Omigerdz! Without rushed legislation they may cancel the Stupid Bowl!

[phill4paul]

If you’ve already bought tickets for Super Bowl XLIX or are looking forward to watching it with your friends and family, you may be surprised to learn that there is a chance it might not be played. Congress first needs to make a decision on renewing a piece of legislation that you possibly never have heard of: TRIA—the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act.

TRIA was signed into law in 2002 in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, establishing a risk-sharing partnership between the federal government and the insurance industry that made terrorism insurance widely available to U.S. businesses—among them, organizers of sporting events. Without federal support, most insurers had been unwilling to offer coverage. TRIA was renewed in 2005 and in 2007. It is set to expire on Dec. 31 unless Congress renews it. With two weeks until the deadline, the clock is ticking.

You may think: No way that the Super Bowl can be canceled! Think again. A few years ago FIFA, organizer of the World Cup, could not find insurers to cover the final game of the 2006 tournament at a cost it judged reasonable. FIFA was eventually able to structure a special financial instrument so the game could go on, but this took several months.


There is considerable money at stake for the organizers of Super Bowl and for NBC (CMCSA), which will televise the game. No insurance, no game. It is thus not surprising that the NFL has joined with other professional sports leagues and 80 business groups nationwide to form the Coalition to Insure Against Terrorism (CIAT) to urge Congress to fund reauthorization of the TRIA legislation.

A bit of background on why insurers changed their view of terrorism coverage after 9/11 provides the relevant context. Before 9/11, insurers included terrorism coverage in all commercial policies without charging for it because the risk was below their threshold level of concern. But after paying $44 billion in claims for 9/11—at that time the most costly disaster in the history of insurance—most insurers excluded terrorism from commercial policies.

The absence of terrorism coverage halted large construction projects around the country because financial institutions were concerned about the viability of their loans. Their fears resembled the concern that organizations such as FIFA and the NFL have with respect to their own liability.

TRIA addresses the insurance supply problem. Under the program, the federal government provides a financial back-up for insurers by covering a portion of insured losses above $27.5 billion, up to $100 billion, giving the insurance industry some certainty as to its maximum exposure. In return, insurers are required to offer terrorism coverage to all business clients, which can decide to purchase coverage or not. About 60 percent of large businesses carry terrorism insurance, indicating strong demand for it.

Unless TRIA is reauthorized during the next two weeks, insurers will have the right to cancel terrorism insurance policies after Jan. 1. They are likely to do so for fear of insolvency should a massive terrorist attack take place with no government backup. By law, only insurance companies offering workers’ compensation insurance must include terrorism peril in their policies, whether or not TRIA is renewed. The only way for those insurers to limit their exposure to terrorism—say, in large metropolitan areas where they are heavily concentrated—might be to cancel some commercial insurance policies altogether if TRIA is not in place. Some businesses would then be unprotected against a wide variety of risks, ranging from fire to industrial accidents.

Competing bills now in Congress would extend TRIA for an additional five to seven years. Over the summer, S. 2244 passed in the Senate and H.R.4871 was passed by the House Financial Services Committee. The November elections put everything on hold.

The two chambers may decide to buy time by authorizing a short-term extension. That would be better than doing nothing: In the event of a terrorist attack, we as a nation can avoid massive economic disruption by taking appropriate financial protection measures to facilitate a rapid recovery. The emergence of the Sunni fundamentalist self-proclaimed Islamist State in Iraq and Syria tells us that the threat of terrorism will be with us for many years.

In our recent Wharton Risk Center report, “TRIA After 2014,” we detail the impact of both the House and Senate TRIA renewal bills with respect to who will pay after a terrorist attack. Our analyses show that both bills push more risk to the private sector and that under either bill, insurers would bear the entire insured losses if claims total less than $50 billion. We also highlight the relatively minor differences between the bills under a variety of terrorist attack scenarios in four large cities (Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, and New York).

We urge the House and Senate to reconcile the differences in their bills before Christmas. Congress, you have the ball. Don’t fumble it. We are looking forward to watching Super Bowl XLIX on Feb. 1.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-12-09/the-terrorism-risk-insurance-act-is-vital-to-the-super-bowl

http://blog.cvsflags.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Metrodome-Military-Thank-You.jpg

[specsaregood]

I fail to see why I should have to share in the costs of insuring their high profile, high risk event.

