Day: April 7, 2002

The answer is blowin’ in the windscreen

/ Kevin B. O'Reilly

First things first, the Cubs’ new bleacher windscreens are not about security. If they are, it’s just one more example of idiotic overreaction to Sept. 11. When will folks in the sports world get it through their heads that they are not terrorist targets, and that all their supposed security measures only inconvenience the people who pay the bills — the fans?

But what is at issue here is the long-running battle between the Wrigleyville Rooftop Owners Association and the Tribune Co. In fact, back in December when the Cubs first started experimenting with the windscreen idea, Cubs Executive Vice President of Business Operations Mark McGuire didn’t say anything about security. What he did say:

Frankly, one of the reasons we would be looking at it now is that if the rooftops continue to be the one group aggressively trying to kill our [expansion] project, there is a feeling we should contemplate a more aggressive response.

Ah-ha! It’s true that the rooftop owners have opposed the Cubs’ plans to expand bleacher seating which would block some rooftop views of game action. One shouldn’t be surprised that they’re upset at the thought of losing a real cash cow, but just because they’re the David to the Tribune Co.’s Goliath doesn’t mean they’ve got right on their side.

In fact, the Tribune Co. is perfectly within its rights to expand Wrigley bleacher seating or alter the park in whatever manner it sees fit. Tribune Co. execs know that while Wrigley is their biggest money generator, they need the flexibility to make changes to stay competitive.

Which is why it is resisting the city’s efforts to make Wrigley a landmark. As McGuire told Dan Barry of the New York Times, "While we agree with the city that the facility in total is special, certain things are not, like chain-link fences and precast concrete."

Many people have the misimpression that declaring a property a landmark somehow "protects" it, but what it really does is make it more vulnerable by limiting the owners’ ability to alter it in such a way that it can survive and keep up with the times.

Landmark "protection" is really just another property taking without just compensation. Of course, owners themselves sometimes seek landmark protection, which is only done because they fear the market — i.e., the cumulative decisions of free individuals — won’t support their overvaluation of the property.

So what do we have here? We have a group of freeloaders whining that the Cubs are trying to block a view they have no legal or moral right to, and they have used the public process of zoning approval — notorious for its special-interest pleading and bureaucratic powermongering — to try and protect their something-for-nothing deal.

In the meantime, Team Marketing Report predicts the extra seats would yield $10.6 million annually for the Cubs. CNN Money’s Chris Isidore says that’s peanuts, but those are peanuts that the Tribune Co. — which, after all, puts on the games and maintains the "shrine" — should be gobbling up. As it now stands, the rooftop owners are getting the peanuts and leaving the Cubs with the empty shells.

Mmm … peanuts.

Never forget

/ Kevin B. O'Reilly

On Sept. 12, 2001, the headlines read, "U.S. attacked," as if Nebraskans were fighting off terrorists at the local feed store. But no collective entity called "America" died on Sept. 11. Our supposed innocence wasn’t lost, but the lives of about 3,000 people were. It is those individual lives, not the bloviations of politicians, pundits and network anchors, that should be remembered. Read the "Portraits of Grief" at the New York Times.

You can’t always get what you want

/ Kevin B. O'Reilly

According to Steve Chapman, that’s the lesson that neither the Palestinians nor the Israelis have learned. He writes:

Many Israelis, notably Ariel Sharon, have long fantasized that they could suppress the danger posed by Palestinian terrorism while holding on to everything that matters to them — an undivided Jerusalem, Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, ultimate control over the amount of autonomy allowed the Palestinians, and so on.

A lot of Palestinians, including Yasser Arafat, have never abandoned the hope of eventually claiming all the land of Palestine and ridding themselves of the hated Jewish state — and they expect the Israelis to compromise with them anyway.

I think it’s a good point. It’s kind of a prisoner’s dilemma. Each side thinks they can have it all, but they’d both be better off if they compromised and settled for less than what they ultimately want.

But when are two dueling parties most likely to come to the table? When one of two things happens: (1) Both sides come to the realization that they’ll never win the war completely, or (2) one side does win the war convincingly and the other side has no choice but to surrender to "compromise."

