Earlier this month, Montana became the 5th state in the nation to pass a resolution against the USA Patriot Act. This is notable because although Montana is one of the most conservative states in the country, it passed the most strongly-worded statewide anti-Patriot Act resolution of any state so far by an overwhelming margin of 40-10 in the Montana Senate and 87-12 in the state House.
Or perhaps this is BECAUSE Montana is one of the most conservative states in the country. Traditional conservativism has focused on fighting excessive power in the hands of the government, particularly the federal one. The Patriot Act certainly qualifies as such.
The Montana resolution states that the Patriot Act allows the federal government “to more liberally detain and investigate citizens and to engage in surveillance activities that may violate or offend the rights and liberties guaranteed by our state and federal constitutions.”
Reading some of the rhetoric out there, you'd think only the partisan demagogues and hippy librarians along with the evil ACLU and other terrorists could conceivably object to any parts of the Patriot Act, which would only be used judiciously and virtuously by unelected officials. Of course, such claims are impossible to verify precisely because of the secrecy provisions of the Patriot Act.
However, it's clear that bleeding heart liberals aren't the only ones concerned about the Patriot Act's attack on our freedom.
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
Security asleep at the switch
After a weekend of Italian domestic soccer filled with crowd violence, yesterday's European Champions League quarterfinal between AC Milan and city rivals Inter was stopped in the 2nd half due to... crowd violence. The Milan keeper was hit in the shoulder by a bottle and flares littered the field.
I've already ranted on the idiocy of crowd violence (here). But here's one thing I don't get.
When I go to games at Gillette Stadium near Boston, I can't bring in a bottle of soda with me from the outside. Even seat cushions can only be brought in after they're checked by security. But Italians, with a history of crowd trouble, can bring flares into stadia without any problem.
Huh?
Update: The Guardian's James Richardson has an excellent piece on the excessive influence of hard core Ultras thugs in Italian soccer. Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi (who happens to be the owner of AC Milan) has promised action by his government on violence in soccer. It will certainly be nice to see him taking action to protect ordinary Italians rather than his own political future for once.
Further update: MLSNet's Tino Palace suggests that if all English clubs could be banned from European continental for five years after the Heysel Stadium disaster in 1985, then one year European ban against Italian clubs is not inappropriate. In the same Champions League season, a match in Rome had to be abandoned because of the stupid actions of some Roma fans (full disclosure: I'm a supporter of the club). Even the day after the Milan mess, there were problems in Turin surrounding the Juventus-Liverpool match. And that's not even taking into account all the crap going on at domestic matches. But this won't happen. It's ok to pick on English clubs based on a reputation that has been outdated for a decade. English clubs are seen as the redneck cousins of the more sophisticated continental sides and thus deserving of scorn solely for that.
I've already ranted on the idiocy of crowd violence (here). But here's one thing I don't get.
When I go to games at Gillette Stadium near Boston, I can't bring in a bottle of soda with me from the outside. Even seat cushions can only be brought in after they're checked by security. But Italians, with a history of crowd trouble, can bring flares into stadia without any problem.
Huh?
Update: The Guardian's James Richardson has an excellent piece on the excessive influence of hard core Ultras thugs in Italian soccer. Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi (who happens to be the owner of AC Milan) has promised action by his government on violence in soccer. It will certainly be nice to see him taking action to protect ordinary Italians rather than his own political future for once.
Further update: MLSNet's Tino Palace suggests that if all English clubs could be banned from European continental for five years after the Heysel Stadium disaster in 1985, then one year European ban against Italian clubs is not inappropriate. In the same Champions League season, a match in Rome had to be abandoned because of the stupid actions of some Roma fans (full disclosure: I'm a supporter of the club). Even the day after the Milan mess, there were problems in Turin surrounding the Juventus-Liverpool match. And that's not even taking into account all the crap going on at domestic matches. But this won't happen. It's ok to pick on English clubs based on a reputation that has been outdated for a decade. English clubs are seen as the redneck cousins of the more sophisticated continental sides and thus deserving of scorn solely for that.
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Roosting chickens
As you may know, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay is facing a bit of controversy over what passes for his ethics.
DeLay has come under close scrutiny in recent weeks following news stories questioning the financing behind a few of his overseas trips, notes the Associated Press. It's been charged that DeLay´s wife and daughter had been paid $500,000 in recent years by political organizations under his control.
In 1995, Republicans took control of Congress after repeated controversies against Democrats, particularly in the House which Dems had controlled for the previous four decades. In addition to promising to serve only three terms (which many of them broke), insurgent Republicans quickly passed ethics rules allegedly designed to stamp out the sleaze that had characterized Democratic control of the House.
