If you were born in Kentucky like me--and had any love for baseball--then the Cincinnati Reds are your team. With the Ohio River being the only thing that separates Great American Ballpark from the commonwealth, the Reds are a staple on television throughout the blue grass state.
During the 70's, this was a pretty good deal. The Reds were the team of the polyester decade. From 1970-79, The Reds won their division 6 times, captured 4 pennants, and took back to back World Series titles in 1975-76. Lead by Pete Rose, Johnny Bench, Tony Perez, George Foster, Joe Morgan, Dave Concepcion, and Ken Griffey Sr., they were known as The Big Red Machine. Powerful at the plate, fleet on the base paths, slick in the field, with solid hurlers, and skippered by the genius, Sparky Anderson, The Reds were the gold standard in Major League Baseball.
It was a great time to be a fan. Of course, such a run is unsustainable (unless your The Yankees), and the following decade was far less successful. The Reds came in second in their division 4 times in the 80's and were robbed of a playoff berth by the strike of 1981. Too many of their great players from the 70's either moved on or started to decline in performance to maintain the extraordinary levels of the previous decade. The firing of Sparky Anderson in 1978 precipitated this fall from grace. How the front office could let go of one of the greatest managers in the history of baseball is a complete mystery. The price paid for this folly was steep.
But in 1990, The Reds enjoyed a storybook season. Never out of first place for a single day in the regular season, The Reds beat Barry Bonds and the Pittsburgh Pirates for the right to face the heavily favored Oakland A's for the World Series title. That A's team had the most powerfully assembled roster in baseball. Chock full of big name players like Mark McGwire, Jose Canseco, Rickey Henderson, Dave Stewart, and Dennis Eckersley, The A's finished the regular season with an MLB leading 103 wins (12 more than The Reds), and swept through the Boston Red Sox in the ALCS like a runaway locomotive. The Reds however, struggled down the stretch and "backed in" to the playoffs thanks to the poor performance of their division rivals.
No one gave The Reds much of a chance.
Sure, The Redlegs had a great shortstop in Barry Larkin, an oft-injured star outfielder in Eric Davis, two fine starting pitchers (Jose Rijo and Tom Browning), and a trio of hard throwing relievers known as "The Nasty Boys" (Rob Dibble, Randy Meyers, and Norm Charlton), as well as a fiery manager in Lou Piniella. Still, on paper The Reds were no match for the vaunted Athletics.
But games aren't played on paper, and when Eric Davis took the A's ace, Dave Stewart, deep in the first inning of game one, the tone was set. The Reds batted .317 in the series, with third baseman Chris Sabo hitting .563, and outfielder Billy Hatcher stroking a ridiculous .750. World Series MVP, Jose Rijo won two games, giving up only a single run, while "The Nasty Boys" provided shut down relief.
I don't mind telling you that even when we were up 3 games to 0, I still had my doubts. And when both Eric Davis and Billy Hatcher were injured in game 4, I thought the sun might fall from the sky. But with Jose Rijo tossing a gem and Randy Meyers coming in to get the save, The Reds took down the mighty Athletics 2-1 and hoisted the World Series trophy with a cascade of champagne soaking their locker room.
That was the last bit of joy The Reds would provide me for a long time.
That's not to say that The Reds didn't have other good teams in the 90's. They were leading the division in 1994 when the baseball strike ended the season prematurely. The 1995 team won the division but went out meekly, being swept by one of those great Atlanta Braves teams of that era. And the 1999 team lost to The Mets in a one game playoff after winning 96 games in the regular season (their most in 20 years!).
The Reds were poised to build on that success when they traded for hometown boy, Ken Griffey Jr. prior to the 2000 campaign. Griffey was in the prime of his career when The Reds stole him from The Mariners, and along with Barry Bonds was considered the best player in baseball. He made The Reds one of the favorites to make the playoffs.
But once again, games aren't played on paper. Griffey slugged 40 homers that year, but ended the season on the disabled list and The Reds struggled to a second place finish, 10 games behind The Saint Louis Cardinals.
Little did anyone know that the worst was yet to come.
In 9 star crossed seasons with the team, Griffey missed 450 games before The Reds traded him to The White Sox for a middle reliever in 2008. His first season was the only year the team posted a winning record. With their best player seemingly always on the disabled list and carrying a $14 million salary, The Reds lacked the financial flexibility to offset Griffey's injuries. A small market team like The Reds simply can't afford to miss on a big salaried player like Griffey and hope to compete.
