator to reverse direction and its current flows in one direction only.

Only 2% of all electrical transmission line miles in the U.S. are presently HVDC. While the DOE insists that HVDC technology includes lower costs over long distances, in reality constructing HVDC lines costs more than construction of HVAC lines for short distances over a wide expanse of area. And according to the Government Accountability Office Report of February 1, 2008, (GAO-08-347R) with respect to HVDC, there will be "higher costs for short-distance lines due to the cost of equipment needed to convert DC into AC electricity used by residents and a lack of electricity benefits to consumers living along these lines –unless converter stations are installed at intermediate locations – because such lines are generally not connected to local electricity lines."

The rationalization for designation corridors is not to facilitate or dictate how the states' regions, transmission providers or electric utilities should meet their own energy challenges, according to the DOE. But truth be told, it is quite the opposite.

"The process is geared more toward expediting the approval and siting of transmission corridors than it is geared toward respecting states' rights about their residents' energy future and needs…and by a heavy-handed centralized one-size fits all approach..," according to Congressman Maurice Hinchey (D-NY). And it is precisely such sentiments that have been raised to the Secretary of Energy, Samuel Bodman, by both federal and state lawmakers on both sides of the aisle in all 10 states and Washington, D.C. that will be directly impacted by NIETC.

And most crucial to note, EPAct 2005 enables eminent domain law over states by the federal government on a scale unlike the U.S. has ever seen.
In its effort to modernize the transmission lines infrastructure, EPAct 2005 provides for the DOE to assign the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) siting authority.

To review from Part I of this series, FERC is central to the regulation of energy policy both fiscally as well has been given oversight authority on the applications of new construction of transmission line sites.

Under Section 216(b) of EPAct 2005 –Back-Stop Siting Authority –FERC is given authority "to issue permits for the construction or modification of transmission facilities in a National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor if FERC finds that: (1)(A) a state in which the facilities are to be constructed is without authority to approve the siting of the facilities or to consider the interstate benefits expected to be achieved by the project; (B) the applicant for a permit is a transmitting utility that does qualify for a permit federally but does not qualify for a permit under state law because it does not serve end-use customers; or (C) the state has siting authority but (i) it has withheld approval for the later of one year after the filing of an application; or (ii) conditioned approval in such a way that the proposed construction will not significantly reduce transmission congestion or is not economically feasible."

And to add insult to injury, Section 216(e) of EPAct 2005 on Rights-of-Way, "If a permit holder cannot obtain the necessary rights-of-way for the project, the permit holder can acquire the rights-of-way through an eminent domain proceeding in the federal district court where the property is located."

And furthermore, in Section 216(f), "A right-of-way acquired in an eminent domain proceeding is a taking of private property for which the landowner must receive just compensation, which is the fair market value on the date of exercise of eminent domain."

Therefore, any fluctuation or rise in real estate property values during the course of the proceeding and including any period of time due to litigation arising from such a proceeding to the time of completion of the project, if finally approved, would not be taken into consideration.

And the compensation or fair market value of the property to its owner would be locked in by the date of the initial date of the proceeding, which could potentially be years, as in the case of Kelo v. City of New London, CT 545 U.S. 469 (2005).

Crucial in understanding the bone of contention raised primarily by the 10 states within the Mid-Atlantic Area and Southwest Area National Corridors, is that historically, federal jurisdiction of the siting of transmission lines in states has been reserved for federal lands within respective states. It has been the state utility commissions of each given state which have otherwise been the regulators of siting permits and applications.

And it is only reasonable to understand the indignation and concerns by state governors and state representatives to learn that FERC has been granted a new breadth of authority that many believe is counter-productive to the best interests of their respective states and citizens which they believe they know best.

As discussed in Part I of this series, with the repeal of the Public Utilities Holding Company Act of 1935, (PUHCA) holding companies both foreign and domestic will now be the applicants for siting permits in both the Mid-Atlantic Area and the Southwest Area National Corridors for aboveground HVDC transmission lines which will range from 150-160 feet high. That is roughly three times the height of our present HVAC lines throughout the U.S. And they will cover thousands of total miles throughout NIETC, or these 10 states and Washington, D.C.

And in what could be the first official challenge to back-stop transmission authority given FERC, as prescribed by such EPAct 2005 mandate, has been pre-filed for consultation with FERC. A Southern California Edison (SCE) application to the Arizona Corporation Commission, (ACC) the public utility commission of Arizona, was rejected in May 2007 by ACC. SCE merely wanted to run a 230-mile transmission line from Arizona to California at a cost of $242 million to Arizona ratepayers. And the benefit to Arizona? None, as it would specifically be to serve Californians and their growing energy needs.

The ACC described SCE's project as "a 230-mile extension cord" into Arizona's generation supply. And likewise in his letter to Secretary Bodman in November 2007, after the NIETC was finalized, Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell wrote, "These transmission lines will be on our land and depreciate our property values, but they may not offer any benefit to Pennsylvania consumers. This designation and action by the federal government is a blatant abuse of states' rights," Governor Rendell said.

Yet, this is likely just the beginning, exemplifying a dysfunctional remedy, to "fix" the U.S. power grid and growing domestic energy needs, by way of EPAct 2005. It will essentially be a power grab for power both literally and figuratively, the sights of which the U.S. has never seen.

Part III of Fallout from the Energy Policy Act of 2005, will take a look at: the various federal and state laws which the NIETC either directly or potentially violate or conflict with; proposed or pending pieces of legislation in Congress in order to amend specific sections of EPAct 2005; and the mechanisms that the DOE and FERC either already have or expect to have in place in the future in order to maintain effective oversight of such a massive body of law and its unprecedented changes in U.S. energy policy.

Copyright ©2008 Diane M. Grassi
Contact: dgrassi@cox.net

Fallout from the Energy Policy Act of 2005

2008-04-09T21:37:00.000-07:00

By Diane M. Grassi

(Part 1 of a Series)

"Energy independence from foreign sources."

A mantra repeated over and over again by Al Gore, by the Hollywood elite and by candidates running for the 2008 Presidential nomination. But rarely is it ever pointed out how this phrase is but an oxymoron with respect to United States energy policy, which becomes ever more vulnerable, not just as the result of its failing infrastructure, but from misguided public policy decisions.

But never is the topic broached publicly in how much of the U.S. energy infrastructure and lines of transmission have been consumed by a constant stream of foreign direct investors and diversified holding companies. Also unbeknownst to most consumers is that such activity was hailed from Wall Street to Capitol Hill as the answer to resolving U.S. energy woes.

And now those very foreign investors have been granted even greater leeway as now realized by such mandates of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) which essentially eliminated the Public Utilities Holding Company Act (PUHCA) of 1935.

And in 2007, barely after the ink dried from EPAct 2005, the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007 was passed by federal lawmakers and signed into law. EISA conveniently serves to obfuscate critical issues that continue to stress the U.S. electrical power grid, its energy generation and transmission capacity. Yet, EPAct 2005 has continually escaped public scrutiny and a lack of accountability in both houses of the U.S. Congress.

But U.S. energy policy and the generation of power is a complex web of public policy, law, economics, infrastructure and ever-present globalization. So for purposes of this report, and in order to best comprehend current U.S. energy policy, it will be helpful to take stock of the more recent evolution of such and to examine its many and varied elements which have changed again post-2005.

In addition to the repeal of PUHCA 1935, EPAct 2005 amended Section 203 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) which will have an unprecedented and profound impact of its own on how future transactions in the energy industry will be handled by the federal government, impact matters of states' sovereignty and regulating costs to consumers.

For over 70 years, federal laws have played a vital and critical role in the operation, production, distribution and protection of the U.S. electrical power grid. Federal laws in concert with state laws and regulations have necessarily dictated that the power grid be shielded from market manipulation and criminal behavior.

But as the nearly 100 year old power grid has aged, facing a growing population and higher load demands for power, the industry has simultaneously become more and more deregulated by mandate.

And deregulation has led to less and less necessary preventative maintenance, upgrades in technology as well as necessary investment in research and development. And the poorly maintained grid in many of the areas of the country, predominantly the mid-Atlantic and northeast states, has but put even more stress upon its transmission lines.

The basic structure of the North American transmission system is made up of over 140 control centers and approximately 3500 utility providers covering over 200,000 miles. Utility generating plants, transmission and sub-transmission systems, distribution systems and customer loads travel over a two-part power grid; one in the east and one in the west. Texas has its own grid.

Compounding the vast network and intricacy of the grid is the interconnectivity and delivery of power that in many cases is incompatible with widely varying levels of equipment integrity, data systems and personnel training. It is the secondary system which supplies the distribution of electricity to consumers, where most of the power failures occur, and that which require time to repair.

And the network of sub-stations feeding electricity to neighborhoods, via feeders which flow to transformers, is where supposed problems arise during local outages, further exacerbated by non-maintained equipment.

But although deregulation of the utility industry began over two decades ago, it was the 1992 Energy Policy Act which changed the way electricity was sold to local consumers for the first time. Energy companies were permitted to install their own plants and sought customers throughout the country, but not necessarily in the same geographic region. Energy brokers then entered into the picture and utilized the open market to buy and sell power.

And thus began the potential unreliability of energy delivery.

Purchasing power from plants hundreds of miles away from a respective region put unprecedented burdens upon the transmission system, raising the likelihood of power failures at the local level. Most importantly, the electrical grid, as it was originally envisioned, was never designed to absorb the transmission of high voltage capacity across the continent, and especially in absence of comparable and upgraded systems in place.

Although Enron became the poster child for electrical power market manipulation, which came to light after the rolling blackouts of California in 2000 and 2001, U.S. public policy and lawmakers must be held responsible for even further erosion of federal regulations and mandates now realized in EPAct 2005.

The initial most striking change that EPAct 2005 provides is the repeal of PUHCA 1935, now amended as PUHCA 2005, and now administered by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). PUHCA 1935 became law after the height of the Great Depression and after the stock market crash of 1929 and was a cornerstone of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal industry legislation.

It called for the prohibition of market manipulation, specifically to prevent then super-sized utility conglomerates, to prevent mega-mergers and to prevent monopolies from overtaking geographic regions. And just as importantly, PUHCA 1935 made it unfeasible for non-energy corporations to purchase a public utility.

Such abuses led to severe problems in the electric and gas industry in the 1920's and in the 1930's when three utility holding companies owned one-half of the electric utilities in the entire U.S. Thus, the emergence and formation of the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) in 1934, which preceded PUHCA1935, and together became essential in safe-guarding the public trust and in protecting consumers and investors alike, as PUHCA 1935 delegated multi-state utility ownership regulation to the SEC.

Fast-forward to February 8, 2006, six months to the day of the enactment of EPAct 2005, when the official repeal of PUHCA 1935 was realized. As a direct result, the SEC vacated its regulatory authority over multi-state utility ownership by holding companies and only retains the ability to protect investors, not utility consumers or to prevent mega-mergers from consolidating. And now the FERC will assume cursory merger authority over generating plants and holding companies.

The repeal of PUHCA 1935 will not only allow multi-state transactions but also mergers of distribution facilities, utilities merging with non-utility corporations, and including foreign ownership over domestic utilities.

Furthermore, oil companies may now own electricity and natural gas utilities, paving the way, yet again, for the formation of cartels. In addition, construction and infrastructure companies, especially those from abroad, are eager to partake in being afforded carte blanche in the acquisition of U.S. public utility operations.

In the post-PUHCA 1935 era, no individual state or federal agency will have the jurisdictional teeth to effectively regulate the finances of U.S. public utility assets totaling more than one trillion U.S. dollars. Nor will there be required oversight of such holding or parent companies such as investment banks from speculating and investing in far riskier businesses, with utility rate-payer revenues. - We have already seen evidence of such with the current sub-prime mortgage loan crisis.

At cost? The reliability standards of U.S. public utilities, which could have grave ramifications on U.S. national security, the U.S. economy and the well-being and safety of the American people; all with the blessings of the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Congress and the global stock market.

To be continued in Part 2 of a Series. Next Up: Energy Department Uses Power to Trump States' Rights

Copyright©2008 Diane M. Grassi
Contact: dgrassi@cox.net

MLB Goes to Harlem Seeking Welfare

2008-04-09T21:30:00.000-07:00

There Goes the Neighborhood!

By Diane M. Grassi

It would make one wonder if indeed MLB believes that it is but recession-proof, given the $6.75 billion dollars in revenue it took in for the 2007 MLB season and its $5.2 billion totals for 2006.

But it is a reality that less and less discretionary income is available to average or marginal baseball fans going into the 2008 MLB season. And at the same time, gas prices at the pump are expected to flirt with $4.00 a gallon.

Even so, it has not deterred MLB and two of its two major league teams from cashing in on public entitlements, courtesy of the City of New York. It is well known throughout the country that tax abatements and waived property taxes are the modus operandi for many cities and counties in order to supposedly retain major corporate conglomerates, threatening to relocate elsewhere.

That brings us to New York’s Mayor Michael Bloomberg who in 2004 gave himself credit for ending the squeeze by corporations from getting tax breaks to remain in NYC.

“We’ve essentially ended corporate welfare as we know it, by no longer paying companies -- who wouldn’t have left anyway -- to stay in our great city,” Bloomberg said back then.

But even after Mayor Bloomberg lauded himself as the anti-corporate welfare czar, monies to the tune of $650 million in city and state subsidies were given to Goldman Sachs to build its headquarters in Battery Park City, or 9/11’s Ground Zero, and $240 million were allocated in givebacks to JP Morgan Chase, also to build in lower Manhattan, after stating that it would move to Stamford, CT, and later unsubstantiated by the City of Stamford.

Under the guise of revitalizing lower Manhattan after the streets were deserted as the result of the terrorist attacks of 9/11, this ploy by Mayor Bloomberg was somehow forgivable by the legislators and politicos of NYC and New York State.

Then came the new Yankee Stadium and the new stadium for the Mets. Both the Yankees and the Mets essentially led successful swindles, as both stole home with the blessings of City Hall.

As both stadiums near the end of construction, with both planned to be ready for the 2009 MLB season, the tallying of total costs to the NYC and NY state taxpayers has begun.

On his weekly radio show on WABC New York on February 29, 2008, Mayor Bloomberg stated that, “Hey, we got a good deal at only spending $75 million each on Yankee and Shea…er..Citi Field stadiums.”
He was referring to the outlay in real costs by NYC for each of the NYC stadiums for the Yankees and the Mets.

But for the owner and founder of Bloomberg Communications and self-made billionaire, Mayor Bloomberg seems to have forgotten his arithmetic along the way. For the actual costs to the city and state of NY for the new Yankee Stadium will total over $800 million and for Citi Field, or what will be known as the new Mets stadium, $500 million has been tallied for a grand total of $1.3 billion in public funding for the two stadiums combined.

This includes tax-exempt bonds, on which the government will pay the interest, tax abatements on property taxes, new street construction, a new railroad station stop for Yankee Stadium, new car garages as well as re-construction of open space for the parks outside of Yankee Stadium, which were completely destroyed.

In fact, the residents of the area outside of Yankee Stadium, a minority community, are now without 400 trees and 21.5 acres of less park space, greenery and playing fields. Although NYC and the Yankees originally promised more parkland, they now include the top of the parking garages as open space, where playgrounds will be put.

And while there is no shortage of propaganda on the benefits that new professional sports stadiums supposedly bring to metropolitan areas, that topic alone is worthy of an additional in-depth report and a far more realistic and intelligent discussion.

And as much as MLB and its owners want to praise themselves for their reputed black ink, it comes but at the expense of taxpayers and local communities, whether they are baseball fans or not.

And more often than not, it comes at the expense of the poorer minority neighborhoods, which are but expendable to big business and to City Hall.

But the latest feat by MLB should make even bona fide global capitalists wince. For in a coup by one of the largest realty developers in the U.S., Vornado Realty Trust, has been granted by NYC’s Planning Commission a waiver to building height restrictions on 125th Street and Park Avenue, which is the main thoroughfare of the historic neighborhood known as Harlem.

In addition, Mayor Bloomberg has been campaigning to rezone the entirety of Harlem allowing massive buildings as tall as 29 stories in order to attract even more major corporate partners.

As part of the waiver to Vornado, which raises the height limit to 21 stories, or an additional four stories, in this mixed-use residential and commercial area, the building will include 630,000 square feet of office space and will contain a variety of corporate businesses.
'
With the steep rise in real estate costs in NYC, many corporate entities are willing to move uptown to save on leasing costs, even at the expense of displacing thousands of people from their residences or crushing over 70 small local businesses in the neighborhoods made up of African-Americans and Hispanic communities.

Of significance, is that those 4 extra stories, most likely to be approved by the NYC Council in the near future, will be occupied by none other than MLB and its new cable television baseball channel. MLB would occupy two floors for executive offices and the top two floors for television studios.

And the Vornado organization also gave NYC an ultimatum along with the height restriction being lifted. They said that without the additional four stories it would be a deal-breaker for them attracting MLB as an anchor tenant in its building and thereby the whole deal would be off.

But it gets even worse, as Vornado also demanded $15 million in a public funding incentive package for itself and an additional $5 million package of incentives to be paid directly to MLB by the City of NY.

Out of that $5 million package part of it would be allowed to cover the costs for redecorating Commissioner Bud Selig’s MLB headquarter offices at 245 Park Avenue, in mid-town Manhattan. This brings but new meaning to corporate-welfare.

The projection of revenue for the MLB baseball television channel, to launch in January 2009, and to be located temporarily in Secaucus, NJ, is somewhere around $550 million over its first seven years, with a guarantee of a minimum of $80 million per year during that time.

It expects between 40 and 50 million viewers upon startup and will initially carry only 26 non-exclusive live games, with the rest of the 24/7 coverage comprised of all-things-baseball.

In 2007 when MLB threatened to remove its MLB Extra Innings packages --allowing fans to pay a premium to cable providers to access many out-of-market games -- from all cable and satellite broadcasters with the exception of Direct TV, it was Senator John Kerry and the Senate Commerce Committee which pushed MLB to allow Extra Innings to continue its agreements with Time Warner Cable, Cox Communications and the Comcast Corp. and they were allowed to continue to broadcast MLB Extra Innings for the 2007 season.

However, as the result of that arrangement in 2007, an agreement was made that MLB will own a 66.6% interest in its MLB television channel with Direct TV, Time Warner, Cox and Comcast divvying up the remaining shares along with a commitment from them to carry the baseball network for the next seven years.

There is no word as of yet on the status of the MLB channel on such remaining digital and cable broadcasters as Dish TV or Adelphia Communications nor confirmation that MLB will offer the channel on basic cable television.

But MLB in its arrogance, by taking its present fan-base for granted, should be doing some real world soul-searching right about now. For after 15 years of Bud Selig’s reign of denial of illegal drugs in baseball and after the off-season MLB has suffered in light of the Mitchell Report, looking for handouts should be the last thing with which MLB should be associated.

It is bad enough that much of MLB’s revenues come by way of the very taxpayers it seeks to disenfranchise, and namely the African-American communities in the inner cities. But for it to muscle its way into Harlem’s neighborhood is more than ironic and should not merely be accepted as gentrification for a better NYC.

Some have speculated that by moving corporate jobs to Harlem, such will endear MLB to the black community it has virtually lost, both as active professional baseball players and as fans, and yet woo them back to baseball. And such speculation should be an insult to all baseball fans alike.

But until MLB makes an asserted commitment to retain its present fan-base as well as makes an investment in future generations to come, such as an in bringing African-American children and families back to MLB, it has no moral right to demand givebacks; much less in Harlem or outside of Yankee Stadium.

And perhaps a good way for MLB to make amends would be to start by using some of those givebacks to build some decent baseball fields for the kids of Harlem, rather than picking out new wallpaper patterns for its executives’ office suites.

Copyright ©2008 Diane M. Grassi
Contact: dgrassi@cox.net

MLB Given Pass By Feds

2008-04-09T21:22:00.000-07:00

By Diane M. Grassi

Major League Baseball (MLB) and drugs. The two have been linked for decades and their relationship has never waned. The drug ingredients are different, the players acquiring them have changed and the performance benefits have been enhanced.

But MLB has not learned much in the past couple of decades when it comes to the integrity of the game, in obeying the law and in protecting the best interests of its athletes, its most precious commodity.

In 1985, Pittsburgh U.S. Attorney, J. Alan Johnson, implicated 19 MLB players for possession of and use of cocaine. Then-MLB Commissioner, Peter Ueberroth, imposed penalties on 11 of the 19, while none were criminally prosecuted. Similar to the BALCO case and to the recent Mitchell Report, the depth of the problem among athletes using cocaine or illegal drugs made for sensational headlines.

But the way in which the drug culture was arguably enabled by MLB and its subsequent punishments were laughable and was perhaps the precursor to the abuse of steroids and HGH in the 1990’s and into the 21st century.
Although it was documented at the time that at least 40% of MLB players were recreationally using cocaine in the ‘80’s, only a handful were punished. But such star players such as Keith Hernandez, Dave Parker, and Lonnie Smith were punished not by the federal government but by MLB.

They were required to perform 100 hours of community service and to avail themselves to drug testing. Four other players were suspended for 60 days. Since the drug dealers were nabbed by the feds, MLB was off the hook and essentially did what it felt was appropriate for the “good of the game.”

Fast-forward to 2003 when grand jury testimony was taken in the federal BALCO investigation involving MLB’s Jason Giambi, Barry Bonds, Gary Sheffield, Benito Santiago, Olympic medalist Marion Jones and NFL star Bill Romanowski, to name but a few of the few implicated. Again, only a handful of athletes from the entire professional athletic world were threatened and eventually given immunity, in order to take down BALCO President, Vic Conte, personal trainer, Greg Anderson and the illicit sale, distribution and administration of illegal performance enhancing substances.

