Articles of the Opinionated: Palin Defines Patriotic Demographic?

Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin recently made a misstep at a North Carolina fundraiser, according to CNN.com.  Speaking to those gathered at the fundraiser, she used words like “very pro-American” and “very patriotic” to describe small-town America.  Palin tried to clarify her comments the next day, but Democratic VP candidate Joe Biden wasted no time in lambasting his opponent for her misplaced glorification, expressing outrage at the “implications about patriotism” and that “we are all patriotic”.  In what has been a rough couple of weeks for Palin given the cold reception given to her by European media, added to a little public safety director firing fiasco, and you may start to think that her highfalutin praises of small-town America can only be damaging to the Republican campaign.

Biden hit the nail on the head with this timely criticism.  We’ve often heard the “small-town America is real America” line before, but for a vice-presidential candidate to proclaim that these are where the so-called truly patriotic people live, that is pushing it.  What makes these people more patriotic than, say, people in Lower Manhattan?  Because small-town people have porches from which to hang American flags?  Maybe more apartment dwellers should tape flag cut-outs to their front doors so as to notify Gov. Palin of her misunderstanding.  Or perhaps the governor believes that the patriotic American is someone from constituencies represented by her party and politics.  Either way, it’s not a good line for winning over swing voters, when you are effectively telling them  that their patriotism is determined by how many neighbors they have.

But that’s not even really the annoying part.  For the last several years, America has endured a Bush administration that questioned its citizens left and right.  If you were not for the war, you were against America!  In light or our recent economic woes, a bleak outlook in our “war on terror” and other grim domestic concerns, Gov. Palin’s comments are not only pretentious, they’re off-track and unwanted.  People don’t want to here about your pompous praising, what they want to know is that, should Sen. McCain assume office and follow that with a stroke, that you won’t be a dim bulb leader who tells people to believe in God and their country while they can’t afford the gas to move their cars and heat their homes.  So I was glad that Sen. Biden immediately followed up on her quotes, because after eight years of being told I was a bad American for not supporting the current agenda, I don’t want to have to fear another four of that nonsense.

 

