You don't become a sportscaster unless you're a sports fan. However, once you put on that headset and start broadcasting games for a living, you cease to be a true fan, especially as you move up the ranks.
Don't let us sportscasters fool you; no matter how much some of us scream, holler and root for the team we cover, we're not fans. We may still have rooting interests, but our relationship with sports and the athletes who play them is different from yours.
The last three seasons, I have been fortunate enough to call games for the Double-A affiliate of the New York Mets, a team I have followed for about as long as I can remember. It's been pretty neat to be able to steal a glimpse into the inner workings of the Mets' farm system. That glimpse has changed my views of the Mets in particular and Major League Baseball in general.
Mind you, I'm not trying to brag. I recognize that, while I may be closer than most to The Show, I'm still quite far away. Nevertheless, my job has given me a chance to learn things about athletes and coaches that not even the most avid, most informed fan could ever learn. This perspective changes how you follow the game. More than anything, it makes you more of a fan of the game as opposed to a fan of any one team.
For example, I find myself rooting more for specific individuals than for teams. A former manager is now a coach with Baltimore so, whenever the Orioles are successful, I think of him. Several players I've covered are with the Florida Marlins and, even if they do damage against the Mets, I'm happy for them. This principle applies even for opposing players. During my time in Binghamton, I've also seen Jonathan Papelbon, Jacoby Ellsbury, Justin Verlander and Asdrubal Cabrera, all of whom I root for at the Major League level as well.
I also call women's college basketball which has also changed my view of college sports, albeit to a lesser extent. I still root mostly for my alma mater Syracuse but, more than ever before, I root for great players and well-coached teams.
However, things are different when it comes to the New York Giants.
Life is funny sometimes. Growing up, my interest in the Giants ranked a distant third out of the three pro sports teams I followed, behind the Mets and Knicks (while I followed college basketball and football growing up, I didn't really have a favorite team until I enrolled at Syracuse).
The tide began to turn in 1997 when I started college. Without a television, let alone cable, in my dorm room, it became harder to keep up with the Mets and Knicks. I was also pretty busy doing college-student things so, even if I had a television, it would've been difficult to follow those teams anyway. However, most of the Giants games were aired on local channels in Syracuse and Sunday was the one day I was usually idle, so I was able to follow Big Blue with ease. I just had to make sure I got to the television in the common area on my floor early enough.
The conversion was complete during my two-year stay in Kalamazoo, Michigan. My interest in the Mets and Knicks continued to wane, but I was at a bar every week to watch the Giants. Moving to Binghamton and working for one of their affiliates renewed my interest in the Mets who, like the Knicks, I can now watch on television. However, I'm so busy with work that I miss the vast majority of those team's games. But, I rarely miss the Giants' exploits.
That's part of the reason the Giants' run to the Super Bowl has been so special for me. I've seen at least part of every game but one this season (I missed their unfortunate shellacking at the hands of the Vikings). With each passing week, as the wins continued to pile up, my passion for them grew. I found myself on the edge of my seat when Eli Manning led the troops into the red zone and, when an enemy offense is knocking on the doorstep, I start wringing my hands, hoping for a timely turnover or demoralizing sack.
When Lawrence Tynes' field goal sailed through the uprights in overtime against the Packers last week and sent the Giants to the Super Bowl, it brought me a level of joy I've never felt for a sports team. I was running, jumping and screaming in my apartment, nearly hitting my head on the ceiling. Within a few minutes, I was hoarse. Even once I settled down, I was so excited, I barely heard any of the Giants' celebratory post-game remarks. I don't really remember the Halas Trophy presentation.
What I will always remember is how this year's Giants team reminded me what it's like to be a fan again. And as much as I love working as a sportscaster, it's positively delightful to be back on the other side of the fence, at least for a little while.
1.24.2008
1.21.2008
Read My Lips: Taxes Aren't All Bad
People are always looking to define Americans. Depending on who you ask, we're dominators, spoiled, overly ethnocentric, impatient, etc. But I think there's one ethos that defines the American people more than any other.
We want to have our cake and eat it too.
We talk about saving the environment, but purchase gas-guzzling SUVs in record numbers. We lament the disappearance of the mom-and-pop store, but we're quick to spend the bulk of our paychecks at Wal-Mart and other big-box retailers. We say we want to lose weight, but we down fast food and junk food like there's no tomorrow. We complain about the lack of quality services and affordable healthcare, but we don't want to pay more taxes.
The last point is the one on which I'm going to focus. After all, we're a country that was founded in part because a significant number of powerful white males felt they were being overtaxed. Heck, if the Brits had laid off of the tea tax and stamp tax, Mount Rushmore might have a bust of Winston Churchill and we might be singing "God Save The Queen" before baseball games.
The American we-hate-taxes attitude is still prevalent today. Without question, we are the least-taxed industrialized nation in the world. Politicians who speak of tax cuts, tax rebates and/or tax credits always seem to be rewarded at the ballot box. One of the most famous broken campaign promises in our political history is the "read my lips, no new taxes" pledge by the elder President Bush who, by the way, raised taxes and didn't get re-elected.
I've been thinking a lot about the taxation issue because of what's been going on in my neck of the woods. There is a huge push to dissolve several of the local villages and towns (including the one in which I live) into their larger neighboring cities or towns. This push has been aided by our county executive, a pleasant, diminutive lady with whom I haven't had much to quarrel until now, who is advocating that we take a long, hard look at dissolution because it may solve many of the region's problems. There are even some in favor of dissolving one of the nearby counties into three of its neighbors.
There is only one legitimate benefit (if you want to call it a benefit) to dissolution: lower taxes. By consolidating municipal services like police and fire departments, money would be saved, expenses would be spread over a greater number of people and, thus, taxes would decrease. Which is true.
