I sure hope that Kerry is not putting this on Senate stationary

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Kerry is an idiot if he didn't realize for a second that the NFL has some of the best marketing minds in the world and wouldn't spin this in their favor within minutes of receiving it.

Massachusetts senator John Kerry sent a letter to National Football League Commissioner Roger Goodell and President and CEO of National Cable & Telecommunications Association Kyle McSlarrow today, asking them to break the deadlock in negotiations between the NFL and several major cable companies over how football games on the NFL network are broadcast.

This has been a hot topic among Patriots fans, who have expressed concern that they won't be able to see the season finale against the Giants, which is scheduled to be broadcast on the NFL Network.

The text of the letter:

Dear Commissioner Goodell and President McSlarrow,

I am writing to express my concern on behalf of football fans across the country who find themselves caught in the middle of a corporate standoff. While the National Football League and a few major cable companies continue to blame each other for the current state of NFL Network carriage, too many American football fans are being held hostage.

Unfortunately, this disagreement has led to the use of what could potentially be an historic football game as leverage in a negotiation. On Saturday, December 29th, the New England Patriots will play the New York Giants in a game that could determine whether the Patriots become the first NFL team in 35 years to finish the regular season with an undefeated record. Unfortunately, millions of fans outside of the local media markets - including fans living in Massachusetts and New York - will not have access to the network that will broadcast the game.

I recognize that the games shown on the NFL Network have been the long-standing subject of commercial negotiations. I do not wish to interfere with these negotiations, and I hope that the two sides can come to an agreement that will ensure that NFL games will be broadcast to the maximum number of television households across the country. In light of the unique circumstances surrounding the 2007 New England Patriots, I urge you to reach an agreement as soon as possible, so that football fans across the country are not prevented from viewing what could be an historic sporting event.

I thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
John F. Kerry


NFL RESPONSE

The following is the NFL's response, from spokesman Greg Aiello, to the letter written by Massachusetts senator John Kerry:

"Commissioner Goodell welcomes the senator's comments because we, too, want broad cable distribution for NFL Network. We agree that the big cable companies should sit down and negotiate with us for distribution comparable to their own channels.

"All fans should be able to see the NFL Network like they are able to see the Golf Channel on Comcast and Major League Baseball on TBS. Comcast has an agreement in place with us right now that would enable it to put the NFL Network into 25 million homes. Instead, Comcast delivers NFL Network to only one million homes on a pay-extra basis. Comcast can change that now without any further negotiation. As to Time Warner and other companies, we are eager to negotiate immediately with all the major cable companies to make NFL Network widely available."

I think that Senator Kerry just got pwned by Mr. Goodell.
 

Vette73

Lifer
Jul 5, 2000
21,503
8
0
How did he get "pwned"? They just said the same thing they have been saying for a while.

Kerry is getting people from his state writing to him for help on this issue. he does his job as a senator and represents the intrest of his people and state.

I don't think the NFL is in the right here. If they want to charge the high fee for thier channel then the cable companies will just make it a pay to watch channel, as some are doing now. I wish all channels were this way. I would pay for maybe a handful and not pay for the other 50+ i never watch. A lot of people do not want the NFL channel and as such they don;t pay for it. I don;t see the problem other then the NFL trying to force the channel on the cable companies and make EVERYBODY pay for it when most will not use it.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
I don't see how Kerry can lose on this issue. You think some football fan is gonna be angry because he's trying to ensure that they can actually see the game?

Non-football fans won't give a sh!t either way.

Looks like a sure fire-winner for him, IMO.

Fern
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
I don't think that the NFL is in the right either. However, he isn't doing jack for the people in his home state because the game is being broadcast locally.

The Patriots December 29 showdown with the New York Giants is the ?NFL Network? game. Channel 5 is the only place fans without cable access can catch the last game of the regular season.

He is grandstanding and got called on it.

And of course the NFL is grandstanding. They have a product that is highly in demand and are not willing to give it away to the cable companies. We are getting caught in the crossfire of two bohemeth industries (cable tv/professional sports) fighting to see how can rob us of the most money.
 