Articles of the Opinionated: Thoughts on a Black Presidential Candidate

In the past, and for all we know still, it has been an unwritten rule that the President of the United States had to be a white male of Christian upbringing, deep pockets with deep connections, and maybe even a puppy. Candidates of minority status were often fringe candidates, people who made an attempt to push the agenda but probably never had a serious shot.
Before Sen. Barack Obama, there was the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who achieved more than most expected when he ran as a Democrat in both 1984 and 1988. He still didn’t earn the nomination. Others that have run before or after him (Cleaver, Sharpton, Keyes, etc.) didn’t have serious chances. The fact that Barack Obama is not only running for President, but that he also has a strong chance of winning, poses some series potential implications. My thoughts on a few.
1) That Americans are one small step closer to “looking beyond race”. Obama is winning over many people, both of Caucasian and minority descent, and doing so without being overtly smug or aggressive in his tactics. November will be the truer test of this sentiment, but the fact that Obama may be both likeable and electable is a strong statement given the history of our country.
Of course, we can’t discount the number of people voting for or against him using race as an issue, which would challenge the first point. Statistical analysis and observation will give us hints soon enough, so for now we have to settle for an incomplete picture with a promising chance of completion.
2) That our image to the world will be affected dramatically. There are parts of the world where Pres. George W. Bush (and every President before them) is the representative of what Americans are like and care about, something that has a certain grain of truth. Obama represents an extreme alteration to the type of leader Americans may seem to generally follow, and that goes well beyond issues of race.
As voters, we do have to be careful there. Obama is as fallible as the next politician, and it’s the wrong idea to pick him because he represents only one kind of change. America needs improvement, not novelty. The American populace has to fairly scrutinize the senator as much as any other candidate, lest they risk being disappointed with the results.
3) That the political conventions will have a dramatic difference from 2004. The 2004 GOP and Dem conventions were downright overzealous, both camps desperately clamoring for their candidates as if they were chosen apostles. All conventions are like this to an extent, but I can’t see it as so crazed this time around. The Republicans are in some minor disarray at the moment; their base has weakened since right before the 2006 mid-terms and their trying to redefine their message. The Democrats are still in the process of “winning back the people” and demonstrating what they feel is the better road.
A stark difference in candidates’ profiles and agendas will be the highlight, even if it goes largely unmentioned. Both candidates will be very, very careful with how they elate the hopes of their own base while trying to reach the massive amount of swing voters out there.
4) That someone this election is going to make a big-time blunder. It could be either of the candidates, or those who represent them, or those who support them. We’ve seen it already with people like Jeremiah Wright or Geraldine Ferraro, and it can still get worse. Someone is going to overreach and pay dearly. Perhaps either Obama or McCain try too hard to reach the moral and sophisticated high ground to counter the other (Kerry as the “Vet” in 2004 rings bells). Perhaps one of them says something that’ll completely ruin their own credibility. Perhaps that credibility gets touched by someone trying to speak on their behalf.
The most likely event is that one of the Sharptons or Limbaughs that exist out there will say something extremely arrogant and stupid. Then both candidates will have to answer to questions about it, something neither will want to do. It won’t take much for the sensitivity level to rise in that event, but I expect both McCain and Obama to be smart and respectful enough to minimize such issues.
5) That Obama might be shot at. Seriously, there’s that small possibility, and it’s a truly terrifying thought. We’d like to think that there’s no chance of that happening, that it hasn’t happened since Reagan in the early 80’s (not true at all), but that’s rather naive thinking (many of us thought America was unassailable pre 9-11).
There are vicious, hateful, psychotic people out there, and if they see Sen. Obama as perhaps being the next President and don’t like that, they may act on it. Not everyone halts at the fears of justice or risked martyrdom. I remember when someone I knew wondered aloud why Gen. Colin Powell never ran for President, and I answered that he might not want to be shot. That could sound harsh and short-sighted, but the actions of many people can often be harsh and short-sighted.
6) That the outcome of this election will have serious ramifications on voter turnout in the future (among other things). No one really knows where this is going to take us. In the past, I’ve been certain that the standard for President of the United States would long be maintained. Several people now feel that victory is already in one candidate’s grasp. I’m not so sure, but I do think a LOT of people may show up to vote if they feel it is close.
And when the results come in, it will generate some rejoicing, some bemoaning, but everyone will be pondering. They’ll be thinking about what America is, how much it has changed and where it is going. Perhaps even more significantly then in previous elections, people will use these results to determine what this society is, and support or abandon it from there. I think these are truly important times worthy of both excitement and trepidation, as America finds itself forging ahead through issues it so hesitates to confront.

 

Congratulations for Pre-Mature Victories!!!

At 7:02 PM EST (9:02 Seoul time the next morning), CNN.com declared the Vermont primaries as victories for Senators Obama and McCain in their respective primaries. Now I know Vermont has a small population inferior to some major metropolitan areas, but with 0% reporting at that moment, how do they figure this stuff? It doesn’t matter whether they get it right or not (they have a 50-50 chance anyway), but I still want to know how! Man, it angers me…

 

Articles of the Opinionated: ***Steroid Paranoia***

At long last, the Mitchell report is available to the public, and many names were indeed named. Roger Clemens, Miguel Tejada, David Justice and Nook Logan (sorry, I just love that name) were but a few of many well-known and (Nook) not-so well-known players. It was both an exciting and ugly day for baseball, and a whole lot of people seem to have a whole lot to answer to. The release of the report will certainly prompt deeper investigations, by both the feds and the MLB, and some legacies in the game might never recover.

Which is all a big load. Steroid use in baseball, while an important matter that needs stronger addressing, is the most overblown sports story in recent memory, sensationalized by a number of individuals in baseball, in the media and in Congress, who are remiss to either admit their own culpability or shame in cheering for these alleged users. I do agree that a level playing field should be maintained and illegal drug usage is certainly illegal and therefore punishable, but what this fervor for “justice” has done is nothing more than to have brought an unnecessary and unfair McCarthyism to baseball.

The first, and perhaps greatest, grudge I have against this type of public reaction is the fact that people are chiming in a bit too late. Concerns over performance-enhancing drugs were sprouting in the late 90’s, when the home run surge happened and McGwire admitted to using andro. At that time, some serious questions were raised, but for the most part, all parties shrugged their shoulders. The fans and the media ate up the home runs, and baseball (both owners and players alike) made big money. Everybody was happy, even though it was fairly obvious to those willing to look that some players might have been benefiting from a little extra help.