Marion Jones will serve 6 months in prison neither for buying and illegally using controlled substances nor for her check fraud to the tune of $200,000.00, but for lying under oath to a federal grand jury about the use of drugs. Ditto for Barry Bonds. His scheduled perjury trial is to be held in April 2008.

The latest fiasco with “personal trainer,” Brian McNamee, former NY Mets clubhouse employee, Kirk Radomski and MLB stars Roger Clemens and Andy Pettitte following former Senator George Mitchell’s report on behalf of MLB, is but another failed attempt at exposing the so-called truth.

But truth has been absent from baseball for a very long time. Moreover, implicating only 30 active players for a grand total of 89 for using performance enhancing drugs over the past decade is not only laughable but terribly sad. Given the resources and legal expenses tallied around $20‒30 million and paid to George Mitchell’s law firm by MLB, the Mitchell Report’s omissions should raise as many eyebrows as its contents.

But more importantly is the absence of a cry for accountability from MLB by the federal government in essentially allowing it to be in the drug business. For its owners and its teams’ staff members not to admit any wrong doing is beyond arrogance. A lack of efforts to look into those areas in which there was first-hand knowledge of possible illicit drug use or non-credentialed employees working in the area of strength training was but blind neglect.

To wit, according to the Mitchell Report, San Francisco Giants General Manager, Brian Sabean, was alerted by the Giants’ staff athletic trainer, Stan Conte, that a player had asked him about whether he should buy steroids from Bonds’ personal trainer, Greg Anderson, as far back as 2002. Additionally, the Giants’ longtime equipment manager, Mike Murphy, found syringes in the locker of catcher Benito Santiago.

Conte said he reported both incidents to Sabean immediately. Sabean told Conte that if he had a problem with Bonds’ trainer he should handle it himself. But it was obvious to Conte that it was not his place to confront Barry Bonds. And apparently no one else in the Giants organization felt it was their place either, as per their MLB obligation to report illicit drug use.

Brian Sabean stated in the Mitchell Report that he “was unaware of the obligation to report drug use to the Commissioner’s Office.” Former Mets General Manager, Steve Phillips, and Kirk Radomski’s employer, also plead ignorance on reporting illicit drug use to the Commissioner’s Office. Ironically now, Phillips is paid by ESPN to analyze and to inform the public about MLB’s policies.

Greg Anderson was given full accessibility to the Giants’ clubhouse. Stan Conte did not believe it was proper let alone legal. But in order to placate Bonds, the Giants also accorded him two additional trainers, Harvey Shields and Greg Oliver. All three traveled with the team. In fact, Oliver and Shields were added to the Giants’ payroll to account for their presence in the clubhouse, whereby they could advise other players as well.

Peter Magowan, CEO and Managing Partner of the S.F. Giants asked Sabean whether the Giants “had a problem” with regard to steroids after reading the news concerning the BALCO case and Greg Anderson, according to the Mitchell Report. But Sabean told Mitchell he did not recall that conversation.

The issue was not only that of illicit drugs permeating the Giants’ locker room but the issue of personal trainers, such as Greg Anderson giving out advice about steroids. None of Bonds’ trainers were certified to give out that advice nor licensed to either dispense of or speak about drug administration. Their certifications and schooling as personal trainers is also in question.

The lack of background checks on supposed strength coaches and personal trainers was rampant in MLB until 2004 when MLB limited access to clubhouses by personal trainers and ancillary clubhouse personnel not on the payroll. Due to the BALCO case, MLB did it more for security reasons, as the vetting of a trainer’s certification and background still has many lapses, to say the least.

In 2004, Sandy Krum, former assistant athletic trainer for the Chicago Cubs, was terminated, he believes, for informing Cubs’ General Manager Jim Hendry that head athletic trainer, Dave Groeschner, was operating without an Illinois state required license.

Unlike a personal trainer, an athletic trainer works under the auspices of a medical doctor and 43 states require such a license. Additionally, athletic trainers are not authorized in Illinois or NY to give injections to players. Coincidentally, Groeschner followed Cubs Manager Dusty Baker from San Francisco. In 2005, the Cubs fired Groeschner. Dusty is now with the Cincinnati Reds.

We have heard ad naseum about the McNamee-Clemens soap opera which will be played out before the Congressional House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on February 13, 2008. But little light has been shed upon the underlying facts about how McNamee helped weave his own web, in which the Toronto Blue Jays and the NY Yankees play no small part.

McNamee earned an undergraduate degree from St. John’s University in NY where he played on the baseball team as a catcher but did not have enough talent for MLB. He then followed his father’s lead and joined the NYPD in 1990. He was an officer for three years, serving two years undercover and then quit the force. He was suspended for 30 days at the end of his service for allowing a prisoner to escape from custody, but said he took the fall for someone else.

Former St. John’s school mate, Tim McCleary, was the assistant General Manager of the Yankees in 1993 and hired McNamee as the bullpen catcher, where he stayed until 1995. McNamee then decided to get into personal training. In 1998, McCleary was hired by Toronto, and he then hired McNamee as a strength coach and where he met Roger Clemens.

He also befriended Jose Canseco who at the time was also a Blue Jay.
After Clemens was traded to NY in 1999, McNamee joined him in 2000 when the Yankees put him on the payroll as a strength coach as well until 2001, when allegations immerged of rape and illegally giving the involved woman GHB ‒the date-rape drug‒ a nearly fatal dose.

Charges were not filed as the woman did not want to pursue them supposedly because she was having an affair with one of the Yankees’ married players. But McNamee was spotted having sex with a nearly comatose woman in one of the team’s hotel pools on the night of a Devil Rays game in St. Petersburg in October of 2001. His account to police was filled with inconsistencies, including denying he was the man in the pool when spotted by security and another Yankee staffer. Again, McNamee was the victim.

GHB is illegally used by athletes to recover from strenuous workouts and was also part of McNamee’s medicine cabinet. Even so, Clemens gave McNamee the benefit of the doubt about the alleged rape. The Yankees, however, let McNamee go before the 2002 season without disclosing the reason. But Clemens hired him as his personal trainer and employed him through June 2007. Andy Pettitte also paid McNamee for his training services during that time.

McNamee’s credentials were never checked by either the Toronto Blue Jays or the NY Yankees. During their employ of his services he was never a certified strength coach. He may have been a personal trainer, but certification is not legally required to be a personal trainer, although such certification only requires an exam and no course work or field training.

McNamee’s credentials are dubious at best, not to mention his phony PhD that he acquired in 2000 from an implicated internet diploma mill known as Columbus University, supposedly located in Louisiana, and since sold off to another entity in another state due to its being nailed by authorities.

McNamee was advertising himself on the internet as Dr. McNamee, PhD in order to market his In-Vite nutritional supplements and his strength training services. He was also getting involved in other enterprises which Clemens was helping to bankroll to help out his career. Although McNamee made claims he was certified, he was not certified as a strength coach until nearly 2006.

According to Dr. Jeff Falkel, Chairman of the Executive Council Certification Commission of the National Strength and Conditioning Association, (NSCA) recently on Will Carroll’s BaseballProspectus.com radio show, stated that McNamee did not even take his Certified Strength Conditioning Specialist exam until October 2005.

And unbelievably, MLB does not require certifications of its personal trainers or strength coaches but does require its staff athletic trainers be licensed only as required by law. The NFL, NBA, NHL and NCAA are also lax about certifications other than athletic trainers who work with medical physicians. They still do not require that their strength trainers be credentialed by the NSCA.

What we can conclude from this unveiling of the lack of professionalism and clubhouse culture throughout MLB is that without the cooperation of all of its participants, from the executive level on down to the groundskeepers, it cannot be trusted to police itself, based upon its putrid record thus far. And the business decisions made on the executive level from Commissioner to owner to GM to player to staff employees has been dismal and in disrepair.

Ultimately, greed has been the prevailing culprit, influencing both owners and players alike. But to single out a few super stars will never cure baseball or professional sports of its ills. It is shortsighted by MLB and not surprisingly so by our U.S. Congress. While there is no ready solution, using some common sense might be a good start.

Copyright ©2008 Diane M. Grassi
Contact: dgrassi@cox.net

Baseball Ill-Equipped for Global Politics

2008-01-27T18:47:00.000-08:00

By Diane M. Grassi

Much in the way the United States government’s foreign policy is a complex and sometimes unfathomable, inconsistent exercise in supposed worldwide diplomacy, it should be noted that in 2007 Major League Baseball vastly increased its global reach, similarly leaving foreign governments, economists and U.S. business leaders scratching their proverbial heads.

But questions need to be asked, as the 2008 MLB season approaches, as to whether America’s Pastime has bitten off more than it can chew in entering the world of global politics. In order to remain a successful and positive example worldwide, it must not alienate certain countries while at the same time disguise its craving for riches garnered off the backs of the impoverished.

For MLB was not originally set up to necessarily grow the sport globally. It was always assumed, perhaps naively so, that the best baseball players in the world would end up in the U.S. And to its credit, MLB has thought outside the box in the past couple of decades. But now it does so with the risk of discriminating against some groups or cultures while rewarding others at the behest of the almighty dollar.

To wit, there has been a growing hostility between Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and the U.S. government, most notably when Chavez gave a speech at the United Nations in November 2006 and referred to U.S. President George Bush as “el diablo” or “the devil.” Since that time, Chavez was reelected for another 6 year term as President of Venezuela in December 2006 and most recently in December 2007, the Venezuelan people, by a slim margin, defeated Chavez’ constitutional referendum to amend the constitution in order for him to remain President indefinitely.

Chavez has already made plans to nationalize certain industries in Venezuela, since he took office in 1999. He is a socialist and self-admitted revolutionary. Namely, electricity and oil and the telecom industries would be state controlled. And the vast oil reserves Venezuela enjoys has but enhanced Chavez’ control and position amongst world leaders.

But since the 1980’s the people of Venezuela, who once lived in a thriving country due to its oil resources, have also been its victims and now face rampant unemployment closing in on 20%, with little savings for secondary education. After oil prices plummeted in the ‘80’s, the government devalued the country’s currency. Since that time, the people of Venezuela have had to deal with civil unrest. And the Venezuelan capitol, Caracas, has presently earned the unpleasant distinction of having the highest per capita murder rate in the entire world.

Ironically, subsequent to the ‘80’s, the age of the multi-million dollar major leaguer greeted many Venezuelan players, and some speculate as the direct result of the country’s poverty. At one time a family hoped their children would end up become professionals, not professional baseball players, which was never seriously looked upon as a credible way to make a living.

In 1989, however, that all changed. The Houston Astros took the risk of becoming the first MLB club to build an academy in Venezuela, through the efforts of then scouting director, Andres Reiner, in hopes of developing baseball players on a regular basis. The thinking was that it was an untapped goldmine of a country of 25 million. Soon, other teams followed and there were as many as 19 team-sponsored academies. The likes of Luis Aparicio, Tony Armas and Andres Galarraga were among its first superstars. Their successors included shortstops, Omar Vizquel and Ozzie Guillen. More recently, its superstars include pitchers, Johan Santana, Carlos Zambrano, Kelvin Escobar and Francisco Rodriguez; outfielder Magglio Ordonez; shortstop Carlos Guillen; 3rd basemen Melvin Mora and Miguel Cabrera; catcher Victor Martinez; among other high quality players.

There were between 45 and 50 Venezuelan players on major league rosters at any one time during the 2007 season, which has remained stagnant for the past few years. However, Venezuelan players still represent the third largest group of major league players from any one country, after the U.S. and the Dominican Republic, which numbered 105 players in 2007.

But in the past 5 years, due to the country’s heightened violence, crime and kidnappings of high profile athletes, there are but 9 teams which still have academies that remain in Venezuela. And in addition to the concerns that MLB has about the security and safety of its players and representatives, there is also equal concern about the future intentions of Hugo Chavez and his possibly nationalizing the sport of baseball.

Current Orioles 3rd baseman, Melvin Mora, in 2006 contacted Jim Duquette, the Orioles former Vice President of Baseball Operations, about wanting to build his own academy in Venezuela. Duquette advised Mora to speak to MLB’s Vice President for International Operations, Lou Melendez. Melendez’ response to Mora’s interest was, “I’m just telling you that there are movements afoot there that may impact what you want to do. When you see certain industries that are being nationalized, you begin to wonder if they are going to nationalize the baseball industry in Venezuela.”

Mora then took it upon himself to meet with the Venezuelan Sports Minister, Eduardo Alvarez. With the help of Mora, Melendez set up a meeting with Alvarez in early 2007. At that time, Melendez was assured that nationalization of baseball was not on the agenda.

But two proposals were received by Melendez thereafter from Venezuelan officials as to how Venezuela would like MLB to do business there. They included mandates such as certain employee and player protections with MLB, that MLB clubs pay 10% of player’s signing bonuses to the Venezuelan government, and to require players to apply for a license to participate as professional athletes. There also was a proposal for the Venezuelan Baseball Federation to have a hands-on role over the operations of the MLB academies.

On its face, the proposals do not look egregious. In fact, the players recruited and signed in the Dominican Republic are often victims of aggressive “buscones” or unauthorized agents who take advantage of them and their parents, leaving them with little of the agreed upon advances by MLB teams.

After all, since players in both Venezuela and the Dominican Republic are not subject to the First Year Draft Rule, they can be signed as young as the age of 16, as long as they turn 17 by the following July. While many of these players are drop outs from school, much more so than in Venezuela, many never make it to the big leagues, and are left with broken promises and sometimes penniless after they put all of their time and effort into training. This unfortunately makes it far easier for MLB to have its way, so to speak, with prospects from the Dominican Republic.

But Melendez interpreted these mandates from Venezuela by stating, “I made it clear to Minister Alvarez that we don’t pay federations for signing players anywhere in the world, and we don’t expect to do so. It’s certainly not a way to conduct business.” In fact, MLB has no intentions of complying with any of Venezuela’s requests, as it cut off its communications with any parties of either sport or government bodies there in March 2007. MLB fears that it would prove more costly to sign Venezuelan players under such mandates.

However, Mr. Melendez either needs to be informed or needs to refresh his memory that earlier in 2007, the NY Yankees, sanctioned by MLB, signed a working agreement with the Peoples’ Republic of China, (PRC) in the first ever contract between MLB and the Chinese Baseball Association, which is under the auspices of the Communist government of China. MLB is also providing the Peoples’ Republic of China’s National Olympic Team with former U.S. MLB manager, Jim Lefebvre, who is the manager of the Peoples’ Republic of China’s baseball team that will compete in the 2008 Beijing Summer Olympics.

The NY Yankees and MLB will also be lending additional coaches and equipment to the PRC National team prior to the 2008 Olympics. The Yankees additionally have an agreement to start development of Chinese players in Communist China with eventual plans to build academies there.
MLB is also in preliminary talks about the aftermath of the Fidel Castro regime of Cuba, upon his death. MLB is drooling at the thought of building academies there as well and formal discussions have taken place within MLB according to MLB Senior Vice President of Baseball Operations, Joe Garagiola, Jr. “There may not be any significant changes with our relationship with Cuba in the near term, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be thinking about these things”, he said at the start of the 2007 MLB season.

Meanwhile, Puerto Rico, after 69 years went without its winter league operating this 2007-2008 off-season, due to budget shortfalls of its league development. MLB has yet to take a stance on the state of baseball in Puerto Rico which must adhere to the same rules of U.S. born players, having to finish high school and be 18 years of age to sign a minor league contract, attend a junior college or complete at least 3 years of a 4-year college and/or be 21 years of age if the 3rd year is not completed.

It hardly seems fair for a small Caribbean island, although a territory of the U.S, to not be able to compete on an even playing field with either Venezuela or the Dominican Republic. But without the funding to develop its young prospects, it appears Puerto Rico has become too costly an investment for MLB.

And Panama, literally a banana republic, once the home for Chiquita Bananas International, until it moved to Costa Rica where labor was cheaper, also has largely been ignored by MLB. Only 5 major leaguers from Panama remained on MLB rosters in 2007, most notably NY Yankees pitcher, Mariano Rivera, and Houston Astros outfielder, Carlos Lee. Hall of Famer, Rod Carew also hailed from Panama. But Panama development would require a long-term investment. And there too the national baseball federation is at odds with MLB.

Korea and Japan have players which are developed in their own countries, with which MLB clubs can then negotiate for hefty sums. The individual pro teams in Japan require a complex posting process and upwards of $50 million per player in addition to multi-year deals for the player. Such an example was the signing of Daisuke Matsuzaka by the Boston Red Sox at the start of the 2007, for his services for 3 years. The total posting fee as well as his contract was well over $100 million. But after all, the Red Sox got a ready-made big leaguer without having to invest in his development. So the thinking is that it is worth such cost.

What this all comes down to is not some noble attempt for MLB to spread baseball throughout the world, such as the U.S. government would like us to believe that globalization is about democratizing the rest of world. It is all about the dollar, no matter if young boys and men of the Dominican Republic are exploited, or whether Venezuelan’s are threatened with the possibility of losing their now national pastime.

And why MLB can negotiate with Communist China but does not see fit to redevelop baseball again in its own territory of Puerto Rico, also deserves questioning.
But if MLB does not proceed with caution and realize that it has not merely entered the domain of industrial globalization but the world of global politics and diplomacy, it could prove damaging.

After all, the good of the game and human decency should still be a priority for MLB. And when it comes time for MLB to count its $6 billion revenue dollars it realized from the 2007 MLB season, it perhaps should take heed, in order to remain accountable for its actions, before it becomes political fodder with unrealized repercussions on the world’s stage.

Copyright ©2007 Diane M. Grassi

Contact:
dgrassi@cox.net

MLB 's FANTASY TO MONOPOLIZE SUFFERS ANOTHER BLOW

2007-11-24T22:02:00.000-08:00

By Diane M. Grassi

On October 16, 2007 Major League Baseball (MLB) struck out for the second time in its pursuit to limit and essentially monopolize the Fantasy League business which utilizes statistical information associated with MLB players’ names.

While this did get some coverage in the mainstream press, the ultimate impact of such a decision impacts not only all of the professional sports leagues but other commercial enterprises which make use of any kind of player statistical information such as the video game and software industries.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit out of St. Louis, MO in handing down a ruling by a three-judge panel was an affirmation of the underlying appeal heard before U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge Mary Ann Medler, also out of St. Louis, and her opinion issued August 8, 2006. In the underlying Summary Judgment, Judge Medler found that “the players do not have a right of publicity in their names and playing records as used in fantasy games.” And furthermore, that “the First Amendment takes precedence over such a right.”

But offering only a peripheral view of the issues involved in this case does a disservice to fans not only of MLB but the National Football League (NFL), the National Basketball Association (NBA) as well as the National Hockey League (NHL). In fact, MLB, the NFL and the NBA all partake in their own fantasy leagues through such commercial ventures run by their league websites MLB.com, NFL.com and NBA.com, respectively.

The litigation involving MLB Advanced Media, L.P. (MLBAM) as well as the MLB Players Association (MLBPA) originated over 2½ years ago when CBC Distribution and Marketing, Inc. d/b/a CDM, Inc. or CDMSports.com, of St. Louis, MO, filed a lawsuit against MLBAM for the right to operate its CDM Fantasy Sports League with the necessary statistical data on MLB players in order to do so.

But not emphasized thoroughly enough in reports is that from 1994‒2004 it was the MLBPA which licensed rights to fantasy leagues. And as such, CBC, which licensed its use of the names and data about MLB players, had agreements in both 1995 and 2002, the latter of which expired in 2005.
CBC was the very first independent fantasy league license holder with MLB, by way of its contract with the MLBPA, well before the internet played its now predominant role in the fantasy league business, now generating upwards of $2 billion annually from MLB, the NFL and the NBA alone.

It was in 2005 when MLBAM purchased the exclusive rights to use baseball players’ names and performance information from the MLBPA “for exploitation of all interactive media” to the tune of $50 million, for a period of 5 years. And it was at that point that MLBAM began to provide fantasy baseball games on its own website, MLB.com.

When CBC applied for its license in 2005, it was outright denied by MLBAM due to its claim of the players’ “right of publicity” which gave CBC no other recourse but to sue MLBAM in court. CBC saw this as a deliberate attempt by MLBAM to monopolize the fantasy league business now that small operators had turned it into a lucrative investment waiting to be swept up. In fact, in its arrogance, MLB offered CBC in exchange for a commission, a license to promote MLB.com’s fantasy baseball games on CBC’s website, provided CBC discontinue its own fantasy products.

Additionally, ESPN, CBS Sportsline, Sporting News and Yahoo! Sports were awarded licenses by MLBAM who pay $2 million annually to MLBAM for the right to run their own fantasy leagues. And it appears rather evident that the issue is not about the “right of publicity” but the right to cash in on and control another entity which MLB has yet to conquer

Since statistical information had always been considered in the public domain according to prior case law, it was a rather creative leap in legal gymnastics that MLBAM came up with in order to ward off the use of problematic future technologies or entities which could arise and make use of such statistical data.

MLB was joined through amicus briefs, filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, by the NFL, the NHL, the NBA, the NFL Players Association, the PGA Tour, and the National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing, amongst others. It is clear that there is a big business expectation of windfall profits for such a venture which at one point started out not all that long ago with a bunch of guys sitting around drinking beers talking about forming a rotisserie league for fun.

But lost in all of the legal shenanigans of this litigation is perhaps the message that ensues at its result. And that is that essentially fantasy leagues are a form of gambling. It is more than ironic, given all of the history and more recent threats to the integrity of professional sports, such as officiating in the NBA, which now prohibits any type of gambling amongst its referees year round, and MLB’s historic credo of zero tolerance when it comes to gambling on its sport.

The promotion of fantasy leagues by MLB, the NFL and now the NBA is a distinct conflict of interest. But that did not prevent MLB and the MLBPA from testifying before the U.S. Congress, prior to its passage of the 2006 Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, in lobbying for fantasy leagues to be exempt from the Act.

