"Professional sports isn't a multi-billion dollar industry without reason, Putin..."

Well supposedly all but the handful of big market teams are losing money, so evidently it's not as popular as ESPN likes to claim. The attendance of NBA games is not very high at all. I mean 14,000-15,000 show up to an average home game. I bet you 3rd tier soccer teams in small cities in England get higher attendance.

So now conservatives are touting NASA as a jobs program? Really? If any other program had the rate of failure that NASA does they'd have called for its axe decades ago.

+1 Gunfighter

And, Putin...

Weathermen, baseball players, filmmakers...PLENTY of professions with high failure rates in their jobs.

But, see, for NASA, it's a bit excusable...let's see you launch a rocket out of our orbit hundreds of thousands or millions of miles away and have it land even CLOSE to your target location.

When you can say that you can, you might then be in a position to chastise scientists for daring to be incorrect when dealing with the unknown.

"Well supposedly all but the handful of big market teams are losing money, so evidently it's not as popular as ESPN likes to claim. The attendance of NBA games is not very high at all. I mean 14,000-15,000 show up to an average home game. I bet you 3rd tier soccer teams in small cities in England get higher attendance."

First--soccer teams would NATURALLY draw better, Putin, as soccer stadiums have a larger CAPACITY than the average NHL/NBA arena, or even an MLB/NFL stadium.

And please cite your source for that "all but the richest teams are losing money and failing, so CLEARLY folks don't like pro sports" bit, Putin...

Becuae otherwise--I call bullshit with a capital B.

FIRST of all, the MLB, NFL, and NHL, at least, ALL have revenue sharing rpograms where the richest teams are obligated to contribute a certain amount of moeny each year to provide a net for the smaller-market teams; as a result, very rare is it now for a FRANCHISE to go broke, usually it's the owner, who then sells it to someone who can afford the team, and the franchise generally recovers (the recent exception here being the Atlanta Thrashers folding/relocating and becoming the new Winnipeg Jets, but that's due mostly to the fact Atlanta can't support a hockey team, as it's now shown by losing a team TWICE...it has two big teams in baseball and football in the Braves and Falcons which draw well and perform well, and tons of college teams, so that and the fact it's not a traditional hockey market explains its failure, it's not emblematic of a league-wide failure.)



So...yeah.

Where are your numbers, Putin?

Because, again, I call BULL-SHIT to your claim that almost all but the richest pro sports franchises are failing and, despite increased ratings for MLB, NHL, and--before the lcokout, anyway--NFL games, fan interest is low and few care about pro sports.

Of course there's going to be failure. It's rocket science. But you also got great success. Like going to the Moon, for instance. And things like the Hubble Telescope and other advances in technology and human knowledge. You're allowed a high rate of failure when you can pull off spectacular successes.

It's a jobs thing since it gives brilliant aerospace engineers a place to work in America. NASA is a draw for the sort of high talent people our country needs, be they immigrants or citizens who decide to choose that career path. By paring NASA down we risk losing a lot of these high talent people to other countries and other industries.

The space shuttle was a boondoggle. With all the money spent on this glorified satellite over the last thirty years we probably could have gone to Mars several times over. It was right to cancel that program. What was wrong was also cancelling the replacement rocket, which would have been a return to real space exploration.

You're just a joyless contrarian, Putin33. It must be a miserable life you have, alternating between outrage and arrogant self-righteousness.

(And just to round off how exceedingly LITTLE you know about this...

The MTS Center in Winnipeg, which will be the new home to the Jets, seats 15,000...so, yeah, "only" 15,000 will attend in person, but that's due to the size of the rink.

The same goes for Fenway Park, which seats jsut shy of 18,000 or so, and so 15,000 isn't bad attendence at all, that's 5/6 full, 83% capacity.

Lambeau Field has sold out every game for decades now, as all the fans are season ticket holders.

MOST NFL stadiums are packed, at that...

NHL rinks, again, are "packed" for how small they are comparatively, unless you're in Phoenix and have about 200 fas show up, but again, that's one market, and one place where hockey is jsut a failure and never should have gone to begin with.)

These places are NOT all Wembley Stadium-sized, so 15,000 isn't bad, especially if A it's an NHL rink, or B. the team's doing poorly, as, yeah, fans don't go if the team does poorly, but that doesn't make the team bankrupt, unless they do that for year after year after year...or unless they're the Phoenix Coyotes or Atlanta Thrashers.)

And +1 Invictus as well.

These are the attendance figures for the NBA
http://espn.go.com/nba/attendance

Here's the NBA talking about how it lost $300 million, and that 22 teams lost money this past season.

http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/15/league-says-22-teams-to-lose-money-300-million-total-this-season/

So those are the numbers. Now one could say the NBA is saying this to get players to gut their salaries, and they are probably are to some extent. But still if they're willing to say their brand is horribly in the red that says a lot about the popularity of the sport.

