An open letter to the Obama/Biden and McCain/Palin camps:
Congratulations to both of you for wrapping up your respective parties’ national conventions. To use a football analogy, we’re now headed into the fourth quarter with the game very much in doubt.
I’m sure both sides feel you got a lot accomplished with speeches that raised the same old talking points. However, as a disaffected centrist, I’ve got a few things for both of you to chew on.
I’m sick and tired. Namely, I’m sick and tired of fighting a war we had no business starting in Iraq. I may be one of the few people who spoke out against the war when President Bush started the drumbeat for the march to combat. The years American and coalition lives wasted there have proven that I’m right, not President Bush, and certainly not Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).
I’m also sick and tired of negative campaigning. I’m sick and tired of the McCain camp attacking Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and treating him as if he were nothing more than a cult of personality. I’m sick and tired of demonizing Republicans as spawns of the devil. I’m sick and tired of has-been politicians such as former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani attacking Obama by even insinuating that Obama is Muslim. And what did that whole “Islamic terrorists” thing mean, Rudy? Did you mean to suggest that all of those who practice that faith are terrorists or subscribe to the beliefs of the radical extreme? If not, you sure could have fooled me.
I’m also sick and tired of the lack of specifics from both parties. Sen. Obama, you had every opportunity to provide specific solutions to America’s problems on Aug. 28. Yet, you chose to give us a speech full of catch phrases rather than specific solutions. You’ve done the forensic equivalent of providing us a dinner with plenty of appetizers and side dishes, but little real substance.
I’m also sick and tired of both sides forgetting who’s really in charge here. It’s not the President. It’s not Congress. It’s not the Supreme Court. It’s the American people. It seems as though both sides are doing too much shouting at each other. They’re not doing enough listening to the American people. We want real energy independence, but we don’t want it at the expense of the environment. We don’t want to continue fighting an unjust war, but we also don’t want to shun the troops who fight it. We want our lawmakers to talk about the issues that really affect our lives every day. We don’t want to waste time arguing over same-sex marriage or other non-issues that certain extremists act as though the world will swallow us whole if we allow them. We want real solutions to the foreclosure crisis before it becomes the 21st century’s Great Depression. Neither of you have given us enough of a plan to get us out of this economic mess.
I’m also sick and tired of both sides beating us over the head by saying a presidential candidate or his running mate isn’t experienced enough to lead. Sarah Palin may have only been governor of Alaska for two years. Sen. Obama may have only been a U.S. Senator for three years. Well guess what? Neither of you have a whole lot of experience, so stop attacking each other for not having enough.
Abraham Lincoln once said, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” Well, our country is perilously close to dividing against itself, not by north and south. Not by east and west. The divisions between so-called red states and blue states threaten us in a way that few other divisions have. We the people demand pragmatic solutions to our problems, not more talking points and partisan politics. Neither the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party has shown enough leadership to put aside the political bluster long enough to remember who their real bosses are.
It’s great that an African-American and a woman are both running for the highest offices in the land. It’s great that a woman was in contention for the White House until the last state counted its primary votes. But it’s time for us to stop talking history. It’s time to start talking about what we need to do to get this country headed in the right direction. I implore both sides in this election to start now.
A Disaffected Centrist
Thursday, September 04, 2008
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
The lax equivalent of kissing your sister.
For anyone who doesn't know, fans of the Maryland Terrapins have worked up a great deal of enmity toward Duke University in college basketball, both men's and women's. The infamous riots after men's basketball games have often followed games against Duke. There's no rhyme or reason to the outcome: Whether it's a Maryland win or a Duke win, Terps fans riot. The Duke women have dominated the Maryland women except for two big postseason wins by the Terps in 2006. After the second of those wins, a 78-75 come-from-behind win in the NCAA championship game, fans rioted. Even in other sports, Terps often circle their calendars for the Duke game. Men's soccer, lacrosse, etc. There's usually a rivalry between Maryland and Duke.
Having said that, when Maryland and John's Hopkins meet in men's lacrosse, that is THE big rivalry in all of college men's lacrosse. It has all the build up of Redskins-Cowboys, Yankees-Red Sox, Manchester United-anyone else in other sports. If Keith Jackson were going to broadcast the game, he'd likely say, "these two teams plain don't like each other" if he were describing Maryland and John's Hopkins.
Thus, Monday's NCAA championship game brought a swirl of conflicting emotions. Two teams I downright disliked were playing each other for the NCAA title. For John's Hopkins, it was simple. They're Maryland's most hated rival. The idea of rooting for Hopkins in men's lacrosse is complete anathema to me. Even though I had a pretty good experience interviewing some of their players, including Paul Rabil, I still have a hard time rooting for Hopkins to win at anything.