Yet, amazingly MLB does not consider fantasy leagues to fall under the same umbrella as gambling since it does not directly “attempt to influence the outcome of a game or a baseball player’s performance.” MLB went as far as saying that playing in a fantasy league is a game of skill not of chance such as in a gambling casino and thereby is not really betting.

Well, in its astute discretion, the U.S. Congress agreed with MLB allowing the continued organized fantasy leagues to remain on the internet and officially exempt from the 2006 law. But whether or not fantasy leagues have a direct bearing on the outcome of a MLB, NFL or NBA game, such fantasy leagues both directly and indirectly encourage gambling.

Yet, there is little distinction made in the minds of most participants and onlookers who happen to be the fans. Most associate fantasy leagues as a form of gambling as wagers are made, money is collected and a purse is paid out to the winners. Makes one think how these professional sports leagues and players associations can get away with such nonsensical drivel.
We can only rationalize it to the extent that the leagues are willing to risk such an association with gambling and their sports if there is a buck to be made. And even it is off the backs of small operators who created the whole fantasy league business in the first place.

Next up for MLB is perhaps a second appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit before a nine- judge panel or even an attempt to petition the U.S. Supreme Court, which could either not choose to hear the case or remand it back the District Court. MLB is currently thinking about its next move.

And once again, MLB is trying to control everything baseball, even at the expense of alienating its fans or even worse to encourage that which it says it will never condone: gambling.

Copyright ©2007 Diane M. Grassi
Contact: dgrassi@cox.net

EX-SLUGGER REMAINS KEY PLAYER IN URBAN RENEWAL

2007-09-26T23:54:00.000-07:00

By Diane M. Grassi

It has been quite the spring and summer 2007 seasons for fans of all three major professional sports leagues, but sadly, for many of the wrong reasons. As fans have been inundated with stories of crimes, misdemeanors and the ethical transgressions by society’s ordained role models, even including those who officiate and manage games, it is but refreshing to step back and revisit a former player who more recently reappeared on the radar.

Former Major League Baseball (MLB) player, Mo Vaughn, actually may prove more exemplary in his post-playing career than he was during his 12 years on a baseball diamond. In August 2007, he was featured on ESPN’s, Outside the Lines, following brief reports in Sports Illustrated and the New York Post, among other news outlets, recalling his latest ventures. But the publicity he received sold short the true essence and importance of the work Mr. Vaughn is doing and the mission on which he remains. As such, it deserves more in-depth coverage than that of just a feel-good story.

Most ardent baseball fans will remember Mo as the burly, intimidating first baseman who played for the Boston Red Sox from 1991 until 1998, during which time he was the 1995 American League MVP, with a .336 batting average, 39 home runs and 113 RBI in that year, while steering the Red Sox to post-season berths in both 1995 and 1996. He also, however, was singled out as having one of the most lucrative contracts in MLB at the time, earning $18.3 million over his last 3 years with the BoSox.

Mo also helped sell a lot of newspapers over his 12-year career, starting with the rift he had with Red Sox management in 1997 and 1998, more so than his stellar 1995 season in Boston. He then chose to sign as a free agent with the Anaheim Angels in 1998, which paid him a guaranteed $88 million through the 2004 season. At that time it became the highest MLB contract ever offered. But Mo was plagued with injuries in both the 1999 and 2000 seasons and was on the disabled list for the entirety of 2001. He never lived up to his previous star billing. Relations with the Angels organization became strained and Mo left on less than stellar terms there as well.

The Angels were more than glad to trade Mo to the New York Mets for pitcher Kevin Appier, who helped them to earn a World Series Championship in 2002. And the Mets accommodated Mo with a 3-year $42 million contract, partially subsidized by the Angels, but fully insured. Mo welcomed the trade to NY in a new league, where he expected to play through 2004, but it never came to pass.

Still recovering from biceps surgery in 2001 and additionally dealing with chronic knee and hamstring problems made many NY fans skeptical of the signing of Vaughn by former Mets GM, Steve Phillips, now making his living as a baseball analyst for ESPN. As feared, Mo wound up playing poorly in 2002 and in only 27 games in 2003 before being diagnosed with a permanently damaged knee, only repairable with a knee replacement, thus ending his career. Mets executives felt Mo did not do enough to keep his weight under control, which they believed was a contributing factor to his injuries.

But despite his truncated career, he had impressive stats as a 3-time All Star, and AL MVP, with 328 career home runs and a .293 lifetime batting average. Mo Vaughn was Big Papi before Big Papi was Big Papi. He was an imposing figure in the batter’s box and had a commanding presence in any lineup. Had he stayed healthy and continued to produce, Mo could have had a Hall of Fame career.

And both Mo’s fans and critics are likely to have a difficult time in finding fault with what appears to be his true calling, in providing hope and facilitating life altering changes in the lives of thousands of inner city residents. While many current and former athletes do donate funds for worthwhile causes, it is more along the lines of charity dinners and celebrity golf tournaments. But Mo has transcended his celebrity lifestyle and has rededicated his life’s goals.

Since 2005, Mo Vaughn has invested his time, resources and good will in rebuilding housing projects, left to decay by slumlords as well as ignored by local government agencies, leaving law-abiding residents to fend for themselves. The collateral damage of such negligence and the oft-ignored outcry from those in these impoverished communities caught Mo’s attention. Mo and his partner, his former lawyer-agent, Eugene Schneur, who both own and operate Omni New York, LLC, have taken on deteriorated housing developments, primarily in New York City, which have gone decades without adequate maintenance or services. The sole objective is to restore them by giving them back to their deserved communities.

Mo grew up in Connecticut, went to prep school in Pawling, NY and then played college baseball for 3 years at Seton Hall College in New Jersey, so he is quite familiar with the tri-state NY area. But what Mo did not necessarily know was how many people in housing projects for lower income residents have been living in squalor, without security in drug-infested neighborhoods, while suffering from problems with such basic services as running water, heat, or working elevators in high-rise buildings.

One of the main complaints fans have about their sports heroes is that they either forget where they came from, or have no inkling about the communities for which they play, some of which are in deplorable condition mere blocks from the stadiums in which they play. The chicken banquet circuit is fine, but it nowhere nearly supplants the real work needed to be done in such communities all across the country, where more often than not, “blighted communities” are being bought up by real estate moguls who turn them into multi-million dollar complexes for the rich, in what were once flourishing working class neighborhoods, made up of regular folk.

Since teaming up with Schneur at the end of 2004, Vaughn has closed on numerous projects with the City of NY, and in Westchester, Nassau and Seneca counties in NY State. Omni has creatively crafted contracts in collaborating with numerous federal, state and local government agencies and various government programs in order to secure financing for their renovation projects. The federal agency, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the NY State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (SDHCR) and the Housing Development Corporation (HDC) of New York City are but some of the agencies with which Omni has relationships. Municipal and industrial bonds, tax abatements, tax credits and tax-free loans are additional sources of funding.

Omni NY has proven to be quite a success since 2005 with Vaughn more than living up to his promises, having renovated over 1500 individual housing units in NYC alone. He stresses security and safety first for tenants and installs state of the art security cameras along with employing the necessary security personnel. His promise is also not to displace tenants during renovations that include replacing boilers, plumbing, roofing, windows, building facades, elevators, installing new appliances, kitchen cabinets, floor tiles, and renovated lobbies and common areas. Vaughn’s Omni is a true example of how Public Private Partnerships (PPP) should work.

Omni’s hope is to expand its sites beyond NY to parts of Boston, MA and Miami, FL in 2007 and into 2008 and has looked at numerous other states as well, collaborating with other developers. “It is the mission of Omni NY to ensure that people are able to live in decent, quality housing and have a sense of pride where they live,” says Vaughn. And his style is not to make a fast buck and disappear but to continue to manage each of the properties he restores, in order to ensure that both the properties and the tenants are protected and serviced adequately into the future.

In addition, Vaughn as become a social director of sorts, applying for grants in theses communities where after-school programs for school children are held on the properties, along with vocational skills programs for young adults and those forced to change careers in mid-life.

It is obvious that Omni NY is unique in scope and in fulfilling its goals in the way it structures its deals in the best interest of people. But more importantly, Mo Vaughn has become a facilitator on behalf of those individuals in communities which have no voice or have lost their way in negotiating through bureaucratic minefields in order to maintain decent lives. And in that respect, perhaps Mo Vaughn has found his niche and is filling a vital need where government has failed its obligations.

In conclusion, whatever disappointments Mo may have been to fans or to the organizations for which he played, not unlike other players who fail to remain healthy or play past their prime, he may prove to be far more valuable an asset now that he is out of baseball. For as he says, “I don’t know how people view me……., but we know we are doing the right thing here, and that’s what it’s all about. I want to make a difference.”

Makes one think – when God made Mo, the mold may have finally been broken.

Copyright ©2007 Diane M. Grassi
Contact: dgrassi@cox.net

MLB SUFFERS NO LACK OF HYPOCRISY

2007-08-30T01:29:00.000-07:00

By Diane M. Grassi

Major League Baseball (MLB) fans over the past several years have not only been witness to those performances taking place on MLB baseball diamonds across America, but have also been privy to after-the- fact cover-ups, collusion, denials and authoritarian control of their National Pastime. And all this in spite of supposed lessons learned from its failures going back to the early 20th century with the 1919 Black Sox throwing the World Series.

But where MLB differs in the late 20th and early 21st centuries from its historic past, is by virtue of its yearly multi-billion dollar revenues it now enjoys, enabling it more unilateral power over the game of baseball in spite of the Major League Baseball Players Association (MLBPA) and the World Umpires Association (WUA) with which it must collectively bargain.

MLB is given great latitude granted by the United States government, which allows MLB to continue to be the only professional sports league in the U.S. not subject to anti-trust laws, except with respect to collective bargaining with its unions. And it seemingly appears it need not explain its decisions or lack thereof to its fans, employees, or even the U.S. Congress, unless of course subpoenaed, about the “best interests of baseball.”

News arose in July 2007 that now former National Basketball Association (NBA) veteran referee, Tim Donaghy, was pending indictment by the federal government, allegedly for providing information to illegal bookmakers associated with the Gambino Crime Family in New Jersey, who wagered bets on NBA games. He allegedly funneled confidential information to them on games and personnel while he was actively refereeing for the NBA during the 2005 and 2006 seasons included the post-season. Donaghy plead guilty on federal charges in court on August 15, 2007.

And in early August 2007, MLB tried to hoist its latest unilateral decision upon the WUA in light of the perception of illegal gambling and cheating ongoing in the NBA by one or more of its officials, especially with NBA Commissioner David Stern’s assertions that he thought the NBA had had the best security detail in all of sports. Such has made for nervous Nellie’s over at MLB headquarters on Park Avenue, NYC. And although there have been complaints from players as well as from fans with how discipline and policies have been decided by David Stern, there still is a perception of a rationale and accessibility to the NBA’s Commissioner.

It will take months for the NBA to come to a conclusion regarding the reach that Donaghy may have had in the NBA and who else may have been involved, if at all, and how new security options will be implemented. But Stern made it clear that he will not react swiftly with a knee-jerk reaction as to the legalities and ethics of preserving the NBA. And that is precisely what MLB Commissioner Bud Selig has been accused of by the WUA.

It has been reported that a letter dated August 6, 2007 from the WUA to MLB stated that the WUA was breaking off talks with MLB concerning its very recent unilateral decision to require extensive credit background checks to be performed on all MLB umpires effective immediately. However, due to the lack of disclosure of how the findings of any investigations would be handled by MLB, the WUA cut off cooperation with MLB until the expiration of its Collective Bargaining Agreement which expires in 2009. The points of contention which MLB was not willing to concede or even discuss with the WUA include:

“The nature, type and scope of information that you intend to gather on the umpires.”
“The sources, legitimate and otherwise, from which you intend to collect the information.”
“The persons who will have access to the information once it is collected.”
“The vendors and consultants who will assist you in collecting and reviewing the information.”
“The frequency with which you plan to conduct the investigations.”
“The uses to which the information will be put.”
“The process by which MLB, the WUA and the affected umpires will address any concerns that might arise from the information.”
“The protections that will be put in place to ensure that the information is not misused or publicly disclosed.”
“The safeguards that will be adopted to ensure that umpires will not be subject to disciplinary or other adverse job actions stemming from or based upon any of the information.”

And furthermore, WUA spokesman, Larnell McMorris, who also serves in such a capacity for the National Basketball Referees Association, (NBRA) said that the umpires also wanted to revisit their prior discussion with MLB regarding the use of an additional or 7th umpire for World Series games as well as the National League and American League Championship Series, given the need for an alternate in case of injury, illness or unforeseen emergencies. But Rob Manfred, MLB Executive Vice President of Labor Relations, depicted the umpires’ demands as an underhanded way to get an extra umpire for post-season play, again citing that such did not serve the ‘best interests of baseball’ and accused the WUA of not bargaining in “good faith.”

While MLB has no apparent problem with waving the ‘best interests of baseball’ banner when it sees fit for public relations purposes, it apparently is not concerned about it enough to ensure the game’s integrity in having enough umpiring officials on hand during the crucial post-season. And apparently such has been a previous concern to the WUA which remained unaddressed.

To date, when alternates are required for the 70 MLB contracted umpires, minor league umpires are called upon to pick up the slack. Although MLB umpires draw salaries ranging from a minimum of $87,000.00 to upwards of $250,000.00, minor league umpires, many whom have worked as much as many as 154 MLB games in one season, receive a pro-rata share of the minimum MLB salary. Minor league salaries are monthly, with a maximum of $3500.00 per month.

But are not games compromised when replacing MLB umpires with minor league umpires in a pinch? Especially with the use of QuesTec, the controversial computerized technology used to grade an umpire’s home plate ball and strike calls. Used since 2001, MLB has not made public the exact amount of such machines used in MLB stadiums. There are reports that as few as 13 stadiums have QuesTec and as many as 23 stadiums are equipped with it. But certainly not all 30 MLB stadiums have the systems.

While QuesTec has remained a contentious issue with MLB umpires as well as many MLB pitchers and catchers, umpires are graded on every game they call behind the plate and then evaluated by the Umpire Supervisor for MLB. Formerly former American League umpire, Frank Pulli, served in such a capacity prior to his retirement and now former National League umpire, Rich Garcia, succeeds Pulli.

But questions about the integrity of QuesTec remain. For example, the calibration of QuesTec varies from stadium to stadium and such nuances such as shadows and the locations of stands proximate to home plate can alter the placement of the equipment or change the end result of the scoring. This is noted with respect to curve balls and sliders which QuesTec cannot accurately discern as the ball may clip the corner of the plate initially but may end up outside of the batter’s box when caught by the catcher. Such would be scored as a strike, yet the umpire would correctly call it a ball.

Secondly, umpires are suspect of only one individual having full discretion to grade the umpires with use of QuesTec as he sees fit, and may not be an impartial judge, being an employee of MLB. And questions also remain about the revenue and financial arrangement which MLB has with QuesTec Systems and the monetizing of such arrangements which MLB to date refuses to disclose to its owners, players, or umpires.

That brings us to Frank Pulli and Rich Garcia and their own histories with the ‘best interests of baseball’. In 1989, after the completion of investigator John Dowd’s report on Pete Rose’s illegal sports betting activity, other indiscretions arose. We now know, as confirmed by Pete Rose himself in 2004, that he did indeed bet on MLB as well as on the team he was playing for and managing at the time, the Cincinnati Reds.

But what we did not know in 1989, until it was revealed some 13 years later in a report by the New York Daily News in 2002, was that then National League umpire Frank Pulli, then American League umpire, Rich Garcia, and then Chicago Cubs Manager, Don Zimmer, were found to have been involved in illegal sports betting on sports other than MLB, with members none other than the Genovese Crime Family in New Jersey.

At the time, then MLB Commissioner, Fay Vincent, disciplined Pulli and Garcia for associating and doing business with gamblers and bookmakers in violation of Major League Rule 21 or “the best interests of baseball.” Both came forward early on when called upon and satisfied both Dowd and Vincent. “With these guys, there was nothing involving baseball in anything they did. Anybody who doesn’t understand that misses the crux of the whole point, said Vincent.”

But the aforementioned quote was not from 1989 but from 2002, in the NY Daily News report which stated that Pulli and Garcia were put on 2 years of probation at the time. It was ultimately kept secret not by one Commissioner but two, when Bud Selig succeeded Vincent. The secret remained in Selig’s office for over 10 years and had it not been for Don Zimmer in his 2001 autobiography mentioning that he was also reprimanded by MLB, the secret might still be just that.

Now that the ‘best interests of baseball’ has reared its head again with respect to the gambling issue in the NBA, that which has never been addressed, is why sports betting by MLB umpires Pulli and Garcia was not divulged until 2002? And why were both Pulli and Garcia then subsequently rewarded by Commissioner Selig by becoming the exclusive individuals who oversee the QuesTec System and grade umpires on their calls from behind the plate? And fans are also aware, ad nauseam, about the failed oversight of performance enhancing drugs having been used throughout Selig’s administration.

It is evident now, however, as Selig nears the end of his contract with MLB which expires in 2009, and paid him a salary of $14.5 million in 2006, that he measures the success and integrity of MLB through eyes of a CEO of a Fortune 500 Company. He regaled at the beginning of the 2007 season that MLB revenue for 2006 was a resounding $5.2 billion. Yet, Selig’s continual foot-dragging on issues of concern to the fans are never addressed unless push comes to shove, such as intervention by the U.S. Congress or the threat of MLB’s losing its anti-trust exemption by the U.S. government.

But as long as MLB has benefit of Rule 21 to hide behind and use whenever it becomes convenient, it bears no resemblance to integrity whatsoever. And Commissioner Selig’s legacy more than likely will be overshadowed by how he looked the other way and how he may have forever sullied the hallowed records of America’s pastime in the process.

Copyright ©2007 Diane M. Grassi
dgrassi@cox.net

SAUDI TAKEOVER OF GE PLASTICS FLIES UNDER RADAR

2007-07-08T18:36:00.000-07:00

By Diane M. Grassi

The announcement on May 21, 2007 that the largest public company in the Middle East, by market value, would be acquiring a division of the world’s second-largest corporation, by market value, and based in the United States, could not have been any less publicized. But in the world of corporate governance, the largest transaction ever completed in the Persian Gulf, seemingly trumps all laws of reason.

However, there is little precedence established for a foreign owned totalitarian government controlled corporation acquiring a corporate entity in the U.S. Such brings us to the General Electric Co. and the sale of its GE Plastics, based in Pittsfield, MA. It has been one of its most successful divisions for over half a century. It includes numerous U.S.-based manufacturing plants and research and development offices, with additional locations spanning 20 countries. Employees total nearly 11,000 worldwide, with several thousand located in the U.S. New operational control, however, will be via offices in Saudi Arabia.

The Saudi Basic Industries Corporation, known in the Middle East as SABIC, is one of the world’s 10 largest petrochemical manufacturers and is 70% owned by the Saudi Arabian government, controlled by the Royal Saudi Kingdom and 5 other states of the Gulf Cooperation Council, including private Middle Eastern investors.
It employs approximately 17,000, worldwide, and shortly expects to be the new owner of GE Plastics in the U.S.

After GE Plastics was put on the market in January 2007, it got bids from Apollo Management, Inc., a U.S.-based private equity firm as well as Bassell, a Netherlands-based Access Industries plastics maker. Both proposed bids of GE Plastics were upwards of $10 billion. But it was the Saudi Arabian’s offer of $11.6 billion in cash and the promise of future energy ventures with its parent company, GE, which gave SABIC the upper hand in the acquisition of GE Plastics.

Wall Street portfolio managers will liken those opposed to this deal, still pending approval by the U.S. government through the Committee on Foreign Investments in the U.S. (CFIUS), as protectionist, nativist and alarmist. And the U.S. has seen propositions like this before recently, such as the Bush Administration’s desire in 2005 to allow foreign ownership of U.S. airlines; the proposal by the People’s Republic of China’s state-owned CNOOC in the summer of 2005 to acquire UNOCAL of California, the ninth largest oil company in the U.S.; Dubai Ports World, of Dubai Holding, a United Arab Emirates (UAE) government-owned corporation, and its buyout of the United Kingdom corporation, Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. (P&O), for its port operations of six major U.S. East Coast ports in early 2006.

All of the aforementioned never came to pass, after much Congressional and public opposition, although the Bush Administration promises to revisit foreign airline ownership. However, Dubai Holding, the same UAE controlled company yearning to takeover U.S. ports was successful just months later in 2006 in acquiring the U.S. operations of Doncasters Group Ltd., a UK company based in Connecticut, and a manufacturer of precision aircraft engine parts for U.S. military and commercial aircraft engine parts manufacturers, like its competitor, GE Aviation.

GE claims that the prohibitive cost of petroleum, especially over the past year, has necessitated its sale if its plastics division, as it requires petrol for the manufacture of plastics and its various composites and resins. And although GE made a fair profit in 2006, it fell short of its 10% projected goal.

Less important to GE Plastics, however, is that there has been nothing firmly documented by SABIC, other than through verbal overtures, that they will continue to maintain GE plants in the U.S. According to SABIC CEO, Mohamed Al Mady, “We have no other plans at this time.” On the other hand he notes, “SABIC’s intention is to grow globally.” At least one of the U.S. plants is non-union, that being the one located in Selkirk, NY and over the long haul questions remain as to whether or not SABIC will move all operations to Saudi Arabia, closer in proximity to its oil fields, or to China where it currently has petrochemical operations.

Questions must also be asked when it comes to the rights and wages of American workers, who will take directives not just from a Chairman of the Board but from the Saudi Royal Kingdom, which presently restricts the rights of women in the workplace in Saudi Arabia. They are only allowed to work, and in limited industries, provided permission is granted by a male relative. And although technically Saudi Arabia must obey U.S. laws pertinent to ownership of a corporation located in the U.S., cultural differences steeped in a totalitarian regime practicing Shariah law may not properly translate to the American way of life.