During the aughts, The Reds did occasionally tease the faithful. Over the last 10 years, the team often started out well only to crash and burn down the stretch. In 2004, The Reds were in first place after the all star break before a disastrous 0-9 west coast road trip did them in. In 2006, The Reds finished just 3 1/2 games back of the eventual World Series Champion, Saint Louis Cardinals.
Let me pause for a moment to tell you how much I hate The Cardinals. As a Reds fan, I am so sick of looking up at them in the standings, that the very mention of Manager Tony Larussa's name sets my teeth on edge and all but brings out a twitch in me. Twice this year the execrable Larussa has accused a Reds pitcher (Bronson Arroyo and Aaron Harang) of "doctoring" the ball despite no evidence of such. Charging a pitcher with cheating is one of the nastiest things a manager can do in baseball, and you damn sure better be right if you do. In both cases, Larussa was wrong. Hell, if Harang was scuffing up the ball, I don't know why you would even say anything. The guy hasn't pitched well in three years. So when star second baseman, Brandon Phillips referred to the Cardinals as "whiny little b*****s, precipitating a bench clearing fracas this month in Cincinnati between the two teams, I all but stood up and cheered.
But I digress.
So, back to the main point: my suffering of the Reds futility. It ends now.
Several years among the last 10, I have gotten my hopes up only to see them dashed by a lack of talent, depth, and resources. I have put my stock in players like Jon Nunnally, Pokey Reese, Willie Greene, Jeff Keppinger, Willie Taveras, Elmer Dessens, Ron Villone, and Brandon Claussen. If you don't remember any of those guys, well, there's a good reason.
However, in 2010, things have changed.
This week marks the first time in 6 years (Griffey) that a player for The Reds has graced the cover of Sports Illustrated. With strapping slugger and triple crown threat Joey Votto splashed across the front page, a new era in Reds baseball has been announced.
And it's not just their all-star first baseman and SI cover boy who are worth mentioning. The 2010 version of The Reds is a heady stew of young talent (Votto, Phillips, Bruce, Stubbs, Cueto, Leake) and sterling veterans (Rolen, Cabrera, Rhodes, Arroyo, Hernandez, and Cordero). They lead the National League in hitting, are second in fielding, and a deceptive tenth in pitching. This is the most balanced team The Reds have fielded since the 1999 squad that came up just short.
And the results bare this out. At 73-54, The Reds hold a four game lead in the Central Division over the most despised Cardinals with a very favorable schedule down the stretch. Not many prognosticators had The Reds in this position prior to the start of the season. The popular opinion was that The Reds were "a year away" from contending. Obviously, they were wrong.
Even better still is how The Reds are set up for the next several years. After current owner, Bob Castellini, took over in 2006, he made it clear that he expected the team to win. So far, he has put his money where his mouth is. While The Reds can't spend their dough as freely as The Yankees or Red Sox, they have increased payroll every year since Castellini took the reins. More importantly, The Reds began to focus more intently on their minor league system, and with 13 of the 25 players on their current roster being home grown, it has begun to pay off.
However, no move that Castellini has made has been more significant than the hiring of General Manager, Walt Jocketty. Jocketty, the guru of the Saint Louis Cardinals from 1994-2007 (hey, if you can't beat them, make them join you), produced 7 division winners, 2 pennants, and one World Series title while shepherding the Card's. He was twice named the MLB Executive of the Year (2000 and 2004), and when the Cardinal's foolishly cut him loose in 2007, Castellini did not hesitate.
Since joining The Reds in '07, Jocketty has not only stabilized the club, but has made shrewd moves that have paid off in spades. His free agent signings of outfielder Jonny Gomes, catcher Ramon Hernandez and shortstop Orlando Cabrera have brought punch to the line up as well as veteran leadership. The surprise signing of Cuban phenom Aroldis Chapman and his 102 mph fastball has added excitement. But no other move has been more beneficial to The Reds than the mid season trade for third baseman Scott Rolen last year. Many (including myself) thought the trade of the talented (although wildly inconsistent) Edwin Encarnacion and two solid minor league pitching prospects for a 34 year old veteran with a recent history of shoulder trouble was a bad move. Tack on the $11 million price tag that came with him, and the deal looked even worse.
