Wednesday, May 14, 2008

Edwards Endorses Obama; Dobbs Endorses Nonsense

I'm glad I caught Edwards' speech endorsing Barack Obama - I turned it on just as he was winding down his awkward Hillary Clinton comments, which, with me being someone who can't stand Clinton, was perfect timing. I thought Edwards' speech was actually very inspiring and hope filled, reminiscent of the message Obama focused on in the beginning of the primary season. All in all, a great speech, a great endorsement for Obama, and another nail in the Clinton coffin.

Unfortunately, CNN cut Obama's speech short to get analysis from Lou Dobbs. Dobbs, after getting some basic thoughts on the speeches from two panel members, declared that the Democratic primary failed - the Democrats were hoping to avoid a "brokered" nomination, and that's exactly what it got. Dobbs repeatedly questioned the panel members as to why this should be accepted, and ranted that it was damaging to the party.

Dobbs, it seems, believes that the importance of the superdelegates this election cycle makes the nomination worthless, and that this recent surge ins upport for Obama is effectively making the voter's choices worthless. He was undeterred by the other pundit's explanations that there was simply no way possible for either candidate to win the needed number of votes without counting superdelegates, or that, if the superdelegates needed to choose someone, they were doing the most democratic thing by backing the person with the most public support from voters.

Dobbs continued to insist that the nomination was brokered, and unfair. He had trouble understanding why Florida and Michigan couldn't be seated, and also with the way the superdelegates are counted. What he's failing to realize is that, flawed as the system might be (and is now recognized to be by most), the rules are the rules, and to call this nomination brokered is utter nonsense. The people have voted, the superdelegates have concurred, and Barack Obama looks to be the next Democratic nominee for President.

The pundits, those "experts" we are told to listen to, really need to read the rulebook more carefully - I'm sure someone could explain it to them if they really need.

Tuesday, May 6, 2008

August Here we Come

I just thought I would drop some notes in, even though the final results aren't quite in yet.

1) The polls seemed to be just about right in Indiana, where Clinton currently has about a four point lead, but not so much in North Carolina, where polls recently had Obama in the single digits for a lead but he looks to have won by about 14-15 points. These polls have turned into quite the roll of the dice, no?

2) It looks to me like Obama will increase his delegate lead tonight, but I'm already hearing from the pundits that the ClintonS (yes, with an "s") won't listen to anyone because Hillary thinks she's entitled to this year's nomination. Of course, that was on Fox (CNN was on a commercial break), but I'll drink that Kool-Aid. This isn't ending soon.

3) I guess it's a good thing, voter participation and all, but 400,000 people voted in both Indiana and North Carolina for the Republican primary? I must admit I thought that was interesting.

4) One comment not just about tonight - I'm in the camp that thinks this gas tax holiday is a bunch of baloney; the economics just don't make sense, and we're making the problem worse. Still, I can see the strategy of McCain and Clinton, and maybe they have their beliefs and opinions, which is great - but let's turn the rhetoric down. Hillary, I know you're trying to come from behind and win, but am I really supposed to buy your line that the reason Obama opposes the gas tax holiday is because he doesn't care about regular people? That he doesn't want to cut working Americans a break? Please. There's a line of legitimacy that she seems to be losing track of.

I'll check back in the next few days to see what new developments come up. Until then!

Friday, April 18, 2008

Wondering Where Sportsmanship Has Gone

I came across this item earlier today, and, as a baseball fan, was utterly shocked. In a high school game yesterday in Japan, the game was ended early when the score reached 66-0 in the second inning. Besides the fact that this is unheard of, there are a few things I would like to touch on.

1) What happened to sportsmanship? Personally, I've never believed professional teams should hold back from scoring; a bunch of grown men making millions of dollars to play a game should be able to stomach a beating once in a while without crying. But a high school game is permitted to get to this level? Also, the team had to ask for the game to be stopped, so who knows how long the umpire would have let it go on. I can't believe this was allowed to continue after 26 runs in the first inning.

2) Now, excuse my ignorance, because I know very little of other cultures. However, I've also thought that in terms of baseball, Japanese players and participants often competed with much more grace and respect than their American counterparts. Why wasn't this respect shown to the losing team? I could see this maybe happening in some rabid baseball town in the United States, but in Japan, where I have always been told sportsmanship is taken to the highest level? Quite interesting.