Additionally, SABIC would have to adhere to the regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), such as the 1980 Superfund Law, holding corporate toxic waste polluters accountable. Such requirement is non-existent in Saudi Arabia or China. GE Plastics was mandated to clean up the PCB’s in the Housatonic River in Massachusetts and GE the Hudson River years ago, both fighting the federal government for years until a settlement was reached with the EPA and the U.S. Department of Justice in 2005. Ongoing completion and monitoring of said cleanup still remains in both bodies of water. But will SABIC fulfill GE Plastics’ obligations?

Founded in 1930 as a division of GE, GE Plastics arose from the initial results of Thomas Edison’s experiments with the use of plastic filaments in the electric light bulb as early as 1893, followed by the success of its Bakelite® synthetic plastic created in 1909. The plastics industry, however, primarily blossomed after former GE CEO, Jack Welch, assumed control of the plastics division in 1960 and with the birth of its world famous patent Lexan ® polycarbonate.

GE Plastics specializes in plastic polymers, plastic composites and insulating resin polycarbonates, among others, used in both government and commercial sectors in nearly every industry including building and construction, transportation, aviation, auto body manufacture, defense, law enforcement, healthcare, telecommunications and computer and semi-conductor technologies. And it is doing business in such lucrative and specialized areas which SABIC opines. While its consumer product contracts are extensive, they are but part of GE’s vast plastics’ business portfolio.

SABIC was established by Royal Decree in 1976 as instituted by King Khalid Bin Abdulaziz, and the present Saudi Kingdom or government claims it has a hands-off approach to the business operations it owns. SABIC was originally set up to operate the hydrocarbon and mineral-based industry in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It has had an operation named SABIC Americas in Houston, TX, for many years, which employs 200 and where it houses the SABIC Technology Center. Details on its exact business operations in the U.S. presently, however, remain scant.

Although the polycarbonate and plastic resin composites industry has been gaining steam over the past 10 years, in light of continual rising oil costs in the U.S. and continued U.S. dependence upon oil, primarily in the Middle East, it has quickened the pace of growth over just the past two years. And with less U.S. oil refineries expected to come online in the near future, in order to mitigate high fuel costs, lighter weight components are desired for automobiles, and commercial, transport and military aircraft in their manufacture.

GE commercial and military aircraft engines have long utilized polycarbonate composites for fan blades and fan cases, since 1995 with the GE90 engine, and the soon to be released GENX engine for commercial wide-bodied jets. Composites are not only light in weight, but corrosion resistant, heat resistant and their longevity and reduced maintenance, as opposed to metal parts, are preferable. Semi-conductor technology as well as use in watercraft, such as submarines, are other examples of the use of plastic composites. The historical integration of composites used in both military and commercial aircraft engines however, originally stemmed from military aircraft engine use of polycarbonate components.

Nevertheless, financial market experts as well as political prognosticators have already decided that CFIUS will give the SABIC-GE Plastics deal its seal of approval with no national security issues at all to arise. Therefore, the deal is expected to close in the 3rd quarter of 2007. And while GE Plastics may not be a direct contractor or supplier to either government or commercial entities, it still could have national security implications.

And it does not completely dismiss the fact that the U.S. government will be dealing with the Saudi Royal Kingdom-state government as it assumes the laws and regulations of the U.S. Any contracts which GE Plastics previously had and which remain active, with either its parent company GE or directly with other corporations or government agencies, would supposedly transfer to SABIC. Such government agencies for which GE Plastics could have existing contracts with are the Department of Transportation (DOT), the Department of Defense (DOD), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Federal Emergency Management Agency, (FEMA), the Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), to name but a few.

And based upon the lack of underlying history of this more than unusual corporate arrangement, a more thorough review might be warranted by CFIUS, which is an inter-agency committee chaired by the Secretary of Treasury. Rather than its routine 30-day investigative period, it could self-impose the more thorough 45-day review process. For as much as the U.S. government as well as the government’s industrial complex wishes to favor the promotion of global trade above that of national security, in an age of political correctness, the fact is, the U.S. military is engaged in two simultaneous wars in the Middle East. And it would perhaps be better to use more deliberation and discretion rather than to rubber-stamp such an acquisition.

The Exon-Florio Amendment, which emerged in 1988, amended Section 721 of the Defense Protection Act of 1950, as part of the 1988 Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988. The statute authorized the President of the U.S. to block or suspend a merger, acquisition or takeover by a foreign entity if there is credible evidence that a “foreign interest exercising control might take action that threatens to impair the national security” in the event existing law does not provide “adequate and appropriate authority for the President to protect the national security in the matter before the President.”

Equally deceptive in the process, whereby foreign governments or foreign owned corporations purchase a U.S. owned entity is that they then become indirect stakeholders in U.S. public policy as well. They not only access capital gains but gain political clout on Capitol Hill too. Such opportune objectives of a foreign nation do not just begin during the corporate bidding process, however, but requires a methodology of lobbying dealmakers otherwise known on Capitol Hill as the U.S. Congress. To wit, the Saudi Arabian government spends $20 million annually to lobbying organizations and law firms representing them in order to gain exclusive access to lawmakers in advancing such financial interests or specific foreign trade policy agendas.

For example, former Secretary of State, James Baker, a senior partner in the law firm, Baker Botts, LLC, of Houston, TX, is legal representative to Saudi Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz, one of several Saudi persons, entities, Islamic foundations and financial institutions named as defendants in a pending lawsuit brought by the 9/11 Families to Bankrupt Terrorism.

And lastly, but no less important, in the last frontier of U.S. fire sale economics, concerns the type of financial instruments which will be used for the SABIC-GE Plastics transaction promising GE $9 million in cash, after taxes. In mid-2006, SABIC set up an Islamic finance arm to oversee its domestic Islamic bond issues. Since the United Kingdom is home to two Islamic banks, sukuks, or asset-based Islamic bonds, are readily marketed to international investors. SABIC plans to finance $2.2 billion of the GE Plastics deal by issuing bonds. The finance group and underwriters for the SABIC-GE transaction are the combined CitiGroup, Inc., HSBC Holdings Plc, Amro Holding NV and GE Capital, a division of GE, GE Plastics’ parent company. Bonds are expected to be sold in Europe and in the U.S.

Of note, is that in April 2006, Dow Jones and CitiGroup launched the first Islamic Bond Index, created specifically to assess global bonds’ compliance with Shariah investment guidelines. Shariah law dictates that such money be used for only those purposes compatible with Islam. But there are potential difficulties with such transactions in that they are specifically Shariah law compliant instruments and may conflict with U.S. law.

Presently, it has not yet been decided by SABIC if in fact it will exclusively issue Islamic bonds for the purchase. But the complexities involved in the GE Plastics sale is anything but straight forward and for that very reason is deserved of more scrutiny, analysis and caution from not only CFIUS but from the U.S. Congress.

And U.S. Congressional representatives should be far less mindful about critics’ scorn and far more concerned with their dutiful obligation to govern in the best interest of the American people and their responsibility to use foresight in order to best preserve America’s future and its assets.

Copyright © 2007 Diane M. Grassi
Contact: dgrassi@cox.net

MLB Bats Whittled Down to Uneven Playing Field

2007-07-01T19:57:00.000-07:00

By Diane M. Grassi

As Barry Bonds comes ever closer to breaking the National Pastime’s hallowed home run record, currently held by Hank Aaron at 755, the controversy regarding illicit performance enhancing drug use, which may forever taint Bond’s entire career, does accomplish taking the focus off of Major League Baseball (MLB) and its own shortcomings.

The scrutiny which has been paid, in only just the past two years, over drug use among MLB players, while having been a black eye for MLB, is also convenient as Commissioner Bud Selig need not address myriad other issues which also play their part in preserving the integrity of the game.

For example, MLB has done little exploration into the variations in equipment over just the past 10 years or so and more specifically the wooden bat itself. A number of questions come to mind. Is it just coincidence that Barry Bonds hit 73 home runs in 2001 after he switched his bat’s wood from that of ash to a hand-lathed maple? Is the accelerated breakage of bats over the past 5 plus years due to an acutely thinning bat handle with a larger barrel and lighter weight or is it the non-discriminate MLB approval process of the making and even storage of bats that makes them more vulnerable?

Is it a coincidence that prior to 2003, MLB welcomed smaller bat makers as suppliers to MLB players but suddenly instituted an exorbitant certification fee with nearly impossible to acquire insurance liability policies for smaller operations, costing thousands upon thousands of dollars? And is it not worth taking a look at why there is such a difference in the quality of bats Hillerich & Bradsby Co., the manufacturer of Louisville Sluggers, provides only specific big leaguers, but does not do so for others? In fact, the company proudly admits it.

Preserving the sanctity of the game is multi-faceted. Although technology and safety standards over time have essentially been a beneficial reward for players, it is hard to measure the consistency of the game of MLB if issues such as bat manufacture and its own baseball operations are done on a selective and arbitrary basis. And when it ultimately impacts the way the game is played and its future records, it should be routinely examined.

Hillerich & Bradsby, although deemed the official bat of MLB, is not the exclusive supplier of bats for its players. However, it is still the number one provider to MLB with about a 60% share of its bats supply and curries favor and power, due to its longevity and stature in the history of the game, not to mention the power which is bestowed upon it by MLB, which few other manufacturers enjoy.

In 2002, there were 48 MLB bat manufacturers, and surprisingly little thought was put into the verification process in order to become a bat maker supplier of MLB bats other than for the supplier to provide a sample bat made out of a single piece of wood. But in 2003, MLB went to the other extreme. In a form letter sent to all bat makers in December 2002, MLB stated it would start requiring that they carry $10 million worth of liability insurance, and indemnify MLB, its shareholders, directors, officers, employees and agents attached to various product liability issues.

In addition, the certification fee was increased to $10,000.00 per year, necessary to provide bat makers with the privilege of selling their bats to MLB players. Since that time, although the liability coverage has been reduced to $5 million per year, it still remains prohibitively expensive for boutique manufacturers, or most other domestic suppliers other than Hillerich and Bradsby, to do business with MLB.

MLB also requires that the insurance carrier providing coverage to bat makers must have a “best rating of A-8 or better.” Carolina Clubs, a MLB certified bat maker from Florida, was nearly denied doing business with MLB, as to find a guaranteed insurance carrier of any kind in the hurricane-ridden state of Florida in the post-Katrina era is nearly impossible. However, virtually overnight in 2003, bat suppliers were whittled down to a mere 14 for that season. In 2007, there are supposedly 20-25 suppliers, although MLB makes it difficult to even corroborate such information.

According to the head of MLB Baseball Operations at the time in 2003, Sandy Alderson, “The administrative fee was originally intended to help us defray the costs of inspecting bats, approving bats and for all administrative work and testing.” MLB needed $140,000.00 to approve the bats of 14 companies?

In 1862, MLB first restricted the diameter of the barrel, requiring it not exceed 2.5 inches. It was increased in 1895 to 2.75 inches in diameter, as it remains today. 1868 saw the limit put on a length of 42 inches, as it also remains today. No weight requirements, either minimum or maximum have ever been required. With those parameters, combined with improvements in technology and players’ bat speeds, it could be argued that it is a far different game than even Babe Ruth played. For example, the Babe used a 42-ounce bat as opposed to the average weight of 32 ounces used by today’s MLB players.

Ash bats were exclusively used for decades, after hickory was phased out, until 1997 when Sam Holman of Ottawa, Canada and his Sam Bat caught the attention of then Blue Jays star player, Joe Carter. He then supposedly talked up Holman’s bats which eventually in 1999 found their way into the hands of Barry Bonds. Bonds went on a tear hitting 374 of his total home runs with the sugar maple bats from Sam Holman and broke Mark McGuire’s 1998 home run season record of 70 by besting him with his 73 in 2001.

Holman’s bats have been used by over 500 MLB players and he is expected to furnish Bonds with the bat used for his number 756. Given the proximity of Holman to some of the best maple tree forests in North America in Ottawa, Holman’s business has thrived over the past ten years, although he is selling his business in order to retire. Ash trees also hail from a northern climate, and are harvested primarily from the New York-Pennsylvania area.

The arguments over the consistency and flight of the ball with either wood are never-ending, but there are distinct differences between the two woods. Ash supposedly has more flex, but is not as heavy a wood as maple, producing a bit less flight of the ball upon impact. Additionally, ash bats have less longevity than maple bats and break more frequently and are more apt to shatter, flake and splinter upon breaking.

Sugar or rock maple, considered the finest maple for bats, are more expensive, and range in price from $70.00 -$130.00 while ash bats range between $50.00 and $75.00, yet need to be replaced more frequently than maple. Most players using maple claim that the ball travels farther off of the barrel’s “sweet spot” as opposed to ash. But because the wood itself is a heavier grade, the barrels are made slightly narrower than the ash bats in order to accommodate a lighter weight comparable to ash. And when maple bats do eventually break, they do so in large pieces as opposed to splinters.

The lack of restrictions on weight or the lack of prescribed storage care of bats by MLB, could have a profound impact on whether or not a bat breaks or explodes upon impact. Such endangers its players and spectators. Players go through an average of 60-70 bats a season. But the moisture content of the wood upon manufacture as well as in storage, whether the bat is hand-lathed or completely machine made, as well as the bat’s weight and handle diameter, could all alter the bat’s ultimate performance and longevity. Seattle Mariner, Ichiro Suzuki, for example, has his own humidor for his entire bat supply.

And why should a bat maker, such as Sam Holman, who produces several thousand bats each season to MLB as opposed to Hillerich and Bradsby's 750,000, foot a bill of $65,000.00 per year for liability insurance? The supposed interest in increasing liability insurance fees by MLB for bat makers is an easy way for MLB not to address the incessant breakage of its bats. Perhaps it is the quality of MLB bat inspectors, or a lack of a minimum quality standard of wood or the non-requirement of prescribed weight ratio of bat barrels to handles. But instead of MLB looking for a better standardization process for its bats, it would rather thrust the responsibility onto the bat makers, and thereby still leaving players and spectators at risk.

Also of note, according to Hillerich and Bradsby’s Chuck Schupp, head of its professional division, “We have a priority list of players. A lot of it is based on a personal relationship. If someone is loyal to us, we’ll take care of them.” And although players are not required to sign exclusivity contracts with bat makers, as individual teams assume all costs for players’ bats, Schupp says there is a “Louisville Slugger ‘A’ list.” It includes Alex Rodriguez, Derek Jeter, Jason Giambi, Carlos Delgado and Ken Griffey, Jr., among select others.

If star players are treated preferably by Schupp for their Louisville Slugger bats, does that mean that average or up and coming players are at a distinct disadvantage while not getting the best product from the same manufacturer? Should not MLB perhaps look into that?

And finally, unless MLB and its Commissioner is willing to look at all matters of inequity in its sport, whether it be an issue between players, between equipment manufacturers and its players, between baseball operations and its suppliers or a lack of standardization when it comes to equipment, MLB should not be permitted to point the finger exclusively at the use of performance enhancing drugs as the sole threat to the sanctity of the game. For that is far from the only difference-maker in varying performance results in the game of MLB today.

And if MLB wants to be taken seriously in preserving the integrity of the game, it must do a far better job of it rather than its present lethargic effort. For certainly, they are not fooling the fans and the fans and the players deserve better.

Copyright © 2007 Diane M. Grassi
Contact: dgrassi@cox.net

NAFTA SUPERHIGHWAY HAS GIULIANI AS KEY PLAYER

2007-05-09T21:58:00.000-07:00

By Diane M. Grassi

On March 23, 2005, U.S. President George W. Bush, former Canadian Prime Minister, Paul Martin and former Mexican President, Vicente Fox, authorized the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), now under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Commerce. Most Americans have little to no knowledge of this seemingly innocuous sounding unofficial treaty and therefore believe there is little reason to be alarmed.

However, what could be misinterpreted as legislation which has been scrutinized, and has gone through the proper channels of government could not be farther from the truth, in that the U.S. Congress has had no direct disclosure of nor has taken part in its execution.

Legally, a treaty would require a two-thirds majority of the U.S. Senate to concur for its ratification as determined by the U.S. Constitution. Cleverly, however, since the SPP is not a treaty, the President was able to avoid such a required procedure by using the power of the Executive Branch. And in August 2006, President Bush additionally crafted a Signing Statement to passed legislation declaring it Constitutional for his administration to withhold information from or deny authority required from the U.S. Congress on the SPP and its negotiations.

With the recent swell and frequency of free trade agreements being passed in the U.S. Congress in the past few years alone, seemingly rushed through without genuine debate or challenge, it would be easy for the public to assume that the SPP was authorized by Congress and thinking matters pertaining to it were in the best interest of the American people. And sadly, many U.S. free trade agreements do not directly better the workers of the countries involved, but are solely reserved for big business profiting from cheap labor, and foreign lobbyists and bureaucrats enriching themselves.

But the SPP is cleverly disguised as a boon for all three North American countries and its citizens, yet has lacked input or oversight from federal, state, or municipal legislators nationwide. The goals of the SPP agenda largely include a call for transparency and unprecedented cooperation with respect to all three governments’ commerce and trade. The endeavor is to join forces in uniting as one competitive body in the global marketplace and to function as the North American Union (NAU), which at the same time whittles away at each country’s sovereignty, its national security and its laws.

The facilitation of the SPP will stem from the use of the U.S. interstate highway system providing the roads for inter-continental and interstate commerce. For that to happen will require retro-fitting of existing interstates as well as building new roads, including gas and power lines, including light rail, from the interior of Mexico, through the central corridor of the U.S. and on into Canada.

Both the proposed NAU and NAFTA Superhighway are offshoots of the North American Free Trade Agreement, signed in 1993 by then President Bill Clinton. At the time it was sold to the American people and the Mexican government as a win-win for both peoples and would re-balance the flow of trade back to Mexico in order for Mexican workers to earn a living wage. But that never transpired and instead backfired, resulting in the onslaught of nearly 20 million illegal aliens since, illegally crossing the U.S. southern border, supposedly looking for decent paying jobs.

But to fully understand the evolution of the call for the need of a NAFTA Superhighway it is important to at least understand the recent history behind it. The introduction of free trade policy has morphed into a priority of the U.S. government today, even putting national security at risk in order to fulfill its agenda. It was the Reagan Administration’s vision of free trade, a direct response to Japan’s explosive growth and expansion in both the automobile and electronics industries in the U.S., which began to shift the balance of trade and the lopsided result we now have today with most of our trading partners.

And fifteen years since the passage of NAFTA has not only enabled the U.S. to globalize arguably beyond proportions in all areas of commerce, industry and trade, but it has helped to foster public-private partnerships, a benign term used to mask what are essentially foreign-direct investments. And foreign-direct investment has grown precipitously since 1988 when former President George H.W. Bush signed the Exon-Florio Amendment to the Defense Production Act of 1950.

It was also in 1988 when the President, through Exon-Florio, delegated his power to approve or disapprove such foreign acquisitions to the Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Investments in the U.S. (CFIUS), relieving the President of the responsibility in determining national security threats in foreign-direct acquisitions. Unfortunately, the definition of national security in a post-911 world remains too narrow to address protection of critical infrastructure, a scarce defense supply, or preservation of technological standards, among many other risks, unquestioned back in 1988.

The Exon-Florio Amendment authorizes the President to “suspend or prohibit foreign acquisitions, mergers, or takeovers of U.S. companies if a foreign controlling interest might take action that threatens national security.” And the term “foreign control” remains ambiguous and decidedly so. The ramifications of the Exon-Florio Amendment reared its head when in February 2006 CFIUS, an arm of the U.S. Department of the Treasury, became widely recognized for its authorization of the Dubai Ports World to operate multiple East Coast port operations including the Port Authority of New York, and the ports of Baltimore and Miami.

The balancing act of national security and foreign-direct acquisitions has relegated national security concerns to that of an afterthought, as the Department of the Treasury’s prime priority is expanding commerce in the global marketplace. Complaints about the secluded CFIUS process, however, predate the Dubai Ports World alarm bells of 2006. For it was in October 2005 when Senator Richard Shelby, (R) Alabama, called for hearings on the inclusion of Congressional oversight of CFIUS approvals. And it was prior to 2006 when Senator James Inhofe, (R) Oklahoma, lobbied for Congress to be able to reject CFIUS approvals.

As it stands, most every foreign acquisition sails through the approval process. Unless there is a 45-day investigation process after the required 30-day review by CFIUS, the President’s approval is not required and thereby never reaches the Congress for any interaction or input. Between 1988 and 2005 only two foreign acquisitions were unapproved out of 1,555 reviews. Both were withdrawn and eligible for later re-instatement.

Many foreign entities seek out a “pre-screening” with CFIUS’ member agencies, comprised of 12 departments of the U.S. government, if national security concerns are anticipated in order to mitigate the chances of non-approval and triggering the 45-day investigation.

The disparate interests of free trade and the protection of critical infrastructure, and in particular the U.S. highway system as well as public utilities, has given way to high-powered U.S. law firms and professional lobbyist organizations that lay the groundwork for foreign conglomerates to land foreign-acquisition contracts with cash-starved states amenable to foreign-direct investment.

Such is the case with the Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC), the brainchild of the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) in concert with the SPP. It is a multi-billion dollar web of highway building, toll road maintenance, gas pipelines, public utilities and railroad contracts as complex and as multi-layered as the U.S. interstate highway system itself. A flurry of over 20 foreign acquisitions of interstate highway projects and toll road maintenance contracts have been approved since 2003 with many more nationwide working their way through state legislatures, such as that of the New Jersey Turnpike which Governor Jon Corzine believes is ripe for foreign funding.