Vette73

Lifer
Jul 5, 2000
21,503
8
0
It could be blackouted, doubt it, and NY and other places in Mass. state will not get the LOCAL channel so they can't see it.

A local station is just that, LOCAL, not state wide.
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I don't think that the NFL is in the right either. However, he isn't doing jack for the people in his home state because the game is being broadcast locally.

The Patriots December 29 showdown with the New York Giants is the ?NFL Network? game. Channel 5 is the only place fans without cable access can catch the last game of the regular season.

He is grandstanding and got called on it.

And of course the NFL is grandstanding. They have a product that is highly in demand and are not willing to give it away to the cable companies. We are getting caught in the crossfire of two bohemeth industries (cable tv/professional sports) fighting to see how can rob us of the most money.

Channels in Boston don't reach Western Mass. Channels in NYC don't reach Western or upstate New York. Local channels have limited range. He's right, millions of people in these two states will be unable to watch the game.

That said, at this point, every human being in Massachusetts who has any interest in sports has a subscription to the NFL channel, the MLB channel, the NBA channel, 27 channels of ESPN and Fox Sports, etc. Massachusettsianites (I lived there for 6 months and I have absolutely no idea what people from Mass. are called) are some rabid sports fans. The first time I met my girlfriend's extended family in Mass., every single person (all 16 of them in the house) were decked head to toe in Patriots wear. These people are insane.
 

brxndxn

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2001
8,475
0
76
I want to NOT have the NFL network because I'm still pissed about EA getting exclusive NFL rights with Madden.

Screw the NFL. I'll watch it when my friends make me.

College Football > NFL.
 

Balt

Lifer
Mar 12, 2000
12,674
482
126
I think very few people are on the NFL Network's side in this issue. The NFL made an exclusive deal with DirecTV for NFL Sunday Ticket and their suggestion to everyone else (the majority of Americans) is to just unsubscribe from what they are using and get DirecTV instead. In the case of the NFL Network, they are demanding that providers put NFL Network in their basic channel lineup instead of a supplementary package. The problem with that is that the NFL Network is terrible. Other than the 8 games they've given to themselves, there's very little reason to have it, even if you're a football fan.

People would love to have more choice in their cable programming. Not many of us watch even one-fourth of the channels that we pay for. What the NFL Network wants is to just be piled in with the rest of the crap.
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,561
4
0
Methinks the op misread.
Kerry didn't get 'pwned".
The response from the NFL basically said that Comcast has a deal in place that could put the NFL network into 25 million homes right now.
Well, the "deal" he means is if the cable companies pay what the NFL is asking AND put them in a non-premium package they have a deal. What the cable companies are saying is the increased rate that the NFL network is charging is too much put them on a non premium channel.
When it started the NFL network didn't have any live games. Now that they have added them the NFL network wants a lot more money. So the "deal" is not really a deal.

 

fallout man

Golden Member
Nov 20, 2007
1,787
0
0
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Channels in Boston don't reach Western Mass. Channels in NYC don't reach Western or upstate New York. Local channels have limited range. He's right, millions of people in these two states will be unable to watch the game.

Precisely. That's why he's writing the letter, on behalf of everyone in the state who doesn't live in Boston.

Massachusettsianites (I lived there for 6 months and I have absolutely no idea what people from Mass. are called)

Massholes.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
I thought the role of senators and congressmen was to write laws, not petition for more expansive coverage of television stations. If he wants to make this happen, he could author a bill to make it happen. Of course, this would require someone in congress to actually work, which is apparently too much to ask in 2007.
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,458
987
126
The NFL is on the wrong side of this coin, not the right side no matter how they spin in it.

Cable companies would love to negotiate, its the NFL that have demands that are ludicris for what the NFL network is. They wont back away from demands either.

The FCC is pretty close into forcing the NFL into federal arbitration.

The NFL wants NFL network on the basic tier but they want more money than those they list.

Basically the NFL thinks its ESPN, when it is not... The NFL Network offers crap programming other than its scant few Thurs night games. If they want it as part of basic cable, they should stop demanding top dollar per subscriber.
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,458
987
126
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I thought the role of senators and congressmen was to write laws, not petition for more expansive coverage of television stations. If he wants to make this happen, he could author a bill to make it happen. Of course, this would require someone in congress to actually work, which is apparently too much to ask in 2007.