However, dissolution advocates are overlooking one major flaw in their plan: a decrease in the quality of services.
Most of the municipal services are utilized only when we need them. You don't call the fire department to tell them your house isn't on fire or that your cat is earth-bound. Most of us don't call the police unless we think the law is being broken. Few attend town hall meetings if they're happy with their local leaders. But, when you use those municipal services, you want a prompt and courteous response. Such a response is more difficult to obtain when budgets are slashed in the name of reducing taxes.
I think many of the people who spearhead movements like dissolution are the same ones who vote down anything they think will increase their property taxes. You know, the curmudgeons who think the local school facilities are just fine and, as a result, refuse to vote in favor of new building additions or new athletic fields because it would raise their taxes. Mind you, these are the same curmudgeons who complain that the kids do nothing but loiter and wreak havoc in the neighborhood, neglecting the fact that the school bond initiatives they voted down might've provided those same kids with Bunsen burners or computers or tubas or footballs that might engage them instead. The curmudgeons lead the charge, their followers often being the ignorant and/or the misinformed.
And then there's the thorny issue of universal healthcare. I love when people ask "how come virtually every country in the world but the US has healthcare for all its citizens?" It's because those people, on average, pay more taxes than we do...and you get what you pay for. It's that simple. The day we're willing to shell out more money to Uncle Sam is the day we'll have true universal healthcare in this country.
Of course, there are also opponents of universal health care who say it's akin to socialism, a word that might as well have made George Carlin's famed "Seven Dirty Words" list. There are already socialist aspects to our government, like unemployment insurance, social security and farm subsidies. The New Deal was essentially a socialist program (not pogrom) that helped get us out of The Great Depression. Yet, we haven't turned into the USSR or Nazi Germany.
So, the next time you complain about more taxes, look at the big picture. Where is that money going? Where would you be without it? When one looks at the big picture, a little taxation never hurt anybody.
We want to have our cake and eat it too.
We talk about saving the environment, but purchase gas-guzzling SUVs in record numbers. We lament the disappearance of the mom-and-pop store, but we're quick to spend the bulk of our paychecks at Wal-Mart and other big-box retailers. We say we want to lose weight, but we down fast food and junk food like there's no tomorrow. We complain about the lack of quality services and affordable healthcare, but we don't want to pay more taxes.
The last point is the one on which I'm going to focus. After all, we're a country that was founded in part because a significant number of powerful white males felt they were being overtaxed. Heck, if the Brits had laid off of the tea tax and stamp tax, Mount Rushmore might have a bust of Winston Churchill and we might be singing "God Save The Queen" before baseball games.
The American we-hate-taxes attitude is still prevalent today. Without question, we are the least-taxed industrialized nation in the world. Politicians who speak of tax cuts, tax rebates and/or tax credits always seem to be rewarded at the ballot box. One of the most famous broken campaign promises in our political history is the "read my lips, no new taxes" pledge by the elder President Bush who, by the way, raised taxes and didn't get re-elected.
I've been thinking a lot about the taxation issue because of what's been going on in my neck of the woods. There is a huge push to dissolve several of the local villages and towns (including the one in which I live) into their larger neighboring cities or towns. This push has been aided by our county executive, a pleasant, diminutive lady with whom I haven't had much to quarrel until now, who is advocating that we take a long, hard look at dissolution because it may solve many of the region's problems. There are even some in favor of dissolving one of the nearby counties into three of its neighbors.
There is only one legitimate benefit (if you want to call it a benefit) to dissolution: lower taxes. By consolidating municipal services like police and fire departments, money would be saved, expenses would be spread over a greater number of people and, thus, taxes would decrease. Which is true.
However, dissolution advocates are overlooking one major flaw in their plan: a decrease in the quality of services.
Most of the municipal services are utilized only when we need them. You don't call the fire department to tell them your house isn't on fire or that your cat is earth-bound. Most of us don't call the police unless we think the law is being broken. Few attend town hall meetings if they're happy with their local leaders. But, when you use those municipal services, you want a prompt and courteous response. Such a response is more difficult to obtain when budgets are slashed in the name of reducing taxes.
I think many of the people who spearhead movements like dissolution are the same ones who vote down anything they think will increase their property taxes. You know, the curmudgeons who think the local school facilities are just fine and, as a result, refuse to vote in favor of new building additions or new athletic fields because it would raise their taxes. Mind you, these are the same curmudgeons who complain that the kids do nothing but loiter and wreak havoc in the neighborhood, neglecting the fact that the school bond initiatives they voted down might've provided those same kids with Bunsen burners or computers or tubas or footballs that might engage them instead. The curmudgeons lead the charge, their followers often being the ignorant and/or the misinformed.
And then there's the thorny issue of universal healthcare. I love when people ask "how come virtually every country in the world but the US has healthcare for all its citizens?" It's because those people, on average, pay more taxes than we do...and you get what you pay for. It's that simple. The day we're willing to shell out more money to Uncle Sam is the day we'll have true universal healthcare in this country.
Of course, there are also opponents of universal health care who say it's akin to socialism, a word that might as well have made George Carlin's famed "Seven Dirty Words" list. There are already socialist aspects to our government, like unemployment insurance, social security and farm subsidies. The New Deal was essentially a socialist program (not pogrom) that helped get us out of The Great Depression. Yet, we haven't turned into the USSR or Nazi Germany.
So, the next time you complain about more taxes, look at the big picture. Where is that money going? Where would you be without it? When one looks at the big picture, a little taxation never hurt anybody.