[thoughtomator]

I hope they do cancel it for this stupid reason. What better way to wake the sheep as to just how f-ed up things are in the legislature that they are holding sports events hostage to financial industries' shenanigans.

[Chester Copperpot]

Cancel all Television. Maybe people will start to think again

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Make your own entertainment. Some of the greatest games were developed by people using seeds, carved sticks, or carved out pieces of wood.

[Occam's Banana]

The mystery of "step 3" has finally been solved!

1. Instigate a blowback-fueled Global War on Terror.
2. Increase revenues by selling insurance policies for "terrorism coverage."
3. ???? Minimize costs by forcing someone else (e.g., taxpayers) to make good on any payout "shortfalls."
4. PROFIT!!!

[oyarde]

I fail to see why I should have to share in the costs of insuring their high profile, high risk event.

The NFL should be able to pay for that with all the tv money generated .

[Origanalist]

So cancel it already.

[acptulsa]

I fail to see why I should have to share in the costs of insuring their high profile, high risk event.

For the same reason the big banks get to keep the profits from those of their derivative schemes that work and we get to cover the losses for the ones that don't work.

Because FU, that's why, and thanks for asking.

Does this remind anyone else of Obama ordering national parks and monuments, the operation of which was contracted out and not dependent upon the budget, closed during the 'government shutdown'? Is anyone else sick of these things being held up in attempts to extort money out of us?

I, too, say call their bluff. They'll make enough money, ridiculous insurance rates or no, on the game that there's no way in hell they don't hold the event. Just say no.

So cancel it already, indeed. We dare you.

Meanwhile, if someone comes up to you and says, 'They're going to cancel the Super Bowl!!1!' I strongly suggest laughing in their faces.

[Indy Vidual]

No chance at all that it will be canceled.

[specsaregood]

I, too, say call their bluff. They'll make enough money, ridiculous insurance rates or no, on the game that there's no way in hell they don't hold the event. Just say no.

So cancel it already, indeed. We dare you.

In the words of Tony Soprano, "if there is no money in it, then stop doing it."

[Christian Liberty]

Why all the stupid paranoia about terrorists? No terrorists have ever tried to take away any of my freedom, unless we're now counting cops and TSA thugs as "terrorists", which I doubt...

[Occam's Banana]

I fail to see why I should have to share in the costs of insuring their high profile, high risk event.

What are you, some kind of terrorist, or something? Why do you hate America?

[specsaregood]

What are you, some kind of terrorist, or something? Why do you hate America?

No, its exactly that I love it so much. why should we waste our time and money a trifle like football when there are people around the world we could be killing instead?! I say replace the superbowl with some live streamed raids on terrorists by special forces!

[Anti Federalist]

Please please please please please....

[GunnyFreedom]

No, its exactly that I love it so much. why should we waste our time and money a trifle like football when there are people around the world we could be killing instead?! I say replace the superbowl with some live streamed raids on terrorists by special forces!
Naaahhhh, you are thinking too small. Become a hero to everyone EXCEPT libertarians - close Gitmo and hold a blood-sport 'reality TV' featuring Gitmo prisoners fighting for their lives, and then instead of the StuporBoll dump all the survivors into a single arena and say "only one person emerges, and they are immediately set free." That will sell Billions in commercial revenues!

[jmdrake]

I hope they do cancel it for this stupid reason. What better way to wake the sheep as to just how f-ed up things are in the legislature that they are holding sports events hostage to financial industries' shenanigans.

LOL. As much as I'd love to see that happen, there is about as much chance of that as there is the Tennessee Titans going back to the Superbowl anytime soon, and precisely because it would wake the sheeple up.

[CaptainAmerica]

http://global3.memecdn.com/spiderman-don-amp-039-t-want-to-give-a-fuck_o_2388959.jpg
this is my new favorite meme

[fisharmor]

Why all the stupid paranoia about terrorists? No terrorists have ever tried to take away any of my freedom, unless we're now counting cops and TSA thugs as "terrorists", which I doubt...

Well let's examine this....
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/01/binladen.tape/


"We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah," bin Laden said in the transcript.He said the mujahedeen fighters did the same thing to the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s, "using guerrilla warfare and the war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers."