3) What about the line that the game was ended to protect the pitcher's arm - after 250 pitches! The coach was apparently worried he might get to 500 and hurt himself. I've also been a big believer that counting pitches in the major leagues has gotten to a ridiculous point, with it being one of the main considerations while managing a game. Still, 250 throws for a high schooler is plain irresponsible. The poor kid could have really damaged his arm, and it wasn't fair to keep him throwing that long while being humiliated. 500's a problem, but 250 is OK? My arm would have fallen off.

I'd love to get your opinions on this - perhaps somewhat trivial, but I just thought there were a lot of interesting points to spark some discussion. Looking forward to your comments.

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

Which do we prefer? Elitists or regular folks? Based on the media, we're very confused.

America - the land of freedom and opportunity, where any man or woman can rise from poor and difficult upbringings to achieve great things. We all love this idea that our nation was founded on, the idea that we are all equal, and that our government should be run by those who accurately represent us, not those who would treat us as subjects.

All this being said, it's odd that we can't make up our mind regarding the Presidency - do we want someone like us, or someone better?

This election cycle has been extremely interesting, as the term "elitist" is being thrown around with the same hatred we usually reserve for those who commit atrocities or crimes against humanity. It also appears that being labeled with this description can come with statements that could possibly be interpreted as suggesting elitism (such as using the word "bitter"), and not with outright statements that some people are better than others. Of course, when you do consider our history and feelings about our nation, it would be easy to understand why we do not want someone who thinks they might be royalty, or inherently better than the people he or she is supposed to be representing, in the highest position in the land.

So, how come when our candidates do act like regular people, we punish them for it?

Hillary goes into a bar and drinks a beer and does a shot (granted, it was of the most elitist alcohol out there - found that one funny Jon Stewart, thanks), and instead of praising her for showing she has a real side, we condemn the behavior. Obviously we don't want a drunk in office, but who doesn't have a drink every once in a while? Most regular people can relax with a shot, so why can't the candidates, who we don't want to be elitist?

Barack Obama gets irritated with some bozo who is in his face demanding that the Senator takes a picture with him, and we take him to task for getting frustrated. How would you, or any other "regular" person out there, react? Of course we need someone in office who can handle difficult situations with grace, but there should be a limit to what they need to put up with. Any regular person would have punched this guy in about half the time Obama dealt with him. Instead, Obama is criticized for getting slightly upset.

Our president, and other elected officials for that matter, should be expected to act with a certain manner in public. They have a responsibility to do so, as they are representing our nation and must act in our best interests. However, we need to make a choice. Do we admit that these politicians, with their expensive and prestigious educations, vast experience running campaigns, and ability to create legislation and work with other politicians to support their constituents, might indeed have more skill, intelligence, or other better qualities than we do? In that case, we can indeed hold them to a higher standard of behavior, in return for admitting they might be the elite. Or, do we understand that these people have their bad days like we do, that they might stumble in speeches, get facts wrong occasionally, and perhaps make incorrect decisions even with good intentions? In this case, we can't expect them to act in ways we wouldn't be able to ourselves.

I'm well aware that the best case scenario is a middle ground between the two discussed options. I'm also aware that in this era of cable news networks, blogs, and constant coverage and video recordings, that each candidate's actions and words will be over analyzed. However, we need to think back to our nation's founding, and understand that none of our politicians have been given Divine Right to rule, and that they are not royalty. Just as we would never allow ourselves to be treated as subjects, neither should our candidates be expected to be infallible rulers who are better than we are.

Our options are, in truth, not limited to "elite" or "regular", so why should we try to force candidates into certain labels? We should spend our time trying to understand candidate's positions, not labeling them with inaccurate descriptions. Until we understand what we have to work with, our government will never improve. As we saw in tonight's debate, getting sidetracked with non-issues is a problem we need to end.

PS - If you liked the topic of the above post, there's a post on Communicative Action about a similar thought. Check it out when you get a moment.

Speak to you soon!

Sunday, April 13, 2008

Quick Hits from an Insomniac

Hey all,

I spent the entire day cooped up doing a book review and some other research, and now its 2AM and I'm nowhere near tired, so I thought I would pop in and throw out some quick discussion points that are running through my head at a hundred miles per hour. Give me some responses to let me know what you think - let's get the discussion going!