1.14.2008
An Ode To The Giants
Die-hard sports fans are used to being disappointed. After all, only two teams in any sport get to play for the championship, meaning the vast majority of teams fall short of achieving their #1 goal. Even if you don't expect your team to contend for a title, it's still easy to be frustrated with their final results. Injuries, poor performances and subpar coaching have spoiled many a team's hopes.
Since it's easy to be disappointed, sports fans cherish the moments when their team meets or exceeds expectations...which is why I'll always remember the 2007 New York Giants.
I hate bandwagon fans, the ones who jump from team to team, following only those who are winning and abandoning those who lose. But, like bandwagon fans, die-hards usually become fans during periods of success. The Mets were one of the best teams in baseball when I started following them in the late 80s. The Knicks' deep playoff runs in the early-to-mid 90s helped turn me into a fan.
The Giants are a different story. Although some of my earliest sports memories involve their Super Bowl appearances and watching Lawrence Taylor run amok (by the way, can we all agree to stop calling LaDanian Tomlinson "LT"? There is, and will only ever be, one LT), I wasn't a true fan back then. I didn't make an effort to watch all their games. I didn't live and die by their fortunes. When I really became a fan was in the mid-90s, once most of the stars from the Parcells era were gone and the Giants were stuck in mediocrity.
But, over the last several years, the Giants have had plenty of talent on both sides of the ball. They've made the playoffs in three straight seasons and six times in their last 11 campaigns. Despite all the talent, they have failed to perform up to expectations, during the regular-season or post-season. In almost every one of their last 11 seasons, they lost games they could have -- and should have -- won. And their playoff performances have been abysmal. Before this year, they had won a total of two playoff games since my freshman year of college, with both of those wins coming after the 2000 season, when they appeared in the Super Bowl (and lost to a very beatable Ravens team).
It looked like 2007 would be another rough year for the Giants when they combined to allow 80 points in their first two games, both losses. Giants teams of the recent past would've folded up the tent after such a poor start. There would've been constant bickering in private and to the media and the atmosphere around the locker room would've been more poisonous than a rattlesnake. Sideline cameras would constantly show head coach Tom Coughlin, red-faced and steaming once again over another stupid penalty or costly fumble.
But, this year was different. A come-from-behind win over the Redskins in Week 3 spurred a six-game win streak. They started winning games they had no business winning. There were media reports that Coughlin, an old-school disciplinarian who had a reputation of alienating veterans, had softened up and started seeking more input from his players. Gone was the infighting that had submarined several of the seasons past.
For once, Big Blue finished the year strong, clinching a playoff spot with a big win over the Bills before fighting tooth-and-nail with the undefeated Patriots in a three-point loss. Every sports fan knows you usually have to finish the season strong to have a shot at a deep playoff run. The Giants had done that.
And then came the playoffs.
Most Giants fans went into the wild-card matchup against the Buccaneers confident that a win would occur and, for only the second time since 1997, the boys won their first playoff game. A spirited victory over the hated Cowboys, the NFC's top seed and the only team to beat the Giants twice, was even more impressive. The Giants had put together four solid weeks of football which, in the past, seemed to occur about as often as the swallows visited Capistrano.
So, what's different this year? Lets go through the list...
No Tiki Barber
One of the greatest players in Giants history, the elusive running back was also one of the most vocal critics of the coaching staff and his teammates. While Giants fans may miss the offense #21 provided, they don't miss the negativity and distractions (especially last year, when he announced his retirement before season's end).
The Defense
After a rocky start, new defensive coordinator Steve Spagnuolo got the veterans to buy into his system and, for the first time in about a decade, the defense had games in which they were the difference-makers. So many of the Giants' wins can be traced to a key fourth-quarter defensive stop (like preventing the Redskins from scoring on 4th-and-goal in Week 3 or stopping the Cowboys from reaching the end zone in Sunday's win).
A Changed Coughlin
The fellow Syracuse alum (of course I had to mention that) came from an era when coaches gained respect through fear. Coughlin finally toned down his act, which helped reduce the back-biting of past seasons. Also, he stopped doing silly things, like counting on one running back solely for third- and fourth-and-short situations (I've banged on many a table and yelled many a "goddammit!" watching Reuben Droughns/Brandon Jacobs/Ron Dayne either fumble or fail to get a yard or two when we needed it most). I'm still not sure why it took he and offensive coordinator Kevin Gilbride so long to realize Ahmad Bradshaw should get more carries, but I'll take what I can get.
Eli Manning
Those who don't follow the Giants have no understanding of how important Manning is to this franchise. Eli is the most talented quarterback the Giants have had in at least two generations. Sure, Phil Simms was fantastic, but he was a game manager who didn't do anything fancy and didn't make mistakes. Simms couldn't carry a team. However, Eli has a chance to be the sort of QB who can rally the troops and win games that shouldn't be won -- he's already shown that trait in his young career. However, Peyton's kid brother has struggled with consistency. He's just as likely to throw a 50-yard touchdown pass as he is to toss a killer interception. But, over the last few weeks, Eli's managed to cut down on the mistakes and play consistent and smart football.
Up next for the Giants is the NFC Championship Game at Green Bay. Of course, I want them to get to the Super Bowl but, even if the Giants fall, I will still be pleased with the way they've performed this year. It will help make up for the star-crossed seasons of Giants football past.
Since it's easy to be disappointed, sports fans cherish the moments when their team meets or exceeds expectations...which is why I'll always remember the 2007 New York Giants.
I hate bandwagon fans, the ones who jump from team to team, following only those who are winning and abandoning those who lose. But, like bandwagon fans, die-hards usually become fans during periods of success. The Mets were one of the best teams in baseball when I started following them in the late 80s. The Knicks' deep playoff runs in the early-to-mid 90s helped turn me into a fan.