So you've filled a concrete bowl with media saturated halfwits with defective moral compasses, the kind which are so vapid that they're going to spend the next three days either elated or depressed, depending on the result of their mock battle between grown men showing off their spandex-clad asses to each other.
And they choose to spend a significant amount of the 75% of this ritual where they're not actually playing the fucking game to take special pains to let the world know that they approve 100% of all of the 4 year old girls in Pakistan who got their faces melted off, that they approve of all the widows and orphans their surrogates have created, that they approve of all the destroyed neighborhoods.

And a lot of these sportsfans are either in the 18-22 year old range, or have sons in that range.

And a lot of them also vote. And a lot of them have already voted directly for bin Laden's "bankrupt the US" policy which we've had direct evidence of for the last 10 years.

A terrorist attack on a game sounds pretty likely, in that context.

[moostraks]

Well let's examine this....
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/01/binladen.tape/

[/FONT]

So you've filled a concrete bowl with media saturated halfwits with defective moral compasses, the kind which are so vapid that they're going to spend the next three days either elated or depressed, depending on the result of their mock battle between grown men showing off their spandex-clad asses to each other.
And they choose to spend a significant amount of the 75% of this ritual where they're not actually playing the fucking game to take special pains to let the world know that they approve 100% of all of the 4 year old girls in Pakistan who got their faces melted off, that they approve of all the widows and orphans their surrogates have created, that they approve of all the destroyed neighborhoods.

And a lot of these sportsfans are either in the 18-22 year old range, or have sons in that range.

And a lot of them also vote. And a lot of them have already voted directly for bin Laden's "bankrupt the US" policy which we've had direct evidence of for the last 10 years.

A terrorist attack on a game sounds pretty likely, in that context.[/COLOR]

Hmm, now am I under some moral or religious obligation to support either side in said proposed scenario?


Coalition to Insure Against Terrorism (CIAT) to urge Congress to fund reauthorization of the TRIA legislation. Isn't that special? They have lobbyists to bleed us dry instead of passing the bill on to the consumer.

[phill4paul]

Isn't that special? They have lobbyists to bleed us dry instead of passing the bill on to the consumer.

CTPCDOBT: Coalition To Pass on the Costs of Doing Business to Taxpayers.

[Occam's Banana]

CTPCDOBT: Coalition To Pass on the Costs of Doing Business to Taxpayers.

C'mon, now, you can do better than that! Work them acronym skillz ...

COAT POT COD BUTT: COAalition To Pass On The Costs Of Doing BUsiness To Taxpayers

... or just COD BUTT for short, to their friends in CONGRESS (Committee Of Narcissistic GREedy Statist Sociopaths).

[moostraks]

CTPCDOBT: Coalition To Pass on the Costs of Doing Business to Taxpayers.

:D catchy little acronym there. Sounds like something I utter when I stub my toe...

[moostraks]

C'mon, now, you can do better than that! Work them acronym skillz ...

COAT POT COD BUTT: COAalition To Pass On The Costs Of Doing BUsiness To Taxpayers

... or just COD BUTT for short, to their friends in CONGRESS (Committee Of Narcissistic GREedy Statist Sociopaths).

Lol...

[Mani]

People will scream and shout and beg the government to do something in order for the Game to go on.



But I like how people are thinking. Let's get 24 accused terrorists together...Put them in an area over a few acres. Some of them may be innocent and some may not. Have weapons and various survival equipment in the center, and let them fight it out until there is one left. That winner than gets to live freely, proving their innocence. Let's do it every year. The ratings are going to be awesome.

If it works really well, eventually lets do it across all 50 states, it will make the Super Bowl look like a peanut compared to how great this event will be.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Fuck these Billionaires and Multi-Millionaires using the people at every turnstile... it's all because the government gets to push their propaganda during the events. The NFL gets their $10 Billion/tax free 990 forms, the players and fans are used as Tax Ticks, the government get to push the nationalistic jingoism.

Fuck those cheap ass 50yd x 100yd American cloth flags... I'm designing the next generation 5 billion LED DMX controlled entire stadium flag to Eweee and Aaaah the country.

[specsaregood]

So I assume congress made this a priority and passed it quietly at some point?

[specsaregood]

So I assume congress made this a priority and passed it quietly at some point?

Ah yup, right out of the gate.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/01/08/terrorism-risk-insurance-act/21440737/



WASHINGTON — The Senate voted Thursday to revive a federal terrorism insurance program to help protect American companies from devastating losses in potential terrorist attacks.