The fact that some drugs were once legal and that many of these alleged players have never tested positive or have been known to purchase or use these drugs is immaterial in the court of public opinion. Just mentioning somebody’s name and attaching steroids to it is enough for a baseball player to be tarred and feathered and chased out of the village. It’s even to the point where many people and media members will affect the legacies of ball players on nothing more than mere hunches. Albert Belle? Oh, yeah, he got big and beefy, didn’t he? Plus he was an ass, so asterisk him, too! (Yes, yes, I know, asterisk is not a verb, but neither is Netflix…)

The inflated standard that is set is so ridiculously subjective, yet no one is willing to admit to it. Rafael Palmeiro, Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire and maybe even Roger Clemens now may never see their plaques in the Hall of Fame, due more in part to the clamor raised than the actual or alleged roid use attached to their names. And Jason Grimsley? Who? Ah, that relief pitcher, yes, we all vaguely remember him. Another problem with this witch hunt; many out there only give a hoot about the big salary players, not the lesser known players, or the providers and enablers like BALCO or McNamee, or the owners who essentially turned a blind eye to what was going on in their sport. I’ve always had a moderately-low opinion of commissioner Bud Selig, and seeing him promise to shake things up and strike down the wicked after years of blatant negligence is most bothersome. I don’t want to downplay the players and the union on this too much, but the fact of the matter is that they are the only ones the average fan cares about, even though there is a shared complicity amongst many parties.

Now, Barry Bonds is going to be the defendant in what will be the fifth “trial of the century” that we have had in the last seven years. Another sham. Why, you may ask? Because nobody cares, other than whether or not he’ll admit or be found guilty. Nobody cares what his punishment will be. Most people have made up their mind about who he is and what he has done. Everybody knows that the results won’t change much of anything. And a great deal of taxpayer money will be wasted on it. Like I said, a sham, an attempt by the feds to get the one big kahuna so as to prove they haven’t wasted everybody’s time. The point isn’t legal satisfaction so much as it is public satisfaction, and that alone makes the proceedings a joke.

Inevitably, steroid talk and Barry Bonds talk leads us back to another loathsome topic; the dreaded asterisk. Yep, the sports media’s notion of punishing unlikable players with an asterisk is popular again. And it means just as much as it meant when applied to Roger Maris, which is close to nil. Asterisk enthusiasm is the apex of steroid paranoia. This guy cheated, you say? Asterisk! Brand him forever! More than anything else, more than punishment by the law, or long and indefinite suspensions or even more than exclusion from the Hall, people want a permanent label attached to a player’s record, a lilliputian notation that does little to deny the fact that someone hit over 755 home runs.

What is the biggest problem with the asterisk? You can’t substantiate it. You say Barry Bonds used performance-enhancing drugs? OK, when? Give me a time period. How often? Now determine the lasting metabolic effect on his body. Let’s say he only took steroids in 2001, his single-season HR breaking year. Is an entire career tarnished by one year? Should we pretend that this year didn’t happen? Take those numbers away, and he is still a Hall of Famer for those willing to vote him in.

But maybe getting caught just once is good enough for most out there (seems that way). Fine then, put an asterisk near Barry Bond’s HR record. Do the same for all of his other marks and MVP awards. Now do the same for all other proven, or hell, even alleged players. Let’s have an asterisk next to Ryan Franklin’s 45 career wins and 4.25 ERA (I can hear some of you saying “Who?” already). There, don’tcha feel better? But why stop there? Let’s throw an asterisk at the six players that were caught using corked bats. And what about the spitballers? Yes, yes, we’ve been too lenient on guys like Joe Niekro all these years. And if Pete Rose hasn’t been punished enough for some of you, let’s place an asterisk next to all of the games he managed, because you certainly don’t know how many he may have bet on, do you now?

Asterisk support is nothing more than a small piece of solace for those fans embarrassed by the fact that they were wowed for years by a guy that might have been juiced. And steroid paranoia is nothing more than an over-exaggeration by baseball fans who are always, amazingly, shocked to find out that baseball is not as pristine and innocent as they once thought. Performance-enhancing drug use is a punishable offense and that’s as it should be. But the holier-than-thou attitude adopted by those upset with this part of the game shouldn’t be too quick to judge until they have taken a harder look at baseball people, the media and themselves.