The Giants are a different story. Although some of my earliest sports memories involve their Super Bowl appearances and watching Lawrence Taylor run amok (by the way, can we all agree to stop calling LaDanian Tomlinson "LT"? There is, and will only ever be, one LT), I wasn't a true fan back then. I didn't make an effort to watch all their games. I didn't live and die by their fortunes. When I really became a fan was in the mid-90s, once most of the stars from the Parcells era were gone and the Giants were stuck in mediocrity.
But, over the last several years, the Giants have had plenty of talent on both sides of the ball. They've made the playoffs in three straight seasons and six times in their last 11 campaigns. Despite all the talent, they have failed to perform up to expectations, during the regular-season or post-season. In almost every one of their last 11 seasons, they lost games they could have -- and should have -- won. And their playoff performances have been abysmal. Before this year, they had won a total of two playoff games since my freshman year of college, with both of those wins coming after the 2000 season, when they appeared in the Super Bowl (and lost to a very beatable Ravens team).
It looked like 2007 would be another rough year for the Giants when they combined to allow 80 points in their first two games, both losses. Giants teams of the recent past would've folded up the tent after such a poor start. There would've been constant bickering in private and to the media and the atmosphere around the locker room would've been more poisonous than a rattlesnake. Sideline cameras would constantly show head coach Tom Coughlin, red-faced and steaming once again over another stupid penalty or costly fumble.
But, this year was different. A come-from-behind win over the Redskins in Week 3 spurred a six-game win streak. They started winning games they had no business winning. There were media reports that Coughlin, an old-school disciplinarian who had a reputation of alienating veterans, had softened up and started seeking more input from his players. Gone was the infighting that had submarined several of the seasons past.
For once, Big Blue finished the year strong, clinching a playoff spot with a big win over the Bills before fighting tooth-and-nail with the undefeated Patriots in a three-point loss. Every sports fan knows you usually have to finish the season strong to have a shot at a deep playoff run. The Giants had done that.
And then came the playoffs.
Most Giants fans went into the wild-card matchup against the Buccaneers confident that a win would occur and, for only the second time since 1997, the boys won their first playoff game. A spirited victory over the hated Cowboys, the NFC's top seed and the only team to beat the Giants twice, was even more impressive. The Giants had put together four solid weeks of football which, in the past, seemed to occur about as often as the swallows visited Capistrano.
So, what's different this year? Lets go through the list...
No Tiki Barber
One of the greatest players in Giants history, the elusive running back was also one of the most vocal critics of the coaching staff and his teammates. While Giants fans may miss the offense #21 provided, they don't miss the negativity and distractions (especially last year, when he announced his retirement before season's end).
The Defense
After a rocky start, new defensive coordinator Steve Spagnuolo got the veterans to buy into his system and, for the first time in about a decade, the defense had games in which they were the difference-makers. So many of the Giants' wins can be traced to a key fourth-quarter defensive stop (like preventing the Redskins from scoring on 4th-and-goal in Week 3 or stopping the Cowboys from reaching the end zone in Sunday's win).
A Changed Coughlin
The fellow Syracuse alum (of course I had to mention that) came from an era when coaches gained respect through fear. Coughlin finally toned down his act, which helped reduce the back-biting of past seasons. Also, he stopped doing silly things, like counting on one running back solely for third- and fourth-and-short situations (I've banged on many a table and yelled many a "goddammit!" watching Reuben Droughns/Brandon Jacobs/Ron Dayne either fumble or fail to get a yard or two when we needed it most). I'm still not sure why it took he and offensive coordinator Kevin Gilbride so long to realize Ahmad Bradshaw should get more carries, but I'll take what I can get.
Eli Manning
Those who don't follow the Giants have no understanding of how important Manning is to this franchise. Eli is the most talented quarterback the Giants have had in at least two generations. Sure, Phil Simms was fantastic, but he was a game manager who didn't do anything fancy and didn't make mistakes. Simms couldn't carry a team. However, Eli has a chance to be the sort of QB who can rally the troops and win games that shouldn't be won -- he's already shown that trait in his young career. However, Peyton's kid brother has struggled with consistency. He's just as likely to throw a 50-yard touchdown pass as he is to toss a killer interception. But, over the last few weeks, Eli's managed to cut down on the mistakes and play consistent and smart football.
Up next for the Giants is the NFC Championship Game at Green Bay. Of course, I want them to get to the Super Bowl but, even if the Giants fall, I will still be pleased with the way they've performed this year. It will help make up for the star-crossed seasons of Giants football past.
1.09.2008
Question: Who Is Barack Obama? Answer: Not Our Next President
There are nearly 11 months remaining until we elect our next President and I am already sick of the process.
It seems like the election cycle started much earlier this time around. I think the early start can be attributed to the fact that there is no incumbent nor clear favorite running (fun fact: not to say he would be a front-runner if he ran, but Dick Cheney is just the third Vice-President since FDR's second administration not to either become President or attempt a run at the office. The other two are Spiro Agnew, who was involved in a bribery scandal and forced to resign, and Nelson Rockefeller, who died two years after he left office). It was initially thought this election would easily go to Senator Hillary Clinton, who is still the prohibitive favorite, but a strong early showing by Senator Barack Obama have some wondering if he can overtake the former First Lady.
I think Obama's run is one of the most intriguing we've seen in a long time. After all, he's one of the more inexperienced politicians to seek the Presidency in quite some time. He's also half-black, which prompts the "Is America ready for a black President?" question. Not to mention, he's done a nice job of playing up his "outsider" status, which has won him the attention of many Americans who claim they are tired of "business as usual", which is what most of the other candidates (especially Hillary) seem to represent.
However, Obama's "outsider" status is exactly why he won't win.