I. Political Notes

a. I don't get the Barack Obama "bitterness" furor. What did he say that was wrong? Wouldn't you be bitter after three decades of hardships and broken promises? I wish some Pennsylvanians would stand up and say "Hey! He got it right! I AM bitter! Now FIX it!" I'm bitter about a lot of things regarding politics and I'm only 22. I can't wait for the day when we can actually admit how we feel.

b. Hillary can't keep her own husband quiet and she's going to run our country?

c. One would think being associated with Bush would crush anyone's political future, but a new poll suggests having Condoleeza Rice on the ticket could help McCain beat any type of Obama/Clinton ticket in true blue New York. Go figure THAT one out.

II. The Sports Report

a. The coverage Tiger Woods gets is incredible. I wonder if anyone would pay any attention to golf at all if it wasn't for ESPN and SI's obessive discussions over each shot, and debating whether he's falling apart or the greatest golfer ever, based on his last round's score.

b. Andruw Jones will figure it out.

c. I'm not that sure about the Tigers.

d. I can't say I pay much attention to hockey all that much, but it's my experience that the NHL playoffs might be one of the most exciting sports events of the year. Those guys leave it all out there every game, and each one is edge-of-your-seat stuff. If you haven't given it a shot, now's a good time.

Talk to you all soon enough!

Tuesday, April 1, 2008

Why Stop Now?

I've mentioned before, in the interest of full disclosure, that I am not in any was a fan of Hillary Clinton. Not only do I think Obama is a better candidate for a number of reasons, I just can't ignore her actions after the Clinton's left the White House so she could magically appear in New York to run for Senate and start a nearly decade-long campaign for the White House.

That being said, why should she drop out like so many want?

On a personal level, I'd love it. But regardless of how many people say it's impossible for a number of reasons for her to catch Obama before the convention, it's still an extraordinarily close race. For the first time in years, some of these late primaries actually matter and people in these areas get to have a say (it's really time to get a different primary schedule going, don't you think? Everyone should have a vote every election cycle), and we want everything to shut down beforehand? Why? Don't we trust the people in these states? Everyone seems more worried about Florida and Michigan - I say they had their chance, and they blew it. Let's let Pennsylvania do it's thing!

I also think, especially with the long gap between primaries we're currently in (SCHEDULE CHANGE!!), the theory that an extended primary will hurt the Democratic Party is becoming a self fulfilling prophecy. If we all did what Bill Clinton is suggesting - "chill out" and debate the issues - there would be no harm. Instead, everyone keeps harping on how bad things are, and people are going to start believing it when they keep hearing it said by party leaders! The message should be: "Hey! Look at us! TWO great candidates! We must be the best party suited to lead this nation!", not "This is damaging, everyone's image is going to be hurt and we'll lose in November."

Yes, McCain will be appealing to Independents and Democrats, but he would be regardless of what happens over the next few weeks. The Democrats need to stop complaining that every state might get a primary this year and get back to the issues. The Party is looking pretty strong right now, and it's because politics are a huge issue in this race - a race that needs two people. Once the primaries are all over, then re-evaluate the delegate count and try to resolve this before the convention. But why right now?

So as much as it pains me to say: Go for it Hillary. Many people have held on with much shakier footing.

Sunday, March 30, 2008

MLB '08 - After the Mitchell Report


Most of my posting lately has been concerned with politics, which I think is understandable considering the importance of primary season and the off seasons of baseball and football, my two favorite sports. I'd thus like to take this opportunity, on the night the MLB season kicks off (last week's games in Japan excepted) to discuss some interesting points to keep an eye out for over the next six months.

This blog is a focus on the competitive issues regarding sports and politics, so I'm not going to get too much into individual stats or games, but rather a larger view of the sport as a whole. If you're interested in more specific information, especially regarding fantasy baseball, check out Bfadds Blog for some great baseball info. Just open him in a new window so you won't lose me ;).

A few things to look out for this year:

1) The fallout of the Mitchell Report - Andy Pettitte seems to have survived his steroid-report inclusion, while buddy Roger Clemens might still be facing prosecution for it. While Clemens' return is a major question mark every year, I think it's fairly safe to say he's pitched his last game, especially when you consider he didn't exactly set the league on fire last year. Now we'll see if the games can take the focus off the steroid issue for a while, or if this year's home run leaders will simply be the subject of more suspicion.


