Does Anyone Else Smell Fish?

I haven't really been following this child-sex scandal out of Pennsylvania, the one involving a former coach who reportedly had sex with one or eight or forty underage (way underage) boys, sometimes actually in the Penn State University's football facilities. I know, just from not living under a rock, that the American media gets really excited, throbbing and pulsating with ratings lust, every time someone does something of a sexual nature that can be reported on ad nauseam. So I try to take it all with a chunk of salt.

Penn State University; photo by G. Chriss

I have to wonder, though, about this one: according to the reports I've read, in 2002, an assistant in the football program told head coach Joe Paterno directly that "he saw Sandusky raping a 10-year-old boy in a locker room shower."

That statement strikes me as incredible. I think if I were Joe Paterno, who, as I understand it, is a decent, upstanding guy with at least an ordinary sense of right and wrong, I would have found the allegation hard to believe. (I'm assuming, obviously, that he had no personal knowledge of any unusual sexual inclinations of the ex-coach.) Saying a man is "raping" a boy in the locker room is shocking, but in the real world, such as we have it these days, I would (1) suspect the guy making the report is exaggerating, maybe because he, like so many others in our modern world, thinks overreaction is always the appropriate reaction; (2) consider that the guy making the report might have some ax to grind where this ex-coach is concerned; and (3) find out what my obligation was in dealing with this report that I am reluctant to believe. As I understand it, Paterno's obligation was to report the matter to the University higher-ups, which, again as I understand it, is what he did.

My only point here, besides a general contempt for the salivating of the media when its nostrils catch the whiff of musk, is that "raping" a boy is such a shocking thing that I'm amazed so many people kept quiet about it. I'm a skeptic. I suspect there is much, much less to this whole story than the media wants there to be.

Occupy Wall Street

The ongoing protests against the insidious culture of greed, and the lack of accountability that comes from the separation, in recent decades, of risk from reward, have a laudable objective. And it is refreshing to see a sizable number of people taking part in political action that is not orchestrated from behind the scenes by nefarious angry activists, like the Tea Party is. (I say that, even though the objectives of the Tea Party are, to some extent, also laudable.)

But the Occupy movement — if that's not too grand a term for it — lacks focus. Its participants don't to agree on what they wish to accomplish. 

Of the many greed-related ills our society suffers from, I doubt that any is as ultimately damning as the growing disparity of wealth in this country. Money is power, and the concentration of money in relatively few hands is threatening to undermine some of the beliefs needed for a large democracy to continue. It has already shown its power in the very strength of the Tea Party, and in the reactionary anti-union legislation in the Midwest and California, and in the intransigence of some Republican members of Congress, who forget that "politics is the art of the possible," and in the dangerous recent holdings of the Supreme Court in political cases.

But the disparity of wealth is unlike other serious problems, in that it has a relatively easy fix.

Under present law, compensation paid to all but a few executives of a business is deductible from taxable income as a cost of doing business. Thus, Mega Corp. can pay its Vice President in charge of Sucking Up a million bucks in salary, and deduct that million bucks from the profit the corporation has to pay tax on. It can also deduct the $35,000 it pays its janitors, but the tax savings from that are paltry.

All the government has to do is limit the amount of compensation deductible as a business expense. I would recommend using a multiple of median income to determine how much can be deductible, say two and a half times the national median. Under that formula, Mega Corp is still free to pay its VP-Suckup that million bucks; but the rest of us don't have to forego the taxes on that exorbitant salary. (And yes, VP-Suckup still has to pay taxes on the income. Unfair? Nope. Just a cost of doing business.)

Limiting the deductibility of high salaries would, over time, lessen the disparity between the high and low ends. If a business finds it worthwhile to pay people more than the deductible amount, they can do so, but they'll just have to factor in the tax considerations in a slightly different way.

Similarly, the favourable tax treatment of interest and dividend income should be capped. There are still a number of older people who depend on these sorts of income for their survival, but beyond a certain point, their survival does not require further subsidies from the general population in the form of lower tax rates. I see no reason why interest and dividend income beyond, say, that same two-and-a-half times median income, should not be taxed at regular rates. 