I recently saw a Myspace bulletin titled "Who Is Barack Obama?" You may have seen it either as a bulletin or an e-mail forward. There are some slight variations, but it's purpose is to frighten people about the prospect of this man becoming our next President. It details his alleged "radical Muslim" upbringing (although it contradicts itself when it says his "radical Muslim" father had little influence on his life), how he apparently doesn't recite for the Pledge of Allegiance, etc. Anyone who can read between the lines can see through this garbage. Snopes.com has an excellent piece that calls many of this forward's principle claims into question.
However, there are a lot of people who are either ignorant or choose not to read between the lines for whatever reason. They hear "Muslim" and immediately think of guys who hijack planes and crash them into American landmarks. Most Americans have had little to no contact with Muslims and, thus, have no understanding of their culture or philosophies. What's worse, not only do many Americans not understand this different culture, but they have absolutely no desire to understand it. Those types of people are the ones who are the most dangerous. The Muslim faith is the world's most popular religion; if they all really wanted to kill us and take over our country, it would've happened by now.
Obama was already behind the eight-ball with his unique name, by American standards. It doesn't help that "Obama" sounds and looks a lot like "Osama". So, a lot of people are already waiting for the other shoe to drop with this guy. It's almost as if many expect him to attempt to fly a plane into the Pentagon on Inauguration Day, should he be elected. If the guy's name were Bob Jones, the above-mentioned e-mail forward would have absolutely no legs.
The other hurdle Obama faces is with his followers. Many of those who see him as the best choice are the disenfranchised, those who have little hope in the political system. And, frankly, it's great that a candidate can get those people interested in politics. However, history shows that those aren't the people who vote in large numbers, even if there is someone they feel is worth their support. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton has polled well with Baby Boomers and the elderly, people who are much more likely to turn out in large numbers.
Plus, voting in a primary is much more confusing than voting in a general election. Everyone knows when Election Day is; it's always on the first Tuesday in November no matter what. However, every state has different rules regarding their primaries. For as long as I have been a voter, I have been registered as an Independent. When I lived in Michigan, that didn't matter; you don't have to belong to a political party in order to vote in their primary. When you show up at the polling place, you get a ballot with the Republican candidates on one side and the Democrats on the other. You have to choose whether you're going to vote on the Republican side of the ballot or the Democratic side (you can't vote for candidates in both parties) but, again, you don't have to make that decision until you get your ballot. However, in New York, you have to be registered with a party in order to vote in their primary. Also, many states have moved the date of their primary up in order to take advantage of the wide-open nature of the Presidential race. Do you think those who don't vote regularly are going to be up to speed on even the most basic rules regarding primaries in their state? I think not. Advantage Hillary.
Many of Obama's supporters are people lamenting the current state of politics. They say they are tired of the "good ol' boy network" and of power remaining in the same hands for generations. While all that sounds good, history shows it's just window-dressing. Truth be told, most people seem to favor a familiar face in office, especially for the higher offices, whether it be a longtime politico or someone from a political family. Every state has its share of families who have held political power for decades, even centuries...the Dodds in Connecticut, the Tafts in Ohio, the Dalys in Illinois, the Kennedys in Massachusetts. The list is endless. And it is another major reason why enough people aren't going to turn out for Obama. As much as people say they want a fresh face leading the way, they're quick to turn the car keys over to someone with a significant amount of experience.
Of course, a lot can happen over the course of 11 months; scandals, surprising victories, seismic shifts in the zeitgeist. But, barring anything catastrophic, it looks like Obama will be relegated to the Senate chamber, at least for a little while longer. He needs to be more of an "insider" in order to have a legitimate chance.
It seems like the election cycle started much earlier this time around. I think the early start can be attributed to the fact that there is no incumbent nor clear favorite running (fun fact: not to say he would be a front-runner if he ran, but Dick Cheney is just the third Vice-President since FDR's second administration not to either become President or attempt a run at the office. The other two are Spiro Agnew, who was involved in a bribery scandal and forced to resign, and Nelson Rockefeller, who died two years after he left office). It was initially thought this election would easily go to Senator Hillary Clinton, who is still the prohibitive favorite, but a strong early showing by Senator Barack Obama have some wondering if he can overtake the former First Lady.
I think Obama's run is one of the most intriguing we've seen in a long time. After all, he's one of the more inexperienced politicians to seek the Presidency in quite some time. He's also half-black, which prompts the "Is America ready for a black President?" question. Not to mention, he's done a nice job of playing up his "outsider" status, which has won him the attention of many Americans who claim they are tired of "business as usual", which is what most of the other candidates (especially Hillary) seem to represent.
However, Obama's "outsider" status is exactly why he won't win.
I recently saw a Myspace bulletin titled "Who Is Barack Obama?" You may have seen it either as a bulletin or an e-mail forward. There are some slight variations, but it's purpose is to frighten people about the prospect of this man becoming our next President. It details his alleged "radical Muslim" upbringing (although it contradicts itself when it says his "radical Muslim" father had little influence on his life), how he apparently doesn't recite for the Pledge of Allegiance, etc. Anyone who can read between the lines can see through this garbage. Snopes.com has an excellent piece that calls many of this forward's principle claims into question.
However, there are a lot of people who are either ignorant or choose not to read between the lines for whatever reason. They hear "Muslim" and immediately think of guys who hijack planes and crash them into American landmarks. Most Americans have had little to no contact with Muslims and, thus, have no understanding of their culture or philosophies. What's worse, not only do many Americans not understand this different culture, but they have absolutely no desire to understand it. Those types of people are the ones who are the most dangerous. The Muslim faith is the world's most popular religion; if they all really wanted to kill us and take over our country, it would've happened by now.