Well, let me state unequivocally that I was wrong. Way wrong. Jocketty recognized that the team needed a strong veteran presence in the line up and on the field. Although I doubt that even Jocketty would have predicted how productive Rolen has been. Always aces in the field, it's Rolen's regained power stroke that has been the most pleasant surprise. With 19 home runs and 35 games left in the season, Rolen has already surpassed his HR totals in any year since 2006. Top that off with Jocketty's clever restructuring of Rolen's contract (adding two years but reducing the deal to $6.5 million/year), and the move looks like a stroke of genius.
Now I know there are still 35 games left in the season, and The Reds are not a perfect team. They rely perhaps too heavily on young starting pitching, their offense is capable of occasional dips--they've been shut out a league high 12 times--their bullpen has been shaky at times, and an injury to Rolen, Phillips, or Votto would likely do them in. But when I consider what I'm usually thinking about at this time of the year (like thank God for The Pirates being in our division), these are good worries to have.
Best of all, is The Reds appear to be in a good position to compete going forward. They are so loaded with young starting pitching that they are having trouble finding roster spots for all of them, Votto has turned into a star, Phillips is in his prime, outfielders' Stubbs, Bruce, and Heisey are nowhere near their ceilings, the minor league system is stocked, and ownership and the front office are committed to winning. Is this really The Reds!?
After a lost decade, I purchased a cable package that included Fox Sports Ohio, just so I could watch 150+ Reds games this year (yes, my wife is ecstatic). I have been paid back tenfold by this scrappy bunch of veterans and whiz kids.
Oh mama, The Big Red Machine is back, and cranking. Now, let's beat those "whiny little b*****" in Saint Louis.
Sumo-Pop
August 27, 2010
Friday, August 27, 2010
Friday, August 20, 2010
Whose America Is It, Anyway?
---"This is not America, no"--David Bowie
This is a scary time for America. Too many are out of work and the economy is not progressing at the rate we all hoped it would. We are at war in a country on behalf of a corrupt government that has shown no signs of becoming a good partner with us on their own behalf. And our leaders have turned petty and ineffective in spite of all these problems that they were hired to solve.
Of course, people are angry, and rightly so. The approval rating of congress, Democrats, and Republicans is at a record low. It's fair to say that the public at large is disgusted with both parties.
But are we citizens so much better? Do we hold ourselves to the same standards we do our elected officials?
I'm not so sure.
I can't remember a time in my 39 years (not so long, I know) on this planet when our country was more divided and full of anger and hate.
While the members of congress are locked in a state of election year paralysis, we are caught up in a web of fear.
Fear of those who do not look like us, talk like us, or think like us. Despite all evidence to the contrary, over 20% of the people in this country believe the President was not born here, and is a secret Muslim (as if being a Muslim is in itself a bad thing). They believe this even though one of the largest issues of the 2008 election was that of his controversial Christian Pastor, Jeremiah Wright.
Over 50% of the folks in the USA believe that while it is quite likely that legal Mexican-American citizens will have their civil rights violated by Arizona's stalled immigration bill, that it should still become law.
Over 70% of those surveyed believe that the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque" (which is neither a mosque nor located on Ground Zero) should not be allowed to set up over two city blocks from the former site of the World Trade Center, even though many of them believe they have the right to do so. Do so many of us think that all Muslims are terrorists? A poll released this week states that over 50% of the public is suspicious of Muslim Americans, and over 20% don't believe that Muslims should be allowed to run for President.
Much of this sturm und drang stems from people who believe themselves to be strict constitutional constructionists. Yet many of them are for repealing the 14th amendment that created birthright citizenship, and seem to want to apply freedom of religion to their faith only.
And what of those of us who are against all that I just typed onto my virtual page? Are we seizing this moment to restate what this country is supposed to stand for? I suppose some of us are. Maybe the rest of us are too passive or simply not loud enough to be heard above the din of talk radio and cable news. Or, maybe we're just tired.
We certainly don't get any inspiration or assistance from politicians who should know better. People like Harry Reid, who through an aide (how courageous) stated that the NYC mosque should be built somewhere else. Only a couple of days later, Howard Dean (!) essentially concurred. Even worse, are all those New York politicians (I'm looking at you Weiner and Schumer) who are strangely silent on this issue.