And — let’s face it — this is not a war in which either side will ever yield to unconditional surrender. In the meantime, there’s nothing Colin Powell or any U.S. diplomat can do to change that.

To the contrary, as Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) has pointed out, U.S. involvement does little to improve the chances for Mideast peace, but does a whole lot to make enemies for ourselves among terrorists — and the nations which support them — in the region.

And I think Alan Bock was on track when he argued thusly:

It makes at least as much sense and probably more to suggest that the continuing conviction that the United States will eventually play an increasingly intense and involved role … is as much a deterrent to peace as a goad toward settlement.

If both sides believe that the United States … will eventually have to step in, then neither side has much of an incentive to take the idea of negotiating very seriously.

Read the rest of Bock’s column at Antiwar.com. He makes several good points.

This is the LP on drugs

/ Kevin B. O'Reilly

Remember those obnoxious Super Bowl ads which claimed that drug users were giving money to terrorists? The Libertarian Party has struck back as part of its "drug war strategy."

Print ads placed in the USA Today and the Washington Times on Feb. 26 showed a large photo of drug czar John Walters. Small text running over the center of his face read: "This week, I had lunch with the President, testified before Congress, and helped funnel $40 million in illegal drug money to groups like the Taliban."

The so-called drug war strategy is controversial within the LP. Many Americans already associate the LP primarily with its pro-legalization stance on drugs, often negatively or outside the context of the LP’s comprehensive platform, which favors maximizing both individual liberty and personal responsibility.

So, should the LP risk being pigeonholed as the pro-drug party — to the extent that it isn’t already — in order to exploit one of the few true wedge issues it has? Polls have shown increasing support for alternatives to the drug war, which the LP has opposed since its founding. And the medical marijuana movement is so popular that network sitcoms like "The Simpsons" are satirizing it.

I think that the strategy is both worth the risk as well as morally commendable. At this point, what does the LP have to lose? A few hundred locally elected officials? That’s not much of a risk. The odds against electoral success are very long. Even Ralph Nader is struggling to hold together his formerly burgeoning coalition.

Now is the time for the LP to be bold and, frankly, not concern itself so much with winning elections for the time being. If the LP survives only as a kind of pressure group that engages in media campaigns to support libertarian causes, that would be OK with me. Sure, it would mean I’d have to stop voting, but at least it would be doing some good instead of just being an ineffective, second-rate "third party."

In the meantime, get the facts on how the drug war finances terrorist activity.
10:49 PM]

Web smacks down old media powerhouse

/ Kevin B. O'Reilly

Nope, the Times is doing fine. Slate hasn’t put The New Republic out of business. So which old media powerhouse has been slain by its Internet competition? Penthouse magazine. Bye-bye, grease!

Of course, this shouldn’t come as a surprise. The old men’s mags have been hurting for years, Playboy especially. Harder stuff is easily — and perhaps more importantly, anonymously — available online, and magazines like Maxim, Stuff and FHM have given the bunny a run for its money in the "guy" market. Most men would rather see some young sitcom starlet nearly nude than see the "women of Enron" completely nude.

Meanwhile, Playboy’s online revenues increased by 18 percent in the fourth quarter of 2001, and they still lost $4.5 million.

Best search technology? Yep. Best business plan? Hmm …

/ Kevin B. O'Reilly

Good story by Saul Hansell in the New York Times examining Google‘s search for a business plan.

"We have pride that we are building a service that is really important to the world and really successful for the long term," says co-founder Larry Page. But as several industry experts note in the story, that’s not enough. We all wish it were, but it’s not.

According to Jupiter Media Metrix, Google users used the site an average of 24.1 minutes a month, 7.9 minutes more than the nearest search competitor, Ask Jeeves. How can Google capitalize on that?

I don’t know what a successful long-term business plan for Google would look like, but I do hope (1) that it is able to develop one fast so it doesn’t disappear and (2) that it doesn’t become so focused on business matters (I’m looking at you, Yahoo!) that it allows its core mission — making the "best search technology on the planet" — to fade from view. Don’t forget what got you where you are, Google.

Do you have your Google toolbar yet?