First off, you don't have to be a football fan to enjoy (or understand) the following story:
If you root for the Washington Redskins, as I do, odds are you loathe Redskins Owner Daniel Synder. Mr. Sydner is a Maryland Grad, a brilliant owner, and one of the worst Owners in Pro Sports. He has managed to improve the Redskins balance sheets while simultaneously guaranteeing q burgundy and gold slump towards mediocrity. (4-12 in 2009, 6-10 in 2010).
Needless to say, the Press has noticed Mr. Synder's inept management of the team and one of them wrote a rather harsh (but funny as hell) article on the history of Synder's terrible, horrible management history. It was called: The Cranky Redskin Fan's Guide to Dan Synder.
Needless to say, Danny didn't like it.
Few of us like criticism (few meaning everyone planet-wide). It would be one thing for Danny to shake his fist angrily at the Washington City paper, or release a statement trashing the paper and the article for...well, whatever reason they saw fit.
But of course, that's not what Danny's doing.
What's Danny doing? He's trying to get the writer of the article fired.
With that we can now tie this Football story into a story worthy of a Political blog.
This isn't the first time Danny's done something like this. As the Skins were imploding in 2009, and the 'Skins fans were letting him have it in every manner possible, he banned signs in Fedex Field.
This seems to be the first tact of the those in power. We saw it in Egypt. We see it in China every day. The first idea that pops into the heads of those in power, when faced with criticism, don't address it, squelch it.
Now, let me not make the Steve Cohen mistake. I am examining an idea, an impulse in the human conditition. While on a really bad Sunday where we're losing to the woeful Detroit Lions, one might be cranky enough to compare Danny Synder to a totalitarian dictator, the comparison isn't really apt.
Danny Synder is an @$$hole. He's a bad businessman. He sucks at what he does, but he's not Murbarak, by any measure or stretch of the imagination.
So let's go back to the idea. Why is the first impluse to squelch dissent? Why do the powerful not only do it, but defend the practise as though it was a natural human right.
I would accept it's a natural human impulse. We're all human, and don't like it too much when criticism is hurled our way, no matter how mild it is. The first impulse is to shut it off. For you or me, that means turning away, walking away, pretending it never happened. While these actions may not be helpful in the long run, they are natural impulses.
But the rich and powerful are in a different position than the rest of us. They not only can turn away from such criticism of their wonderful selves (normal), but they have the ability to make sure no one else hears it either. And now we're into creepy territory.
And worse, as I have said, the rich and powerful tend to confuse their rights as a political authority or their rights as a property owner or business owner...with what is right.
It takes a brave person with a stout heart to turn and face criticism. It takes character. One of the things we're going to have to ask in the future is that people in power and authority have more than a little, and not just claim that they do.