However, they were playing Duke. This wasn't just the team of blue blood aristocrats facing the Maryland proletariat. This was a team that was just over a year removed from the travesty of a rape trial by that keystone cop of a state's attorney (Mike Nifong). The case became a referendum for the spoiled athlete, the priviledged sons of rich parents who sent their sons to a private school. It was seen as a battle against the working class woman who was trying to make a better life for herself and her children and who went to a historically black university. And, let's be real. It was also seen as a clash of white versus black. There was so much riding on this case, and the fact that men who now have been exonerated saw their lives permanently sullied over a rush to judgement made this appearance more than just a good team that has a chance to win a national title. For Duke, this was redemption. For the three men who saw their lacrosse careers derailed ignominously (Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty and David Evans), it was possible payback for seeing their careers cut short, since Duke cancelled the last games of its season after they'd only played eight.
I don't really know what to think about John's Hopkins 12-11 win over Duke. I can't be happy that Hopkins won. I don't know if I would have been happy if Duke had won. The more important thing in my mind is that the sport now is trying to return to some level of normalcy. Hopefully, next year's storylines will be more about whether Maryland can improve on its first round appearance in the NCAA tournament or simply beat Hopkins. Hopefully, we'll talk more about Duke's emergence as a team than its role as a martyr for all that went wrong in the bungled investigation.
I can't believe that I just wrote a long treatise on men's lacrosse after I'd only written one story on a men's game this year.
Having said that, when Maryland and John's Hopkins meet in men's lacrosse, that is THE big rivalry in all of college men's lacrosse. It has all the build up of Redskins-Cowboys, Yankees-Red Sox, Manchester United-anyone else in other sports. If Keith Jackson were going to broadcast the game, he'd likely say, "these two teams plain don't like each other" if he were describing Maryland and John's Hopkins.
Thus, Monday's NCAA championship game brought a swirl of conflicting emotions. Two teams I downright disliked were playing each other for the NCAA title. For John's Hopkins, it was simple. They're Maryland's most hated rival. The idea of rooting for Hopkins in men's lacrosse is complete anathema to me. Even though I had a pretty good experience interviewing some of their players, including Paul Rabil, I still have a hard time rooting for Hopkins to win at anything.
However, they were playing Duke. This wasn't just the team of blue blood aristocrats facing the Maryland proletariat. This was a team that was just over a year removed from the travesty of a rape trial by that keystone cop of a state's attorney (Mike Nifong). The case became a referendum for the spoiled athlete, the priviledged sons of rich parents who sent their sons to a private school. It was seen as a battle against the working class woman who was trying to make a better life for herself and her children and who went to a historically black university. And, let's be real. It was also seen as a clash of white versus black. There was so much riding on this case, and the fact that men who now have been exonerated saw their lives permanently sullied over a rush to judgement made this appearance more than just a good team that has a chance to win a national title. For Duke, this was redemption. For the three men who saw their lacrosse careers derailed ignominously (Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty and David Evans), it was possible payback for seeing their careers cut short, since Duke cancelled the last games of its season after they'd only played eight.
I don't really know what to think about John's Hopkins 12-11 win over Duke. I can't be happy that Hopkins won. I don't know if I would have been happy if Duke had won. The more important thing in my mind is that the sport now is trying to return to some level of normalcy. Hopefully, next year's storylines will be more about whether Maryland can improve on its first round appearance in the NCAA tournament or simply beat Hopkins. Hopefully, we'll talk more about Duke's emergence as a team than its role as a martyr for all that went wrong in the bungled investigation.
I can't believe that I just wrote a long treatise on men's lacrosse after I'd only written one story on a men's game this year.
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Denmark: The REAL deal
I've been railing on about how ridiculous I think the whole controversy surrounding the cartoons in a Danish newspaper that allegedly depicted the prophet Muhammad as a terrorist and got people up in arms in protest of supposed sacrilege. One of the reasons I am particularly incensed at the whole controversy is the character assassination of a country I've been in love with since 1995.
Danish prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen said his country is being unfairly portrayed as being an "intolerant, closed society" and he's dead on. The Danes are about as open and accepting a people as any in the world. They certainly are aces better than many in the United States on certain issues. This is a country in which Rebilt National Park holds the world's only Independence Day celebrations not on U.S. territory. That's the American Independence Day. You read it right. If you're visiting Denmark and you're worried you'll miss the Fourth of July, don't.
He also condemned Sunday's vandalizing of Muslim graves, saying "the Danish government condemns any expression or any action which offends people's religious feelings." The truth of the matter is this: Danes have a sense of humor. They're a friendly lot. If the Danes who published the cartoons were guilty of anything, their worst offence was poor judgment.