But the TTC is the biggest and most massive highway building project of them all and for the first time will rely upon a foreign entity to not only maintain toll roads but to have a stake in building, controlling operations and tolls and expanding new roads and critical infrastructure. Additionally, eminent domain law will come into play in order to reconcile the taking of property and farmland for road expansion to accommodate pipelines and railroad tracks.

And much like the SPP planning, which took place behind closed doors, the TTC collaboration began in 2002 in Texas Governor Richard Perry’s chambers, where state legislators and taxpayers were deliberately cut out of negotiations and the bidding process. Negotiations began with the Spanish engineering transportation construction firm, Cintra Concesiones de Infrastructures de Transporte, S.A., a subsidiary of the Grupo Ferrovial, which specializes in toll roads and car parks and considered a leading developer of private-sector infrastructure throughout Europe.

At the center of negotiations for multiple legs of the Superhighway Corridor throughout Texas, is none other than Rudolph Giuliani’s law firm which landed the Comprehensive Development Agreement for a widening of Interstate-35, now referred to as the TTC-35, in addition to the Master Development Plans for State Highways 121 and 130 among other legs of the TTC. All negotiations for Cintra were and are presently handled by the law firm, Bracewell & Giuliani, LLP, of which Republican Presidential candidate, Rudolph Giuliani, has been a senior executive partner since March 2005. His law firm is the exclusive legal counsel for Cintra. Bracewell & Giuliani is comprised of 400 attorneys, based in Houston, TX with offices in New York City, Washington, D.C., London and Kazakhstan.

Cintra joined with San Antonio, TX-based Zachry Construction Corp. to help land the contracts, in which Zachry owns a 20% interest. The Cintra-Zachry proposal for TTC-35 includes a private investment of up to $6 billion in upfront payments for the complete construction, design and operation of a 316-mile toll road between Dallas and San Antonio, giving Cintra the right to set tolls and keep toll road profits for a period of 50 years, as it will for each road it has contracted.

The NAFTA Superhighway and its corridors will run from Southwestern Mexico through Laredo, Austin and Dallas, TX, into Kansas City, KA, serving as an inland customs port. The corridor will split in Kansas with one leg going to Winnipeg, Canada through Omaha, NE. The other leg goes to Toronto, Canada through Des Moines, IA, Chicago, IL and Detroit, MI.

As many as 10 lanes, one-mile wide will incorporate double rails and pipelines. The second corridor is planned from Brownsville to Houston, TX through Arkansas, Memphis, TN and into Norfolk, VA. While the principal use for these corridors is to speed Asian goods into the Central and Eastern U.S., it will require 145 acres of land per mile or 540,000 total acres of land. And in Texas, the state may utilize its own discretion in using eminent domain law in order to reach its goal.

Had gasoline tax revenues been properly allocated and solely reserved for highway projects over the years, neither Texas nor numerous other states would be as desperate for funds as they claim they now are, as many highway funds have been found to have been raided for other state projects and public funding.

The citizens of Texas only as recently as February 2007 began to attend state legislative hearings where many state lawmakers themselves were beginning to become familiar with the Cintra contracts. Several have called for a moratorium on at least the TTC-35 project, envisioned as a high-speed highway, until they can evaluate issues such as eminent domain, cost benefit analysis, environmental impact and homeland security ramifications.

Most interesting to the whole story is not only has Mr. Giuliani’s involvement in the NAFTA Superhighway not ever having been publicly addressed, but how a foreign company is awarded the building of a mass highway system, versus maintaining it, for the first time in U.S. history, and negotiated by the law firm of the top Republican candidate running for President of the United States. And truly disturbing is how such will not only have national and homeland security and sovereignty implications but how it is deliberately being kept away from the Halls of Congress.

Giuliani fancies himself as an expert on homeland security issues and a law enforcer. And he has amassed quite the portfolio since 2002, earning $20 million in that year alone, by selling himself as such. He owns Giuliani Partners, Giuliani Safety & Security and Giuliani Capital Advisors. In March 2007 he sold Giuliani Capital Advisors, a former Ernst & Young finance company he purchased in 2002, to Macquerie Infrastructure Consortium. Not coincidentally, it is a partner of Cintra’s in its shared operations of toll roads in both Indiana and Chicago, IL.

Bracewell & Giuliani represents some of the biggest multi-national oil, utility infrastructure and financial corporations both in the U.S. and abroad. With that have come the connections that Giuliani has been able to tap into for campaign donors, essential for his presidential bid, not only in Texas but nationwide, as he has become the consummate globalist. But more troubling than potential conflicts of interest as a public servant is his lack of compunction to secure U.S. borders and then planting himself squarely in the middle of one of the most controversial and historic highway system projects since the 1956 National Federal-Aid Highway Act.

Particularly unnerving, given Guiliani’s personal experience on 9-11, is his defense of open borders at any cost while condoning the NAFTA Superhighway Corridor and by extension the North American Union, without the purview or consent of the U.S. Congress or the will of the American people.

We should have seen it coming when Giuliani enacted Special Order 40 in 1994, during his tenure as Mayor of New York City, in ordering law enforcement officers to no longer check the legal status of suspects caught violating the law. We should have seen it coming when Rudolph Giuliani single-handedly decided that illegal aliens were not lawbreakers and also quit upholding the law. And unfortunately we now do see it coming. But sadly, he may now actually be handed the opportunity to no longer defend and abide by the U.S. Constitution of the United States of America.

Copyright ©2007 Diane M. Grassi
Contact: dgrassi@cox.net

DOES CLEMENS' CONTRACT WITH THE YANKEES DISRESPECT BASEBALL?

2007-05-09T21:53:00.000-07:00

By Diane M. Grassi

By now, the baseball nation has had time to try and wrap its head around the re-signing of Roger Clemens to the New York Yankees, for the remainder of the 2007 Major League Baseball (MLB) season. Most likely, according to Clemens and Yankees General Manager, Brian Cashman, it will be around June 1st, if not sooner, when Clemens makes his 2007 MLB debut.

Sports pundits, broadcasters, journalists as well as every MLB fan has an opinion about the big dollars involved and whether Clemens is essentially a hired gun. But there are perhaps a number of questions beneath the veneer which should be discussed, which are far bigger than one Roger Clemens. For baseball history and the supposed integrity of the game dictates, at least seemingly so, that no one player is greater than the game itself.

But if we expect an ex-owner and opportunist such as Commissioner Bud Selig to be the one to honor the game, we might as well give up now. Given his wretched record of ignoring performance enhancing drugs in his sport for almost 15 years, for example, until he was ultimately squeezed by the U.S. Congress to seriously address the issue, how can we expect anything but business as usual from such a flawed figure presiding over the integrity of the game?

And when speaking about the integrity of the game, we must address the very basic idea of baseball as being a team sport, which takes the efforts of every player to be in attendance for every game, whether or not they are actually participating on the field that day.

It can be argued that Roger Clemens is being paid entirely too much compensation for his truncated season in 2007, but more importantly, is the precedent setting structure of his deal. But in order to evaluate his current deal, it is helpful to revisit his contracts of the preceding 3 years.

Those who have followed Clemens’ career, since his first retirement after the 2003 season with the NY Yankees, know that he spent three consecutive years with the Houston Astros, thereafter. Clemens returned to Houston, supposedly for the opportunity to close out his career with his hometown club.

With some prodding from good friend and starting pitcher, Andy Pettitte, who also left the Yankees to return to his home in Houston, after not reaching an agreement with NY after the 2003 season, Clemens came out of his brief 6-week retirement and signed a 1-year contract with Houston on January 12, 2004, for the entire 2004 season.

Clemens pitched in 33 games in 2004, 214.1 innings, had an 18-4 record with a 2.98 ERA. He followed that up by winning the 2004 National League Cy Young Award, the seventh of his career.

In December 2004, Clemens accepted salary arbitration from the Astros and re-signed for a 1-year deal in January 2005, for the entire 2005 season. The contract was for $18,000,000.022; almost double that of his 2004 incentive-laden salary. During 2005, he pitched in 32 games, 211.1 innings, with a 13-8 record and finished with the lowest ERA in MLB at 1.87.

The Astros made it to the 2005 World Series but were unfortunately swept by the Chicago White Sox. Clemens also disappointingly was forced to leave Game 1 of the 2005 World Series due to a hamstring injury, a chronic problem for him during his years from 1999-2003 with the NY Yankees. Primarily due to those injuries, Clemens thought long and hard about whether or not to return to MLB for 2006, due to his conditioning program, stamina and longing for his family. He eventually, however, filed for free agency in November 2005. Then the Astros denied him arbitration in early December 2005, thus precluding him from re-signing with the club until after May 1, 2006.

Clemens then went on to participate in the World Baseball Classic in March 2006 and left the door open to return for the 2006 MLB season. And on May 31, 2006 he signed a contract with the Houston Astros worth $22,000,000.022, pro-rated for the portion of the season which he completed. Clemens’ first game of 2006, however, was not until June 22, 2006. He ended up pitching in 19 games, 113 innings, with a 7-6 record and a 2.30 ERA.

It can be speculated that since Clemens lived in the Houston vicinity, that he initially retired after the 2003 season to spend more time with his wife and four young sons, and that it was the main reason he was accommodated by the Astros allowing him to stay at home in Houston, when not scheduled to pitch, while the club was on the road.

Most baseball fans, at least those outside of Houston, were reportedly not even aware of such an arrangement. Those who did know, as well as the media, pretty much gave him a pass for such an allowance, given the future Hall of Famer’s contribution to the game of baseball over the course of his career. Presently, Clemens has 348 lifetime wins and 4.604 strikeouts, second all-time. His advancing age also worked in his favor for such a request.

But Clemens’ just executed contract with the NY Yankees ventures even more so into untested waters. For not only will Clemens be playing a shortened season, but for the first time, at least in Yankees history, the storied club with the most wins in history, will allow him to essentially be a part-time player. Yes, his contract is excessive even for a full-time player, which works out to around a pro-rated amount of $4.5 million per month for the 2007 season. But he will be accorded the option in his shortened season to be away from the team on his four days between starts if he so wishes, to either tend to family, charity or other business obligations.

Ever since the DH was instituted in 1971, it has been scrutinized as it raises the question as to whether it is fair for a DH to be considered a full-time player, as he does not play the field. But it remains the obligation of the DH to cheer on his teammates, whether he is on the field or not. The same can be said for relief pitchers, pinch hitters, utility players, or pinch runners, whether or not they are used on a daily basis.

Clemens seemed rather disingenuous when he said at his news conference on May 6, 2007 that, “I didn’t know the details of my contract sitting down yesterday.” Rest assured that Roger Clemens knew exactly what he wanted and that his agent Randy Hendricks would not have deleted such a clause in the contract without checking with him first.

But, if it really does not matter to Clemens when asked specifically about such an arrangement, then he should honor his promise to work with the young pitchers on the Yankees staff when he is not pitching, and strike that traveling clause from his agreement. Otherwise, how he will have time to work with the other pitchers, given his out-of-town distractions, will remain questionable.

Where Bud Selig should make a ruling is to make it clear that such an arrangement should not be left up to any one franchise as it will ultimately lead to favoritism over other players and opens the door for other players demanding like contracts. It also leads to the probability for low team morale, and thereby a lack of team cohesiveness.

And the contributing parties to this whole scenario must be held accountable in addition to the Commissioner of MLB. They include the Houston Astros, its management and ownership, the NY Yankees, its management and ownership, the Major League Baseball Players Association (MLBPA), and of course, Roger Clemens himself.

But the fate of MLB clearly rests on Bud Selig’s shoulders. However, he is once again too shortsighted to foresee that MLB’s future also is determined by his inactions and benign neglect of his obligations for the good of the game of baseball. And yes, sometimes it is not about the money but rather about the game itself and about preserving its integrity for generations to come.

You decide.

Copyright © Diane M. Grassi
Contact: dgrassi@cox.net

NATIVE AMERICANS HOLD KEY BETWEEN PAST & PRESENT

2007-03-28T18:13:00.000-07:00

By Diane M. Grassi

The dawn of the 2007 Major League Baseball (MLB) season is perhaps the best time to reflect upon baseball’s past and its hopes for the future. At no other time of the season will fans’ aspirations be as high without need for qualification.

As teams gear up for Opening Day on April 1st, major league camps in both the Grapefruit and Cactus Leagues have had the enviable positions to not only evaluate the 2007 starting line-ups but to get a look at what the future holds for 2008 and 2009. And in that regard, Spring Training has routinely become important not only to evaluate present-day players but for the prognostication of what teams can expect down the road.

Baseball is arguably the sport most intertwined with its history and legacy along with its impact on society. Its past demands that it be revisited, especially when speaking about its future, as we explore here two notable and historically unique minor league prospects.

It was in 1887 when the first American Indian is believed to have competed in the major leagues. James Madison Toy, of partial Indian ancestry played in the American Association League in that year as well as in 1890. Toy preceded Louis Sockalexis, the first officially acknowledged American Indian who competed for the Cleveland Spiders of the National League in 1897 until 1899.

Although Native Americans entered the world of professional baseball 50 years prior to African Americans, who competed in the Negro Leagues, until Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier by signing his minor league contract with Dodgers in 1945, there have been less than 50 Native Americans of full Indian ancestry to compete in the Major Leagues since 1897.

Charles Albert “Chief” Bender is the sole Native American elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame, although Jim Thorpe was perhaps the best-known Native American player of the 20th century as he excelled in multiple sports.
There are, however, many well-known Hall of Famers who are of part Native American ancestry such as Johnny Bench, Willie Stargell and Early Wynn.

At long last, the drought of notable Native American future hopefuls in MLB may be over. One of them can be found in the New York Yankees organization and the other in the organization of its rival, the Boston Red Sox. Right handed starting pitcher, Joba Chamberlain, was landed by the Yankees in the 2006 draft, signed as a supplemental first-round pick and 41st overall. Chamberlain is a member of the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska. After competing for two years for the University of Nebraska, having only started to play baseball as a senior in high school in Lincoln, Nebraska, Chamberlain led his team to the 2005 College World Series going 10-2 for the season with a 2.81 ERA.

Now 21, Chamberlain has been clocked with a 98-mph fastball and has been favorably compared by physique, delivery and his portfolio of pitches to Cleveland Indians pitcher, C.C. Sabathia. Most important for the Yankees, is not to rush Chamberlain to the Big Show too early, as he has a history of weight and triceps tendonitis problems. He spent the winter in the Hawaiian Winter League where his progress continued, followed by an invite to Spring Training. Yet, it is his strong mental makeup which is central to his battling any problems which may arise along the way, according to the Yankees. Slated to start in A-ball at the beginning of 2007, Chamberlain could end the season as high as AAA, with a possible shot at making the Yankees rotation in 2008.

Another Native American star in the making spent Spring Training in Red Sox Nation. Jacoby Ellsbury, whose mother is of full Navajo descent and a member of the Colorado River Tribe, has taken his partial Native American heritage quite seriously. Ellsbury, signed by Boston in the first round of the draft in 2005 as the 23rd overall pick, is a left-handed outfielder who competed for Oregon State University where he was the 2005 Pac-10 Conference Co-Player of the year and an All Academic Honorable Mention. Ellsbury was ranked as the fastest base runner and 3rd best defensive outfielder of eligible college players in Baseball America’s Best Tools Survey for 2005.

Ellsbury’s speed coupled with power to all fields, according to the Red Sox, most closely resembles Johnny Damon’s playing style and the hope is that he will at least spend part of the 2008 season at the major league level while becoming a regular starter in 2009.

And a recent former major leaguer, Bobby Madritsch, pitched for the Seattle Mariners in 2004 and 2005 and was traded to the Kansas City Royals for the 2006 season. Madritsch is of Lakota Sioux heritage. He recovered at age 28 from reconstructive shoulder surgery when the Mariners signed him. Unfortunately, he re-injured his shoulder and tore his labrum in 2005 and the Royals eventually released him. Now 31, Madritsch has not elected another surgery but is still attempting a comeback in some organization with a minor league contract for 2007. Thus far, only the Philadelphia Phillies have shown any interest.

All three of these players have one commonality in addition to their Native American roots, however, and that is that they grew up off of the Indian reservation, regardless of their heritage. Ellsbury had limited time living at the Warms Springs reservation early in his childhood, where his mother is a special education teacher, but he grew up in Madras, Oregon. Chamberlain grew up in Lincoln, Nebraska and Madritsch, while born on an Indian reservation, was taken away when he was but 2 months old and raised amongst the rough neighborhoods of Chicago.

Key to their success, however, is that all three men assimilated into American life, unlike other Native American boys living on Indian reservations and thereby increased their odds for success later in life. Still, unbeknownst to most Americans, the reservations remain rife with poverty with a lack of general services. There exists a high school dropout rate of over 40%, an unemployment rate of over 60% and the poverty rate exceeds 25%. Healthcare and education are under-funded while diabetes, obesity, alcohol and drug abuse are pervasive problems. And all of this remaining depravity is present in spite of the fact that the Indian Gaming Association touts that there are now Indian gaming casinos in 28 states which have proliferated over the past decade.

And the lack of participation in sports on either the collegiate or professional levels by Native Americans prevails. The overriding concept ingrained in Native American culture is that standing out for individual accomplishment is in direct conflict with the importance of functioning as a group. Enjoying success apart from the tribe is not rewarded but rather scorned. As such, athletes who leave and go on to have a modicum of success only return to the reservation to face criticism and rejection by family and friends. This is often too much to reconcile in the mind of an adolescent.

Many Native American athletes additionally suffer from a bad rap by college coaches or professional scouts as well. Few coaches avail themselves to the talent on the reservations. Most are told, by the scant few who have actually approached Native American communities, that they will be let down by the Native American’s inability to successfully assimilate on the college or professional level. Moreover, coaches worry about academic eligibility of these prospective students.

Making the transition from a sheltered life on a reservation to a college campus requires basic life skills which are lacking without the proper guidance. And feelings of guilt about achieving success have led Native American athletes to deliberately sabotage his or her chances to thrive. They would rather go back to a depraved life that is familiar to them and be around family rather than vying for a better stake in life.

Not dissimilar to the lack of effort exhibited by MLB in its investment of players from the African American community, it as well as the universities routinely seek out players overseas rather than even approach potential which exists on Indian reservations. The idea is dismissed out of hand. But unlike the youth of the African American community, who generally long to escape a life of poverty and crime-ridden neighborhoods, the Native American needs to be exposed to options in a way which can work in concert with their culture and customs, yet improve their lot in life.

Both Chamberlain and Ellsbury find themselves in unique positions, given the level of expectations for them on the big league level. And since they remain members of their respective tribes, they have the opportunity to foster a new dialog between MLB and the Native American community as well as to implore scouts and college coaches to not give up on their people. Therefore, it is ever more important that these two players by virtue of their climb to success at the major league level and beyond play a key role in introducing a whole new source of untapped talent of American boys, who just happen to live on a reservation.

“I think coaches might find out that the reservations contain some extraordinary athletes….It takes a special coach to bring them along, give them the security they need,” according to South Dakota State Representative, Ron Volesky, a member of the Lakota Sioux and a Harvard graduate. He too grew up primarily away from the reservation.

But let us hope that the Native American population can give to those of their own heritage, who have been successful, the necessary access to its most important asset, its children, in that they have a chance for a better life, whether it be in sports or some other discipline.

Copyright ©2007 Diane M. Grassi
Contact: dgrassi@cox.net

MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL PROFITS FROM NEW CHANGE IN IMMIGRATION LAW

2007-02-18T17:28:00.000-08:00

By Diane M. Grassi

Major League Baseball (MLB) will celebrate the 60th Anniversary of Jackie Robinson’s entry into the major leagues, on April 15, 2007, which ended the prohibition of integration of African American players. However, it is arguable how much MLB has built upon his symbolic legacy, as civil rights hero, since it enjoyed complete integration in 1959.

For it is has been documented, and especially over the past 10 years, as the 2007 baseball season begins, that MLB has far more in common with American-based multi-national conglomerates than it does with the idea of inclusiveness, where bottom line profits dictate company policy.

Ironically, MLB will also hold an exhibition game on March 31, 2007 in Memphis, TN between the World Champion St. Louis Cardinals and the Cleveland Indians. It is lauded as the inaugural “Civil Rights Game” in the city where the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated in 1968. Yet, for all of Commissioner Bud Selig’s interest in diversity in MLB, there are scant African American patrons in baseball stadiums nationwide. Although MLB argues that is not necessarily so, it denies even keeping such statistics.

Such could also explain why MLB does such a poor job of marketing to the African American community, as it is one which MLB, it would appear, simply does not consider valuable. For as overall profits rise, “If it ain’t broke why fix it?” In turn, why have a civil rights game if there are no African Americans in the house?

There have only been 12 African American MLB managers in the history of the game. The most at any one time was 6 in 2002. Today, after the 2006 dismissals of Frank Robinson of the Washington Nationals and Dusty Baker of the Chicago Cubs, Willie Randolph of the New York Mets and the newly named Ron Washington of the Texas Rangers remain the only African American managers in the major leagues.

Hall of Famer, Frank Robinson, became the first African American major league manager in 1975 and was involved in almost every facet of the game for 51 years, from player to coach to manager to Vice President of On-Field Operations of MLB. Most recently, he was the Montreal Expos manager followed by the Washington Nationals helm, where he led the transition of the two organizations for a period of 5 years.

Frank Robinson was unceremoniously fired as manager by new Nationals management last fall but had at least been promised a community outreach position which he very much wanted. The Nationals management which won its ownership largely based upon its promise to MLB to engage the African American community, chose instead to relieve Robinson entirely of his services.

But Frank Robinson has been repeatedly vocal about keeping the game alive in the African American community, in addition to outspoken Hall of Famer, Joe Morgan, and current Minnesota Twins outfielder, Torii Hunter. Yet, MLB speaks only in platitudes about diversity, bypassing the inner city and working class neighborhoods, seemingly looking for talent everywhere but there.