Uh no.

The job of a Congressman is to represent its constituients. Senator Kerry is representing the people who elected him when he wrote that letter.

As for the knock on congress not working. While they've gotten next to nothing done this year, they've logged more hours than avg citizens.
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,458
987
126
Originally posted by: techs
Methinks the op misread.
Kerry didn't get 'pwned".
The response from the NFL basically said that Comcast has a deal in place that could put the NFL network into 25 million homes right now.
Well, the "deal" he means is if the cable companies pay what the NFL is asking AND put them in a non-premium package they have a deal. What the cable companies are saying is the increased rate that the NFL network is charging is too much put them on a non premium channel.
When it started the NFL network didn't have any live games. Now that they have added them the NFL network wants a lot more money. So the "deal" is not really a deal.

The NFL has been threading a fine line recently. Their deal with the satalite companies and then urging fans to drop cable and switch to satalites may run the afoul of the law if they aren't careful.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: Wreckem
Uh no.

The job of a Congressman is to represent its constituients. Senator Kerry is representing the people who elected him when he wrote that letter.
Really? Let's consult the US Constitution, which (unless I'm "uh no" wrong again) would be the authority on the subject:
Article I, Section I:
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Section III:
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
For clarity, Merriam-Webster defines "legislative" as (most pertinent to this discussion):
belonging to the branch of government that is charged with such powers as making laws, levying and collecting taxes, and making financial appropriations.
So, it looks like I was right - his job is to make laws, levy and collect taxes, and make financial appropriations. His job is NOT to appeal to broaden the viewing area of NFL games.
As for the knock on congress not working. While they've gotten next to nothing done this year, they've logged more hours than avg citizens.
Cry me a river. I gurantee I've worked more hours than the average citizen too (about 90 hours/week), and all for about $18k/year, which is probably less than 10% of what these idiots are pulling down before kickbacks. If I was as unproductive as they were in the past year, I would have been drummed out of grad school and would be looking for a job at the local McDonald's. They have all of the staff and funding to make things happen. Putting in long hours is not a substitute for making things happen.
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I thought the role of senators and congressmen was to write laws, not petition for more expansive coverage of television stations. If he wants to make this happen, he could author a bill to make it happen. Of course, this would require someone in congress to actually work, which is apparently too much to ask in 2007.

No, he really is doing his job here.

As much as specialty league and team channels extorting money by taking game coverage away from the fans pisses me off, lwgislating to fix it would seriously overstep boundaries, and be rightly condemned.

He's asking them to be decent people and consider their fans as something other than Revenue Extraction Points. They responded by saying 'fans can see the games as soon as we get paid (off)'.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
No, he really is doing his job here.

As much as specialty league and team channels extorting money by taking game coverage away from the fans pisses me off, lwgislating to fix it would seriously overstep boundaries, and be rightly condemned.

He's asking them to be decent people and consider their fans as something other than Revenue Extraction Points. They responded by saying 'fans can see the games as soon as we get paid (off)'.
It's not his job to ask people to be generous. It's his job to write laws. Just like it's not the NFL's job to be generous. The NFL is in business to *gasp* make money. So are the cable companies. They realize that this game will be a big moneymaker for them because people will buy the more expensive package to watch this game. What is wrong with that? Kerry knows that they will not do anything because they are already doing their job of making as much money as they can. It's just politicking at its worst.
 

Narmer

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2006
5,292
0
0
Why should the NFL channel be priced into my regular cable bill even though I won't watch it?
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
No, he really is doing his job here.

As much as specialty league and team channels extorting money by taking game coverage away from the fans pisses me off, lwgislating to fix it would seriously overstep boundaries, and be rightly condemned.