The other thing that gets me is the propensity of many in the Muslim world to condemn the United States for what a Danish newspaper did. Of course, the people doing so would condemn the United States for coughing, but there's only so far that they can go before all Hell breaks loose.
Danish prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen said his country is being unfairly portrayed as being an "intolerant, closed society" and he's dead on. The Danes are about as open and accepting a people as any in the world. They certainly are aces better than many in the United States on certain issues. This is a country in which Rebilt National Park holds the world's only Independence Day celebrations not on U.S. territory. That's the American Independence Day. You read it right. If you're visiting Denmark and you're worried you'll miss the Fourth of July, don't.
He also condemned Sunday's vandalizing of Muslim graves, saying "the Danish government condemns any expression or any action which offends people's religious feelings." The truth of the matter is this: Danes have a sense of humor. They're a friendly lot. If the Danes who published the cartoons were guilty of anything, their worst offence was poor judgment.
The other thing that gets me is the propensity of many in the Muslim world to condemn the United States for what a Danish newspaper did. Of course, the people doing so would condemn the United States for coughing, but there's only so far that they can go before all Hell breaks loose.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Taking things a little too far
In a recent trek to the World Wide Web to do some web surfing, I suffered a momentary lapse of boredom-laced inspiration and began to Google the term "man date." Among the first results was this little beauty of an article in the New York Times. I'll admit I've heard of the term before and actually used the term. But the term only registered as a bemusing moniker until I read that article.
The New York Times piece cast the term in a much thornier light in my mind from the lede graf (journalist slang in case you didn't know). "The delicate posturing began with the phone call." Delicate posturing. Three words in and already I'm thinking about something much less pleasant about a term I thought was going to be the 2006 version of "metrosexual."
Maybe I'm getting old faster than I thought I was. Perhaps I'm just hypersensitive. It's possible that I'm stuck in the wrong era. But I was under the impression that you spent time with someone or "hung out" with someone to use slightly less moldy language, because you liked him. The way the article described food-based outings that weren't wings and beer or sports bars betrayed a form of closeted homophobia on the part of the men who took part in these "man dates."
Going to a museum and taking great lengths to almost avoid each other because you're afraid someone's going to put two and two together and come to a conclusion that isn't true? Sounds like someone has a few issues they need to work on. No, I'm not saying Matthew Speiser or John Putman are homophobic. I'm not even suggesting they have anything in particular against homosexuality. But going to such great lengths to avoid even the suggestion that they're gay just takes things about 10 steps too far.
There's plenty more within the article itself. Take the "rules" against home-cooked meals that weren't grilled steaks or deep-fried foods and paying a bill in any way other than Dutch treat. There's also the strategic empty seat between two men at a movie, which can't be a romantic comedy.
I haven't even touched the subject of "man crushes." It's more than just another invented word that further separates and stigmatizes homosexuals. It comes with its own family tree of definitions, rating anywhere from a depiction of the Ben Affleck-Matt Damon friendship to the positive feelings Texas Longhorn fans have for Vince Young. Admiration for power, idolizing a friend, there's plenty of depictions of what a "man crush" is.
Once upon a time, guys hung out with another male friend without describing it as a "man date" or genuinely liked another man without using a ridiculous term like "man crush." People spent time with each other because they genuinely enjoyed each other's company. Men were able to open up with other men about topics that had nothing to do with box scores or cup sizes. We weren't so emotionally bankrupt that any emotion other than pure rage was stuffed worse than Clinton Portis against the Seahawks.
That's what we need to get back to.
The New York Times piece cast the term in a much thornier light in my mind from the lede graf (journalist slang in case you didn't know). "The delicate posturing began with the phone call." Delicate posturing. Three words in and already I'm thinking about something much less pleasant about a term I thought was going to be the 2006 version of "metrosexual."
Maybe I'm getting old faster than I thought I was. Perhaps I'm just hypersensitive. It's possible that I'm stuck in the wrong era. But I was under the impression that you spent time with someone or "hung out" with someone to use slightly less moldy language, because you liked him. The way the article described food-based outings that weren't wings and beer or sports bars betrayed a form of closeted homophobia on the part of the men who took part in these "man dates."
Going to a museum and taking great lengths to almost avoid each other because you're afraid someone's going to put two and two together and come to a conclusion that isn't true? Sounds like someone has a few issues they need to work on. No, I'm not saying Matthew Speiser or John Putman are homophobic. I'm not even suggesting they have anything in particular against homosexuality. But going to such great lengths to avoid even the suggestion that they're gay just takes things about 10 steps too far.
