Some Thoughts on Steroids

It's Superbowl Sunday, so my thoughts turn naturally to steroids. The major league baseball scandals have made it apparent just how prevelent steroids are in professional sports. The NFL has not been aggressive in testing for steroids, so we have not seen too many players disgraced. Yet.

But only a very naive football fan would assume that steroids are not widely used in the NFL. Any time a player becomes stronger and more muscular in his 30s than he ever was in his 20s (I'm looking at you, Donald Driver), one cannot help but suspect steroid use.

But is that necessarily a bad thing? Yes, steroid use brings serious health risks. No, we do not want young players to feel pressured to start using them in order to compete. However, it appears that steroids are most popular with players over age 30 who are trying to maintain the physical abilities they had in their younger days and compete against younger players. Younger male athletes produce more testosterone, which is a muscle-building androgen. Anabolic steroids are a synthetic form of muscle-building androgen.

Why not allow steroid use for players age 30 and over? Presumably, they are mature enough to weigh the risks and benefits. They already have an established professional career, so they are not rolling the dice on a pipe dream. It's not much different from post-menopausal women taking hormone therapy. There are serious risks involved there as well, so it is no longer routinely prescribed. But there are still women who choose hormone therapy, under the advice and supervision of their doctor.

I believe that mature athletes should also be able to choose hormone therapy, if they wish. Many will decide it's not worth it just to play for a few more years. Others (particularly lineman) may find that the extra muscle mass will just wear out their knees more quickly. But a few may give us the best years of their career. Is that such a bad thing?

An Alternative to Security Theater

Ever since Sept. 11 changed everything, airports around the world have introduced escalating inconveniences for air travelers. The Recess Supervisor had a good post on the subject last month.

Frequent travelers have coined the term "Security Theater" for the measures that are imposed on the public mainly to convince them something is being done. The ban on liquids was put in place in response to a specific plot to mix liquid explosives from components hidden in toiletry bottles. The outrage from flyers who demanded the right to pack toothpaste and shampoo in their carry-on bag led to the allowance for liquids in three-ounce, clear plastic bottles in a quart-sized zip-loc bag. The allowance makes the restriction utterly useless in preventing terrorists from smuggling liquid explosive components on board. So why are we being inconvenienced? To convince us that the TSA (and its counterparts around the world) can protect us from terrorists, so we'll be willing to travel by air.

In reality, the terrorist plots on airplanes since 9/11 have been foiled either by old-school procedures that were already in place, the sheer incompetence of the would-be terrorists, or quick thinking (and tackling) by flight attendants and fellow passengers.

If we really want to make people safer on planes, we should spend as much time giving them tips to spot and stop a terrorist as we do showing them how to use the oxygen masks and flotation devices on the plane. That emergency card tucked into the back of every seat should also include a list of suspicious behaviors and appropriate responses (grab the offender's hands and yell "Hey, what are you doing? Help!" to alert flight attendants and your fellow passengers to help you subdue someone who is trying to blow up the plane). The flight attendants can pantomime how to place a suspected terrorist in a bear-hug, right after they show us how to put on our life preserver in the event of a water landing.

This will be at least as helpful as restricting us to tiny bottles of shampoo. It has the added benefit of making the public feel empowered (and therefore, less easy to terrorize).

Grammy Fail

Who thought it was a good idea to feature a rap stars collaboration that ended up being about 25% - 30% silence for the TV audience? Did none of the producers see that coming? Did they think that would make for good television?

Maybe HBO should broadcast the Grammy Awards from now on.

Best Joke I've Heard All Week

Attributed to porn queen (and Cathouse regular) Sunset Thomas: "Brett Favre wants to retire, but every time he throws in the towel it's intercepted!"

h/t The Kats Report

Which Wisconsin Public Figure SHOULD Pose for Cosmo?

After calling attention to Senator-elect Scott Brown's Cosmo centerfold past, Grumps reminded us to be grateful that there are no Cosmo pictures of Jim Sensenbrenner.