He's asking them to be decent people and consider their fans as something other than Revenue Extraction Points. They responded by saying 'fans can see the games as soon as we get paid (off)'.
It's not his job to ask people to be generous. It's his job to write laws. Just like it's not the NFL's job to be generous. The NFL is in business to *gasp* make money. So are the cable companies. They realize that this game will be a big moneymaker for them because people will buy the more expensive package to watch this game. What is wrong with that? Kerry knows that they will not do anything because they are already doing their job of making as much money as they can. It's just politicking at its worst.
They're leveraging decades of fan devotion to try and cash in. Now, there's nothing wrong with that per se except that it's disgusting greed in it's purest form, and proves that the league cares for its fans not one bit. Certainly legislating around it would be heavy handed and wrong.

Kerry is doing his job, bringing attention to the needs of his people. The NFL *could* have reacted by getting the game onto basic cable for at least all Ma viewers, but chose to thumb their nose at everyone involved.

The NHL and NBA have already lost me as fans because Toronto franchises insist on removing games from their TV deals, and re-selling them. Nearly a third of the Toronto hockey season is now on a channel like this. I no longer buy the occasional hat or ticket; I don't even have cable TV anymore, and won't bother until at least baseball season. So those teams and leagues revenues from me is now $0, simply because they asked for more.

Will my small non-contribution make a difference? No.

Am I the only one? No.

BTW, do the other leagues enjoy the same anti-trust protections as baseball? (Is baseball still protected?) If they do, I might be wrong and legislation might be the answer.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
They're leveraging decades of fan devotion to try and cash in. Now, there's nothing wrong with that per se except that it's disgusting greed in it's purest form, and proves that the league cares for its fans not one bit. Certainly legislating around it would be heavy handed and wrong.
So it's disgusting that a corporation is trying to maximize profits? Funny, I always thought that was the entire goal of business. :roll:
Kerry is doing his job, bringing attention to the needs of his people. The NFL *could* have reacted by getting the game onto basic cable for at least all Ma viewers, but chose to thumb their nose at everyone involved.
Maybe the job of the legislature in Canada is different, but here in the US, it's to pass laws (as demonstrated by direct quotes from the US Constitution above).
The NHL and NBA have already lost me as fans because Toronto franchises insist on removing games from their TV deals, and re-selling them. Nearly a third of the Toronto hockey season is now on a channel like this. I no longer buy the occasional hat or ticket; I don't even have cable TV anymore, and won't bother until at least baseball season. So those teams and leagues revenues from me is now $0, simply because they asked for more.
I also will not go to hockey games because the St. Louis team sucks and the tickets are $70. I went to a Rams game a couple weeks ago becaues I could get tickets for $4.75 on StubHub. It's a free market moreso now than ever. If you don't want to take part in it, you are free to not spend your money (as you have already indicated). There is always a choice to be made and the NFL has made their choice, so now it's up to the consumer. Kerry obviously knows this and knew what the NFL's answer would be, and he also knew that he would get some political green as a result of writing this letter. Since this is demonstrably not his job, and assuming that he wrote the letter as a part of his job, I find it deplorable and utterly wasteful. This is not to single him out, as I think the entire legislative branch has taken to this sort of idiocy rather than actually achieving legislation.
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,458
987
126
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: Wreckem
Uh no.

The job of a Congressman is to represent its constituients. Senator Kerry is representing the people who elected him when he wrote that letter.
Really? Let's consult the US Constitution, which (unless I'm "uh no" wrong again) would be the authority on the subject:
Article I, Section I:
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Section III:
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
For clarity, Merriam-Webster defines "legislative" as (most pertinent to this discussion):
belonging to the branch of government that is charged with such powers as making laws, levying and collecting taxes, and making financial appropriations.
So, it looks like I was right - his job is to make laws, levy and collect taxes, and make financial appropriations. His job is NOT to appeal to broaden the viewing area of NFL games.
As for the knock on congress not working. While they've gotten next to nothing done this year, they've logged more hours than avg citizens.
Cry me a river. I gurantee I've worked more hours than the average citizen too (about 90 hours/week), and all for about $18k/year, which is probably less than 10% of what these idiots are pulling down before kickbacks. If I was as unproductive as they were in the past year, I would have been drummed out of grad school and would be looking for a job at the local McDonald's. They have all of the staff and funding to make things happen. Putting in long hours is not a substitute for making things happen.