Absolutely power corrupts absolutely. And after more than ten years of GOP control of the House, Republicans have proven no more immune to this axiom than Democrats were.
Accordingly, last winter, Republicans changed the rules they'd instituted in 1995. Under the new rules, enacted on a near party-line vote, no ethics committee investigation can begin without a bipartisan vote.
In other words, a party leader can't be investigated unless those who elected him party leader in the first place agree.
In other words, the new ethics rules are worthless.
While the far right DeLay has long been a target of the liberals and progressives, now, even some in his own party are becoming exasperated with DeLay. "The Hammer," as he is known, is so extreme in his views that many moderate Republicans (what's left of them anyway) fear that he will destroy their electoral chances. I'm sure Democrats are absolutely counting on this in their attempts to win back the House in 2006.
Rep. Chris Shays, a moderate from Connecticut, recently became the the first Republican Congressman to call for DeLay's resignation.
"My party is going to have to decide whether we are going to continue to make excuses for Tom to the detriment of Republicans seeking election," Shays said.
That Shays called for DeLay's resignation could perhaps be written off to the internal ideological battle between moderate Republicans and the far right. But even Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, a darling of conservatives, called on DeLay to explain himself.
"I think he has to come forward and lay out what he did and why he did it and let the people then judge for themselves," Santorum said.
When Rick Santorum is raising questions about your integrity, you KNOW things are really bad.
DeLay has come under close scrutiny in recent weeks following news stories questioning the financing behind a few of his overseas trips, notes the Associated Press. It's been charged that DeLay´s wife and daughter had been paid $500,000 in recent years by political organizations under his control.
In 1995, Republicans took control of Congress after repeated controversies against Democrats, particularly in the House which Dems had controlled for the previous four decades. In addition to promising to serve only three terms (which many of them broke), insurgent Republicans quickly passed ethics rules allegedly designed to stamp out the sleaze that had characterized Democratic control of the House.
Absolutely power corrupts absolutely. And after more than ten years of GOP control of the House, Republicans have proven no more immune to this axiom than Democrats were.
Accordingly, last winter, Republicans changed the rules they'd instituted in 1995. Under the new rules, enacted on a near party-line vote, no ethics committee investigation can begin without a bipartisan vote.
In other words, a party leader can't be investigated unless those who elected him party leader in the first place agree.
In other words, the new ethics rules are worthless.
While the far right DeLay has long been a target of the liberals and progressives, now, even some in his own party are becoming exasperated with DeLay. "The Hammer," as he is known, is so extreme in his views that many moderate Republicans (what's left of them anyway) fear that he will destroy their electoral chances. I'm sure Democrats are absolutely counting on this in their attempts to win back the House in 2006.
Rep. Chris Shays, a moderate from Connecticut, recently became the the first Republican Congressman to call for DeLay's resignation.
"My party is going to have to decide whether we are going to continue to make excuses for Tom to the detriment of Republicans seeking election," Shays said.
That Shays called for DeLay's resignation could perhaps be written off to the internal ideological battle between moderate Republicans and the far right. But even Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, a darling of conservatives, called on DeLay to explain himself.
"I think he has to come forward and lay out what he did and why he did it and let the people then judge for themselves," Santorum said.
When Rick Santorum is raising questions about your integrity, you KNOW things are really bad.
The theocracy brigade's ancestors?
I was reading about the "Mississippi Burning" case and came across this interesting document.
From: Univ. of Missouri-KC Law School
Leaflet Circulated by the KKK in Mississippi in 1964
Here are Twenty Reasons WHY you should, if qualified, join, aid and support the White Knights of the KU KLUX KLAN of Mississippi:
1. Because it is a Christian, fraternal and benevolent organization.
2. Because it is a democratic organization, governed by its members.
3. Because it is a democratic and just organization.
4. Because it is a working organization which not only talks but ACTS.
5. Because it is a very secret organization and no one will know that you are a member.
6. Because it is a legal organization and no one can be prosecuted for being a member.
7. Because it is a politically independent organization, and is not pledged to any political party.
8. Because it is a Pro-American organization that opposes any thing, person or organization that is Un-American.
9. Because it is an organization that is sworn to uphold the lawful Constitution of the United States of America.
10 Because it is composed of native-born, white, gentile and protestant American citizens who are sound of mind and of good moral character.
11. Because the goals of the KKK are the total segregation of the races and the total destruction of communism in all its forms.