As its own ruling class, baseball owners have invested in multi-million dollar academies and facilities primarily in the Dominican Republic and Venezuela. But it is now going even farther abroad into mainland China and even Ghana, subsequent to its interests in Japan and South Korea.

MLB has but one Urban Baseball Youth Academy in the entirety of the United States, located in Compton, CA which opened in 2006. MLB donated but $1 million towards the project which is situated on the grounds of Compton Community College which furnishes its buildings of operations. Hardly what one would call a triumph for American inner city youth, at a time that Bud Selig describes as the “Golden Era of Baseball.”

“China is the most important country for the game of baseball as it seeks to develop around the world," according to Randy Levine, President of the New York Yankees. He led a contingent to mainland China on behalf of the NY Yankees and MLB in February 2007 to contract with the Chinese Baseball Association in order to develop baseball, initially constructing fields and financing Little Leagues and equipment. The goal is to eventually provide an academy. Meanwhile, the New York Mets and MLB sent a group to Ghana to formally introduce baseball to West Africa.

But do not mistake such overtures as part of a tour of goodwill ambassadors, as MLB, which still remains the only professional sports organization in the U.S. with a broad reaching anti-trust exemption, does nothing anymore without its eye on the proverbial money ball. It is baseball on the cheap, overlooking America’s homegrown kids. It obviously has no compunction nor feels any obligation to develop an American program, investment or facility built, for example, for every offshore program, investment or facility built.

In 2006, more than 23% of players on major league rosters were comprised of foreign-born players which has more than doubled since 1990. Foreign-born players do not include those from Puerto Rico or other U.S. territories or possessions or those born abroad to U.S. parents. The Dominican Republic enjoys the largest number of foreign-born major league players or about 1 out of 7 in 2006, followed by Venezuela. Mexico, Canada, Japan, Panama, Cuba, Colombia and Taiwan totaled just half of those from the Dominican Republic.

All major league teams have academies and/or share facilities primarily in the Dominican Republic with a few remaining in Venezuela, where building has tailed off due to civil unrest. But in its latest coup, MLB has gotten an even bigger break from the federal government in a recent change in the Immigration & Nationality Act, which was hardly publicized. Amended by the U.S. Congress in 2006 and signed into law on December 22, 2006 by President George W. Bush, it is known as the “Compete Act of 2006” or the “Creating Opportunities for Minor League Professionals, Entertainers and Teams Through Legal Entry Act of 2006.”

The legislation changes the visa status of foreign-born minor league players to be able to use P-1 visas, formerly reserved only for major league players, and an upgrade from the H-2B visas, generally used by temporary foreign-born workers in numerous industries. Each team previously was limited to 26 H-2B visas per season for its minor leagues. Major leagues have no numerical limitations with the P-1 visa, valid for a period of 10 years.

Given that over 40% of minor leaguers are foreign-born and that most of them are from the Dominican Republic, this will enable a continuous pipeline of Latin American players. MLB’s foreign academies house, feed, school and teach athletic skills to boys as young as 10 years old until they are age 16, who are then allowed to sign minor league contracts. In the U.S., a player must be 18 years old to sign a minor league contract and then must go through the draft system.

Young Dominicans have the opportunity to benefit from more than just baseball skills but preparation for a life in the U.S. as well. They are given a chance to at least temporarily leave a life of depravity. By the same token, very few of these youngsters statistically make it to the major leagues and even prior to their new visa status, hundreds of minor leaguers were brought to the U.S. each year only to be relieved of their services. Hundreds of Dominican players also never return to their homeland and remain in the U.S. as illegal immigrants, primarily surviving in the underground economy of New York City.

What MLB no longer finds useful becomes disposable. Unfortunately, these disposables are people; from retired players who never had benefit of the lucrative contract, true ambassadors of the game such as Frank Robinson, African American youth, and even foreign-born players who are not major league material.

It has been said that Latin players in the Dominican Republic sign for contracts between 5 and 10 cents on the dollar compared to their U.S. counterparts. And with approximately 400 Dominican players signed each year to minor league contracts, MLB can celebrate its unhampered pipeline of such as well as its new surprisingly cozy relationship with the U.S. Congress which it lobbied along with the U.S. State Department, for these immigration law changes.

It may be a win-win for MLB as employers looking for cheap labor and even for those other employers willing to hire them at below market value wages, should these minor leaguers remain in the U.S. illegally upon their termination from their respective clubs. Their visas remain valid only as long as they are employed by MLB and its minor leagues. In addition, there will now be more available H-2B visas available per year for those multi-national corporations sniffing out labor with devalued wages in other industries. And the U.S. Congress gets a feather in its cap from some of its largest donors.

But it remains a lose-lose for communities across the U.S. which finance sky box stadiums, unable to afford tickets for their families, for games played on the backs of many exploited athletes who never make it to the big leagues and at the expense of our own children, who of little means, are never even encouraged to play baseball by its biggest profiteers.

For there is a proviso in the immigration law which both the U.S. Congress and MLB conveniently overlooked. The policy developed in 1998 by the U.S. Department of Labor and the Immigration and Naturalization Service, now the Department of Homeland Security, granted MLB its visa program, contingent upon foreign-born players only occupying positions on a team that could not be filled by U.S. citizens.

Obviously, the U.S. government and MLB have come to the conclusion that playing baseball should be included among those “jobs Americans won’t do.” Terribly convenient, but sad for the game of baseball, no longer to be considered an equal opportunity employer. Happy Civil Rights Game, Commissioner!

Copyright ©2007 Diane M. Grassi
Contact: dgrassi@cox.net

NEW MINING LAWS YEAR AFTER SAGO NON-IMPLEMENTED

2007-01-24T20:13:00.000-08:00

By Diane M. Grassi

The tragic explosion of the Sago Mine in West Virginia on January 2, 2006, which took twelve lives and permanently disabled another, still begs for a rational explanation over 1 year later. The disaster captured the interest of the American public and fostered outrage on the part of lawmakers and bureaucrats alike, while coal mining operators ran for cover.

For not only did the International Coal Group, Inc., which owns and operates the Sago Mine, become the poster-child for unsafe mining practices, it became the source of questions which had not been publicly exposed for decades, while miners’ lives remained in peril.

And questions linger as to why existing federal and state safety laws were overlooked by government agencies and regulations bypassed by the coal industry. Still, there was a knee-jerk reaction for more federal legislation rushed through the halls of Congress and various state houses where new laws were enacted in those mining states which lost miners in 2006.

The direct cause of the Sago Mine explosion has yet to be confirmed by the state of West Virginia, the federal Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), the United Mine Workers Association (UMWA) and independent commissions with reports supposedly forthcoming. 2006 saw the largest percentage increase in U.S. coal mining deaths in 107 years, the industry’s highest number since 1995, and more than double that of the 22 in 2005. Yet, explanations for such an increase are varied, depending upon which interested party provides them.

This writer wrote an extensive report one year ago regarding background on federal regulation of the mining industry, its lack of government enforcement, the industry’s deregulation over the past several decades and the industry’s accelerated recent growth which are all contributing factors to the decline in mining safety.

And although such may help give a historic context of the dysfunction, it offers no confidence whether or not coal mining is functionally in a better place 1 year after Sago. Heightened awareness of negligence, whether blind or intentional, is the first step to increased improvement, but there are many more required to assure miners and their families that their lives are in less danger and remain a priority.

Preliminary reports by the West Virginia Office of Miners’ Health, Safety and Training (WVMHST), the International Coal Group, Inc., the MSHA and independent commissioned studies such as the Mine Safety Technology and Training Commission cite contributing factors to the loss of life in Sago Mine.

But without substantial scientific evidence, 3 bolts of lightning strikes remain the official cause for igniting methane gas causing the explosion. And such remains mere speculation and without foundation to mining experts and scientists alike. At issue, is how lightning could travel over two miles and 900 feet underground through twists and turns on its way to a closed-off section where the miners were located and cause the eventual explosion.

Additionally, the underground mine seals used for the walls were manufactured with materials unable to withstand the minimally mandated 20 pounds per square inch (psi). However, the sustained blast of Sago was 95 psi. Engineers are now experimenting with new composites able to handle over 95 psi. To date, there exists no credible material to handle such an explosion although the MSHA amended the requirement for mine seals to be 50 psi in 2006.

It was the loss of life at Sago Mine as well as the two subsequent West Virginia coal mining deaths but weeks after Sago on January 19, 2006 in a fire at Aracoma Mine, followed by the disaster at Darby Mine No. 1 in Harlan County, Kentucky which took 5 more lives on May 20, 2006, that resulted in the expedited federal Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act of 2006. President George W. Bush signed it into law on June 15, 2006. And just weeks after the Sago Mine explosion, West Virginia Governor Joe Manchin executed new mining laws on January 26, 2006 which followed his order for a special investigation by the state of West Virginia into causes of the Sago disaster.

By February 7, 2006 the WVMHST announced the provisions of its emergency regulations mandated by the legislature. They included providing emergency shelters within 1,000 feet of where miners are digging coal; inspection of air supplies daily and reporting results to the state; installation of caches of emergency air supplies equal to 30 minutes of walking time; wireless communication devices capable of reaching the surface through text, voice and by location.

Similarly, Kentucky passed legislation which became effective July 12, 2006 as it suffered a total loss of 16 miners in 2006. The law includes such changes as requiring mine managers to report a serious injury or fatality to state officials within 15 minutes, requires 2 air packs for each miner and provides for escape drills to be conducted every 90 days. Kentucky also now has the power to fine mine operators for violations and to increase from 2 to 3 the number of underground inspections annually.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Congress swiftly cobbled together its own revised mine safety regulations, the first since 1996, after its hearings on Capitol Hill in January 2006, following the Sago Mine explosion and the Aracoma Mine fire fatalities.

The federal law revisions include providing 2 hours of emergency air supplies per miner, plus caches of air packs with an additional 2 hours of air per miner. Previously, only 1 hour of air per miner was required. Mine operators must report a disaster within 15 minutes whereas previously there was no time limit. Two separate and protected communications systems are required. Previously only one was required. Wireless communication and miner tracking systems are required to be operational within three years of June 15, 2006.

Additionally, two experienced rescue teams must respond to mining accidents within 1 hour as opposed to the previous 2 hours and the development of training of emergency response and evacuation plans have been enacted. The MSHA has also added approximately two dozen more federal mining inspectors and mandates a change in its violation fee structure. Unfortunately, there remain less federal inspectors than the U.S. had in 1997.

The federal government is also now given the authority to request an injunction to shut down those mines which have refused to pay final violations. But the appeals process remains lengthy and during such process mines may remain open indefinitely, regardless of aggravated negligence. And the aggregate fines remain benign or seemingly small for an industry which set historic revenue records in just the first nine months of 2006.

“Dramatic changes in our mine safety laws will only protect our miners if MSHA is displaying real teeth in carrying out and enforcing our new requirements,” this according to Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WVA) on Capitol Hill with the MSHA in the first week of December 2006. He and Senator Robert Byrd (D-WVA), both predominantly responsible for the amended federal mining law of 2006, met with the MSHA and a bi-partisan committee in order to ensure industry compliance of the new law and to ask the agency if it has enough funding to implement the provisions of the new Mining Act and its safety measures.

As of January 2007, there are no new air packs available. Yet, mine operators believe they have satisfied the new regulation as the law only requires purchase orders, not receipt of air packs, as proof of compliance. Mine operators have been told that air packs are on back-order for 1 more year, although a German manufacturer has 6,500 units readily available. And the Self-Contained Self-Rescuers (SCSR) are the same type of devices used since 1977, when the first major underlying changes in mining safety laws were enacted.

But strengthening seals, improving breathing technology, building refuge chambers and creating communications and tracking technologies have thus far only been appropriated $10 million for the necessary research and engineering evaluations and thus remain to be implemented. And again, a new round of Congressional hearings on mining safety has been called for in 2007, this time by Congressman George Miller (D-CA), the new Chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Idly standing by waiting for the federal government to fund the necessary changes in the law or waiting for mine operators to police themselves in the meantime are both unrealistic and foolish premises. J. Davitt McAteer, former had of the MSHA (1994-2000) and now an expert advisor to West Virginia Governor Manchin, believes that, “Default steps or common sense while the industry waits for technology to be improved have not been taken.” What caused the explosion and what caused the disaster, according to McAteer, are distinct.

The lack of explosion proof seals, defective air packs, lack of communication devices, delay in rescue response and non-existent tracking capabilities were preventative measure which could have been put in place long ago. And Cecil E. Roberts, President of the UMWA, has called upon the MSHA to regulate evacuations during the approach of electrical storms, as long as questions remain as to the exact cause of the Sago Mine explosion.

Sadly, on September 7, 2006, Sago Mine’s operator, ICG, Inc., was again cited by the WVMHST for providing its miners with defective SCSR breathing apparatus. The devices had faulty heating indicators. 6 out of 50 had been exposed to temperatures over 130° F. Disturbingly, said violations only became public knowledge three months after they were served.

And already in this young 2007, two miners in West Virginia lost their lives on January 13, 2007 as the result of a roof collapse at the Brooks Run Mining Co.’s Cucumber, WVA mine. The Brooks Run mine had been cited by federal inspectors 65 times in 2006 with penalties totalling only $5,000.00. Although mine operators notified authorities immediately in compliance with the new mining law, little else has changed in 1 year’s time. For as Cecil Roberts continues to preach, “When you put production ahead of safety, tragedies like this are all too often the result.”

Copyright ©2007 Diane M. Grassi
Contact: dgrassi@cox.net

NCAA GIVES NEW MEANING TO GENDER-BIAS

2006-12-21T18:14:00.000-08:00

By Diane M. Grassi

“We talkin’ about practice! Not a game. We talkin’ about practice, man. We ain’t talking about the game. But we talkin’ about practice!” No, we are not talking about the infamous press conference in May of 2002 and Allen Iverson’s response to questions as to why he missed practices with his Philadelphia 76ers teammates. Yet, in hindsight and compared to the esteemed wisdom of the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s (NCAA) Committee on Women’s Athletics (CWA) and their recent revelation, Iverson’s response seems quite apropos.

In a world where political correctness has run amok in every facet of U.S. society, why should the NCAA be any different than any other bureaucratic organization or private corporation? In fact, the NCAA in its efforts to try to separate itself from the image of it being an elitist governing body and only about the scholastic educations of our collegiate athletes, it once again fails us. While trying to convince educators and the public-at-large that it is all about the institution of education, as it prevails by operating similarly to a revenue generating entity, it continues to stumble upon its own misguided principles.

Title IX was enacted into law in 1972 in order to promote sports scholarships and equity for female student athletes seeking a secondary education. NCAA division schools received revenue to support various women’s team and sports commensurate to the men’s athletic programs. Yet, in its latest attempt to show how it is conscious of gender-equity in Title IX compliance, the CWA has hijacked Title IX and has misappropriated its original intent.

In fact, the CWA needed the past two years to study the latest twist on gender equity or gender-bias, depending upon from which vantage point it is seen, on the issue of the use of male varsity athletes as volunteer practice players primarily for Division I women’s basketball teams. The CWA recommended on December 13, 2006 to ban the use of non-scholarship eligible enrolled male varsity athletes from participating from any practices or training within women’s intercollegiate athletics programs at Division I or Division II NCAA colleges or universities. Division III already adheres to such a regulation.

Although not yet a mandate, the CWA believes that, “The use of male practice players violates the spirit of gender equity and Title IX and that any inclusion of male practice players results in diminished participation opportunities for female student athletes, contrary to the NCAA’s principles of gender equity, non-discrimination, competitive equity and student athlete well-being.”

But contrary to what the CWA believes, most Division I and successful women’s basketball coaches of both genders, coaches of soccer and volleyball teams as well as the Women’s Basketball Coaches Association (WBCA) believe that such a requirement would interfere with the development of female athletes and would provide a diminished return to their star athletes, should they be forced to eliminate the male practice players. Fortunately, NCAA committees, conferences and schools will be able to make proposals on the subject during the next year. A vote on the issue by the NCAA would not take place until at least January 2008.

But players such as Alana Larkin and Ivory Latta, both All-Americans and stars of the elite women’s basketball program at the University of North Carolina, relish the time they have playing against the guys. Their practices are intense and the height and strength of the men enhance their training drills, thus rewarding them in actual games. “Love ‘em,” says Latta. “That’s how they make us better. They give us attitude. They give us the killer instinct.” And Larkin agrees. “I don’t see us getting any better with girls practicing against us and practicing against our teammates.”

Likewise, Duke Basketball coach, Gail Goestenkors, endorses the practice of the men players and questions how they would get enough women players to challenge the height and jump capabilities of the very tallest and most accomplished female basketball players. And it is in that regard that the CWA overlooked the subtle accomplishments in women’s sports since 1972. There are remaining gripes about shortages and inequities in the number of female coaches and the inability of women’s sports, other than women’s basketball, still receiving little attention or enough scholarships. Yet, when it comes to basketball, it has led the way in women’s collegiate athletics. And so, if it ain’t broke don’t fix it.

Steeped in its own myopia, CWA committee members such as Patrick Nero, Commissioner of the America East Conference laments, “How are they to get better if they’re sitting in practice? It’s one thing to not be playing in a game because they haven’t reached that level yet, but for them to sit through an entire practice while men run up and down with their teammates, we just think it’s really against the spirit of Title IX.”

But to assume that because two or three male practice players equates no practice time for bench or second team players is misguided and gives little credit to the individual coaches who stand to lose games unless they practice all of their players. Just because the starters are practicing with men, does not mean that the bench players are not practicing with them at all. For the most part, they are actually practicing against the starters who are only made better by practicing at a higher level.

Also not given credence is the problem of the number of scholarships offered to female athletes. Not every school has the resources. According to Goestenkors, she only has 11 or 12 players on scholarship. “Now I have to have 15 on scholarships just so I can [have enough] to practice.” And who can argue with Tennessee coach, Pat Summitt, who has won more games than any other coach in the history of women’s basketball. She weighed in last week and said, “I think it would be detrimental to women’s basketball. If you look at what has happened, the parity in the game, the fact that we have male practice players, they challenge us. It’s not like they take away opportunities. On the contrary, they provide opportunities for our teams to work on specific game preparation.”

And also probably unknown to most people, according to Coach Summitt, when she coached the U.S. Olympic Women’s Basketball team as far back as 1984 she recalls, “We played against one female team in the exhibition games. The rest of the time, we played against males. The guys made us better.”

Russ Rose, women’s volleyball coach at Penn State University notes, “I feel comfortable that every player in my gym has the opportunity to make progress because they are allowed to come in and get individual instruction anytime they want. I think it would do more damage to my second team to have the first team beat the heck out of them every day. Now, the second team has a chance to beat the first team on a daily basis, and some of those second team kids get a chance to elevate their play. You need your starting team on one side and a formidable opponent on the other.”

And Stanford University women’s volleyball coach, John Dunning, although he does not use male practice players says, “Good coaching is learning how to balance: to create in players a sense of self-esteem balanced with pushing them to get better. If you can create a setting in practice that’s harder than games, by having better people on the other side of the net, as long as that’s managed properly then that certainly make sense.”

While the NCAA remains dismayed about the lack of women’s coaching opportunities, it props up its ill-serving methodology on gender equity through statistics which do not paint the entire picture. For example, in 1972 more than 90% of women’s teams were coached by women. In 2006 this number has fallen dramatically to 42.4%. In 1972 more than 90% of women’s athletic programs were administered by female athletic directors. In 2006 92% of Division I Athletic Directors are male and 8% are female. Yet, since 1972, the quality of the play of female athletes and the strength of individual programs has improved significantly.

The silver lining, which the NCAA and CWA need to take a serious look at, is the actual realized accomplishment of the women athletes in these programs, who exemplify the true meaning of the student athlete. With the exception of the WNBA, which after 10 years is running on fumes going into 2007, there are no professional athletic opportunities for women athletes. For those who are lucky enough to reach the Olympics in individual sports such as track and field or swimming, it is a long, long road, and they rarely ever reach the compensation or notoriety of their male counterparts.

College is the time for female athletes to shine, be it from the expertise of a male coach, female coach, or male practice players. And with the advent of the NCAA Final Four Basketball Championship, by way of the success of the men’s tournament, the women’s NCAA Final Four focuses more attention on women’s sports than any other event with the exception of the Olympics. By extension, a positive and supportive environment for the future of all girls across the U.S. from all walks of life is finally emerging. And those girls in search of all kinds of future endeavors are no longer pure fantasy but translate into real possibilities.

And for those of you too young to remember or not born yet, there was a time when a male coach would never want to be associated with coaching women. They would not take those coaching jobs because they thought it was a step down, that women were not worth the effort and looked upon it as a humiliation. And there certainly was a time when you would never get an undergraduate male athlete willing to volunteer his free time to play basketball with a girl. In fact these guys are not just practice players but have become the designated cheerleaders for the women. They then encourage their male friends to go to games and support women’s sports at their schools. So, there are hidden trade offs too.

Women’s sports will continue to thrive because of the attention paid and insight given by men in collaboration with women. Gender equity will not evolve without the support of men. Its intent was not to bar men. Its intent was to help women succeed. And unless the NCAA realizes that, Title IX will not fulfill its intended purpose.

Copyright ©2006 Diane M. Grassi
Contact: dgrassi@cox.net

TROOPS PAY HIDDEN COST OF MULTIPLE DEPLOYMENTS

2006-12-13T19:52:00.000-08:00

By Diane M. Grassi

The ravages of war are hell and collateral damage that includes loss of life, permanent disability and war-related illness in both military and civilian populations is expected. But too often American soldiers have been stung by the treatment they have received with respect to their healthcare upon returning stateside.