Gorgeous

My cable-modem connection isn't fast enough to do this video justice. I hope yours is.


Landscapes: Volume Two from Dustin Farrell on Vimeo.

You should also check out Farrell's "Landscapes: Volume One," at http://vimeo.com/16198274.

Promising

It must seem odd to say that a record of one win, one draw, and three losses is a promising start. That's the record the United States' men's national soccer team has amassed since the appointment of Jurgen Klinsmann as head coach a couple of months ago. 

His start, certainly, has not been as auspicious as we all dreamt it would. Judging from much of the team's press coverage since his arrival, he was expected to be a sort of coaching Jedi master, instantly turning a moderately good team into a world-dominating powerhouse in the space of ninety minutes. No surprise, really, that hasn't happen; and many people seem perplexed and confused by the team's poor showing in the win-loss table of late. 

New US MNT head coach
Jurgen Klinsmann

Like all the team's fans, I'd love to see goals being pumped into opponents' nets with regularity, but I'm not really concerned about that yet. Because what I see are two developments that, to me, promise great things in the future, and address what I've thought for years was the US team's greatest weakness.

First is the new resolve shown by the US defensive backs. It helps that Oguchi Onyewu has returned to the field and is very close to being in his former outstanding form, but even without that, I have noticed that since Klinsmann's advent, the American defense no longer panics when facing sustained pressure.

How many times, when the US was on the verge of joining the elite of the international-football ranks, were goals conceded because our defenders thrashed wildly at the ball, or lost their marks, running around in front of goal like a toddler lost in a dark theater? I can't bear to count. 

But no more, or at least not yet in the "Klinsmann Era." Carlos Bocanegra, whom I've always thought was not that good, merely the best available in central defense, seems to have had a light bulb go off somewhere in his head. He has become solid: truly, reliably solid, instead of being, as before, just generally solid, a sort of American Titus Bramble. It's a shame he left it so late; it's unlikely he'll be up to the required level of play by the time the 2014 World Cup comes around. (He'll be 35 then; it's not impossible, but unlikely.) 

Steve Cherundolo, the right back, has long been, with Onyewu, our best defender, but he, too, is getting up in years. Finding a successor for him, as for Bocanegra, will have to be one of Klinsmann's priorities over the next couple of years, but in the meantime, his experience and level-headedness are beginning (at last) to be seen in others of the back line.

Tim Chandler, who plays his club football in Nuremburg, is a newcomer to the US defense, and a positive asset. Playing left back, he has shown solidity in defense and an aggressive attacking sense to match Cherundelo's on the other side. 

It's also good to see DaMarcus Beasley being used effectively again. He made a few appearances under former coach Bob Bradley, who inaugurated his move from midfield and forward positions to left-back; but in Bradley's time, Beasley never really seemed comfortable or useful in that role. Under Klinsmann, in the last two matches at least, he appears to be re-born as an outside back. He still has most of the speed that made him such a threat a decade ago, and seems to have matured as a player, outside the glare of the national-team lights. (It helps that he, too, is enjoying a stretch of good health.)

Even though the US defense has given up four goals in five games, while only scoring two, they have remained cohesive throughout opponents' attacks. That is a massive, massive improvement over what we often saw before. Glory is won in attack; games are won at the back. And Klinsmann's focus on developing, and quickly, that defensive composure is, to my way of thinking, the most positive development we've seen from the US national team since the 2002 World Cup. 

Second is the increase in the sharp one-touch style of play that marks all of the world's best teams. The US can't yet sustain that style of play through long stretches, but, especially against Honduras and Ecuador, it's starting to show up. Some of the new players coming in, most notably Brek Shea, seem well suited to the style.

I don't doubt that, as the team develops, we'll see continued stiffness in defense, improved possession skills in the midfield, and more successful finishing in the front. And then we'll all again believe that Klinsmann is a Jedi master.