12. Because the KKK has twice saved this nation from destruction as history clearly records.
13. Because there comes a time in the life of every man when he has to choose between the right ot wrong side of life.
14. Because there are today many alien forces entering the United States of America bent upon its destruction.
15. Because it informs its members, and an informed citizen is a good citizen.
16. Because a Christian-like brotherhood among men must be revived in America.
17. Because on of the goals of the KKK is States' Rights and complete State Sovereignty.
18. Because neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals will save out nation, for patriots always save a nation.
19. Because it is clear now that if communism is to be defeated in America, it will be done in the South and primarily in Mississippi.
20. Because the KKK needs you today to help fight America's battles.
The White Knights of the KU KLUX KLAN of Mississippi is, of necessity, a SECRET organization. The administration of our National Government is now under the actual control of atheists who are Bolsheviks by nature. As dedicated agents of Satan, they are absolutely determined to destroy Christian Civilization and all Christians. We have nothing dishonorable to hide, but we must remain SECRET, for the protection of our lives and families.
All of our members must meet a strict set of requirements:
We are looking for, and enlisting ONLY: Sober, Intelligent, Courageous, Christian, American, White men who are consciously and fully aware of the basic FACT that the physical life and earthly destiny are absolutely bound up with the Survival of this Nation, under God. Our governmental principles are precisely those of the ORIGINAL U.S. Constitution. Our members are Christians who are anxious to preserve not only their souls for all Eternity, but who are MILITANTLY DETERMINED, God willing, to save their lives, and the Life of this Nation, in order that their descendants shall enjoy the same, full, God-given blessings of True Liberty that we have been permitted to enjoy up to now.
We do not accept Jews, because they reject Christ, and, through the machinations of their International Banking Cartel, are at the root center of what we call "communism" today.
We do not accept Papists, because they bow to a Roman dictator, in direct violation of the First Commandment, and the True American Spirit of Responsible, Individual Liberty.
We do not accept Turks, Mongols, Tarters, Orientals, Negroes, nor any other person whose native background of culture is foreign to the Anglo-Saxon system of Government by responsible, FREE individual citizens.
Our governmental system is a Constitutional Republic, primarily designed to protect the Responsible, Individual Citizens from all tyranny: which selects its representatives by both the direct and the indirect Democratic process; and recognizes the necessity for the existence of an effective Loyal Opposition to any current Administration. This type of Governmental System is unique, and found only where Anglo-Saxons control the Governmental Machinery of a Nation. With rare exceptions, people of other backgrounds simply cannot comprehend the Anglo-Saxon principle of "Equal Justice under Law" and the fact that EVERY "Right" must be balanced by an accompanying Responsibility. The inherent balance and reason of this system has little or no attraction for these persons of alien culture. The generally prefer to shirk Individual Responsibility, grab up as much material wealth as they can, and accept Centralized Authority and Dictatorship, in the hope that they can buy special favors and privileges for themselves.
The conflict between these two attitudes has now become a Life and Death matter in America. The people of the non-American cultures CAN and COULD live under the Anglo-Saxon System, but they prefer to see it destroyed. The true American Anglo-Saxons, on the other hand, CAN NOT live under a Dictatorship!
This issue is clearly one of personal physical SELF-DEFENSE or DEATH for the American Anglo Saxons. The Anglo-Saxons have no choice but to defend our Constitutional Republic by every means at their command, because it is, LITERALLY, their LIFE. They will die without it.
If you are a Christian, American Anglo-Saxon who can understand the simple Truth of this Philosophy, you belong in the White Knights of the KU KLUX KLAN of Mississippi. We need your help right away. Get your Bible out and PRAY! You will hear from us.
From: Univ. of Missouri-KC Law School
Leaflet Circulated by the KKK in Mississippi in 1964
Here are Twenty Reasons WHY you should, if qualified, join, aid and support the White Knights of the KU KLUX KLAN of Mississippi:
1. Because it is a Christian, fraternal and benevolent organization.
2. Because it is a democratic organization, governed by its members.
3. Because it is a democratic and just organization.
4. Because it is a working organization which not only talks but ACTS.
5. Because it is a very secret organization and no one will know that you are a member.
6. Because it is a legal organization and no one can be prosecuted for being a member.
7. Because it is a politically independent organization, and is not pledged to any political party.
8. Because it is a Pro-American organization that opposes any thing, person or organization that is Un-American.
9. Because it is an organization that is sworn to uphold the lawful Constitution of the United States of America.
10 Because it is composed of native-born, white, gentile and protestant American citizens who are sound of mind and of good moral character.