2) Where will Barry Bonds wind up? - His agents have suggested there might be collusion involved in Bonds' failure to get a contract, but I think that's a bit of a stretch. I know chicks dig the long ball, but there can't be much of a market for over-aged, surly, uncooperative hitters who are slowing in the field and are subject to prosecution in the near future. Yeah, Barry, it's a big plot to keep you off the field - it has nothing to do with owners not wanting to pay millions just to get a headache. As per rumors from a few months ago, I think seeing him play for the Rays would be hilarious for a number of reasons.

3) AL Dominance - Will we see any NL teams start to catch up to the AL in terms of playing quality? I'd say, without knowing too much about each team specifically, the Mets, Dodgers, and Diamondbacks have a chance to make some noise this year, and I'm also hearing good things about the Braves (possible) and Cubs (I'll believe it when I see it). I still think the ever-competing Yankees and Red Sox (will this rivalry ever cool again?) and teams like Cleveland and Detroit make the AL much more dangerous.

4) The last year in play for the New York Stadiums. I think most Met fans have a soft spot for Shea, but are happy to let it go. Yankee Stadium will be sorely missed - it's one of the few great, old ballparks. I can't wait to see how much tickets go for for the last game in these places. I only wish the NFL's Jets could have found a way to get something done near the Mets new stadium and come back home to New York ::sigh::

Play Ball!!

Tuesday, March 25, 2008

Hillary Needs More Memory Food

My last post was about perception and how for some things, we need to be able to all come together and agree that there is one meaning. Hillary Clinton seems to have provided one of these moments I was hoping for.

To be fair, I'll start by saying I am not a fan of Hillary. I'm one of those people who amazingly finds it insane that we here in New York randomly allowed her to run for Senate here after she moved to NY only to do so. I don't know, I'll support the people who have been more active and actually know the people they are serving, thank you very much. And I also think as soon as she got into office, all she did was begin an eight year long campaign. Chuck Schumer seems to always be involved in something, or appearing with his constituents, or at least seemingly doing something that relates to his actual job, and I must say I'd much prefer a candidate like that.

Rant aside, Clinton's claim that she entered Bosnia as First Lady under sniper fire and in dire danger, then the release of video that proves she nearly had a welcoming parade on the tarmac, seems to be one of those issues where we just have to look at the situation and understand we are straight up being lied to. It won't happen - too many people will believe that she "misremembered". I say if you misremember every important issue and come up with an excuse for every contradiction you face, it gets to be the boy who cried wolf. Eventually, we need to either believe that someone isn't fit to run the country if he or she can barely remember what they did last week, or that we are being lied to.

Honestly, I get nervous if someone is questioning me about something and I know I did nothing wrong. How politicians (not limited to Hillary) can stand there and spin yarns for stories that go out to millions of people and think that they are going to get away with these tall tales in today's technological age astounds me. It's either blatant stupidity or blatant arrogance, and I don't like either.

Is there any way we can all agree this is a terrible, intentional lie that she should be held accountable for, especially as she criticizes Obama's lack of experience?

Probably not.

But a man can dream, can't he?

Monday, March 24, 2008

Divisions over a Speech on Our Racial Divide


What I find simply amazing is how millions of people can listen to or watch the same speech or event, and each will have their own interpretation.

Something in our human existence allows each one of us to craft our own belief about our experiences, and it makes each individual unique. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, because it's not. It's what has led us to advance throughout our existence, and is what will either save us or doom us in the end. I'm not passing any judgment on it - just noting it's significance.

The reason I bring this up is the response to Barack Obama's recent speech on racism in America, brought about by comments his spiritual adviser and close friend has made in numerous sermons. It's interesting how wide the range of reactions has been. Some, including my professor at Fordham, Paul Levinson, have suggested that the speech was a huge step in race relations , perhaps one day to be ranked with Martin Luther King Jr's "I Have A Dream Speech". Others vehemently declare that Obama's refusal to condemn the remarks is proof that he agrees with them, and that this will be his downfall. How can it be both one of the greatest speeches in history and the nail in the coffin of a campaign at the same time?

Human perception is truly amazing.

If you have a moment, take a look at this article from the History News Network. Whether you agree or not for this specific case, I thought it was an inspiring reflection on Obama's decision regarding this pastor, and how, in the grand scheme of things, we need to stop scapegoating others so we can lead better lives.
I'd like to take a moment to continue with the idea of perception in politics, but to step away from the Obama issue. While I was thinking about the statements I made above, I started thinking that while there might not necessarily be a one hundred percent truth in this crazy world of ours, we should be able to come to a consensus on SOME things. Obviously we all have our own biases and personalities that will alter how we understand our world, but we should be able to look at certain things and agree. It reminded me of a line from a Lewis Black comedy routine, when he was talking about this issue of how we can never agree on anything:

"...and there has to come a point where Democrats and Republicans... where we see a piece of footage and we just agree on what the fuck reality is. And the fact is, you cannot show video of a Land Rover running over a cat and then say 'The cat was trying to kill itself. I'm going to need at least 3 days to find the note that he left.'"