Obama was already behind the eight-ball with his unique name, by American standards. It doesn't help that "Obama" sounds and looks a lot like "Osama". So, a lot of people are already waiting for the other shoe to drop with this guy. It's almost as if many expect him to attempt to fly a plane into the Pentagon on Inauguration Day, should he be elected. If the guy's name were Bob Jones, the above-mentioned e-mail forward would have absolutely no legs.
The other hurdle Obama faces is with his followers. Many of those who see him as the best choice are the disenfranchised, those who have little hope in the political system. And, frankly, it's great that a candidate can get those people interested in politics. However, history shows that those aren't the people who vote in large numbers, even if there is someone they feel is worth their support. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton has polled well with Baby Boomers and the elderly, people who are much more likely to turn out in large numbers.
Plus, voting in a primary is much more confusing than voting in a general election. Everyone knows when Election Day is; it's always on the first Tuesday in November no matter what. However, every state has different rules regarding their primaries. For as long as I have been a voter, I have been registered as an Independent. When I lived in Michigan, that didn't matter; you don't have to belong to a political party in order to vote in their primary. When you show up at the polling place, you get a ballot with the Republican candidates on one side and the Democrats on the other. You have to choose whether you're going to vote on the Republican side of the ballot or the Democratic side (you can't vote for candidates in both parties) but, again, you don't have to make that decision until you get your ballot. However, in New York, you have to be registered with a party in order to vote in their primary. Also, many states have moved the date of their primary up in order to take advantage of the wide-open nature of the Presidential race. Do you think those who don't vote regularly are going to be up to speed on even the most basic rules regarding primaries in their state? I think not. Advantage Hillary.
Many of Obama's supporters are people lamenting the current state of politics. They say they are tired of the "good ol' boy network" and of power remaining in the same hands for generations. While all that sounds good, history shows it's just window-dressing. Truth be told, most people seem to favor a familiar face in office, especially for the higher offices, whether it be a longtime politico or someone from a political family. Every state has its share of families who have held political power for decades, even centuries...the Dodds in Connecticut, the Tafts in Ohio, the Dalys in Illinois, the Kennedys in Massachusetts. The list is endless. And it is another major reason why enough people aren't going to turn out for Obama. As much as people say they want a fresh face leading the way, they're quick to turn the car keys over to someone with a significant amount of experience.
Of course, a lot can happen over the course of 11 months; scandals, surprising victories, seismic shifts in the zeitgeist. But, barring anything catastrophic, it looks like Obama will be relegated to the Senate chamber, at least for a little while longer. He needs to be more of an "insider" in order to have a legitimate chance.
1.08.2008
Rocket Liar, Pants On Fire
Any baseball player who tells you he didn't know he was taking performance-enhancing drugs is lying. No exceptions. In addition, any ballplayer who says he was injecting himself with something other than steroids, like B-12 shots, is probably lying too.
That means you, Roger Clemens.
The lengths some players go through to deny their use of performance-enhancing drugs is comical. These denials reached a new low with the Roger Clemens Debacle. The Rocket, unquestionably one of the most successful pitchers of his generation, has pulled out all the stops to deny his use of performance-enhancing drugs as detailed in The Mitchell Report. Youtube testimonials. 60 Minutes interviews. Statements from his lawyer. Lawsuits against the trainer who betrayed his trust.
I know this is an innocent-until-proven-guilty society, an everyone-gets-his-day in-court society. Nevertheless, I think it is impossible that Clemens did not use some sort of banned substance.
Let's consider the facts.
The most damning piece of evidence is The Mitchell Report. Authored by a former Senator after a couple of years' worth of interviews and investigations, it detailed performance-enhancing drug use by several Major League players, none more prominent than Clemens. Most of the damning testimony against Clemens came from Brian McNamee, Clemens' former trainer. He detailed his frequent injections of The Rocket with banned substances as part of his training regimen.
Since the Report came out, Clemens and his legal team have worked to discredit McNamee. Recently, they revealed that McNamee was accused of lying to police about an alleged rape. Both sides are suing each other for slander. Clemens even taped a recent phone conversation with McNamee in which, judging from reports, he tried to get his former trainer to change his story.
It's all window-dressing on Clemens' part.
First off, Clemens took about a week and a half before he responded to the Report. If he were innocent, he would've responded immediately. However, Clemens bided his time as he and his lawyers determined his defense. If he really were innocent, a denial would've come immediately. I mean, why wait any length of time to clear your name?
Also, why would McNamee lie? Clemens is a legend with tons of credibility and many allies. McNamee is a former trainer who would've remained obscure if it weren't for his connection of Clemens. Clemens is wealthy with a team of lawyers at his disposal. McNamee claims to be broke with a child fighting a serious illness and isn't going to have the same legal resources as Clemens (although there are plenty of attorneys who would be willing to help him since he's become a cause celebre). McNamee had to know his testimony would be attacked by all comers, even if he did have an axe to grind.
In addition, I don't believe you can question The Mitchell Report's credibility. Former Senator George Mitchell knew his report would be examined with a fine-tooth comb. So, I have no doubt he checked and re-checked all of his facts. He had to make sure this report was beyond reproach. Otherwise, it's useless. If one nugget in this 400-page tome is questioned, then the whole credibility of the report is doubted. And, what would be the point of that? In order for meaningful changes to be made regarding performance-enhancing drugs in sports, Mitchell had to make sure all of his i's were dotted and t's were crossed.
Oh yeah, and Clemens says he wasn't injected with banned substances but, rather, with B-12 and licodine because, apparently, he thinks we're stupid.
Clemens' best option would be simply to come clean. His image has already been tarnished by The Mitchell Report and the only way he can save himself is by telling the truth. Because, no matter what Clemens took, he still had to execute. He still had to make quality pitches. And there is no drug that will do that for you.