Oh you can qoute Article I. Big deal, you have absolutely no idea whatsoever about how Congress works or what their job is. The constitution is such a vague document. Hell going off it, the President is basically lapdog, and that hasn't been the case since FDR.

What part of Representatives, do you not understand?

A Congressmans role is just as much represenatation as it is legislation. Infact more so since is rare that first or second term congressman get to(effectively) offer up much legislation. Most legislation takes 3-4 terms to actually get passed.

They arent productive because

1. Partisanship has increased over the past three decades to assinine levels on both sides of the aisle.
2. The president who never saw a bill he didnt like, now doesnt ever see a bill he likes.
3. Theres political deadlock because the Democratic Party doesnt have 60 votes in the Senate to have cloture. See #1 for why this is a problem.

 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,458
987
126
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
They're leveraging decades of fan devotion to try and cash in. Now, there's nothing wrong with that per se except that it's disgusting greed in it's purest form, and proves that the league cares for its fans not one bit. Certainly legislating around it would be heavy handed and wrong.
So it's disgusting that a corporation is trying to maximize profits? Funny, I always thought that was the entire goal of business. :roll:
Kerry is doing his job, bringing attention to the needs of his people. The NFL *could* have reacted by getting the game onto basic cable for at least all Ma viewers, but chose to thumb their nose at everyone involved.
Maybe the job of the legislature in Canada is different, but here in the US, it's to pass laws (as demonstrated by direct quotes from the US Constitution above).
The NHL and NBA have already lost me as fans because Toronto franchises insist on removing games from their TV deals, and re-selling them. Nearly a third of the Toronto hockey season is now on a channel like this. I no longer buy the occasional hat or ticket; I don't even have cable TV anymore, and won't bother until at least baseball season. So those teams and leagues revenues from me is now $0, simply because they asked for more.
I also will not go to hockey games because the St. Louis team sucks and the tickets are $70. I went to a Rams game a couple weeks ago becaues I could get tickets for $4.75 on StubHub. It's a free market moreso now than ever. If you don't want to take part in it, you are free to not spend your money (as you have already indicated). There is always a choice to be made and the NFL has made their choice, so now it's up to the consumer. Kerry obviously knows this and knew what the NFL's answer would be, and he also knew that he would get some political green as a result of writing this letter. Since this is demonstrably not his job, and assuming that he wrote the letter as a part of his job, I find it deplorable and utterly wasteful. This is not to single him out, as I think the entire legislative branch has taken to this sort of idiocy rather than actually achieving legislation.

And yes, as well all know, the United State doesnt have a true system of capitalism.

We have little things called regulatory agencies, who are responsbile for suprise, regulating. The FCC is one of these said regulatory agencies. Regulatory agencies are to oversee industry and protect the consumers. So who has oversight of the regulatory agencies? That would be congress. So yes you are indeed wrong again.

The NFL is treading a thin line, because the do have certain govt given anti-trust exemptions. And have been hit by anti-trust cases in the past. Theres a reason why they've stopped saying "ditch cable and get DirecTV" after the Dallas-Greenbay game, and it wasn't just Comcast c&d order. The NFL will get hit hard if they dont watch it.

The

MLB
NFL
NBA
and to a lesser extent the NHL

are ALL MONOPOLIES. They all have been given varying degress of anti-trust exemptions. They have all been found guilty of abusing their monopolies in the past. Because of this Congress and the Federal Government can and has in the past intervened when they deemed necessary.

If Congress removed their anti-trust exemptions, they'd all be hurting badly from a multitude of lawsuits.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: Wreckem
Oh you can qoute Article I. Big deal, you have absolutely no idea whatsoever about how Congress works or what their job is. The constitution is such a vague document. Hell going off it, the President is basically lapdog, and that hasn't been the case since FDR.

What part of Representatives, do you not understand?
A representative is a member of the legislative branch in a republic system of government. He represents his constituency in the legislature. The legislature is where they are supposed to make laws. How hard is this? Just becaues senators and congressmen pander now rather than actually write laws does NOT mean that pandering is now their true job description.
They arent productive because

1. Partisanship has increased over the past three decades to assinine levels on both sides of the aisle.
2. The president who never saw a bill he didnt like, now doesnt ever see a bill he likes.
3. Theres political deadlock because the Democratic Party doesnt have 60 votes in the Senate to have cloture. See #1 for why this is a problem.
#1. There's a clear majority for the D's in both houses, so they could still pass anything given voting along partisan lines.