Senators voted 93-4 to renew the program, which expired on Dec. 31 after efforts to extend it were blocked by then-senator Tom Coburn, R-Okla., who is now retired. The program's expiration raised fears by commercial developers and the owners of sports and entertainment companies that they would no longer be able to obtain the terrorism insurance they are required by their lenders to have.




Senate Nay votes: 4
Cantwell (D-WA)
Rubio (R-FL)
Sanders (I-VT)
Warren (D-MA)

*Disappointing Sen. Paul.

House Nay Votes: 5
Amash
Jones
Massie
McClintock
Sensenbrenner

*Proud of those 5.

[FSP-Rebel]

It would be un-American to 'vote against the Super Bowl' so I'll give Rand some wiggle room on this.:D

[heavenlyboy34]

"Terrorism insurance"? WTF? Wouldn't damage from "terrorism" fall under property insurance and such things? Having "terrorism insurance" sounds like an unnecessary expense to me, but I've never owned/operated a stadium.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Homeland Security nabs $19.5 million in “unsafe” NFL fan gear
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/01/homeland-security-nabs-19-5-million-in-unsafe-nfl-fan-gear/

Super Bowl Sunday in Arizona is just days away—so it's that time of year when Homeland Security and other US officials take the stump to announce a multi-million dollar cache of counterfeit NFL merchandise the authorities have seized—all in the name of consumer safety.

"The sale of counterfeit products are connected to smuggling and other criminal activities and threatens the competitiveness of our businesses, the livelihoods of US workers, and in some cases the health and safety of the consumer," R. Gil Kerlikowske, the Customs and Border Protection commissioner, said at a Phoenix news conference. “CBP works closely with our federal government partners to protect the United States from these damaging and unsafe goods.”

The "unsafe goods" confiscated from online stores, flea markets, street vendors, and other venues during "Operation Team Player" include counterfeit NFL jerseys, hats, shirts, jackets, and other clothing. As many as 52 people connected to the operation have been arrested, the authorities said.

The NFL, with minimum annual player salaries at $420,000, said it is teaming up with US intellectual property enforcers to protect the fans—even though counterfeit team merchandise often costs considerably less than licensed wares.

"Together, we are working hard to protect fans and prevent them from being scammed by criminals seeking to profit from the public's passion for the NFL, their home teams, and Super Bowl XLIX," said Dolores DiBella, the NFL's attorney.

In all, the authorities said they scored $19.5 million in NFL goods. The prior year, they confiscated $21.6 million worth of NFL merchandise.


The NFL wants you to think these things are illegal
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/01/the-nfl-wants-you-to-think-these-things-are-illegal/

The Super Bowl is the NFL’s flagship event each year, and the league has invested a lot in the event’s branding and broadcasting. In light of that investment, it’s understandable that the NFL would be protective of its trademarks and copyrights surrounding it. But that protectiveness has led to the NFL, and other businesses around it, perpetuating a number of myths about what you can and can’t do with the Super Bowl—including the words “Super Bowl.”

Saying “Super Bowl” in an ad

We’re already being bombarded by ads from sports bars, grocery stores, fast-food chains, and countless other companies tying their ads in to “The Big Game.” It’s a completely ridiculous circumlocution that just draws attention to itself and the absurdity that is trademark law. Obviously they’re talking about the Super Bowl; they’re clearly not talking about the Cal-Stanford game, or a high-stakes poker match, or a rugby match in Twickenham.

Conventional wisdom is that advertisers are avoiding calling a Super Bowl a Super Bowl because they don’t want to infringe on the NFL’s trademark in the name. But if that’s the case, it’s because the advertisers are being overly cautious, not because they’d actually be doing anything illegal.

The core purpose of trademark law has always been to identify the source of goods—to make sure that some competitor doesn’t try to pass off its goods as the genuine article. Over the years, that original purpose has been added to and supplemented with other theories, but its fundamental aim remains the same: keeping consumers from being fooled as to whether or not the trademark owner is making or endorsing the person using the trademark without permission.

This doesn’t mean that people are barred from using trademarked terms, though. Burger King can use the terms “McDonald’s” and “Big Mac” in its ads to refer to its competitor; movies and TV shows can use and display products without permission—if they make fake brands or blur them out, it’s either out of an excess of caution or in the hope that brands later become sponsors.

No one is going to think that your local grocery is offering sales on chicken wings and Doritos because they’re sponsoring the Super Bowl or are representing the NFL. They’re saying “Super Bowl” because that’s how human beings refer to this Sunday’s broadcast of the National Football League’s championship game. And they’re allowed to speak like human beings, just like you and I are free to talk, tweet, and text about the game.