You can take a look here if you like

Yeah, it's a comedy routine, I get it. But it made a lot of sense. Certainly we are all going to have different opinions on almost every issue that comes up. But there does come a time when we need to stop allowing our elected officials to spin what's going on into a story that will simply calm us down and work to their benefit. This election has the potential to turn into one of these watershed moments, and we might indeed have the chance to hold our politicians accountable for their past actions, to send a message to anyone newly elected, and to make sure they understand that their promises need to be kept. Using our own perception is one thing - allowing someone else to tell you what to perceive is dangerous. We need to understand what is important for the American public as a whole, and demand it to happen.

Wednesday, March 19, 2008

Obama's Recent Speech

Forgive me for being so far behind, but I have not yet had the chance to check out the speech Barack Obama gave regarding racism in America and the words of his pastor, the Rev. Wright. It would thus be silly of me to try to give you my views on it, but I read a commentary on it earlier that I thought, if nothing else, was a great piece of writing. Personally, I thought it was worth saving and passing along - let me know what you think:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/19/commentary.ashong/index.html

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

Immediate Disclosure Softens the Blow

So by now, I'm sure you're all familiar with the story of Barack Obama's minister, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who has, for apparently many years, made speeches and sermons regarding the status of race relations and America's role in the world government that could be seen, at the very least, as in poor taste, but by some as un-American and very racial themselves. Of course, Obama himself has not supported or agreed with any of these comments, and can certainly not be held responsible for the words of another, but it is troubling to many how he could have looked up to someone with these thoughts for so many years, and have described him as a mentor and a close friend.

And I'm sure you have all been kept up to date on the aftermath of the Spitzer affair (pun intended). His successor, David Patterson, admitted yesterday that he and his wife both had extra-marital affairs during a rough patch in their marriage. While this type of admission has certainly been big news in the past, this story seemed to lack a certain pizazz factor.

Personally, in both the cases of Obama and Patterson, I don't think the issues brought to light have much to do with their ability to govern (to be honest, Spitzer's actions only really irritated me due to his blatant hypocrisy and his failure to live up to the highest standard he wanted everyone else to live up to). We've all had rough times in our life, and I think it's unfair to judge us by those we associate with and our past mistakes. We've all had friends or relatives who have done very controversial things, and our association with them shouldn't necessarily harm us if we haven't had any concrete ties to these actions. The problem is that Obama has been waving the issue away for months now, and only once recordings of the speeches became public did he actually try to deal with the issue. Now it just seems like he had something to hide.

Patterson had a similar issue to deal with, but his handling of the situation could make all the difference. In the wake of a sex scandal, he decided to come clean about his past affairs (and his wife) in the interest of full disclosure and being honest with the people of New York. While it might not be the most pleasant ideal for a governor, it made the affairs seem like a mistake by two hurt people, and applied a rational and adult-like light onto the situation, and immediately removed all of the steamy, clandestine and secretive angles the press would have used if they had found the story themselves. Unlike Obama, Patterson dealt with the issue up front, and yes, gave up the slight chance that no one would have ever found out - but immediately countered most of the damage from the admission by doing it on his own terms.

The problem that the vast majority of people face is understanding the fact that politicians, like regular people, sometimes have skeletons hidden in the closet. Maybe it has to do with the fact that we hold our Founding Fathers in such high regard that we expect our politicians to uphold some high moral standard. Of course it's ideal, but if this is the America that allows the common man to rise from nowhere to succeed in life, wouldn't it also stand to reason that the common man's faults would travel with him? Of course. As Patterson showed, it's better to throw the door open and air it out on one's own terms then allow someone to force their way in and create the story on their own.

I think why people get so angry about these issues, especially in these instances, is that each of these people was seen as someone different. Barack Obama was supposed to be a great uniting force among people, and now we find out he has followed a minister with very divisive ideas for decades. Eliot Spitzer was a champion who forced major corporations to follow the rules, but now we see he didn't think they applied to his own behavior. And David Patterson was hailed in the last week for being well respected, someone who could work with any member of government from any party, and now we see he had troubles with his own life. If these men who we had so much hope in can let us down, who can we trust?