That means you, Roger Clemens.
The lengths some players go through to deny their use of performance-enhancing drugs is comical. These denials reached a new low with the Roger Clemens Debacle. The Rocket, unquestionably one of the most successful pitchers of his generation, has pulled out all the stops to deny his use of performance-enhancing drugs as detailed in The Mitchell Report. Youtube testimonials. 60 Minutes interviews. Statements from his lawyer. Lawsuits against the trainer who betrayed his trust.
I know this is an innocent-until-proven-guilty society, an everyone-gets-his-day in-court society. Nevertheless, I think it is impossible that Clemens did not use some sort of banned substance.
Let's consider the facts.
The most damning piece of evidence is The Mitchell Report. Authored by a former Senator after a couple of years' worth of interviews and investigations, it detailed performance-enhancing drug use by several Major League players, none more prominent than Clemens. Most of the damning testimony against Clemens came from Brian McNamee, Clemens' former trainer. He detailed his frequent injections of The Rocket with banned substances as part of his training regimen.
Since the Report came out, Clemens and his legal team have worked to discredit McNamee. Recently, they revealed that McNamee was accused of lying to police about an alleged rape. Both sides are suing each other for slander. Clemens even taped a recent phone conversation with McNamee in which, judging from reports, he tried to get his former trainer to change his story.
It's all window-dressing on Clemens' part.
First off, Clemens took about a week and a half before he responded to the Report. If he were innocent, he would've responded immediately. However, Clemens bided his time as he and his lawyers determined his defense. If he really were innocent, a denial would've come immediately. I mean, why wait any length of time to clear your name?
Also, why would McNamee lie? Clemens is a legend with tons of credibility and many allies. McNamee is a former trainer who would've remained obscure if it weren't for his connection of Clemens. Clemens is wealthy with a team of lawyers at his disposal. McNamee claims to be broke with a child fighting a serious illness and isn't going to have the same legal resources as Clemens (although there are plenty of attorneys who would be willing to help him since he's become a cause celebre). McNamee had to know his testimony would be attacked by all comers, even if he did have an axe to grind.
In addition, I don't believe you can question The Mitchell Report's credibility. Former Senator George Mitchell knew his report would be examined with a fine-tooth comb. So, I have no doubt he checked and re-checked all of his facts. He had to make sure this report was beyond reproach. Otherwise, it's useless. If one nugget in this 400-page tome is questioned, then the whole credibility of the report is doubted. And, what would be the point of that? In order for meaningful changes to be made regarding performance-enhancing drugs in sports, Mitchell had to make sure all of his i's were dotted and t's were crossed.
Oh yeah, and Clemens says he wasn't injected with banned substances but, rather, with B-12 and licodine because, apparently, he thinks we're stupid.
Clemens' best option would be simply to come clean. His image has already been tarnished by The Mitchell Report and the only way he can save himself is by telling the truth. Because, no matter what Clemens took, he still had to execute. He still had to make quality pitches. And there is no drug that will do that for you.
1.06.2008
An Experiment
Blogging has become the new "in" thing to do. I mean, who doesn't know at least five people who claim to blog regularly? Sometimes, I think we'll look back on blogging like we do pet rocks, Rubik's cubes and the Macarena.
However, unlike the above-mentioned fads, blogging has a chance for more of a lasting appeal. There will always be people looking to jot down their thoughts for others to see; that has been going on for longer than anyone can remember. The difference is, with the Internet, your thoughts have a chance to reach a greater audience than ever before. But, people have always looked for an outlet to express themselves on paper (even if it's virtual paper). That's why pen pals, diaries and newspaper columnists exist. So, while blogging may not have the popularity it does now, people will always be blogging in some shape or form.
Those who know me know how picky I can be when it comes to taking part in the trends du jour. I hate wearing clothing with designer labels. I did not become one of the millions who sported an American flag pin after 9/11. I've never consumed the Harry Potter or Lord Of The Rings fare.
How do I choose which trends in which to take part? I guess that has something to do with which trends I feel will always have some sort of permanance or relevance to me and to society as a whole. I never want to be one of those people who cringes when he thinks of the stupid trends I followed once upon a time (although I am sporting a flattop in my high school yearbook picture). For example, I have pages on Myspace and Facebook (when will social networking and keeping up with friends ever get old?), I'm the biggest Seinfeld fan around (a show that has been off the air for nearly 10 years, but still impacts our culture) and, now, I blog. Or, more accurately, I will try to blog.
So, why am I here? For one, I'm a good writer. This isn't opinion, but fact. I was the kid who hated telling my mother, a schoolteacher, I had an essay or paper due, because that would inevitably lead to all-night editing sessions. Child writes. Mother proofreads child's writing and hands it back to child with myriad corrections. Child re-writes by hand. Mother proofreads again and comes up with an ALL NEW set of corrections (where were these criticisms before, child wonders). Child re-writes by hand again. Repeat for several hours until child is ready to jump naked through a plate-glass window. As much as I hated that process, it made me an excellent writer. It gave me an eye for grammar, spelling and punctuation. It also gave me a sense of what "sounds right" and what doesn't since, after all, writing, at its core, is about feel. I also read a lot growing up, further aiding my feel for writing.
Writing isn't just about knowing how to write. It's also about having something to write about. The latter has always been my biggest problem. Oh, I have plenty of ideas and thoughts over the course of the day, but I have never been good at committing them to paper. I'm much more of a verbal person (hey, that's why I make a living as a broadcaster). Growing up, my mom also tried to get me to keep a diary, but that never took. The concept of writing everyday just didn't appeal to me. What was I supposed to say? How is this supposed to help me? I had a problem with capturing my inner thoughts and transfering them to the page. So, my diary entries would often be something like "Today, I woke up and went to the park. I played baseball for a few hours. When I came home, I watched the Mets lose to the Phillies on Channel 9. My mother made spaghetti for dinner." I got bored just typing that.
