I'M JUST HERE SO I WON'T GET FINED. THE ABSURDITY OF NFL SUPER BOWL MARKETING.

The NFL — it's big business, earning billions annually. The grand final of the NFL is the Super Bowl, these days played around the first Sunday in February. The Super Bowl has become so big that television viewing clocks in around 35% of all Americans (about 112 million).

In the two-weeks lead-up to the big game, which will feature a contest between the NFC conference champs and last season's Super Bowl winner, the Seattle Seahawks, against the AFC conference champs and often-embroiled in cheating scandal controversy, the New England Patriots, a sports news media circus gathers. A media day gets held during which media entertainers known sports writers get to interview players.

Part of the overall work contract between the NFL owners and the union of players requires players to give interviews. One player, Marshawn Lynch, particularly does not like giving interviews.  During his required five minutes, Lynch answered every question asked of him, "I'm just here so I won't get fined."



No one should be forced to talk. That is why firms hire PR guys.

Not every player seeks to parley camera time into commercial endorsements of products or a future in sports broadcasting. Some players merely want to get paid to play professionally and when their play days end, they want to walk away in silence.

Marshawn Lynch signed a contract to play football. Lynch didn't sign a contract to work as a promoter for the NFL to ensure high viewership ratings for TV, which support future TV contracts worth billions of dollars.

When NFL execs punish guys like Lynch through fines under the guise of violating the collective bargaining agreement, in essence what these "adults" have said, "We don't have a clue about marketing, so we're relying on players and their iconic imagery to promote the league's sport."

In his way, Lynch has given plenty for others to talk about. His defiant quirkiness might have boosted ratings for this Sunday's game a tad.

Read more ...

SCOTS RULE OUT ALEX SALMOND AND HIS SNP VISION FOR A SCOTTISH VENEZUELA

Yesterday, the majority of voting Scots soundly rejected Scotland becoming an independent country. Had Scots said yes, the Scottish legislature would have gained control over regulating others and their property in North Sea oil.

A whopping 84.5% of the electorate turned up and voted. 55.3% of the 3,619,915 who voted checked the no box. 44.7% voted yes. Sadly, 3,429 Scots could not check either a yes box or a no box. So they had their ballots rejected.

Upon closer look, 28 of 32 voting councils voted to be British. Notably, the majority of those in Glasgow voted in favor of independence.

The Scottish National Party (SNP), currently the dominate party of the Scottish home parliament, pushed for an independent Scotland. The SNP is a leftist/socialist party, which pushes for punitive, progressive-era exponential rate taxation on incomes, free-to-everyone welfare that they claim would would erase poverty, magically, and free-to-students tertiary education.

Those of the SNP sought full reigns of legislative power while sticking with the British banking system and EU membership. As well, oddly, they wanted the Queen to be their head of state, which would have meant answering to a governor-general.

A SNP-run independent Scotland would not have increased freedom. A SNP-run Scotland would have lessened freedom for each Scot. A SNP-run independent Scotland would have eroded individuals' property. A SNP-run independent Scotland would have returned Scots to life before Margaret Thatcher, a life of socialist-produced poverty.

As it is, many Scots are still poor. Rather than run to failed socialism, Scots ought to embrace property and profit-seeking through capitalism, which lifts wages. As I showed in SOPHIE'S CHOICE OF CAPITAL OR LABOR. A FREE-MARKETS LIBERTARIAN BECOMES AN ANTI-CAPITALIST AND PERPETUATES AN ECONOMICS MYTH, a true, increasing return to capital is the only means by which true wages and thus true buying power rises for any wage earners.



Scots were right to reject the foolery of the SNP offered to them, a sort of Scottish Venezuela and SNP head Alex Salmond.

Scots have been British for 307 years. Being British is all the current Scots ever have known.

Read more ...

GROUNDSKEEPER WILLIE SAYS AYE

In a mere five days, Scots shall take to their voting booths to decide whether or not Scotland secedes from the United Kingdom.

The makers of the long-running FOX Television series the Simpsons have seized the day to promote their show with recurring character, Groundskeeper Willie, a fierce, ex-pat Scotsman living in the fictional world of Springfield, USA. Watch the clip below.

For a slightly serious view on the matter, check out BRAVEHEARTS. SCOTS SERIOUSLY SEEK INDEPENDENCE FOR THE FIRST TIME IN AWHILE.

Read more ...

BRAVEHEARTS. SCOTS SERIOUSLY SEEK INDEPENDENCE FOR THE FIRST TIME IN AWHILE.

A poll for the Sunday Times declares that 51% of Scottish voters plan to vote for their independence from English dominance. This is the first time Yes voters have taken the lead since polling began. Sky News reports No voters lost a a 22-point lead within the past month.

Those seeking to maintain English sovereignty over the Scots desperately have taken to using ex-soccer players to pitch a no vote.

EU parliamentarians have tried to scare the Scots with the fear that a sovereign Scotland could get forced to wait five years before getting back into the EU. Scots should ignore that fear mongering and sign unilateral trade deals with the Norwegians, the Icelanders and yes, the English.

As I say always in such matters, it's not so much about territory. It's about people. The political establishment hates losing people because they hate losing the ability to control property of others and thus the ability to scoop up taxes, which are an unearned share of profits taken by force if necessary.

Englanders produce 85% of UK GDP. Scots produce 9%. No one has produced a study, much less a valid one, showing what part of England GDP arises from Scots and what part of Scotland GDP arises from the English.

The downside for Scots is a push by Scots to have a bigger, socialist state. Likely, the wrong Scotsmen would come to power and run into the ground an independent Scotland.

A recurrent theme expressed by likely YES voters in reporting is their anger of National Health Service (NHS) welfare spending cuts. Scots seem bent on more socialism and more political involvement in their lives and thus a weaker economy with less freedom for each man and each woman.

The Washington Post reports that if Britain were a U.S. state, it would be the second-poorest, behind Alabama and before Mississippi.  The Guardian reports that Scots GDP per head is $2,980 higher than British. Likely, the poorer Northern Irish, the Welsh, and every Englishman not living in London or South East are pulling down the British GDP per cap relative to Scots GDP per cap.

Should the Scots leave the UK, the EU overlords claim that action automatically kicks out the Scots from the EU. A Scots exit from the EU could mean a British exit from the EU. Together, both might be the tipping point for other exits.

Even if the Scots secede, the Scots, the English, the Welsh and Northern Irish have good reason to enter into a mutual defense union along with an open trade agreement as opposed to managed trade hiding under the rubric of "Free Trade Agreement". However, Scots would do better if they had their own banking system with their own cash.

Unfortunately, Scots have expressed the desire to remain in the British banking system with the British pound as their cash. Thus, Scots won't get the most important benefit from secession. In fact, without a standalone banking system, Scots won't gain true secession.

Perhaps, as an alternative to an independent Scotland, all Brits should gather around to hold a constitutional convention to instill liberty and hobble politicians, establishing a federal system for Brits along the lines of what Canadians have or Australians have.

Regardless of the outcome, Brits ought to exit the European Union. Instead, Brits ought to join the  European Economic Area (EEA) and the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), gaining all of the benefits of harmonized trade with other Europeans without the loss of sovereignty.

And considering the relative per capita income of the British, perhaps Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland should dissolve the United Kingdom and become states of the United States.

Scots hold their independence referendum on Thursday, September 18, 2014.

Read more ...