11. Because the goals of the KKK are the total segregation of the races and the total destruction of communism in all its forms.
12. Because the KKK has twice saved this nation from destruction as history clearly records.
13. Because there comes a time in the life of every man when he has to choose between the right ot wrong side of life.
14. Because there are today many alien forces entering the United States of America bent upon its destruction.
15. Because it informs its members, and an informed citizen is a good citizen.
16. Because a Christian-like brotherhood among men must be revived in America.
17. Because on of the goals of the KKK is States' Rights and complete State Sovereignty.
18. Because neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals will save out nation, for patriots always save a nation.
19. Because it is clear now that if communism is to be defeated in America, it will be done in the South and primarily in Mississippi.
20. Because the KKK needs you today to help fight America's battles.
The White Knights of the KU KLUX KLAN of Mississippi is, of necessity, a SECRET organization. The administration of our National Government is now under the actual control of atheists who are Bolsheviks by nature. As dedicated agents of Satan, they are absolutely determined to destroy Christian Civilization and all Christians. We have nothing dishonorable to hide, but we must remain SECRET, for the protection of our lives and families.
All of our members must meet a strict set of requirements:
We are looking for, and enlisting ONLY: Sober, Intelligent, Courageous, Christian, American, White men who are consciously and fully aware of the basic FACT that the physical life and earthly destiny are absolutely bound up with the Survival of this Nation, under God. Our governmental principles are precisely those of the ORIGINAL U.S. Constitution. Our members are Christians who are anxious to preserve not only their souls for all Eternity, but who are MILITANTLY DETERMINED, God willing, to save their lives, and the Life of this Nation, in order that their descendants shall enjoy the same, full, God-given blessings of True Liberty that we have been permitted to enjoy up to now.
We do not accept Jews, because they reject Christ, and, through the machinations of their International Banking Cartel, are at the root center of what we call "communism" today.
We do not accept Papists, because they bow to a Roman dictator, in direct violation of the First Commandment, and the True American Spirit of Responsible, Individual Liberty.
We do not accept Turks, Mongols, Tarters, Orientals, Negroes, nor any other person whose native background of culture is foreign to the Anglo-Saxon system of Government by responsible, FREE individual citizens.
Our governmental system is a Constitutional Republic, primarily designed to protect the Responsible, Individual Citizens from all tyranny: which selects its representatives by both the direct and the indirect Democratic process; and recognizes the necessity for the existence of an effective Loyal Opposition to any current Administration. This type of Governmental System is unique, and found only where Anglo-Saxons control the Governmental Machinery of a Nation. With rare exceptions, people of other backgrounds simply cannot comprehend the Anglo-Saxon principle of "Equal Justice under Law" and the fact that EVERY "Right" must be balanced by an accompanying Responsibility. The inherent balance and reason of this system has little or no attraction for these persons of alien culture. The generally prefer to shirk Individual Responsibility, grab up as much material wealth as they can, and accept Centralized Authority and Dictatorship, in the hope that they can buy special favors and privileges for themselves.
The conflict between these two attitudes has now become a Life and Death matter in America. The people of the non-American cultures CAN and COULD live under the Anglo-Saxon System, but they prefer to see it destroyed. The true American Anglo-Saxons, on the other hand, CAN NOT live under a Dictatorship!
This issue is clearly one of personal physical SELF-DEFENSE or DEATH for the American Anglo Saxons. The Anglo-Saxons have no choice but to defend our Constitutional Republic by every means at their command, because it is, LITERALLY, their LIFE. They will die without it.
If you are a Christian, American Anglo-Saxon who can understand the simple Truth of this Philosophy, you belong in the White Knights of the KU KLUX KLAN of Mississippi. We need your help right away. Get your Bible out and PRAY! You will hear from us.
Monday, April 11, 2005
How to live down to the worst cariciature of yourself
This essay is part of a regular feature on my blog that presents interesting stories from elsewhere in the world, particularly Africa, that are little reported in the American media. It's part of my campaign to get people to realize there is a lot going on in the world outside the US, Israel and Iraq.
"Will the madness ever end?" can be a trite phrase, but sometimes, a situation is so inconceivably stupid that no other phrase suffices.
For example, last week, I saw a headline that read:
ERITREA-ETHIOPIA: Stalemate could lead to war, Eritrean gov’t says.
Between 1998-2000, the two countries fought what can only be categorized as one of the most idiotic and pointless wars in recent history. It was a war that could not be justified under some perverted moral code. It could not be justified even under the most sinister Machiavellian definition of selfish interest. It was purely a case of machismo, ego and nationalism trumping not only rational thought but even a cold calcuation of self-interest. In the conflict, some 70,000 people died in a stupid war over a mostly empty strip of land that didn't even contain any valuable natural resouces.