Unanticipated by the United States Department of Defense (DOD), healthcare services provided returning soldiers from the War in Viet Nam and more recently the Gulf War were grossly under-funded, and the criticism that endured thereafter was a lesson thought to be learned for future U.S. military engagements. And in that effort, the U.S. military has been sure to launch continual public relations campaigns to project an image that active duty troops deployed to Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan receive the best healthcare that money can buy.

The Department of Defense’s Deployment Health Clinical Center website reads, “Fostering a trusting partnership between military men and women, veterans, their families and their healthcare providers to ensure the highest quality care for those who make sacrifices in the world’s most hazardous workplace.” But when it comes to the mental healthcare status of troops during deployment and upon their return to the U.S., it is woefully lacking.

There is no longer a shortage of laws and regulations in place as existed during Viet Nam or during the Gulf War with respect to mandated healthcare screenings for returning soldiers. But a lack of political will by the Department of Veterans Affairs in concert with the DOD added to a lack of oversight by a lethargic U.S. Congress, has made life extremely difficult for soldiers with acute mental health problems or those hoping to avoid them by seeking help.

Multiple administrative dilemmas at play at once have impacted the quality of life for troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan and upon their return. Immediately, due to a shortage of manpower, troops are now being re-deployed to battle as many as five times with less and less time to decompress between tours of duty. Were there not a need for so many bodies in the field, troops displaying emotional problems would be a liability and sent home for treatment.

Colonel Elspeth Ritchie, an expert in psychiatry for the Army’s Surgeon General has insisted that the DOD still prioritizes the mental health of service members. But she admitted that, “Some practices, such as sending service members diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) back into combat had been driven in part by troop shortage.” Absent of outwardly exhibiting symptoms of mental disorders such as PTSD, many troops fail to report their problems due to fear of retribution or are not aware there is a problem until they start acting out in other ways such as through drug or alcohol abuse.

Public Law 105-85, Section 762-767 enacted as part of the 1998 Defense Authorization Act was presented in 1997 in order to force the DOD to comply with both pre-deployment health assessment and post-deployment health assessment for returning soldiers as the result of healthcare problems them after the Gulf War. Through the filing of forms 2795 and 2796 respectively, their purpose is to trigger physical as well as mental health evaluations of troops. However, oversight of such examinations is spotty and the way in which the mental health assessment is recorded, if at all, is based upon the troop’s own self-evaluation by way of answering 4 questions concerning PTSD symptoms.

The 1998 law requires evidence that face-to-face interviews are done upon demobilization, but the DOD has refused to turn over such documentation to the Congress, for the past four years, in order to verify that it has been adequately done. Therefore, all of the regulations in the world are of little use unless there is implementation of said regulations.

And leaving the care of returning soldiers up to themselves or their families is hardly the way system was set up to work. There are nearly 70 stories of soldiers who have committed suicide either in Iraq, Afghanistan or stateside since the inception of the War on Terror. There could be more since suicides are considered part of non-combat related casualties and such statistics remain sketchy. And in most of these cases, either the families of these soldiers had pleaded for help for their loved ones, fellow soldiers reported abnormal behaviors, or soldiers themselves confided in their superiors about their troubles. Unfortunately, too many never came forward at all, fearing stigmatization.

The military subscribes to the “watchful waiting” concept with respect to mental health problems. But when it concerns PTSD, symptoms often take 6 months to a year to manifest during which time a person may have already resorted to self-medication through illicit drugs or alcohol accompanied by violent or other self-destructive behaviors. Such presents more need for preventative assessments, not less.

For those troops who have requested face-to-face evaluations there are some areas of the country which have a waiting list up to a year and then there is often dispensing of anti-depressants, often by clinicians without any psychiatric training, without any accompanying counseling or therapy of follow-up. There is even a highly touted “telemental” therapy which troops can eventually utilize which is basically counseling by e-mail or instant messaging on the internet. It is hardly adequate for a person experiencing severe anxiety, night sweats, flashbacks, or bouts of paranoia.

A May 2006 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report found that four of five returning troops, potentially at risk for PTSD, were not referred for further mental health evaluation. Half of those eventually got help on their own but less than 10% were referred through the military. A September 2006 GAO report highlighted that the VA underestimated the cost of serving veterans upon return from Iraq and Afghanistan due to pre-war budget figures, yet still failed to report such problems to the Congress.

In December 2006 the GAO released an additional report which shows that the funds allocated to the VA for mental health have not been spent on mental health care accordingly. The report discloses that the VA has no system in place to track spending on mental healthcare and that funds may have gone to other resources instead. But such an indictment of the VA does not alleviate lawmakers of their oversight responsibilities, either.

Dr. Frances Murphy, Undersecretary for Health Policy Coordination at the VA said in March 2006 that there is a need for improvement for mental healthcare for an increasing number of veterans seeking help. She said, “VA clinics do not provide mental health or substance abuse care, or if they do, waiting lists render that care virtually inaccessible.” “The VA needs more capacity so that vets can get treatment and don’t have to wait,” according to Paul Sullivan, a former senior analyst at the VA prior to April 2006 and now Director of Programs for Veterans for America, an advocacy organization.

Furthermore, while waiting to see a VA doctor, veterans with severe symptoms of PTSD are often denied disability benefits should they turn to illegal substances as a way to cope. They are then vulnerable to the categorization of “willful misconduct” since the military has a zero tolerance policy for drug abuse. And those who have received benefits are subject to losing them should they be found abusing drugs. Ironically, the VA is tolerant of alcohol abuse, just not illicit drugs. But even then, only if a medical doctor finds that the veteran also has been diagnosed with PTSD may they then continue to receive their disability benefits.

Veterans from the present and ongoing wars have been the best advocates for those presently active duty soldiers, reservists still on call and those now discharged. Such organizations and grassroot efforts have successfully lobbied lawmakers, attended and testified in hearings on Capitol Hill and in doing so have unearthed the inadequate access to mental healthcare for troops. And as typical of U.S. medical insurance plans, mental healthcare always takes a back seat to physical medicine. And it continues to remain the biggest hidden cost as the result of the War on Terror.

Yet through their plight for their brethren in uniform, former brothers in arms have proven that it is not always just a matter of throwing money at a situation to solve a crisis, as inadequate access to mental healthcare presents a crisis of its own. Certainly the invisible front line and a deceptive enemy have made for a war unlike any other that the U.S. military has previously fought.

Yet, much like prior wars fought by the U.S. armed forces, present and future veterans of the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will have not only fought for their health and survival on the battlefield but many must continue to fight to an ineffectual government for their continued survival. Certainly, it was to suppose to have been better by now, but sadly it is but another testament to benign neglect by those with the power to affect change.

Copyright ©2006 Diane M. Grassi
Contact: dgrassi@cox.net

OFFSHORING U.S. PATIENTS NO CURE FOR AILING HEALTHCARE SYSTEM

2006-11-16T18:09:00.000-08:00

By Diane M. Grassi

For several years now, American healthcare consumers, including many from other western industrialized nations, have heard about elective surgeries being performed in lesser-developed nations and due to cost and denial of coverage by health insurance providers have opted to go there. However, surgeries in the past were truly elective and not medically necessary procedures that largely consisted of face-lifts, tummy tucks and gastric bypasses for cosmetic purposes.

But just in the past two years, American patients are being wooed to make decisions on serious medically necessary surgeries due to their fears of excessive healthcare costs. And the decision involves traveling abroad primarily to India and Thailand in order to receive such hospital care which they require.

For those self-insured, underinsured, or not insured at all, the desperation of receiving medical care without sacrificing homes or assets in the process is plausible, since costs of similar procedures in South Asia range from 75% - 80% less than in the United States. But now U.S. based corporations have entered the arena as well by encouraging employees to go to India and Thailand via cash incentives, free airfare and hotel stays with no co-pays due on the final bill.

Yet, just as with any large purchase consumers must look beyond the fancy advertisements and read the fine print with a Buyer Beware mentality. Americans have become quite adept at learning what to look for when dealing with car dealerships when purchasing an automobile and with computer retailers when purchasing a new computer. But it has taken many years to educate consumers as to their rights and protections under the law and what to do when something does go wrong.

The term “medical tourism” has been inaccurately applied to what is essentially the offshoring of patients of the U.S. healthcare system to foreign countries, in order to appeal to potential customers who are really medical patients. The term was invented by the media and it stuck and is now being used as a marketing tool. Deceptive in its concept, it is an implication that a patient can go sightseeing before or after a serious hospital procedure in that foreign country. But for those who are more scrupulous it remains difficult to get the necessary information needed to make a reasoned decision on whether to have surgery performed, let alone halfway around the world.

There are now organizations being touted as medical tourism agencies that have cropped up throughout the U.S. in order to facilitate such care overseas for individual patients as well as to serve as a clearinghouse for corporations wishing to outsource their employees’ healthcare with them in tow. These groups include MedSolution, GlobalChoice Healthcare, IndUShealth, Planet Healthcare and Med Retreat, to name just a few.

And with more and more corporations adding select foreign hospitals as Preferred Providers to their employees’ health insurance plans, medical tourism companies handle the paperwork and travel arrangements for their employees. Other countries of destination include Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, the Philippines, Panama, Mexico, China, Malaysia, Singapore, Turkey and South Africa.

However, it is at this point that the patient needs to start their own due diligence. There is usually a requirement by most U.S. healthcare insurance providers for patients to get second opinions for most complicated surgeries in the U.S., but not so for offshore surgeries. And the list of surgeries which are being sent offshore are indeed medically necessary but confusingly being reported to the media as elective. But you can determine for yourself whether or not the following are elective procedures: cardiac bypass, cardiac stent implantation, cardiac angioplasty, knee replacement, hip replacement, mastectomy, hysterectomy, chemotherapy, eye surgery, vascular surgery, among others.

And as the medical tourism agency is only an intermediary between the client and the hospital as well as between hotels and airlines they do not provide any liability in the event that there is a medical complication or there is a mishap at the destination hospital. Furthermore, there are fees which could arise not documented by an employer nor agency which could require additional expenses upon the patient’s arrival. And as a conduit between patient and hospital, the medical tourism business remains an unregulated industry in the U.S., without licensing requirements and with most managed by non-medical personnel.

Similarly, and unbeknownst to most U.S. patients is that the healthcare industry in India is highly unregulated. It was only in 2006 that regulations regarding the medical device industry, which includes surgical devices such as cardiac stents and orthopedic implants for use in hip and knee replacements, was mandated. Such call for regulation from the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) only came about as the result of discovered defective drug eluting cardiac stents in 2004. And although hospitals have the option of applying for accreditation through the Joint International Commission established in 1999, a subsidiary of the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, used for hospitals in the U.S., there is no such requirement to do so.

As of 2006 there are five hospitals in India which have JCI accreditation, renewable every three years. They include the three facilities of the Apollo Hospital group, the Shruff Eye Hospital and the Wockhardt Hospital. The Bumrungrad International in Bangkok is Thailand’s sole JCI hospital. Singapore has over a dozen JCI hospitals however, and the Philippines has one. But the JCI accreditation only applies primarily to hospital management which although includes procedures to reduce risk of infection and disease and to ensure patient safety, it has no jurisdiction over the actual physicians performing surgical procedures.

The patient is provided limited information other than an introductory phone call to the intended physician and having medical records electronically sent to the doctor or hospital via the internet by the medical tourism agency. The patient has a choice of physicians, but unlike in the U.S. where there is easy access to a doctor’s medical status by medical boards and organizations, other than knowing whether the doctor may have practiced medicine in the U.S., there is little information to come by. Without standardized protocols it is difficult for the patient to make a correct assessment.

When decisions on a patient’s health is driven primarily by cost it can impair the decision making process. There is little argument that healthcare costs in the U.S. are bankrupting corporations and labor unions and deceleration of escalation is nary in sight. With the healthcare industry being 15% of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product and having risen in cost 75% for employers and 143% for employees since the year 2000, the system is broken. High malpractice insurance fees required by both employers and physicians, hospital deregulation and class action medical litigations have only exacerbated the problem.

Such high medical costs will only encourage limited access to healthcare for the middle class and ultimately result in less preventative care costing taxpayers more in the long run. The problem is not the medical care in the U.S., still considered the best in the world, but its delivery system. It is when Medicare and the health insurance providers became the decision makers and took that power away from the physicians that the system began to unravel. Added to that is the lack of restraint of costs by the pharmaceutical industry which charges U.S. patients more for its own medications than any other country in the world.

But as expensive as healthcare is in the U.S., there are legal and safety issues which are part of the American fabric which Americans very much take for granted yet expect but are not present in the undeveloped world. For example, there are few regulatory bodies such as the Centers for Disease Control, the Food and Drug Administration, the Federal Trade Commission, various medical boards, consumer protection laws, available legal experts and the court system. All serve as a net of safeguards offering remedies. But unlike a car purchase, medical care is a complicated undertaking in which there are no guarantees, yet there are areas of compliance which must be maintained.

Once the patient is in a foreign country there is little protection for redress and once that patient leaves the country should they need follow-up care such as therapy or if complications arise even during travel, they must seek medical care in the U.S. Secondarily, if the procedure is performed overseas, insurance providers or Medicare may not honor the additional required care in the U.S. Still, patients may decide to take the risks in addition to the inherent risks of any surgery, but should not be coerced into uninformed choices in order for their employer to save costs under the guise that they are helping to reduce the costs of U.S. healthcare in the long run.

In July 2006 the U.S. Senate Committee on Aging held a hearing called “The Globalization of Healthcare: Can Medical Tourism Reduce Healthcare Costs?” Its goal was to address the subject of medical tourism, its growth, safety of patients and possible regulation of the industry itself. Its Committee Chairman, Senator Gordon H. Smith, has asked that several federal agencies such as the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Commerce and the Department of State create an interagency task force necessary for lawmakers to reach informed decisions that healthcare consumers themselves cannot accurately make at this juncture regarding offshoring their medical care.

And among the labor unions, the United Steelworkers Union (USW) has publicly weighed in on this issue when it learned one of its union members, employed by Blue Ridge Paper Products, was going to be sent to India for gall bladder surgery simultaneously with shoulder surgery. Leo W. Gerard, USW International President, fired off a complaint dated September 11, 2006 to Congress by contacting the following committees: the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, the House Committee on Ways and Means, the Senate Committee on Finance, and the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions.

The goal is not necessarily to create more legislation but to establish guidelines. Perhaps Mr. Gerard puts it best when he states, “The right to safe, secure and dependable health care in one’s own country should not be surrendered for any reason-certainly not to fatten the profit margins of corporate investors.” He also contends to the Congress that “We remain steadfast in our commitment to rebuild a domestic healthcare system.”
Let us hope that our government and healthcare providers can likewise make such a commitment by investing in the health and welfare of the American people.

Copyright ©2006 Diane M. Grassi
Contact: dgrassi@cox.net

CLINTON SODA DEAL IGNORES SCHOOL FUNDING PROBLEMS

2006-10-18T00:26:00.000-07:00

By Diane M. Grassi

This past July, former President Bill Clinton announced an initiative in conjunction with the William J. Clinton Foundation to fight childhood obesity. In that effort he has been negotiating for the past year or so with the three major beverage companies, namely Cadbury Schweppes PLC, the Coca-Cola Co. and PepsiCo. Inc., to decrease the sale of soda and sweetened beverages in public school vending machines.

Clinton hopes that with the help of the American Beverage Association to advocate the replacement of high calorie drinks with more water and juice drink choices available for sale in not only United States high schools but also in some middle schools. He hopes to expand the initiative to selected snacks manufacturers as well in order to encourage healthier eating amongst school-aged children. However, his enthusiasm for his new leaf on healthy eating since his double bypass surgery in 2004 falls far short of the mark in analyzing the underlying bevy of problems that contribute to childhood and adolescent obesity.

Perhaps Mr. Clinton’s focus on his self-lauded vending machine deals will help illuminate the sad fiscal shape school districts are in across the country when forced to hinge their school budgets on the sales of soda and candy bars. For in fact over the term of the Clinton Administration vending machine sales and exclusive lucrative contracts with soda bottling companies increased exponentially. They became necessary according to school administrators and school boards nationwide as school budgets were tightened specifically during his tenure.

In an interview with Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren in 2005, Bill Clinton stated that “You’ve got vending machines in all the schools that offer unhealthy foods and the local PTA gets a cut from the profits of the vending machine.” Upon announcing his deal in July 2006 to get the beverage companies to dramatically decrease soda in vending machines and replace them with sports drinks, flavored waters and diet sodas in high schools by 2009, he still has not correctly stated the path of the realized revenues from vending machine sales in school districts. Either he is ignorant on the subject or chooses to be so.

Exclusive contracts with beverage and snack food manufacturers in the public schools exist under myriad sets of rules and regulations from each state to each respective school district. It is up to school boards, who volunteer school superintendents or principals to enter negotiations with corporate entities for vending machine contracts. They usually provide the biggest bang for their buck over any other kind of school fundraising efforts.

Such deals generally require a 5 to 10-year commitment from the school or school district where the beverage company or food manufacturer makes certain demands of the school in order to for them to receive a share of the sales revenue. Usually a school receives approximately 40% of profits provided they agree to signage on their athletic fields, advertising allowed on the machines and can guarantee a specific number of students within the school. Such deals can garner anywhere from $50,000.00 to $150,000.00 per year depending on the size of the school district.

But where Mr. Clinton is misleading is in his statement that the revenues go to the PTA or to extra-curricular activities which the PTA sponsors. For it is precisely exclusive contracts with beverage and snack food companies negotiated by the school districts or principals which must go into a general school fund and be used for a wide array of school expenses. With school budgets annually falling short not just for “extras” but for everyday school expenses, almost every school district is dependent upon vending machine sales in addition to school lunch a la carte food sales, snack bars and school stores which also sell food and snacks.

However, contrary to what most think, a school general fund pays for necessities such as school maintenance, computer wiring, classroom supplies, library books, supplemental reading programs, student assembly programs and even playground equipment. Art supplies, music classes and physical education considered “unnecessary” expenditures in most school board budgets are not part of all curriculums and very often are then dependent upon additional fundraisers by PTA’s and student-run fundraisers.

The other issue of note which is not addressed by the food hawks or Bill Clinton, famous for his triangulating approach on issues during his two terms as president, is the lack of the facts regarding a multitude of problems which has called for cutting the fat and calories. Since there is presently only one state left in the U.S., that being Connecticut, which mandates daily physical education classes for elementary schoolchildren, it would appear that over the past 15 years as obesity has grown to 15% of school age children that there has been no focus on physical education, health and nutritional education and recess, by the federal government. And much of that time was on Clinton’s watch.

It was not until the year 2000, during President Clinton’s final year in office, that he rolled out a plan prepared by Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala and Secretary of Education Richard Riley titled, “Promoting Health for Young People through Physical Activity and Sports.” It provided 10 strategies to promote better health among young people with increased participation in physical activity and sports. It did not address physical education in the schools but rather extra-curricular and off-campus activities in conjunction with the U.S. Olympic Committee. Nor did either Shalala or Riley address the looming crisis of financing education through vending machine sales and fundraising while at the same time not requiring schools to provide physical education or daily recess for children, during their years serving under Clinton.

The latest excuse for the elimination of recess in elementary education has been pinned on the No Child Left Behind Act enacted in 2001, whereby principals and teachers claim that the standardized testing demands and its requirements have left little time for outdoor activities, thus less recess. Lawsuits and the fear of bullying, code for more lawsuits, is also at play.

Such begs the question again about real concern for the health of children who are cooped up all day and not given the chance to burn off excess energy and exercise while developing a good habit in doing so. One can only wonder about the habitual doling out of Ritalin, primarily to little boys, like the foreboding candy, by physicians upon the recommendation of school administrators. Perhaps if kids could run off their pent up energy they would be able to sit still longer in their seats without need of pharmaceuticals.

Addiction to sweets is one problem which does not address schools’ addiction to vending machines and the sale of “competitive foods” which refers to food sold outside of the School Lunch Program but from vending machines or in a la carte lines in the school cafeteria or school store. These snack foods supposedly “compete” with the School Lunch Program foods as provided by the federal government. And as schools are trying to balance their budgets on the backs of granola bars or lower fat candy bars, each school loses nearly $4.00 per child should they choose to skip lunch, eat off campus, or bring their own. It is but one more irony not lost on school administrators either.

The amount of time now occupied by principals, now largely saddled with vending contract negotiations, fundraising organization duties and serving as in-house nutritional spokesmen is all time lost from concentrating on far more important decisions in educating our country’s youth. And most administrators do not follow through on how much revenue is generated from sales, where and how much revenue is eventually spent on which programs, or how much the other fundraising groups’ activities contribute to various programs. Yet to solely blame the principals for this required delegation is unfair. Rather, it would seem that school boards should be held more accountable by the public.

But given the disconnect between the federal government, the states, the localities and the various school districts where no mandates or regulations exist with respect to allocation of vending machine sales or fundraisers in schools, it will be difficult for a voluntary plan such as Mr. Clinton’s to be successful. For at most school fundraisers most proceeds are still largely generated from the sale of foods with minimal nutritional value, known as FMNV’s, where they are largely exempt from dietary restrictions.

Back in 1946 when the National School Lunch Program was established, its goal was to provide nutritionally balanced, low-cost or free lunches in participating schools for children of need. In 1975, the National School Breakfast Program was established, also based upon need, as a free or cost-reduced program for those wishing to participate. Neither program was set up in order for schools to subsidize school districts or to encourage bad eating habits. And neither program was concerned about child obesity as it did not exist at either time.

But physical education, class recess, health and nutritional education, engaged parents and common sense are seemingly a thing of the past. And literacy and scholastic excellence did not seem to suffer by taking class time for physical fitness. Clearly there is no easy fix, but sometime not so long ago the real priorities in public education coupled with the well-being of schoolchildren took a back seat to raising and misspending dollars by misguided bureaucrats. And if the nation is waiting upon beverage and food manufacturers in order to make decisions on behalf of our schoolchildren, as proposed, then we as a nation are in deep trouble.