They are guilty of the same deafening silence that you get from Democrats in Arizona and Texas who seethed quietly when the nation's Attorney General sued the state of Arizona to halt the immigration bill that would usurp government authority and is therefore unconstitutional.
Why are these public servants behaving this way? Well, because it's an election year, silly. And God forbid they stand up for what they believe in when it's potentially unpopular. These brave souls would rather be re-elected than be remembered for doing anything worthwhile.
History will not judge them well.
At a time when people are spreading xenophobic, hate filled misinformation about everything from immigration, equal rights, and religious freedom, to the very citizenship of our highest democratically elected official, they fall far too short.
And so do we.
Now, I know there is a tendency for people to refer to the era they live in as either the best or the worst of times--although you don't hear many claiming the former--and I'm not trying to say that. But just ask your average person of faith when they think the "end times" will be, and I guarantee you that 7 out of 10 believe it will be in their lifetime. We are a nation of narcicists.
This country has of course, survived terrible events. From natural disasters to man made, and wars both world and civil.
Even greater is the progress we have made when we have turned back our own worst instincts.
Slavery, the disregard of the rights of minorities, Japanese internment camps in WWII, McCarthyism, race riots, and the assassinations of two Kennedy's and a King.
All these horrors we have survived, and we will get through this too. The question is: What will we be on the other side? What will we have learned? Will we progress or regress?
These questions are all too open, and the answers far too unclear.
Whose America will this be? Will it be my America, your America, or our America? I'd love to place my bet on the third option, but the truth is, I haven't got a clue.
Sumo-Pop
August 20, 2010
This is a scary time for America. Too many are out of work and the economy is not progressing at the rate we all hoped it would. We are at war in a country on behalf of a corrupt government that has shown no signs of becoming a good partner with us on their own behalf. And our leaders have turned petty and ineffective in spite of all these problems that they were hired to solve.
Of course, people are angry, and rightly so. The approval rating of congress, Democrats, and Republicans is at a record low. It's fair to say that the public at large is disgusted with both parties.
But are we citizens so much better? Do we hold ourselves to the same standards we do our elected officials?
I'm not so sure.
I can't remember a time in my 39 years (not so long, I know) on this planet when our country was more divided and full of anger and hate.
While the members of congress are locked in a state of election year paralysis, we are caught up in a web of fear.
Fear of those who do not look like us, talk like us, or think like us. Despite all evidence to the contrary, over 20% of the people in this country believe the President was not born here, and is a secret Muslim (as if being a Muslim is in itself a bad thing). They believe this even though one of the largest issues of the 2008 election was that of his controversial Christian Pastor, Jeremiah Wright.
Over 50% of the folks in the USA believe that while it is quite likely that legal Mexican-American citizens will have their civil rights violated by Arizona's stalled immigration bill, that it should still become law.
Over 70% of those surveyed believe that the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque" (which is neither a mosque nor located on Ground Zero) should not be allowed to set up over two city blocks from the former site of the World Trade Center, even though many of them believe they have the right to do so. Do so many of us think that all Muslims are terrorists? A poll released this week states that over 50% of the public is suspicious of Muslim Americans, and over 20% don't believe that Muslims should be allowed to run for President.
Much of this sturm und drang stems from people who believe themselves to be strict constitutional constructionists. Yet many of them are for repealing the 14th amendment that created birthright citizenship, and seem to want to apply freedom of religion to their faith only.
And what of those of us who are against all that I just typed onto my virtual page? Are we seizing this moment to restate what this country is supposed to stand for? I suppose some of us are. Maybe the rest of us are too passive or simply not loud enough to be heard above the din of talk radio and cable news. Or, maybe we're just tired.
We certainly don't get any inspiration or assistance from politicians who should know better. People like Harry Reid, who through an aide (how courageous) stated that the NYC mosque should be built somewhere else. Only a couple of days later, Howard Dean (!) essentially concurred. Even worse, are all those New York politicians (I'm looking at you Weiner and Schumer) who are strangely silent on this issue.
They are guilty of the same deafening silence that you get from Democrats in Arizona and Texas who seethed quietly when the nation's Attorney General sued the state of Arizona to halt the immigration bill that would usurp government authority and is therefore unconstitutional.