Ethiopia and Eritrea are two of the poorest countries in the world. The Ethiopian economy is more dependent on foreign aid that any other country in the world. Eritrea started existence in 1993 with the goal of being self-sufficient, but the insane war and subsequent militarization along with drought and mismanagement have made that goal a distant memory.
Earlier this week, UN report warned of a deteriorating humanitarian situation in Eritrea.
Drought has caused "failed harvests, loss of livestock and food insecurity throughout all parts of the country - both rural and urban," according to the report by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA).
Rains have failed for the fifth consecutive year, said the report, and recent surveys showed that pastures in Eritrea’s three most fertile regions - Anseba, Gash Barka, and Debub - were at their driest since 1998.
And the Eritrean dictatorship is STILL thinking about reprising the idiotic border war?!
If the stupid war resumes, then the African Union and UN must suspend the two regimes from all its bodies and place an immediate travel ban on them. All foreign aid to the two countries must cease not only until the war stops but until a permanent peace treaty (including border resolution) is signed. The subsequent collapse of the two economies will hopefully be enough pressure to force the leaderships back to a more sane approach.
They, and pseudo-democratic regime in Ethiopia, seem hell bent on living down to every outsider's most offensive cariciature of Africa. The rest of the world, particularly other Africans, need to send the lunatic governments the message that there will be external consequences if they continue this unimaginable folly.
"Will the madness ever end?" can be a trite phrase, but sometimes, a situation is so inconceivably stupid that no other phrase suffices.
For example, last week, I saw a headline that read:
ERITREA-ETHIOPIA: Stalemate could lead to war, Eritrean gov’t says.
Between 1998-2000, the two countries fought what can only be categorized as one of the most idiotic and pointless wars in recent history. It was a war that could not be justified under some perverted moral code. It could not be justified even under the most sinister Machiavellian definition of selfish interest. It was purely a case of machismo, ego and nationalism trumping not only rational thought but even a cold calcuation of self-interest. In the conflict, some 70,000 people died in a stupid war over a mostly empty strip of land that didn't even contain any valuable natural resouces.
Ethiopia and Eritrea are two of the poorest countries in the world. The Ethiopian economy is more dependent on foreign aid that any other country in the world. Eritrea started existence in 1993 with the goal of being self-sufficient, but the insane war and subsequent militarization along with drought and mismanagement have made that goal a distant memory.
Earlier this week, UN report warned of a deteriorating humanitarian situation in Eritrea.
Drought has caused "failed harvests, loss of livestock and food insecurity throughout all parts of the country - both rural and urban," according to the report by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA).
Rains have failed for the fifth consecutive year, said the report, and recent surveys showed that pastures in Eritrea’s three most fertile regions - Anseba, Gash Barka, and Debub - were at their driest since 1998.
And the Eritrean dictatorship is STILL thinking about reprising the idiotic border war?!
If the stupid war resumes, then the African Union and UN must suspend the two regimes from all its bodies and place an immediate travel ban on them. All foreign aid to the two countries must cease not only until the war stops but until a permanent peace treaty (including border resolution) is signed. The subsequent collapse of the two economies will hopefully be enough pressure to force the leaderships back to a more sane approach.
They, and pseudo-democratic regime in Ethiopia, seem hell bent on living down to every outsider's most offensive cariciature of Africa. The rest of the world, particularly other Africans, need to send the lunatic governments the message that there will be external consequences if they continue this unimaginable folly.
Sunday, April 10, 2005
Stop offending the real freedom fighters
Following Ronald Reagan's death, I read all these stories about how he singlehandedly toppled the communist dictatorships in eastern Europe. Now following the Pope's death, we're reading similiar stories about John Paul II. I was wondering how they could both have singlehandedly defeat communism.
But an acquaintance of mine clarified things:
No doubt the Bishop of Rome had a role in bringing down communism but his role cannot be made equal to Reagan's. Without Reagan, the communists would still control eastern europe by force. Reagan alone destroyed the evil empire [emphasis mine], the Bishop along with many others played minor roles.
[Note: He’s a very anti-Catholic Protestant and regularly uses the word ‘papist’ as a pejorative]
It's one thing to praise your political hero. But to say that ordinary Eastern Europeans played 'minor roles' in bringing down communism is not only ideology-induced blindness, but breathtaking arrogance of the highest level.