"First--soccer teams would NATURALLY draw better, Putin, as soccer stadiums have a larger CAPACITY than the average NHL/NBA arena, or even an MLB/NFL stadium."

There's not that much of a difference. Look at the capacities for 2nd or 3rd tier soccer teams, they're about 20,000 or so, same as the NBA.

http://www.footballgroundguide.com/

"You're just a joyless contrarian, Putin33. It must be a miserable life you have, alternating between outrage and arrogant self-righteousness."

You're full of joy, eh Invictus? I'm wondering where your joy comes from, your public recitations of The Coming Anarchy or your endless fearmongering about the looming 'China Threat'?

Fenway Park seats about 35,000 and has been sold out for around 3 consecutive years. It is painful to see the ignorance level of this forum when it comes to debating sports- those stadiums employ thousands of people, not rich athletes, but regular working people. Stadiums also help revitalize neighborhoods, just look what the Verizon Center did for Washington DC's long forgotten China Town neighborhood. Anyone who can't see how sports franchises help the local economy is probably still harboring a grudge against the industry because they were always picked last at recess.

Yeah, I'm happy. I think we need to be watchful of a newly powerful authoritarian power and a host of other problems, but I'm not wringing my hands about everything.

I also don't think it's impossible for me to be wrong. A quality you lack.

I've admitted I was wrong multiple times here. When's the last time you did that, Mr. Humility?

" but I'm not wringing my hands about everything."

Really, you're not bitching about the fall of NASA and how we're all doomed because of it? I'm convinced you either do not read or do not really believe what you write.

Yes stadiums are lovely. The people of New Jersey are still paying off the parking lot that is now Giants stadium.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/08/sports/08stadium.html?_r=1&src=twt&twt=nytimes

Well, you won't admit to being wrong about North Korea being a good place. Rather glaring example there. Your whole attitude is one of being the only smart person in existence and all opposing viewpoints aren't just wrong, they're illegitimate. Very dislikable.

I think its a serious issue that we're abdicating a role is space. A very big deal. We're not DOOMED, but it's a foolish and possibly dangerous strategy.

And New Jersey transit, the Turnpike, and the river bridges and tunnels have raked in millions taking people from New York to what used to be a swamp, not to mention the boon to area businesses

I am standing in awe of Obi's impressive ad populam. Truly the farce is great with this one.

"Well, you won't admit to being wrong about North Korea being a good place. Rather glaring example there. Your whole attitude is one of being the only smart person in existence and all opposing viewpoints aren't just wrong, they're illegitimate. Very dislikable."

I never said North Korea was a 'good place'. Your continued obsession with this got tedious a long time ago. I simply tried to explain the context of North Korea's existence. But that's too much nuance for someone like you who will only accept vilification.

I argue with the same amount of force and conviction as you and everyone else here. But you have to turn every conversation into some referendum on my personality flaws.

"I think its a serious issue that we're abdicating a role is space. A very big deal. We're not DOOMED, but it's a foolish and possibly dangerous strategy."

But I'm the one wringing my hands, right. Whatever.

Incidentally Invictus is one the few people on here I've never read to have cracked a joke or laughed about anything. But I'm the joyless robot.

Invictus's comment in his profile is: "Idiots get in the way." Now, if that isn't a joke, someone needs to get a sense of humor.

Well, when it comes to popular entertainment, manganese, I think an argument based on populam is fiar enough...

And where in there did I say sports are GOOD because so many enjoy them? I said they were POPULAR--nothing more, nothing less.

And as for your point on the NBA, Putin, as I cited the NHL, MLB, and NFL, that STILL has you trailing 3 leagues to 1, with your rebuttal coming against the one league I DIDN'T defend as being popular.

And I DID say NFL stadiums were more comparable to soccer stadiums capacity-wise as well...not Wembley-sized, but still...



So where is your agurment going anyway, Putin? Leaving aside the fact that the facts do NOT support your position that professional sports are not a popular form of entertainment...

What's your point?
Abolish sports?
Again--WHY? If these are PRIVATELY-OWNED LEAGUES...WHY?

If you're going to make such claims and, as Invictus so elegantly pointed out, play the role of contrarian, I'd like to know--to what end?

So you abolish professional sports--now what?

Well...you have hundreds of thousands EASILY unemployed as you take into account at least 4 leagues, each at least 30 teams, worth of players, personnel, management, upper management, people who sell the merchandise of said team, PR people, sports broadcasters, sports networks and THEIR personnel...and so on...