Why are these public servants behaving this way? Well, because it's an election year, silly. And God forbid they stand up for what they believe in when it's potentially unpopular. These brave souls would rather be re-elected than be remembered for doing anything worthwhile.
History will not judge them well.
At a time when people are spreading xenophobic, hate filled misinformation about everything from immigration, equal rights, and religious freedom, to the very citizenship of our highest democratically elected official, they fall far too short.
And so do we.
Now, I know there is a tendency for people to refer to the era they live in as either the best or the worst of times--although you don't hear many claiming the former--and I'm not trying to say that. But just ask your average person of faith when they think the "end times" will be, and I guarantee you that 7 out of 10 believe it will be in their lifetime. We are a nation of narcicists.
This country has of course, survived terrible events. From natural disasters to man made, and wars both world and civil.
Even greater is the progress we have made when we have turned back our own worst instincts.
Slavery, the disregard of the rights of minorities, Japanese internment camps in WWII, McCarthyism, race riots, and the assassinations of two Kennedy's and a King.
All these horrors we have survived, and we will get through this too. The question is: What will we be on the other side? What will we have learned? Will we progress or regress?
These questions are all too open, and the answers far too unclear.
Whose America will this be? Will it be my America, your America, or our America? I'd love to place my bet on the third option, but the truth is, I haven't got a clue.
Sumo-Pop
August 20, 2010
Monday, August 16, 2010
Behind The Mosque Part 2: A Suggestion
I must first say, that I don't care about the "wisdom" (as the President put it) of putting a mosque in the former Burlington Coat Factory located 2 1/2 blocks away from Ground Zero.
I don't care whether you call it a mosque or a community center.
Although I am certainly sympathetic, I don't really care if there are people in New York who are against it.
I don't care that in an election year it may cost Democrats seat in the Senate and result in the swearing in of Senator Angle.
I don't care that the mosque could be built somewhere else.
And I certainly don't care that even some who support their right to build it there consider it "in poor taste."
Hell, to be honest, I don't even think it's in poor taste. You know what's in poor taste? The fact that nearly nine years later, we still have nothing but a hole in the ground on that spot. As far as I'm concerned, they can build a mosque right on Ground Zero for all I care. At least then there would be something there.
In fact after they build a mosque there, we could follow it up with a Sikh, Buddhist, Hindu, Hebrew, and Christian site as well. And at least for one hour a day, they should meet in a common area and talk to one another.
That would be a fitting monument for those that perished on that awful day. And that I do care about.
Sumo-Pop
August 16, 2010
I don't care whether you call it a mosque or a community center.
Although I am certainly sympathetic, I don't really care if there are people in New York who are against it.
I don't care that in an election year it may cost Democrats seat in the Senate and result in the swearing in of Senator Angle.
I don't care that the mosque could be built somewhere else.
And I certainly don't care that even some who support their right to build it there consider it "in poor taste."
Hell, to be honest, I don't even think it's in poor taste. You know what's in poor taste? The fact that nearly nine years later, we still have nothing but a hole in the ground on that spot. As far as I'm concerned, they can build a mosque right on Ground Zero for all I care. At least then there would be something there.
In fact after they build a mosque there, we could follow it up with a Sikh, Buddhist, Hindu, Hebrew, and Christian site as well. And at least for one hour a day, they should meet in a common area and talk to one another.
That would be a fitting monument for those that perished on that awful day. And that I do care about.
Sumo-Pop
August 16, 2010
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
What Do You Get For The Liberal Who Wants Everything?
While I know that Christmas is still four and a half months away, I think it's worthwhile to consider what present to get the very grumpy liberal Democratic base (which I happen to be a part of). What do you get for a group that wants EVERYTHING?
Well, what they got this week from White House Spokesperson, Robert Gibbs, was a healthy smackdown. For those that may have missed it, Gibbs derisively referred to those on the left that compare President Obama to George W. Bush as the "professional left," and suggested that they "should be drug tested." Of course, many on the left wing chattering class took considerable umbrage to his remarks. Various liberal commentators responded with outrage, and MSNBC's Keith Olbermann busted out with a particularly tiresome--and less than surprising--"Special Comment."