I think there is an art to being able to express yourself on paper. And it's an art I want to try to better at. Like any art, you only get better with practice. You may never be Picasso or Monet, but you can at least be better than the three-year-old who just throws his or her paintbrush at the canvas (although some would call that abstract art and pay thousands of dollars for it).
What will this blog be about? Simply put, it will be about me. My thoughts. My ideas. My sarcasm. After all, I think I'd suck trying to write about someone else with any regularity. Blogging at its best is a selfish endeavor. What's the point of trying to write something just becasue you think it's what others want to read?
Who do I want to read my blog? Everyone. After all, why post something on the Internet if you don't want or don't expect everyone to read it? If I didn't want anyone to read what I wrote, I'd have one of those little journals with a lock that I stick under my mattress. My mattress is already uncomfortable enough as it is.
Of course, I know not everyone will read my blog. Nevertheless, it would be nice to have a following. Not a cult following (I would make a bad cult leader anyway. I don't need people following me to remote ends of the earth just so they could be poisoned by Flavor Aid. Yes, it was tainted Flavor Aid, not Kool Aid that Jim Jones gave his followers), but a following. I know there are a few people out there who already find, or will find, what I have to say remotely interesting. And I think that would be cool.
So, we'll see how it goes. Check this page at least once a week. Hopefully, this will work out better than that last Hindenberg trip across the Atlantic.
However, unlike the above-mentioned fads, blogging has a chance for more of a lasting appeal. There will always be people looking to jot down their thoughts for others to see; that has been going on for longer than anyone can remember. The difference is, with the Internet, your thoughts have a chance to reach a greater audience than ever before. But, people have always looked for an outlet to express themselves on paper (even if it's virtual paper). That's why pen pals, diaries and newspaper columnists exist. So, while blogging may not have the popularity it does now, people will always be blogging in some shape or form.
Those who know me know how picky I can be when it comes to taking part in the trends du jour. I hate wearing clothing with designer labels. I did not become one of the millions who sported an American flag pin after 9/11. I've never consumed the Harry Potter or Lord Of The Rings fare.
How do I choose which trends in which to take part? I guess that has something to do with which trends I feel will always have some sort of permanance or relevance to me and to society as a whole. I never want to be one of those people who cringes when he thinks of the stupid trends I followed once upon a time (although I am sporting a flattop in my high school yearbook picture). For example, I have pages on Myspace and Facebook (when will social networking and keeping up with friends ever get old?), I'm the biggest Seinfeld fan around (a show that has been off the air for nearly 10 years, but still impacts our culture) and, now, I blog. Or, more accurately, I will try to blog.
So, why am I here? For one, I'm a good writer. This isn't opinion, but fact. I was the kid who hated telling my mother, a schoolteacher, I had an essay or paper due, because that would inevitably lead to all-night editing sessions. Child writes. Mother proofreads child's writing and hands it back to child with myriad corrections. Child re-writes by hand. Mother proofreads again and comes up with an ALL NEW set of corrections (where were these criticisms before, child wonders). Child re-writes by hand again. Repeat for several hours until child is ready to jump naked through a plate-glass window. As much as I hated that process, it made me an excellent writer. It gave me an eye for grammar, spelling and punctuation. It also gave me a sense of what "sounds right" and what doesn't since, after all, writing, at its core, is about feel. I also read a lot growing up, further aiding my feel for writing.
Writing isn't just about knowing how to write. It's also about having something to write about. The latter has always been my biggest problem. Oh, I have plenty of ideas and thoughts over the course of the day, but I have never been good at committing them to paper. I'm much more of a verbal person (hey, that's why I make a living as a broadcaster). Growing up, my mom also tried to get me to keep a diary, but that never took. The concept of writing everyday just didn't appeal to me. What was I supposed to say? How is this supposed to help me? I had a problem with capturing my inner thoughts and transfering them to the page. So, my diary entries would often be something like "Today, I woke up and went to the park. I played baseball for a few hours. When I came home, I watched the Mets lose to the Phillies on Channel 9. My mother made spaghetti for dinner." I got bored just typing that.
I think there is an art to being able to express yourself on paper. And it's an art I want to try to better at. Like any art, you only get better with practice. You may never be Picasso or Monet, but you can at least be better than the three-year-old who just throws his or her paintbrush at the canvas (although some would call that abstract art and pay thousands of dollars for it).
What will this blog be about? Simply put, it will be about me. My thoughts. My ideas. My sarcasm. After all, I think I'd suck trying to write about someone else with any regularity. Blogging at its best is a selfish endeavor. What's the point of trying to write something just becasue you think it's what others want to read?
Who do I want to read my blog? Everyone. After all, why post something on the Internet if you don't want or don't expect everyone to read it? If I didn't want anyone to read what I wrote, I'd have one of those little journals with a lock that I stick under my mattress. My mattress is already uncomfortable enough as it is.
Of course, I know not everyone will read my blog. Nevertheless, it would be nice to have a following. Not a cult following (I would make a bad cult leader anyway. I don't need people following me to remote ends of the earth just so they could be poisoned by Flavor Aid. Yes, it was tainted Flavor Aid, not Kool Aid that Jim Jones gave his followers), but a following. I know there are a few people out there who already find, or will find, what I have to say remotely interesting. And I think that would be cool.
So, we'll see how it goes. Check this page at least once a week. Hopefully, this will work out better than that last Hindenberg trip across the Atlantic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