Taping, describing, or even talking about the game

The NFL has a strange take on what people can do with the broadcast of the game, too. If you’ve watched enough football, you’ve undoubtedly seen this odd little clip:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GQ31UpVxg4

The voiceover in the clip says:

"This telecast is copyrighted by the NFL for the private use of our audience. Any other use of this telecast or any pictures, descriptions, or accounts of the game without the NFL's consent is prohibited."

That second sentence is bunk from a legal standpoint. It is not illegal to describe or give an account of one of the biggest media events of the year. You can talk about the Super Bowl without infringing copyright. This is not a case of the NFL politely looking the other way while most of America, in public and private, in casual conversations and in commercial broadcasts, discusses the game without the NFL’s permission. The NFL would be laughed out of court for trying to prevent them from doing so—just because you have a copyright in a work doesn’t mean you can prevent people from talking about it. Copyright simply doesn’t extend that far.

The NFL is also drastically overstating its case when it comes to actual copies of the game or pictures coming from it. You can record the Super Bowl. It’s been undeniably, unquestionably legal since 1984 that you can record the broadcast to watch later (and skip commercials, if you’re so inclined). And the fair use doctrine that allows you to do this also lets you use those recordings for other purposes, too. If you want to use clips for commentary or criticism or news reporting of some aspect of the game or the broadcast, that’s perfectly legal, too.

But the NFL has been using that disclaimer, or some form of it—basically miseducating America about copyright law—for years. Some years ago, one group actually complained about the broadcast of these falsehoods to the Federal Trade Commission, but didn’t get too far.

In fact, the NFL has overreached so far on this in the past that when copyright professor Wendy Seltzer posted a video clip of that very disclaimer in order to critique it, the NFL sent a takedown notice to remove the clip from YouTube. After several rounds of irony-deficient messages back and forth, the clip was reinstated, and thus your ability to see it and its successors today remains un-prohibited by the NFL and copyright law.

So if you find yourself hesitating about recording The Big Game because of the example set by the NFL and scores of advertisers, you can just relax. You can tape the Super Bowl. You can call it by its actual name. And you can discuss it all you want at the water cooler the next day. The law can’t stop you—no matter what the NFL says.

-t

[heavenlyboy34]

:eek:^^ And the pro-IPers wonder "what could go wrong?". SMFH.

[specsaregood]

It would be un-American to 'vote against the Super Bowl' so I'll give Rand some wiggle room on this.:D

Sorry, but NO.
I'm prepared to give him wiggle room on things and defend him but this is a horrible vote and I am very disappointed.

Let's ignore that this was going to pass regardless of how he voted which should have made it very easy to take the principled stand.
Let's ignore that there was 0% chance the superbowl would be cancelled even if this didn't pass.

This bill amounts to nothing but crony corporatism and that is something Randal is supposed to be completely against. The claim in the OP, "Without federal support, most insurers had been unwilling to offer coverage" is complete B.S. Somebody would offer it, the price might be prohibitive but it would be offered. Without the fed gov stepping in the private venues and insurance companies would have more incentive to make the events safe from terrorism in order to reduce risk/costs.


Screw this, I'd like to see any decent argument as to why this should be a YEA vote.

http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/terrorism-risk-insurance-act-time-end-corporate-welfare

[Anti Federalist]

What are you, some kind of terrorist, or something? Why do you hate America?

I have reported him.

[Anti Federalist]

Yes, this +rep.



Sorry, but NO.
I'm prepared to give him wiggle room on things and defend him but this is a horrible vote and I am very disappointed.

Let's ignore that this was going to pass regardless of how he voted which should have made it very easy to take the principled stand.
Let's ignore that there was 0% chance the superbowl would be cancelled even if this didn't pass.

This bill amounts to nothing but crony corporatism and that is something Randal is supposed to be completely against. The claim in the OP, "Without federal support, most insurers had been unwilling to offer coverage" is complete B.S. Somebody would offer it, the price might be prohibitive but it would be offered. Without the fed gov stepping in the private venues and insurance companies would have more incentive to make the events safe from terrorism in order to reduce risk/costs.


Screw this, I'd like to see any decent argument as to why this should be a YEA vote.

http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/terrorism-risk-insurance-act-time-end-corporate-welfare