#2. Try reading some of the bills. I wouldn't sign them either. They're so full of completely unrelated BS that signing them into law would be absurd. The authors of the bills know this, which is why they include the BS to begin with. They don't actually WANT to accomplish anything because this is an election year. Since Bush has had to veto all of their crappy bills, they will use that as political ammunition against the R's in the election. Their plan will work because (obviously) people like you don't bother to read anything but what CNN feeds them regarding all of this hokey legislation.

#3. See my #2. Write a decent bill and no one will be able to vote against it because it will be political suicide for them to do so. Instead, we have a bunch of crappy riders thrown on the bill that make it completely idiotic. For example, we couldn't even get a budget this year (2007) because every budget that ended up on Bush's desk had some political football in it that, by all rights, should not be in a budget bill. What is so hard about allotting x number of dollars to each government agency? I work for the VA and we operated off of 'emergency' funding levels all year. The R's were just as bad when Clinton was president as the D's are now. Why? Because people like you don't understand the fundamentals of how the game is played. You think it's more important for Kerry to write some stupid letter that he knows a priori will accomplish nothing than it is to write a bill to fund the VA for next year.

Just to prove my point, here is a list to every bill that's been passed by the 110th (current) congress. A quick summary of the first twenty things that they "accomplished" in 2007:
1. Regarding consent to assemble outside the seat of government.
2. Expressing the sense of the Congress that schools in the United States should honor the contributions of individuals from the territories of the United States by including such contributions in the teaching of United States history.
3. Expressing the sense of the Congress that the United States Postal Service should issue commemorative postage stamps honoring Americans who have distinguished themselves by their service in the armed forces of the United States.
4. Urging increased Federal funding for juvenile (Type 1) diabetes research. (mind you, these are the people who directly legislate the level of federal funding for research that are "urging the increase")
5. Expressing support for the designation and goals of "Hire a Veteran Week'' and encouraging the President to issue a proclamation supporting those goals.
6. Expressing the sense of Congress that the Supreme Court misinterpreted the First Amendment to the Constitution in the case of Buckley v. Valeo.
7. Calling on the League of Arab States to acknowledge the genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan and to step up their efforts to stop the genocide in Darfur. (I'll give credit for this one - they did do one thing this year.)
8. Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States Postal Service should issue a commemorative postage stamp honoring victims of HIV/AIDS and recognizing the struggle to prevent and treat HIV/AIDS in the United States and throughout the world.
9. Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States Postal Service should issue a commemorative postage stamp honoring former Representative Shirley Chisholm, and that the Citizens' Stamp Advisory Committee should recommend to the Postmaster General that such a stamp be issued.
10. Expressing the sense of the Congress that the tax giveaway since 2001 to the wealthiest 5 percent of Americans should be repealed and those monies instead invested in vital programs to relieve the growing burden on the working poor and to alleviate poverty in America. (Once again, these are the guys who actually have to do the repealing, but they're just batting it around instead of doing it).
11. Entitled the ``English Plus Resolution''.
12. Requiring the display of the Ten Commandments in the United States Capitol. (Wow.)
13. Expressing the sense of Congress regarding the need to prevent the closure or consolidation of post offices.
14. Expressing that Congress has the sole and exclusive power to declare war. (Good thing, because obviously the Constitution doesn't explicitly mention that anywhere...)
15. Expressing the sense of Congress that the Government of Iraq should not grant blanket amnesty to persons known to have attacked, killed, or wounded members of the United States Armed Forces in Iraq.
16. Congratulating Prime Minister Portia Simpson-Miller for becoming the first democratically-elected female Prime Minister of Jamaica and the first female Jamaican head of state.
17. Expressing the sense of Congress that the people of the United States should grieve for the loss of life that defined the Third Reich and celebrate the continued education efforts for tolerance and justice, reaffirming the commitment of the United States to the fight against intolerance and prejudice in any form, and honoring the legacy of
transparent procedure, government accountability, the rule of law, the pursuit of justice, and the struggle for universal freedom and human rights.
18. Expressing the sense of Congress that a commemorative postage stamp should be issued in honor of George Thomas ``Mickey'' Leland.
19. Affirming the sense of Congress regarding the obligation of the United States to improve the lives of the 36,950,000 Americans living in poverty and the 15,928,000 of those who live in extreme poverty. (again, instead of actually doing anything about it)
20. Calling on the Government of the United Kingdom to immediately establish a full, independent, and public judicial inquiry into the murder of Northern Ireland defense attorney Patrick Finucane, as recommended by Judge Peter Cory as part of the Weston Park Agreement, in order to move forward on the Northern Ireland peace process.
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Originally posted by: CycloWizard

