ThinkProgress Logo

Culture

Upgrading Verizon

Abe Pollin, the owner of the Washington Wizards and the Verizon Center where they play seems like a genuinely good guy. In a town that doesn’t have much in the way of a public spirited civic elite, he’s doing his best. And even better, unlike your average sports team owner, he built his arena with his own money. And not only did he pay for it out of pocket, but unlike a lot of publicly financed sports facilities it actually has turned out to be an important anchor in the revitalization of a whole neighborhood.

Photo by the Ardvarrk

Under the circumstances, it was a little disappointing to see Pollin ask the city for $50 million to renovate the Verizon Center. In particular, he “wants the extra money to upgrade all or some of its 110 luxury suites and replace its outdated scoreboard.” The scoreboard really is outdated and the luxury suites could be fancier. Still, this seems like a classic example of something not worthy of public subsidy. Improving the fan experience by upgrading the scoreboard either does or does not make business sense in terms of higher ticket sales or willingness to bear price increases. Similarly, it’s either the case that there are business will shell out money for fancier luxury boxes, in which case Pollin should make them fancier, or else there aren’t many such business and he shouldn’t. I can’t imagine any economic theory in which there are important scoreboard externalities that the DC government has to step in and fill.

Indeed, Pollin doesn’t even seem to have bothered to come up with a legitimate policy argument. Instead, the Post reports that his “company argues that the city should give the arena a financial boost as a reward for its role as a catalyst of the downtown renaissance, city officials said.” He really does deserve credit for that, as I wrote above, but seriously . . . an ex post facto reward subsidy? Later the article contemplated the possibility of financing these upgrades with a tax on ticket sales, which seems like not much more than an unduly elaborate form of raising ticket prices. But why should people in the cheap seats need to pay more in order to finance upgrades to the luxury boxes?

Media

Chuck Norris Fact: Fabricated Path to 9/11 Scene ‘Should Not Have Been In The Film’

Conservative actor Chuck Norris filled in for Sean Hannity last night on Hannity & Colmes. (He should really stick to martial arts.)

Norris commented on Hannity’s plans to broadcast the fictitious scenes that ABC cut from its controversial docudrama, “The Path to 9/11.” In one fabricated scene, which ABC acknowledges was “improvised,” former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger is shown refusing to give the order to the CIA to take a clear shot at Osama bin Laden.

Last night, Norris said, “I hate to see a movie used as a political platform, whether it’s leaning right” — which he said while gesturing to the left — “or leaning left” — said while gesturing to the right. Moreover, he said, if the Berger scene did not happen, it “should not have been in the film.” Watch it:

[flv http://video.thinkprogress.org/2007/01/chuck.320.240.flv]

It’s one thing for Fox News to provide their usual biased political commentary. It’s another thing to promote discredited fiction as news. Click HERE to send a message to Sean Hannity. Demand that he tell the truth about 9/11.

Full transcript: Read more

Yglesias

Justified Incredibly Poor Policymaking

That’s an epistemology joke in the title, in case you don’t get it. That said, I read in my New York Times that “President Bush and his senior aides on Friday justified American actions against Iranian operatives inside Iraq as necessary to protect American troops and Iraqis, and said they would continue as long as Tehran kept up what they called its support for Shiites involved in sectarian attacks.” In this context, “actions” refers to killing people or else capturing them by threatening to kill them.

In large part, I think this shows the limits of the language of justification in considering the use of violence abroad. Whether or not US forces are justified in doing this or that depends on a whole variety of controversial questions relating to, among other things, the legitimacy of the very presence of American forces in Iraq. The real question here has to do with the wisdom of the policy. We learned in the Post yesterday, that “Advocates of the new policy — some of whom are in the NSC, the vice president’s office, the Pentagon and the State Department — said that only direct and aggressive efforts can shatter Iran’s growing influence. A less confident Iran, with fewer cards, may be more willing to cut the kind of deal the Bush administration is hoping for on its nuclear program.” This is, of course, a reminder that our country is being run by deeply unwise people who appear to ground their policies primarily on a series of staggering wrong assumptions about human behavior. No possible good is going to come of this. Meanwhile, I know plenty of smart people who insist to me that a military confrontation with Iran is unlikely even as one is unfolding before our eyes.

Newer

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up