Comments by Clean and Sober (page 4)

END THE SPORTS GRAVY TRAIN! WASHINGTON - Not long ago Washington, D.C., Mayor Anthony Williams and the city's political elite held a triumphant press conference announcing the return of baseball. League officials began counting nearly $500 million in public subsidies. But City Council Chairman Linda Cropp has halted the bandwagon. She proposed that the city shift the stadium to a less expensive site and find private financing. The screams of journalists and politicians who feared losing their subsidized box seats could be heard across the city. After all, sports stadiums are among the most common form of corporate welfare. Around the country wealthy sports moguls routinely mulct local taxpayers. The District of Columbia 'won" a bidding war for the Montreal Expos by promising to construct a $440 million stadium, one of the most expensive ever. But total projected costs already have ballooned to $530 million. And author Charles C. Euchner warns: "Count on that cost ballooning past $600 million or more. Public works projects invariably run over budget by at least 25 percent." There's more, however. To address complaints that he was neglecting community needs, Williams proposed a $450 million "tax-increment financing" district to fund libraries, recreation centers, and schools. On top of that he has offered some $70 million in goodies to buy council votes. To finance the project Williams would divert existing revenues and impose a gross receipts tax on business. Williams proclaimed that "our residents will not be asked to pay one dime of tax dollars toward this ballpark," but people - customers, employees, and owners - actually will bear the burden. The primary justification for looting taxpayers to construct sports cathedrals is economic development. Yet in D.C. you will have a hard time finding an economic renaissance sparked by RFK stadium, which hosted the Redskins for years. Still, if you plop down a $500 million edifice, some economic activity might sprout up nearby. But the money doesn't magically appear ex nihilo. People attending an evening game and buying hot dogs aren't going to a movie and restaurant near home. Subsidized stadiums rearrange rather than create spending and development. In fact, if you include costs as well as benefits - and the studies commissioned by stadium supporters tend to ignore all inconvenient facts - sports facilities are a bad deal. Write economists Dennis Coates and Brad R. Humphreys: "The presence of pro sports teams in the 37 metropolitan areas in our sample had no measurable positive impact on the overall growth rate of real per capita income in those areas." But that's not all. Incredibly, the two economists found "a statistically negative impact on the level of real per capita income." The economic multiplier from sports entertainment is less than for non-sports entertainment. That means stadium dollars generate less secondary economic growth than money spent elsewhere. Williams, when confronted with the Coates-Humphreys study, published by the Cato Institute, complained: "I can't imagine why, with all the things happening in the world, the Cato Institute would take the time to analyze the impact of baseball in Washington, D.C." But the better question is, with all of the economic and social problems facing the District of Columbia, why is Williams devoting so much energy to enriching pampered sports franchise owners? Why is a stadium more important than new business investment, improved health care, higher paying jobs, enhanced crime prevention and better schools? Washington, D.C., politicians have reason to heed chairman Cropp's call. In September voters upended three incumbents, all supporters of the Mayor's stadium boondoggle. Nearly 70 percent of city residents oppose public financing of the stadium. Would killing the subsidy deal mean no franchise? "Baseball is very unhappy about this," says Mark Tuohey, chairman of the D.C. Sports & Entertainment Commission. Sports moguls expected city officials to do a permanent genuflect while delivering the goodies. In fact, the nation's capital city remains a desirable location. But if the owners go elsewhere, life will go on. Says Cropp: "I don't want baseball to leave, but I want to do what's best for the District." What's best for the District of Columbia, and other communities across the United States, is to end the sports gravy train. The message should be simple: You want to own a sports franchise? Then be prepared to pay for the stadium that goes with it. -Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

FONDL, you said, "I also think there has been a decline in people's sense of humor which leads to a lot of phoney moralizing. Personally I found the TO skit to be hilarious and not at all in bad taste for an adult oriented show that's after 9 pm. It was no more in bad taste than the Desparate Housewives show itself...." I don't think MNF is an exclusively adult oriented show to many families. Most people were shocked by the promo, since MNF had never done anything like that before. I'm sure there were a lot of youngsters watching (I wasn't watching because I never tune in before 9:15 PM because I am interested in football, not Al Michaels' bullshit). I don't think there is anything phony about people objecting to being ambushed. If someone is turned off by "Desperate Housewives" they can decide in advance not to watch that show.

How romantic jpac.

FONDL, how do you feel about Pennsylvanians' tax dollars being used to build new stadiums, and the demolition of a young Veterans Stadium in Philadelphia?

There is no uproar because everyone has come to expect that sort of thing from Babs.

Nigel, show me someone who HASN'T been used by a politician.............

Secular Humanism is a religion that teaches that through Man's ability we will reach universal peace and unity and make heaven on earth. They promote a way of life that systematically excludes God and all religion in the traditional sense. That Man is the highest point to which nature has evolved, and he can rely on only himself and that the universe was not created, but instead is self-existing. They believe that Man has the potential to be good in and of himself. All of this of course is in direct conflict with not only the teachings of the Bible but even the lessons of history. In June 1961 in a case called Torcaso v. Watkins, the U.S. Supreme Court stated, "Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others." The Supreme Court declared Secular Humanism to be a religion. The American Humanist Association certifies counselors who enjoy the same legal status as ordained ministers. Since the Supreme Court has said that Secular Humanism is a religion, why is it being allowed to be taught in schools? The removal of public prayer of those who wish to participate is, in effect, establishing the religion of Humanism over Christianity. This is exactly what our founding fathers tried to stop from happening with the first amendment.

BENJAMIN FRANKLIN "We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel."

THOMAS JEFFERSON, 1803 "My views...are the result of a lifetime of inquiry and reflection, and very different from the anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian in the only sense in which He wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others..."

JOHN ADAMS, 1798 "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." AND "It must be felt that there is no security but in the nation's humble acknowledged dependence upon God and His overruling providence."

The Bible was important to the Continental Congress and our Founding Fathers. On September 11, 1777, they recommended that 20,000 copies of the Bible be imported from outside the colonies because there was a great shortage of Bibles due to the interruptions in trade with England. The Bibles were ordered and paid for by the newly formed government. The first page of each Bible was inscribed, "Approved for the American people." A few years later, Congress approved a distinctly American Bible, Aitken's Bible, published under Congressional patronage. Until the mid 1900's, our government continually sought for ways to integrate religious principles into our nation, and even paid for it most of the time! Obviously, there was no such thing as "Separation of Church and State" until our radical modern era.