I cannot think of a single Wisconsin politician who SHOULD pose for Cosmo. The thought of Dave Westlake wearing nothing but blaze orange body paint is enough to make me lose my lunch.

So, I'm asking my readers, are there any Wisconsin public figures (they do not have to be politicians) that people would like to see pose in the buff? Enquiring minds want to know...

TIF Is Not a Loan; It's a Handout

With all the talk about the $16 million in tax incremental financing sought by the proposed Edgewater development, I keep reading references to the city being "paid back" through increased property taxes. People seem to be forgetting a few pertinent facts:

1. If the developer did not get the TIF money, but financed the entire cost itself, the property owners would still owe the same increased property taxes to the city, and the developer would have to repay the bank (or other investors) the entire cost of the development.

2. If the city did not give out the $16 million in TIF, and if the project was built anyway with private financing, the city would still get to collect the same amount in increased property taxes.

3. Keeping these two facts in mind, the $16 million in TIF cannot really be a loan. It is a development grant. The use of TIF is meant to make possible developments that are in the public interest but could not happen without TIF assistance.

Furthermore, the cost to the city would be more than just the $16 million given to Hammes. The city would have to borrow the money, which would increase its debt and raise the interest rate it has to pay on all its borrowing.

I am not impressed with the way the city wants to give this developer a free pass to ignore city ordinances (not just the Landmarks ordinance, but also the shoreline development rules, which are meant to protect the lakes and prevent property damage from flooding).

What really pisses me off, however, is the eagerness to throw millions of dollars of taxpayer money at a private developer for a dubious economic development argument. The developer refuses to commit to hiring local construction workers for family-supporting wages. How much do you want to bet we'll be seeing out-of-town subcontractors bringing in immigrant construction workers for minimum wage?

I do not begrudge hard-working immigrants the right to work in this country, assuming they are here legally. However, when the primary justification for public financing is the addition of jobs to our local economy, I want to make sure those jobs go to permanent Madison-area residents (whether immigrants or native-born citizens) who will spend much of their salaries on goods and services in this area, rather than send it to their families in Milwaukee or Chicago or Mexico.

Several years ago, Beaver Dam gave Wal-Mart a whole bunch of tax incentives to build their distribution center there, in the name of economic development. Residents were horrified to learn that prisoners were brought in for the construction work.

To all the folks who think the city should give carte blanche to any developer in the name of making Madison more "pro-business", be careful what you wish for. The Edgewater is already a profitable hotel. The owners have chosen to neglect the building in order to squeeze more short-term profits out of it. It's kind of like the Rio hotel in Las Vegas, which was recently described as "the most tired and used up looking 20-year-old I know, hands down."

Why should the city give money to an entity that refuses to properly maintain its property?

Why should my tax dollars be spent on corporate welfare, when the city refuses to put enough plows on the street after a major snowstorm?

Why should my tax dollars be spent to further gentrify downtown, when we are already stuck with the white elephant that is Overature Center? That was supposed to re-vitalize the downtown and foster economic development, at no cost to the city. Yeah, right.

I've heard this sales pitch before, and I'm not buying it.

An Explanation for Near-Death Experiences

Doctor Jeffrey Long, in his new book Evidence of the Afterlife: The Science of Near-Death Experiences, claims that near-death experiences cannot be culturally determined, because they transcend age and culture.

From this he concludes that they must be evidence of an afterlife.

Many years ago, I read a great deal about accounts of near-death experiences. The common elements (the ones which transcend age and culture) are a moving through a dark tunnel toward a bright light, being surrounded by (usually deceased) family members and (according to some sources), a vague buzzing noise that suddenly ceases.

I am amazed that no one seems to conclude that these experiences are influenced by long-buried memories of our birth. We start in a dark place, surrounded by the sound of our mother's heartbeat and intestinal gurglings. We move through a dark tunnel and emerge into a bright light, surrounded by family members.

Of course the images transcend culture and age. Being born is a universal human experience.