The hardest, but most necessary lesson to learn here, is that, like us, politicians have their faults. It's extremely naive to think that Barack Obama is the only Senator with friends who have radical ideas, that Eliot Spitzer is the only governor to have ever hired a prostitute, and that David Patterson is the first official to have an affair. Indeed, without any stats or proof to back me up, I'd say the vast majority of our elected officials could say they're done two out of the three. What we need to do as an educated public is to continue to hold our politicians to a high standard, but to also hold ourselves to them as well - and more importantly, to realize that these are not the true issues at hand.

We cannot continue to allow ourselves to be distracted by non-issues. We might not like that a governor had an affair, or that a congressman made a shady business deal ten years ago. However, we're at an extremely crucial time in our nation's history right now, and we need to focus on the real issues - the economy, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, health care, education, etc. If the neighbor down the street has an affair, does it affect you in any way? No, even if you are interested. But if he's stealing your lawnmower while you're gossiping on the phone, THAT'S a problem. And that's what's happening in America. We're all so focused on the nonsense that our nation, our lifestyle, might be slipping away while we worry about the behavior of our politicians in their personal lives and not in the government offices.

I'm not condoning any of these actions, and I wish we did have someone we could see as a savior figure that would restore morality to our government. I'm just saying that none of them are perfect (not even the Founding Fathers, as history has shown), and that the quicker we come to terms with that, the quicker we can get to the real issues and put this nation back on the right track.

Monday, March 10, 2008

Mailing it in to Save a Few Bucks (At Our Democracy's Expense)

Obviously Governor Spitzer's adventures are keeping the media machine busy at the moment, but as it appears there is a ton of information to sort out, I'll refrain from comment until a later time.

What I'd like to make a note of is the increasing support of a mail in re-do of the Florida and Michigan primaries, which absolutely horrifies me. Let's examine the situation step by step:

1) Florida and Michigan moved up their primary dates without the consent of the National Party so they could spend more time in the limelight (bad on the state's end)

2) The DNC told the states last year that this would result in the delegates not counting (bad to not count votes, but they needed to sanction them somehow and try to convince the states to get back in line, so maybe unavoidable)

3) The states declared they didn't care and were going to do what they wanted. To me, this is the biggest issue. Threatened with the votes not counting, what did the Floridian politicians do to save the people they now care about so much? Nothing. They grumped and whined and left it as is, and now everyone has to suffer for it. I really find the states at fault on this one.

That all being said, everyone's vote should count, especially in such a close election (Florida and Michigan wound up winning this round as - surprise - moving the dates up didn't get too much attention until the votes could decide the race, which they could have done at a later date anyway). However, Obama shouldn't be punished for obeying the DNC rules and not campaigning or being on the ballot, and Clinton shouldn't be able to seat these delegates and ignore the set rules. So obviously, something needs to be done.

And the best thing we can come up with is a mail in ballot?

The state governments are complaining that to re-do the primaries in both states would cost a combined $25 million, something they don't think the taxpayers should have to pay for. Great, I'm all for saving the taxpayers money, but all of a sudden this 25 mil is a big issue? We, as taxpayers, get screwed out of a lot more than that on a regular basis. Stadiums for billionaires, pork barrel legislation, increased wages for representatives, pandering to the corporate coalition - we're CONSTANTLY paying taxes for things that we shouldn't be. And now, when it's the vote of the people that matter, we're refusing to shell out a few bucks? In the grand scheme of things, we're dealing with a huge election here, counting votes that could change the nation, and we're squabbling over a few million dollars when we're spending 12 billion a month in Iraq? Heck, in Oklahoma City, the residents approved a one cent sales tax to raise money for stadium upgrades to lure an NBA team. I'd certainly pay a cent to have my vote counted.

But no, to save a few dollars, let's do it by mail. Let's set something up that is ridiculously easy to tamper with. Let's have people filling out someone else's ballot in the comfort of their own kitchen because they can't read the fine print, or hell, are at work when the form arrives in the hands of a spouse with opposing viewpoints. Let's have an election where mail carriers in certain areas with certain ideologies might find a few bucks if they accidentally drop come letters down the sewer. I just see this as a horrible regression back to times when election fraud ran rampant, and it provides an easy out for whichever candidate loses, since they can claim it on tainted votes and an incomplete way of doing things. I'll be honest, I'm sure I'm missing some details that could show how this works, and maybe there is indeed some method that makes this whole idea viable, but I can't even believe this is a discussion. We don't trust any electronic or computer based solution, so mail is our best option? If I'm being obtuse about this, please let me know.