So it's disgusting that a corporation is trying to maximize profits? Funny, I always thought that was the entire goal of business. :roll:
First of all, their isn't a true profit-maximizing business in the world. There is always something that could be done to make more money. Ticket prices, for example, are 'too low' in any city that sells out every game. More importantly, I didn't saying simply trying to increase profits was disgusting - I think it's disgusting to try to 'cash in' on being an 'institution' by blackmail. There's a big difference between setting up a network to carry the few games that might somehow miss being covered, and taking games out of already lucrative TV deals to try to coerce additional payment.
Maybe the job of the legislature in Canada is different, but here in the US, it's to pass laws (as demonstrated by direct quotes from the US Constitution above).
If Kerry tried to legislate a solution to this, you would be outraged, and rightly so. The job of elected officials is to represent their constituents. On this case, the NFL is planning to fuck over it's viewership in a ham-fisted attempt to pump dollars from those same viewers. Maybe it will work, and maybe it will backfire, but I see nothing wrong with an elected official saying 'c'mon guys, this is ridiculous'. He's not threatening to force their hand in any way; in fact, he's not even trying to interfere with their long-term blackmail plans. He's saying 'this game might be important to a lot of people, leave it out of your little squabble'. You would rather Kerry spent his time bring home pork than trying to influence a little bit of decency here? Alright...
I also will not go to hockey games because the St. Louis team sucks and the tickets are $70. I went to a Rams game a couple weeks ago becaues I could get tickets for $4.75 on StubHub. It's a free market moreso now than ever. If you don't want to take part in it, you are free to not spend your money (as you have already indicated). There is always a choice to be made and the NFL has made their choice, so now it's up to the consumer. Kerry obviously knows this and knew what the NFL's answer would be, and he also knew that he would get some political green as a result of writing this letter. Since this is demonstrably not his job, and assuming that he wrote the letter as a part of his job, I find it deplorable and utterly wasteful. This is not to single him out, as I think the entire legislative branch has taken to this sort of idiocy rather than actually achieving legislation.
You keep saying this isn't his job, but it is! At every level of government, the job of elected representatives is to represent their constituents. This often means changing laws, but it involves budgets and spending (which can be only loosely referred to as legislating, though the same process is followed).

You're really picking the wrong thing to whine about.

You talk about free markets and choices, but choices aren't final. If the Maple Leafs send their games back to ordinary cable TV, I'll most likely buy cable and start watching again. Trying to influence someone to change their choice without any threat of forcing them to do so is hardly manipulating a free market; at worst it is trying to re-frame the decision matrix, and I fail to see the issue.

Kerry might have suspected the answer he would get, but sometimes you need to make greedy assholes pronounce their greed publicly. The NFL is going to lose some face here, and they deserve to do so. On the other hand, since this appeal largely applied to one game, this season, too close in the future for a permanent solution to matter, it is quite possible he hoped to influence the league to actually do something for the fans. It's happened before - the NHL and networks adding Ottawa senators games to their Ontario/Canada coverage when that team became truly interesting, while the pre-season commitments were all to the Maple Leafs. The NFL could actually make money on this one game, while not affecting their long-run extortion attempts. Frankly, I would be surprised if there is no movement towards better coverage of this game by the time it is played.