Reagan did not defeat communism, either alone nor was he even the primary force. Nor did the Pope.
But while the moral support of Reagan and John Paul II may have been inspiration, the primary force behind the fall of communism was the guts and courage of the peoples of Eastern Europe to rise up against their oppressors.
For my acquaintance to deny this is an offensive affront to the people who actually risked their well being, and in some cases gave their lives, to demand their human rights.
A guy 6000 miles away in his fancy mansion with huge security detail may have given them moral support. But to place him on the same level as the real heroes who made the real sacrifices for their freedom is inexcusable.
'Reagan alone' toppled communism?
He should be ashamed of himself. And he should apologize to the people in Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and elsewhere who REALLY destroyed the evil empire.
But an acquaintance of mine clarified things:
No doubt the Bishop of Rome had a role in bringing down communism but his role cannot be made equal to Reagan's. Without Reagan, the communists would still control eastern europe by force. Reagan alone destroyed the evil empire [emphasis mine], the Bishop along with many others played minor roles.
[Note: He’s a very anti-Catholic Protestant and regularly uses the word ‘papist’ as a pejorative]
It's one thing to praise your political hero. But to say that ordinary Eastern Europeans played 'minor roles' in bringing down communism is not only ideology-induced blindness, but breathtaking arrogance of the highest level.
Reagan did not defeat communism, either alone nor was he even the primary force. Nor did the Pope.
But while the moral support of Reagan and John Paul II may have been inspiration, the primary force behind the fall of communism was the guts and courage of the peoples of Eastern Europe to rise up against their oppressors.
For my acquaintance to deny this is an offensive affront to the people who actually risked their well being, and in some cases gave their lives, to demand their human rights.
A guy 6000 miles away in his fancy mansion with huge security detail may have given them moral support. But to place him on the same level as the real heroes who made the real sacrifices for their freedom is inexcusable.
'Reagan alone' toppled communism?
He should be ashamed of himself. And he should apologize to the people in Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and elsewhere who REALLY destroyed the evil empire.
Saturday, April 09, 2005
Fans show their true colors
This week was the first in the long Major League Baseball season. Last year ended on a high for MLB as the long-cursed Boston Red Sox won the championship for the first time in 86 years.
But that goodwill was quickly tainted by a controversy about allegedly rampant steroid use among players. There were grandstanding hearings before the US Senate. MLB adopted a sham non-policy toward steroids. It takes a player getting caught using steroids five times to even get a one-year suspension. New York Yankees' star Jason Giambi admitted to a federal grand jury that he'd used steroids.
This admission and suspicions that other stars did the same provoked much hand-wringing amongst fans and sportswriters. "How can the integrity of the game be preserved?" fumed some. "Cheaters should all be kicked out of the game," roared others. One magazine asked melodramatically how this would affect the sanctity of baseball's cherished records and what are we going to tell our kids?
Here's what you tell your kids. Athletes who use steroids are cheaters. And that cheating is wrong. You also tell them about the other ways people cheat and how those are wrong too. People who "embellish" their resumes are cheaters. Professors who sign their names to books essentially written by graduate assistants are cheaters. Students who "borrow" papers off the Internet are cheaters.
We like to say cheaters never win, but the unfortunate reality is that quite often they do. At least in the short term. It's one of the aggravating parts of about trying to be ethical.
Anyways, MLB was surely relieved that the season started so the focus could return to the field. The season started with a reprise of the rivalry between the Red Sox and the New York Yankees, the most passionate in North American sports. That rivalry is one of the few things in sports that lives up to the massive, overdone hype.
Yankees pitcher Mariano Rivera blew save opportunities in back-to-back games against the Red Sox. I believe it was the first time in his career that Rivera blew save opportunities in consecutive regular season games, He was an integral part of Yankee teams that won championships in 1998, 1999 and 2000 and were runners up in 2001 and 2003 and is still probably the best closer in the game. Rivera is also widely acknowledged to be one of the classiest individuals on the team.
So of course, New Yorkers heartily booed the Rivera as he left the field on Wednesday. I'm a Red Sox fan and thus can't stand the Yankees, but I agree with Yankee manager Joe Torre (another class act who demonstrates that nice guys don't always finish last). "I think it's inexcusable if they were boos from Yankee fans," said Torre, who's won four championships in nine years with the club. "They wouldn't be champing at the bit to get to this ballpark if it weren't for him."
And just as naturally, Yankee fans gave the admitted cheat Giambi a standing ovation as he went up for his first at-bat.