I think it's fair to say that Olbermann is getting perilously close to Rosie O'Donnell territory. As a liberal, you may agree in principle with their view points, but you sure as hell don't want them speaking for you.
So what is it that has liberals so down on Obama? To be fair, the President certainly raised expectations during his campaign to untenable heights (don't they all?). And while many benchmarks in the liberal agenda have either been reached or are in progress, many have been compromised or simply not achieved fast enough for the base.
The President got off to a fast start with allowing government funding for stem cell research, ending the torture of detainees, and passing the Lilly Ledbetter Act which allows women to sue employers for past wage related sexual discrimination. That was the easy part. The first two items did not need congressional support, and with large Democratic margins in the house and senate, the Ledbetter Act sailed through without a fuss.
Then came the tough stuff.
First, the President managed to push through his stimulus plan with the aid of three Republicans. While liberals were pleased that the bill became law, many complained that it wasn't large enough and included too many tax breaks. Of course, if it were larger and submitted without the cuts in taxes, it would have never passed. More on that point later.
Secondly, came the Health Care Reform Bill and the summer of discontent. I'm sure everyone remembers the Tea Party's efforts to disrupt town hall meetings and spread misinformation about the bill itself (see "Death Panels," "Government Takeover," etc.). Clearly, Republicans won the message war with the public. Even after scaling the bill back and removing the much desired "Public Option" from the legislation, it still took reconciliation to get the bill across the finish line. Of course, if it would have had a "Public Option," or the even more preferred (by liberals) "Single Payer," it again, never would have passed.
Most recently, the President signed the Financial Reform Bill that included the most sweeping changes to our financial system in over 60 years. However, this plan did not reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act that disallows retail banks from also being investment banks, therefore reducing the chances of "Too big to fail." Still, it includes a consumer protection piece that is quite promising, and does add more accountability and oversight to the risk taking that banks partook of that created this mess in the first place. However, many liberals were still disappointed. They wanted the banks broken up and downsized. Of course, the bill never would have passed if that were included, but...well, you get the idea.
As well, liberals are steamed that the President hasn't repealed Don't Ask Don't Tell and passed comprehensive immigration reform.
While the pentagon is undergoing an examination of the policy and the completion of this review will almost certainly end DADT, that's not good enough for the left. Which to a degree is understandable. This policy is clearly prejudicial, and has resulted from far too many soldiers being kicked out the military. But there is no arguing that the issue is progressing in a positive direction for gay and lesbian soldiers.
Immigration has become the hottest issue of the summer. People are up in arms over border security, illegal immigrants taking jobs and accessing goods and services. No one in their right mind would argue that our system isn't broken. For far too long, this issue has been avoided by politicians who either don't want to upset the fastest growing minority (Latinos) in the U.S. or don't want to give up the cheap labor that fuels the agriculture and construction businesses. The issue has gotten so contentious that Republican Senators who were once for a comprehensive plan (this means you McCain, Kyl, and Graham) are now against it, and several states are considering usurping federal law and creating their own laws to deal with the influx of illegals (take cover Arizona!). When the Governor of said state, Jan Brewer, signed a bill into law that would require illegals to be put through the state system and would have unavoidably lead to racial profiling, the President's Attorney General, Eric Holder, sued the state to prevent the law from being enacted. This still isn't good enough for liberals who want comprehensive legislation passed and right now.
Which brings me to a greater point. Do liberals want all or nothing? It seems to be the case. While most polls show tight races between Democrats and Republicans in the upcoming mid-terms, the surveys also show a significant enthusiasm gap between the followers of the two parties. In almost every single poll, Republicans hold a double digit lead when respondents are asked about how motivated they are to vote in November.
Why? Because Barack Obama is not the President of their dreams. He doesn't walk on air, isn't able to part the sea, and has not waved his magic wand to meet the unreasonable expectations that liberals are holding him to. Don't get me wrong, it's important to push your party and not just go along to get along. As liberals, we should always strive for more. We should also be realistic. We should try to understand that there are Democrats from more conservative areas of the country who may not agree with us on everything. And right now, there is an opposition party that has made a bet that sitting on their hands and doing nothing is a healthy strategy for mid-term ballot booth success. Guess what? They may just be right. They may indeed take over the House and/or the Senate (less likely).