Copyright ©2006 Diane M. Grassi
Contact: dgrassi@cox.net

DESIGNS ON PERFECT BABY DRIVES ASSISTIVE REPRO INDUSTRY

2006-09-27T18:14:00.000-07:00

By Diane M. Grassi

Assistive Reproduction Technology (ART) has been an accepted medical alternative to human reproduction since the first test-tube baby, Louise Brown, was conceived in England in 1978. On the heels of the burgeoning feminist movement of the 1960’s and early 1970’s was borne a new reproductive freedom which has not slowed down since.

However, unlike other research in the medical industry and the research sciences, ART enjoys the privilege of little federal, state, or private industry oversight, with no clear public policy initiatives on the horizon. In fact, the booming In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) industry, making it possible for couples with difficulties either conceiving offspring due to a shortage of healthy egg production, or the inability to carry a baby to full term often due to age, has provided physicians with an endless cash flow.

Supplies of donor eggs guarantees fertility specialists with the commodity or product for an eager and paying clientele with demanding costs between $15,000.00 and $30,000.00 depending on which additional services are utilized in the implantation process. About 15% of insurance providers cover some fertility treatments yet fewer support embryo implantations. However, should a recipient wind up with multiple births as a direct result of multiple implantations, insurance providers wind up picking up the delivery costs.

Yet, what started out to be an alternative in enabling women to become mothers who cannot produce enough healthy eggs has arguably created ethical as well as health concerns with respect to the egg donor business. There are now egg donor brokers who supply eggs to various fertility clinics and there are fertility clinics that have adjunct egg donor programs and storage facilities, eliminating the middleman. But the process of choosing the potential egg donor candidate is one which involves specific criteria and screening in choosing the most suitable donors.

The ideal candidate is recruited through advertisement on the internet, through college newspapers at predominantly Ivy League-type institutions, or local newspapers in college towns. Such ads, which became prevalent in the 1990’s, are placed by fertility clinics or egg brokers with a stated flat fee in compensation and that usually specifies a desired SAT score and desired genetic traits.

Fertility specialists specifically look for women between ages 18-30 who must be earning an undergraduate degree or graduate degree, who are of a certain height and body type and who most likely could use the money. Fees are paid to such women for their time invested in the procedures including medical and psychological testing and time away from school due to appointments and necessary rest. Women are not directly paid for the sale of eggs or human tissue.

The number of paid donors each year is not known but there are approximately 10,000 babies born each year in the United States from donor eggs. Donors receive an average $5,000.00 - $10,000.00 fee per cycle although some receive much more based upon specific desired genetic traits and the recipient’s ability to pay, who is directly responsible for paying the donor. But the questions remain as to whether this process is exploitative to the donors, discriminates against other donors, or is an unhealthy risk to the donor where there is no restriction on the number of times she may donate. Most clinicians restrict donors to a maximum of six times although some have donated more than that.

-2-

The donor must go through three weeks of fertility hormone injections and observation in order to create ovarian hyper-stimulation syndrome (OHSS) resulting in a desired over-abundance of eggs producing as many as 10-15 per cycle. This creates many samples from which the physicians may choose for the recipient. Although up to six embryos may eventually be implanted in the recipient the rest are put into frozen storage in liquid nitrogen either for future implantations, donated to other recipients, donated to science, donated specifically for stem-cell research, stored indefinitely or destroyed. Eventually, many will however be destroyed as the costs to store embryos is $3,000.00 – $10,000 each year paid for by the recipient. Presently, there are approximately 500,000 frozen embryos in the U.S.

There is not enough confirmed data on whether egg donors are at heightened risk for potential disease but there is concern of ovarian cancer due to the amount of fertility drugs given donors. And there is concern for the health of donors themselves unable to carry a baby to term should the retrieval procedure go awry. Donors also may suffer hormonal imbalances due to ongoing hyper-stimulation of egg production, especially for those donating multiple times as a result of fertility injections.
There is no direct federal oversight of egg donor programs. However, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention presides over the screening for disease and genetic testing for diseases and the Federal Drug Administration has jurisdiction over the various fertility drugs used by fertility physicians.

There remains little recourse for those donors who run into complications from such procedures thereafter as donor programs require informed consent. But many clinics are intimidating to unknowing young women many of whom are additionally forced into signing a statement waiving their right to sue the clinic for medical malpractice. However, medical expenses and pain and suffering associated with injurious complications may still be considered medical malpractice caused by negligence. There remains an upside for such clinics contracting with young women not yet quite worldly, their SAT scores notwithstanding, but who do know that they have a large loan to pay back upon completion of their studies.

Most donors must depend on paying for their own health related costs should any arise after the procedure, unless agreed upon prior to the procedure, and for those who do not have their own insurance most clinics insist they purchase it even for the short term. Once involved in such a program there is no guarantee that health information will remain confidential and may impact the donor’s ability to purchase health insurance in the future should there be complications such as infection, internal bleeding, or loss of ovaries. Life insurance could be denied as well should a genetic defect be found during the donor qualifying process.

Not all women are chosen as good candidates for egg donation, however, and go through extensive medical and psychological testing. A donor is required to work with a genetic counselor to provide any known inherited diseases, birth defects, genetic disorders, surgeries or psychiatric problems known to her and those of her family members as well. An adoptee that does not have the medical history of her biological parents is immediately disqualified as a potential donor.

And while blood tests for disease and genetic disorders seem to appear harmless enough to some, participants may regret to learn more than they are ready for about their potential health problems or those of their future children, revealed as a result of the testing. Psychological testing is performed on donors to help ensure the clinic that a donor will fulfill her obligation in the donor program and will not jeopardize her health or the recipient’s chances of becoming pregnant.

-3-

And while there are additional genetic procedures for women taking part in IVF such as genetic testing of the embryo prior to its implantation in order to rule out certain diseases, the ability to manipulate embryos specifically for gender selection known as Pre-Implantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) started to become popular in the 1990’s, although it origins date back to 1981. Initially, it was available only to recipients of IVF embryo implantation but more and more couples, who are otherwise healthy enough to conceive on their own, are having embryo transplants performed with their own eggs and sperm. The embryo is manipulated outside of the womb in order to guarantee the specific sex of a child. Many do it for “family balancing” or to carry on a family name.

Yet ethical considerations abound with fear of reproducing children with either specific genetic factors or traits and even choosing one sex over another. A proverbial can of worms has been opened with no clear direction by government or the industry itself, which remains self-policed. As it remains a private enterprise, the fertility industry rather prefers it that way, unanswerable to lawmakers or the vast number of insurance companies which deny such coverage.

But what becomes of the participants and the children? Will only those families who can afford thousands and thousands of dollars wind up with “superior” offspring? Will preference for boys in carrying on the family heritage create an imbalanced population as in China and India, where there now is a shortage of girls? And even if IVF costs are reduced, what becomes of those families not choosing artificial means of procreating? Will their offspring who are not the brightest and the prettiest unduly suffer?

From ultrasound, to amniocentesis, to IVF, to embryo transplantation, to genetic testing to gender selection techniques there is a consistent and continuous pattern of scientific ingenuity enhanced by better and more improved technologies. And there is no indication that such momentum is slowing down. As such, speculation exists that it may become possible in the not too distant future for parents to “design” a variety of features of their potential children. But what does this say about ethical standards? How will this impact human behavior? And at what cost will society ultimately pay?

Copyright ©2006 Diane M. Grassi
Contact: dgrassi@cox.net

POST-KATRINA ROLE OF PROPERTY INSURERS THREATEN CONSUMERS NATIONWIDE

2006-09-07T23:18:00.000-07:00

By Diane M. Grassi

“Prediction is very hard, especially when it’s about the future.” .... Yogi Berra

Given the focus on the recent one-year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina by the media and government officials and its label as the most costly catastrophic disaster in United States history, there has been little focus on the nationwide impact the property and casualty insurance industry has started to impart on homeowners and businesses in a post-Katrina world.

There has been serious discussion about reforming U.S. insurance laws in the U.S. Congress since 2004, before four hurricanes battered the Florida coast and well before the Katrina and Rita storms hit the Gulf Coast in 2005. However, the insurance industry since Katrina is now not only fighting hundreds of individual and class action lawsuits in Mississippi and Louisiana in the wind v. water debate, but also advocating change in the event of future catastrophic events.

The McCarran-Ferguson Act, enacted in 1945, delegated sole enforcement of insurance regulations to the states, where it was believed better oversight would take place rather than federal government mechanisms. However, state regulators are not law enforcement agencies and do not have the benefit of the arm of the federal government in cases which are beyond their means. Now, many state insurance commissioners, members of the Congress as well as consumer advocacy agencies believe that the whittling away of consumer protections over the years and recent staggering premium hikes, with little public disclosure, builds a case for federal insurance legislation and industry reforms.

Since 1945 the insurance industry has enjoyed an antitrust exemption and the viability of that rule has been seriously discussed and revisited by the Congress. There have been state accusations of price fixing and price gouging along with collusion in the industry leaving consumers with little information about their homeowners and business property policies, with only the civil or criminal courts left for recourse. It is argued that the antitrust exemption only fuels such a scenario.

The proposed National Insurance Act of 2006 (S.B. 5209) introduced by the Senate Banking Committee on July 11, 2006, would allow insurers to be licensed under a federal umbrella license, to choose between federal or state regulation and to do business in any state without need of state licenses. The U.S. Department of the Treasury would then have jurisdiction to regulate such national insurers. Arguments against such an arrangement cite more endless bureaucracy and red tape with fears that individual states would not be equally treated.

Alternatively, the State Modernization and Regulatory Transparency (SMART) Act introduced in 2004 addresses market conduct, licensing and antifraud data exchanges but has failed numerous times to move through the legislative process. It would leave regulation up to the states but to comply with uniform standards without federal oversight. The attempt to “modernize” the regulatory framework of the insurance industry has become synonymous with deregulation and appears that resistance on both sides of the argument makes reform more and more insurmountable along with immense struggles to provide sufficient delivery of adequate insurance for property owners.

The repeal of the McCarran-Ferguson Act has also caught the attention of the Senate Judiciary Committee which held a hearing on the issue on June 27, 2006 for the first time since 1994, precipitated by numerous complaints of less and less public disclosure of information and devices used for premium calculations. Such has impeded consumers from making a proper decision when purchasing policies. Travis Plunkett of the Consumer Federation of America (CFA) testified that “Insurers want competition alone to determine rates, they say. How about a repeal of the McCarran-Ferguson Act to test their desire to compete under the same rules as normal American businesses?”

The CFA has also called for regulation to ensure consumers have availability of enough information in order to compare pricing of policies between insurers in order to make informed decisions. Unlike the way most consumer service products are purchased, insurance costs are based upon a non-finite uncertain condition to happen some time in the future. And consumers must rely solely upon the agent, especially when actuarial tables and insurance models are non-accessible. Thus, more scrutiny not less has been called for.

But deregulation has also brought about insurance products sold worldwide as investments and annuities and reinsurance companies which provide catastrophic coverage for domestic insurers primarily are located overseas. Therefore, in a global economy, federal oversight is far more necessary than in the past. Leaving global oversight up to state regulators is arguably negligent given the ramifications of lack of coverage during a catastrophe.

The insurance industry itself has been campaigning for some type of legislative reform to provide for a federal catastrophic fund which would subsidize insurers in cases of terrorism and natural catastrophes. The American taxpayer and consumer have gotten their fill of that, however, where the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has been and continues to pay out damages to the Gulf Coast states and primarily the City of New Orleans for rebuilding costs, with FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) to homeowners and businesses and for FEMA housing costs for the displaced.

But an unexpected phenomenon followed the 2005 hurricane season and is primarily fueling the fires for insurance reform and that is the record high premium rate hikes on homeowners as well as commercial property policies. In addition, hundreds of thousands of policies are being dropped and non-renewed by the country’s two largest insurance companies, namely State Farm Insurance Co. and Allstate Insurance Co., from the Gulf Coast all the way up to the tip of Maine.

Even more unexpected, however, were renewal denials for inland properties for policyholders in the Northeast including New York City, where property owners have never even previously filed a claim for property damage. With premiums on the Gulf Coast having at least doubled since 2005, thousands of dollars have been added to mortgage loans. In some cases, many homeowners policies were not renewed at all, preventing homeowners from obtaining mortgages or rebuilding at all.

With insurers’ withdrawal from writing homeowners policies throughout regions of the U.S. and gutting those with less and less coverage for those in place, the industry believes it will be able to stay healthy. Astonishingly, in 2005 it made a record profit of $45 billion post-Katrina and after four storms in 2004 it realized a profit of $38 billion.

The models associated with risk management amongst insurers are also changing. The 100-year average of history for forecasting future hurricanes, for example, is presently being revised. And as those methods of calculations become murkier, homeowners can hardly feel safe or comfortable when purchasing new properties. There are also several states which only allow for the issuance of property insurance based solely upon a consumer’s credit history and income which makes it far more difficult for the working class consumer to be able to purchase insurance.

Over the next year, 43% of the U.S. population which covers 18 states can expect their policies to either be dropped by their insurance carriers or have their premiums escalate between 20% and 100%. And for that reason alone it might be time to reel in an industry which not only is in business to make a profit, but also has a moral obligation to help protect communities nationwide and such becomes necessary in the face of absolute destruction.

Copyright ©2006 Diane M. Grassi
Contact: dgrassi@cox.net

UNRESTRAINED GLOBALIZATION WILL DEFEAT THE AMERICAN ATHLETE

2006-08-24T21:11:00.000-07:00

By Diane M. Grassi

”I’m surprised at the number of elite athletes from around the world who are in the NBA as of 2006.” National Basketball Association (NBA) Commissioner David Stern made this comment when asked about the future of the NBA. For the 2006-2007 NBA season, approximately 100 of the NBA’s 450 players will be from countries outside of the United States. But David Stern’s surprise is rather disingenuous, as he readily admits the NBA’s commitments to investing in Europe, South America, Africa and China, to name a few, over the past decade.

“The China market is our most important and largest market outside the United States. China is clearly priority No. 1,” Stern said, as he was interviewed from Guangzhou, China in early August 2006, where the U.S. National Basketball Team was playing in exhibition games prior to the World Championships in Japan. He went on to say that the NBA’s business holdings in China are growing by 30% each year.

Stern hopes to double the NBA’s staff from 50 to 100 at its three China offices in time for the Beijing Olympics in 2008. Stern has structured a marketing engine in China, ready to sell more NBA merchandise and apparel, expanding its online presence, offering live streaming of NBA games online and hopes to double its broadcasts of NBA games to 50 in the next few years. Stern has set his sights on the NBA playing regular season games in China as well.

Although NBA.com/China was launched by the NBA in November 2002 and has had limited TV broadcasts since 1991, it currently has programming on 24 television outlets including on national TV station China Central Television, which broadcasts NBA games for free. NBA merchandise is sold in over 20,000 retail outlets throughout China and in 2005-2006 the NBA signed on with five new Chinese marketing partners. Recruitment of new talent cannot be overlooked either, with the NBA’s appetite to diversify its player personnel. But one can only wonder how much benefit NBA players will realize from such investments.

But this is only part of the story, as there are many problems which still remain such as the rampant counterfeiting of NBA merchandise in China, which exists in every sector of marketed goods there, costing U.S. firms billions of dollars in lost revenues each year. In addition, censorship of broadcasts and limited internet access by the Chinese people is controlled by the Communist Chinese Party. China’s persistent human rights and labor abuses are never discussed in a perfect NBA world either and why should they be? After all, the U.S. government pays but lip service to a trade partner and major creditor in China, which the U.S. economy is virtually dependent upon.

Prior to Stern’s recent visit to China, back in the U.S. in June 2006, United States Olympic Committee (USOC) Chairman, Peter Ueberroth, signed a bilateral agreement with the China Olympic Committee. Titled the Memorandum of Intentions for Sport Exchanges Between the Chinese Olympic Committee and the United States Olympic Committee, it is designed to promote friendship and understanding between the two nations. According to Ueberroth, “We clearly need to reach out to every nation, no exception, and envelop friendship through sport,” supposedly to give other countries a different perception of Americans.

But the agreement in friendship goes far beyond a mere symbolic gesture, just two years before the 2008 Beijing Olympics. It will provide the Chinese with the U.S. sharing of its expertise in coaching, its sports facilities, inroads in science and medicine, management and marketing, among other things. It is arguable about how much the U.S will gain from China’s implied reciprocity.

What is clear, is that China looks at sports far differently than the U.S. does. Sports are not just games or a business or sheer entertainment for the Chinese. Elite athletes in China are trained to project national ambition. China’s main intent is not to develop NBA stars but for their athletes to be representative of the nation and that international competition is far more important than lending a few players to the NBA. But yet the Chinese are also smart in business and will suffer allowing a little entertainment for its people, on its own terms of course, while at the same time benefiting from millions of dollars in American business ventures.

And while the Chinese have different cultural objectives than the western world, other countries are about the individual. The NBA, the National Collegiate Athletic Association, (NCAA) in addition to Major League Baseball (MLB) and the National Football League, (NFL) are about packaging those individuals in order to market the whole of their sports. And as all of the aforementioned are businesses, they look at the bottom line, even at the sake of opportunities for American athletes.

While the NBA has been successful in creating a myth that European players have better fundamental skills than American players, yet are inferior overall to the American NBA player, it all comes down to economics. Since the U.S. uses the NCAA primarily as its developmental league, and Europeans can sign professional contracts at age 16, the NBA signs European players and waits now until they are 19 years of age and drafts them directly into the NBA. But the NBA does not get the full scope of the player’s skills, as they remain secluded in another country during development. The NBA however takes a gamble and figures that buying out a less than lucrative contract for a potential superstar is a better bet than having patience with an American who may have had a marginal NCAA career and may demand an overpriced contract.

Meanwhile, NCAA Basketball is rabidly recruiting those foreign players who do not sign professional contracts abroad, or those who may have fraudulently made their way into the American collegiate system, which has been fully documented. It includes players from as far away as Australia, as in Andrew Bogut, the first overall NBA draft pick of 2005. Players are also brought in from Argentina, Brazil, Africa, all of Europe, Russia and the West Indies, among others. However, the signing of such foreign students means less opportunity for American students, and some of whom who just wish to finance an education while at the same time doing so by playing basketball.

Yet, the majority of Europeans playing college basketball are not NBA material. And instead of playing in their home countries for a minimal salary they instead get the good fortune of a free college education. According to Andrew Bogut, “Once you’re here, you’re kind of taken care of. A job isn’t necessary if you’re on a full scholarship.” “With a free education, three meals a day and a nice dormitory, rather than complain about college cafeteria food, they think its Morton’s Steakhouse,” says Fran Fraschilla, former St. John’s University and University of New Mexico basketball coach, speaking of the foreign student athletes.

Think its only basketball where Americans are losing ground? Aquatic athletes are coming to U.S. college campuses in droves. Since the modern Olympic Games, the U.S. has dominated in international aquatic competition. Australia has recently closed the gap. And the women’s German swim team no longer dominates as it once did with the use of anabolic steroids, which existed in the pre-testing era when there was an East German team. China’s use of steroids was also deterred upon testing positive in past Olympics with several of its women swimmers.

But now athletes are welcomed with opened arms to experience the best training in the world, only to go home and compete against the U.S. on the world’s stage. Countries such as Germany, Malaysia, Finland, Sweden, Hungary, Italy, Estonia, Trinidad and Tobago, Brazil, Great Britain, Australia, Canada, Hungary, Kazakstan and of course China, among many other countries, send their athletes to enroll in U.S. schools with the best swimming and diving programs. Such schools offer excellent academics as well including the University of California at Los Angeles, (UCLA) the University of California at Berkeley, the University of Southern California, the University of Minnesota, the University of Florida and the University of Arizona.

And we cannot forget about the recent flood of professional tennis players and professional golfers making homes in the U.S. while seeking out U.S. trainers and coaches in order to increase their winning potential on the world circuits. Primarily among them are Russian women tennis players and Korean women golfers.

And while individual professional athletes are received differently than professional teams or college athletes in the U.S., the sports industry including the USOC wishes to change its image from that of competitor to that of being inclusive and politically correct. Should that come at the expense of funding Americans preparing for the Olympics or deprives American students from college educations all in the name of globalism, so be it. Yet, it will eventually defeat the U.S. athlete and impact morale and America’s sense of competition.

And finally, the idea that white American players are not equipped to play in the NBA but white European players are, including those who are not professionals and go through the same NCAA experience, is but a fallacy and has been perpetuated for far too long. The few exceptions to this myth are the newly drafted Adam Morrison and J.J. Reddick, and past players John Stockton, Christian Laettner, and Chris Mullin along with the great Larry Bird. It is simply wrong. Were Europeans the best players, it might be more acceptable.

But the increase of insourcing foreign players in the U.S. will become the new norm and the best athletes now, who are predominantly African Americans, will be sacrificed. As aptly put by Kenny Smith, former NBA world champion and now TNT studio analyst for NBA games, “Something deeper and more complex than “poor fundamentals” is at play here and young NBA players had better check it out.”

The USOC, the NBA, the NCAA, MLB, including the NFL, simply cannot continue to dilute the American pool of athletes while at the same time expect Americans to dominate in their respective sports. Such hypocrisy is no better exhibited than by the NBA and the USOC, fearful that America no longer dominates basketball internationally as it once did, while the NBA in 2006 devotes 25% of its spots to foreign players.

It remains unfair and unrealistic for those Americans who aspire in the future to become college, Olympic or professional athletes and eventual champions. For without America’s resources and its full support they will simply lose.

Copyright ©2006 Diane M. Grassi
Contact: dgrassi@cox.net