For all the melodramatic chest-puffing about fairness and ethics, at the end of the day, most fans don't really give a damn if players cheat so long as it's clandestine and, most importantly, so long as they win. While classy people like Rivera, who play by the rules but are occassionally shown to be human in their abilities, get booed off the field.
But I suppose none of this should surprise you.
But that goodwill was quickly tainted by a controversy about allegedly rampant steroid use among players. There were grandstanding hearings before the US Senate. MLB adopted a sham non-policy toward steroids. It takes a player getting caught using steroids five times to even get a one-year suspension. New York Yankees' star Jason Giambi admitted to a federal grand jury that he'd used steroids.
This admission and suspicions that other stars did the same provoked much hand-wringing amongst fans and sportswriters. "How can the integrity of the game be preserved?" fumed some. "Cheaters should all be kicked out of the game," roared others. One magazine asked melodramatically how this would affect the sanctity of baseball's cherished records and what are we going to tell our kids?
Here's what you tell your kids. Athletes who use steroids are cheaters. And that cheating is wrong. You also tell them about the other ways people cheat and how those are wrong too. People who "embellish" their resumes are cheaters. Professors who sign their names to books essentially written by graduate assistants are cheaters. Students who "borrow" papers off the Internet are cheaters.
We like to say cheaters never win, but the unfortunate reality is that quite often they do. At least in the short term. It's one of the aggravating parts of about trying to be ethical.
Anyways, MLB was surely relieved that the season started so the focus could return to the field. The season started with a reprise of the rivalry between the Red Sox and the New York Yankees, the most passionate in North American sports. That rivalry is one of the few things in sports that lives up to the massive, overdone hype.
Yankees pitcher Mariano Rivera blew save opportunities in back-to-back games against the Red Sox. I believe it was the first time in his career that Rivera blew save opportunities in consecutive regular season games, He was an integral part of Yankee teams that won championships in 1998, 1999 and 2000 and were runners up in 2001 and 2003 and is still probably the best closer in the game. Rivera is also widely acknowledged to be one of the classiest individuals on the team.
So of course, New Yorkers heartily booed the Rivera as he left the field on Wednesday. I'm a Red Sox fan and thus can't stand the Yankees, but I agree with Yankee manager Joe Torre (another class act who demonstrates that nice guys don't always finish last). "I think it's inexcusable if they were boos from Yankee fans," said Torre, who's won four championships in nine years with the club. "They wouldn't be champing at the bit to get to this ballpark if it weren't for him."
And just as naturally, Yankee fans gave the admitted cheat Giambi a standing ovation as he went up for his first at-bat.
For all the melodramatic chest-puffing about fairness and ethics, at the end of the day, most fans don't really give a damn if players cheat so long as it's clandestine and, most importantly, so long as they win. While classy people like Rivera, who play by the rules but are occassionally shown to be human in their abilities, get booed off the field.
But I suppose none of this should surprise you.
Friday, April 08, 2005
Culture of selective life
One of the great things about having TV again is to be able to watch the Daily Show. Jon Stewart is probably the best political satirist out there. Though between Clinton's sexual follies and the Bush administration's Orwellianism, the last decade has surely been a golden age for satirists.
Anyways, Stewart highlighted this interesting exchange between President Bush's spokesman Scott McClellan and journalists (some of whom have apparently rediscovered healthy skepticism in recent months).
Q: That the Pope played a big role or a great role in the President's life during his meetings with him?
MR. McCLELLAN: He inspired many, many people, and certainly he was an inspiration to the President and Mrs. Bush, as well.
Q: If I could follow up on that, just for a second. The President is the first U.S. President to go to a papal funeral, from what I understand, as far as I have ever heard. In the abstract, what was the decision process -- what is it that the President feels in kindred spirit with this Pope, even though they differed I guess over the war, they had a lot of cultural issues that they shared in common, cultural views that they shared in common. Can you give us a little bit of the process about why he decided that he would be the first President to do this?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think it goes back to some of what the President said in the press conference a short time ago, as well as what he said on Saturday. And the President has -- the President met with the Holy Father on three occasions during his presidency, back in 2001, again in 2002, and then last year, in June of 2004. And the President was honored to present him with the Medal of Freedom on that visit to the Vatican. That is the nation's highest civilian award. And the President stated the reasons why he chose to present it to the Holy Father: the Holy Father is someone who stood for freedom, for human dignity and promoting a culture of life. And there are many values that the President shared with the Holy Father, and he had great respect for his moral leadership in this world. And so I think it was a very quick decision for the President to decide to lead the delegation to Rome this week.
[...]