There's plenty more within the article itself. Take the "rules" against home-cooked meals that weren't grilled steaks or deep-fried foods and paying a bill in any way other than Dutch treat. There's also the strategic empty seat between two men at a movie, which can't be a romantic comedy.
I haven't even touched the subject of "man crushes." It's more than just another invented word that further separates and stigmatizes homosexuals. It comes with its own family tree of definitions, rating anywhere from a depiction of the Ben Affleck-Matt Damon friendship to the positive feelings Texas Longhorn fans have for Vince Young. Admiration for power, idolizing a friend, there's plenty of depictions of what a "man crush" is.
Once upon a time, guys hung out with another male friend without describing it as a "man date" or genuinely liked another man without using a ridiculous term like "man crush." People spent time with each other because they genuinely enjoyed each other's company. Men were able to open up with other men about topics that had nothing to do with box scores or cup sizes. We weren't so emotionally bankrupt that any emotion other than pure rage was stuffed worse than Clinton Portis against the Seahawks.
That's what we need to get back to.
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Stick to (American) football
Once again, the all-wise powers that be in the U.S. Senate know more about what's in the best interest of our country than we do. Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) said he might refer the Terrell Owens case to the Senate antitrust subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He called the Eagles' decision to suspend Owens for four games and deactivate him for the rest of the season "vindictive and inappropriate," adding, "It's a restraint of trade for them to do that, and the thought crosses my mind, it might be a violation of antitrust laws."
I beg your pardon? Terrell Owens committed insubordination by mouthing off about his team and his teammates on a radio show, which he's done multiple times in the past in San Francisco when he played for the 49ers. He also got into a physical altercation with former Eagle and current team ambassador Hugh Douglas and challenged several teammates to a fight.
What Terrell Owens did is nothing short of a personnel action that would get him fired from just about any job in the so-called real world. If suspending an employee and then effectively firing him is an anti-trust violation, I can think of thousands of anti-trust violations that don't even get coverage beyond the town gossip. None of which, I might add seemed to interest Mr. Specter in the least. The worst part of this story? Specter himself condemned Owens's actions that led him into this mess to begin with.
"I am madder than hell at what he has done in ruining the Eagles' season," he said. "I think he's in flagrant breach of his contract and I believe the Eagles would be within their rights in not paying him another dime or perhaps even suing him for damages." Sounds like someone's talking out of the other side of his mouth. Considering the party he hails from, that should come as no surprise.
I beg your pardon? Terrell Owens committed insubordination by mouthing off about his team and his teammates on a radio show, which he's done multiple times in the past in San Francisco when he played for the 49ers. He also got into a physical altercation with former Eagle and current team ambassador Hugh Douglas and challenged several teammates to a fight.
What Terrell Owens did is nothing short of a personnel action that would get him fired from just about any job in the so-called real world. If suspending an employee and then effectively firing him is an anti-trust violation, I can think of thousands of anti-trust violations that don't even get coverage beyond the town gossip. None of which, I might add seemed to interest Mr. Specter in the least. The worst part of this story? Specter himself condemned Owens's actions that led him into this mess to begin with.
"I am madder than hell at what he has done in ruining the Eagles' season," he said. "I think he's in flagrant breach of his contract and I believe the Eagles would be within their rights in not paying him another dime or perhaps even suing him for damages." Sounds like someone's talking out of the other side of his mouth. Considering the party he hails from, that should come as no surprise.
Sunday, September 04, 2005
Rhenquist dies of lung cancer, leaving two openings on the Supreme Court
Chief Justice William Rhenquist died of thyroid cancer. That now means two openings on the Supreme Court. I've seen speculation that current Associate Justice nominee John Roberts could have his nomination pulled and transferred to a nomination for Chief Justice. That would then keep Sandra Day O'Connor on temporarily as an Associate Justice.
That would not be a wise move on President Bush's part considering the fact that Roberts would be new to the Court and then possibly be the Chief Justice? I doubt that would go over well. I'd think it'd be more likely that Antonin Scalia could be named Chief Justice than have Roberts join the court and serve as Chief Justice. Though I'd hope for John Paul Stevens to be Chief Justice if you talk about longevity on the Court. But Stevens is in his mid-80s.
Argh.
That would not be a wise move on President Bush's part considering the fact that Roberts would be new to the Court and then possibly be the Chief Justice? I doubt that would go over well. I'd think it'd be more likely that Antonin Scalia could be named Chief Justice than have Roberts join the court and serve as Chief Justice. Though I'd hope for John Paul Stevens to be Chief Justice if you talk about longevity on the Court. But Stevens is in his mid-80s.
Argh.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)