So, kmindly explain again--why are you in favor of this? Why is this good?

Well hockey is a niche sport, I think most everyone would agree. In Canada it is not, but in the US it is. In the NHL they say that 16 teams are losing money, with most of the revenue coming from 7 teams. The Coyotes, Lightning, Caps, Thrashers, Sabres and Panthers lost a total of $63 million in 2009-2010.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/11/30/leafs-rangers-canadiens-business-sports-hockey-valuations-10-most-valuable-teams.html

And the viewership for the NHL is quite low. The Nielson ratings show that quite clearly. Their "records" for viewership in the NHL finals are far lower than the lowest viewership total for an NBA finals.

Anyway I was simply making a rather small point that we'd be better served if sports were amateur rather than professional. I did not call for abolishing sports. I love all sports. My favorites are the ones with a strong amateur tradition. I think boxing, for example, lost a lot when it stopped paying attention to its amateur divisions and the Golden Gloves and focused exclusively on the professional.

And I'd point out that I do not think college football & basketball are "amateur" in any meaningful sense.

re Putin's "mass extinction event" that could happen in 50-100 years -

we are already in a mass extinction event in the same category as the K-T extinction 65 million years ago.

I am all for fixing the world's problems - all fucking for it. But there are a lot less important things to waste money on than space that we spend money on instead of helping this planet. You are presenting a false dichotomy.

I also can never get enough of the inherent hypocrisies everywhere in the bullshit left/right paradigm, and the blame is shared equally since the left opposes all of the right and visa versa:

Left - all killing is wrong, end the death penalty!
Right - i'm pro-life - except for wars and criminals!

Left - NASA is a waste of government money we should cut it out
Right - NASA provides people jobs and is worthy spending

Left - infrastructure investing people jobs and is worthy spending
Right - infrastructure spending is a waste of government money and should be cut out

Left - no more government intrusion into people's private sex lives!
Right - this country needs laws prohibiting gay marriage

Left - freedom of the press is a basic human right!
Right - sometimes the interests of the state supersede press freedoms (NYT heres lookin at you

To the left I say - are you for bigger government, or not?
To the right I say - are you for downsized government, or not?

There is almost no ideological common thread between some of these things other than the fact that there are millions of other republicans or democrats out there who all share you common opinions.

i hate to use the word sheeple lol but jesus christ

oh and i forgot the immigration paradox as well - GOP - are you for government control or aren't you?

I mean even Invictus said the shuttle program is a boondoggle. I don't get what the controversy is here. You want to keep the portion of the NASA budget that isn't used on the shuttle program? Ok fine, I don't object to that. But there's absolutely no reason to keep the shuttle program.

And most of the paradoxes you mention aren't paradoxes at all. The dichotomy between
"left" and "right" is not about more vs less government, it's between equality vs tradition.
The left supports government intervention in the economy to ensure equality of opportunity and/or equality of outcome. They support social programs for the same purpose. The left opposes the death penalty, typically, because there's a sense that it is not applied equally. The left supports choice because there's a sense that women ought to have the same autonomy over their own bodies that men have and that depriving them of choice presents an unfair burden on women that isn't put on men.

The right defends traditional sources of authority, morality, and wants to preserve institutions. They want us to remain committed to the morality and ideas of 1789. They're committed to federalism and "states rights" for the same reason. They oppose abortion because it violates Christian ethics and is considered a deviation from traditional, limited interpretations of the Constitution. They oppose gay rights because it undermines traditional concepts of ethics and morality. They oppose anti-discrimination and affirmative action laws for the same reason. They believe you can't change people's minds and attitudes through legislation. They're quick to condemn "social engineering" through the state. Their defense of gun rights and support for "law & order" makes sense if you look at through the lens of tradition. Gun ownership is an American "tradition", and the police are supported because they defend and preserve the rule of law. The right opposes open immigration because it undermines traditional American culture and represents an affront to the 'rule of law' as they see it.

Putin - I also agree that the shuttle needs to be cancelled.

I was referring instead to your seeming belief that the human race should not be committing resources to attempt to expand beyond the planet earth

@ Putin33

I would not say NASA has a high failure rate. Two fatal accidents, one fatal mishap, and one extremely close call out of hundreds of safe, successful missions is pretty damned good, especially with something as dangerous as spaceflight.

Invictus and obiwan are right. Think of all of the advances. Multiple American flags are on the moon. Not to mention Hubble, Skylab, and the ISS.

It is a little sad that NASA's greatest accomplishment occurred in 1969, but that is what happens when you cut a budget. Compared to other government agencies, NASA has been quite deprived monetarily.

Oh, and Invictus + 1 for mixing it up with Putin (so I don't have to)