Q: Scott, you mentioned the culture of life. When Pope John Paul II wrote about the culture of life in 1995, he described it also in terms of the death penalty, not just abortion and euthanasia. He said that in these modern times, cases where the death penalty was warranted are rare, if not nonexistent. Now, knowing that the President fully supports the death penalty, used the death penalty, does he see it as a contradiction to use that phrase, "culture of life," and still support the death penalty, which the Pope expressed his opposition to?
MR. McCLELLAN: Elaine, I think the President's views are well known. I don't think now is the time to talk about where they may have differed on one or two areas. This is a time to honor a great moral leader, someone who, as the President said, was a hero for the ages.
Q: Well, wait. Don't you honor a great moral leader and a great teacher, somebody who did engage in debate, whose whole life was about this kind of discussion and wrestling with difficult moral problems, by answering that question: Does the President see it as a contradiction that he adopts only part of what Pope John Paul said was the culture of life?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, let's separate out -- I mean, because I spoke about this issue last week, and why the President's view is the way it is. And that's because we're talking about the difference between innocent life and someone who is guilty of horrific crimes.
Translation: I'm going to take great pains to compare the pope's and the president's moral codes in a way we can make political capital out of. The 'culture of life,' of course, is based how we define it, not how the venerated pope defined it. Where they disagreed, it's "not now the time" to make THOSE comparisons.
As a progressive, I can't say I agreed with all of John Paul II's opinions, particularly on social issues and lack of internal reform in the Catholic Church. But at least he tried to be consistent. He believed in 'the culture of life' across the board, not just when it suited his ideology.
Anyways, Stewart highlighted this interesting exchange between President Bush's spokesman Scott McClellan and journalists (some of whom have apparently rediscovered healthy skepticism in recent months).
Q: That the Pope played a big role or a great role in the President's life during his meetings with him?
MR. McCLELLAN: He inspired many, many people, and certainly he was an inspiration to the President and Mrs. Bush, as well.
Q: If I could follow up on that, just for a second. The President is the first U.S. President to go to a papal funeral, from what I understand, as far as I have ever heard. In the abstract, what was the decision process -- what is it that the President feels in kindred spirit with this Pope, even though they differed I guess over the war, they had a lot of cultural issues that they shared in common, cultural views that they shared in common. Can you give us a little bit of the process about why he decided that he would be the first President to do this?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think it goes back to some of what the President said in the press conference a short time ago, as well as what he said on Saturday. And the President has -- the President met with the Holy Father on three occasions during his presidency, back in 2001, again in 2002, and then last year, in June of 2004. And the President was honored to present him with the Medal of Freedom on that visit to the Vatican. That is the nation's highest civilian award. And the President stated the reasons why he chose to present it to the Holy Father: the Holy Father is someone who stood for freedom, for human dignity and promoting a culture of life. And there are many values that the President shared with the Holy Father, and he had great respect for his moral leadership in this world. And so I think it was a very quick decision for the President to decide to lead the delegation to Rome this week.
[...]
Q: Scott, you mentioned the culture of life. When Pope John Paul II wrote about the culture of life in 1995, he described it also in terms of the death penalty, not just abortion and euthanasia. He said that in these modern times, cases where the death penalty was warranted are rare, if not nonexistent. Now, knowing that the President fully supports the death penalty, used the death penalty, does he see it as a contradiction to use that phrase, "culture of life," and still support the death penalty, which the Pope expressed his opposition to?
MR. McCLELLAN: Elaine, I think the President's views are well known. I don't think now is the time to talk about where they may have differed on one or two areas. This is a time to honor a great moral leader, someone who, as the President said, was a hero for the ages.
Q: Well, wait. Don't you honor a great moral leader and a great teacher, somebody who did engage in debate, whose whole life was about this kind of discussion and wrestling with difficult moral problems, by answering that question: Does the President see it as a contradiction that he adopts only part of what Pope John Paul said was the culture of life?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, let's separate out -- I mean, because I spoke about this issue last week, and why the President's view is the way it is. And that's because we're talking about the difference between innocent life and someone who is guilty of horrific crimes.
Translation: I'm going to take great pains to compare the pope's and the president's moral codes in a way we can make political capital out of. The 'culture of life,' of course, is based how we define it, not how the venerated pope defined it. Where they disagreed, it's "not now the time" to make THOSE comparisons.
As a progressive, I can't say I agreed with all of John Paul II's opinions, particularly on social issues and lack of internal reform in the Catholic Church. But at least he tried to be consistent. He believed in 'the culture of life' across the board, not just when it suited his ideology.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)