I can see this being a huge disaster, and I'm hoping that a better solution comes along. Maybe, as my professor Paul Levinson suggested, someone with some money to spare could save us all. We could only hope.

Sunday, March 9, 2008

A Month of Motion and We're in the Same Place

Hey all,

Obviously it's been a long time since I've last posted, and as I started to prepare to write this entry, I was wondering about all of the things that have happened over the last month in both politics and sports - countless primaries, the Roger Clemens hearing, more NFL Spygate stories, John McCain clinching the Republican nomination - and then it occurred to me that in the grand scheme of things, we're largely in the same place we were a month ago!

This isn't to discount the importance of what has happened over the last month; especially concerning the upcoming election, but let's look at things in a broad sense - Obama and Hillary are still virtually tied and the momentum is swinging back and forth like a pendulum, we STILL don't have proof over whether Clemens did steroids (but we saw how partisanship can even be an issue when sports and Congress collide) or whether the Patriots are worthy of their Super Bowl titles, and McCain was the front runner after Super Tuesday anyway. A huge amount of pomp and circumstance (and money spent) just to tread water, wouldn't you say?

I think, in fact, that this stagnation might be part of the problem with our political election process. With campaigns starting earlier and earlier each cycle, it feels like there is a lot of dead time with nothing going on but the candidates spitting on each other. It's obviously beneficial to have more time to learn about each candidate, but really, how much name calling do we need? How many times can I hear Hillary question Obama's experience, and listen to Obama call for change? I GET IT - now let's get on with the show. Now, we have SIX WEEKS before another meaningful primary - I know Pennsylvania wasn't supposed to have an impact, but you think maybe someone should have planned for a close race. Now we are all going to be subject to the same droning on about the issues we've already beaten to death, and frankly, who wouldn't be sick of the whole thing by the time we hit the convention?


On the other hand, while I might be less disgusted with John McCain by the time the general election starts, I do think that his clinching the nomination while the other two continue to fight will actually hurt him, if only because he will be out of the public eye. I think he could ask Rudy about how important public awareness and momentum are in these types of things. So maybe this whole thing is a vicious cycle - the more intrusive your campaign, the more people get aggravated with you, but the less intrusive, the more people forget about you. Which is the lesser of two evils?

I'm about to dive into "Why Americans Hate Politics" by EJ Dionne; a subject I've always been interested in myself. I think the items mentioned above might have something to do with it, but I'll keep you posted on anything interesting from the book. However, the idea that we've spent a month dealing with all of this to no real end certainly makes me aggravated.

Or maybe I'm just trying to run away from my guilt of not posting in a month by blaming the political system. You can be the judge.

Thursday, February 7, 2008

Super Confusing

Obviously I'm a bit late to be making any sort of relevant analysis on Super Tuesday's results - I'm sure you've heard it all before. One thing I would like to discuss, however, is how even though these primaries are the precursor to the same election for the same position chosen by the same people, it seems as if each party is dealing with it's own set of issues. For example, religious issues are a major concern in the Republican Party primaries, while health care has been huge for the Democrats. Neither side has often commented on what the other party, which they will be competing against shortly, is doing. It's an odd occurrence.

It also shocks me how both parties are viewing primary season. On the Republican side, the question has been (until this afternoon) who the "conservative " alternative to John McCain is, Mike Huckabee or Mitt Romney. Even after Super Tuesday, in which McCain was able to win a huge amount of delegates by attracting the majority of the party and many independents, the wing of the party that labels themselves "conservative" still insisted McCain was not fit to represent the GOP, and some went as far as to say they would rather vote for the Democratic candidate.

The reason this seemed strange to me is that on the Democratic side, both candidates have begun touting their "electibility" come November. Both Clinton and Obama are claiming that they will have the best chance to win independents, or even members of the party, in the general election, and that each stands a better chance against the Republican machine.

How is it, that in two parts of what is essentially the same race, one party has become obsessed with pleasing a small faction of the nation, while the other is looking towards the public as a whole? It's amazing to me to see how pleasing a small group of ultra-conservatives (albeit a loud group) in the GOP has become more important than how well the candidate would do in the main election - would Mike Huckabee stand a better chance than McCain of drawing moderates and independents? It's interesting to observe how two groups of people striving towards the same goal can focus on such completely different aspects of the public vote.

Monday, February 4, 2008

Super....Monday?

So here we are, on the sad, lonely Monday in between two Giant (pun intended) so called "Super" days.

What a game last night - some are calling it the biggest upset in Super Bowl history - as the Giants knocked off the previously unbeaten Patriots, 17-14. I won't recount too much of the actual game - you can see endless highlight reels and analysis all over the media - but there is one key item to address in terms of the "competition" theme of this blog.

As you may or may not have heard, Patriots coach Bill Belichick walked off the field into the locker room before the game clock had actually hit zero. There was a lot of confusion as Tom Brady's final, 4th down throw fell incomplete, and it appeared that the entire stadium thought time had expired and the game was over. To his credit, Belichick, who is a notoriously bad loser, did walk out onto the field and shake hands with his opposing coach, Tom Coughlin. But, as the refs began clearing players, fans, and press off the field for the Giants to kneel the ball down and officially take off the last second on the board, Belichick walked right past the bench and into the locker room, leaving his defensive team on the field without their coach for the last play of the Super Bowl.

Now, it was kind of dumb that the referees couldn't have just let that one second go, to pretend it had ticked away with the ball in the air. Dragging everyone off the turf and making these two exhausted teams line up for one meaningless kneel down did seem awkward and trivial, if not annoying. But, I suppose, it has to be official, so technically, the decision was correct. And in the spirit of sportsmanship, and things being done right, Belichick should have stood there next to his players as time ran out and showed the Giants the respect they deserved. A lot is said about players being role models for kids (New England's own Randy Moss was widely criticized for the same behavior a few years ago when he was with another team), and it is time that coaches are held to the same standard. Enough is enough with this guy - he just constantly ignores all rules of sportsmanship and just plain human behavior. I'm glad to see that a lot of people have called him on this, just as many have criticized the Presidential candidates for sniping at one another.

Now, however, with barely enough time to catch our breath, we go from the biggest sporting event of the year to the most important primary day in one of the most exciting and competitive primary races in history. Are there any more upsets in store, or will we know who the champs are by this time tomorrow? Stay in touch!

Saturday, February 2, 2008

Welcome!

There have always been many symbols of American culture - homemade apple pie, a waving American flag, the ideas of freedom and equality , etc. Each is a nice representation or symbol, but the fact is that none of these, or any similar, are truly representative of all Americans. So, coming to a question that has increasingly been broached in many of my classes recently - is there a unifying thread in America? Is there some idea, some theory, some belief, that truly means something to all of us, the whole of America?

There may be one thing:

COMPETITION.

We all have different motivations, different values and morals, and unique, individual lifestyles. However, we all compete at some point, and probably most points, in our lives. Competition is a huge driving force in American culture, whether it be a child's stick ball game in the street, the desire for a promotion, or even a Presidential Election. We have a constant obsession with who is more skilled, more qualified, more talented, more able. And this idea brings me to the main theme of this blog.

There are two major forums of competition in American culture - politics and sports (the economy could be considered as well, but in today's age, it seems that all economies are tied together into one global unit rather than remaining individual to each nation). Politics and sports are truly two major parts of American life - our political structure has always been an identifying factor for our nation, and sports is one of our greatest leisure activities, whether it be participation or observation. Politics forces competition between political parties and differing ideologies in an effort to garner votes to win important positions, while sports figures compete in order to make the most money and win the most championships.

Of course, there are many actions in both politics and sports that do not directly relate to competition. A bipartisan bill in a non-election year, for example, might be seen as similar to the Yankees giving Alex Rodriguez the day off during a June game against the Royals - it's OK to allow pleasantries at non-crucial moments, but just wait until crunch time. So, obviously, "non-competitive" events such as these will be covered in this blog as well.

Politics and sports do share the unifying concept of competition, which makes the prospect of tying them together in a blog rather feasible. They truly are a major part of American life, but also of my own, which is another reason I have chosen these topics to share my thoughts about. I don't intend to lecture in this blog, but simply to share my thoughts in a conversational and hopefully entertaining manner and maybe to inspire others to think about some things differently.

Please - PROVIDE FEEDBACK! Leave comments, check back often, and let me know your own opinions. Thanks for checking in - I hope you'll come back soon and often.