So what will liberals be left with then? Ladies and gentlemen, I present you with House Speaker, John Boehner, and Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell. Is that not the stuff of your nightmares? How much of the liberal agenda do we think will make it to the President's desk after November if we decide to take our ball and go home? Can any of us imagine equality for gays and lesbians or immigration reform getting anywhere? Do any of us lefties think that Health Care Reform, Financial Reform, or even the Lilly Ledbetter act would have had a snowball's chance in Hades of becoming law. Even in the case of the former two as compromised as they were? Not bloody likely.
So be careful about how bad you make this administration out to be. Because if you think it can't get any worse, then go ahead and stay home this November. But expect that theory to be sorely tested when the new congress of 2011 takes to the halls with people like Rand Paul, Sharron Angle, Linda McMahon, and Ken Buck in tow.
As my father-in-law once said to me, "Never challenge worse."
Sumo-Pop
August 13, 2010
Well, what they got this week from White House Spokesperson, Robert Gibbs, was a healthy smackdown. For those that may have missed it, Gibbs derisively referred to those on the left that compare President Obama to George W. Bush as the "professional left," and suggested that they "should be drug tested." Of course, many on the left wing chattering class took considerable umbrage to his remarks. Various liberal commentators responded with outrage, and MSNBC's Keith Olbermann busted out with a particularly tiresome--and less than surprising--"Special Comment."
I think it's fair to say that Olbermann is getting perilously close to Rosie O'Donnell territory. As a liberal, you may agree in principle with their view points, but you sure as hell don't want them speaking for you.
So what is it that has liberals so down on Obama? To be fair, the President certainly raised expectations during his campaign to untenable heights (don't they all?). And while many benchmarks in the liberal agenda have either been reached or are in progress, many have been compromised or simply not achieved fast enough for the base.
The President got off to a fast start with allowing government funding for stem cell research, ending the torture of detainees, and passing the Lilly Ledbetter Act which allows women to sue employers for past wage related sexual discrimination. That was the easy part. The first two items did not need congressional support, and with large Democratic margins in the house and senate, the Ledbetter Act sailed through without a fuss.
Then came the tough stuff.
First, the President managed to push through his stimulus plan with the aid of three Republicans. While liberals were pleased that the bill became law, many complained that it wasn't large enough and included too many tax breaks. Of course, if it were larger and submitted without the cuts in taxes, it would have never passed. More on that point later.
Secondly, came the Health Care Reform Bill and the summer of discontent. I'm sure everyone remembers the Tea Party's efforts to disrupt town hall meetings and spread misinformation about the bill itself (see "Death Panels," "Government Takeover," etc.). Clearly, Republicans won the message war with the public. Even after scaling the bill back and removing the much desired "Public Option" from the legislation, it still took reconciliation to get the bill across the finish line. Of course, if it would have had a "Public Option," or the even more preferred (by liberals) "Single Payer," it again, never would have passed.
Most recently, the President signed the Financial Reform Bill that included the most sweeping changes to our financial system in over 60 years. However, this plan did not reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act that disallows retail banks from also being investment banks, therefore reducing the chances of "Too big to fail." Still, it includes a consumer protection piece that is quite promising, and does add more accountability and oversight to the risk taking that banks partook of that created this mess in the first place. However, many liberals were still disappointed. They wanted the banks broken up and downsized. Of course, the bill never would have passed if that were included, but...well, you get the idea.
As well, liberals are steamed that the President hasn't repealed Don't Ask Don't Tell and passed comprehensive immigration reform.
While the pentagon is undergoing an examination of the policy and the completion of this review will almost certainly end DADT, that's not good enough for the left. Which to a degree is understandable. This policy is clearly prejudicial, and has resulted from far too many soldiers being kicked out the military. But there is no arguing that the issue is progressing in a positive direction for gay and lesbian soldiers.
Immigration has become the hottest issue of the summer. People are up in arms over border security, illegal immigrants taking jobs and accessing goods and services. No one in their right mind would argue that our system isn't broken. For far too long, this issue has been avoided by politicians who either don't want to upset the fastest growing minority (Latinos) in the U.S. or don't want to give up the cheap labor that fuels the agriculture and construction businesses. The issue has gotten so contentious that Republican Senators who were once for a comprehensive plan (this means you McCain, Kyl, and Graham) are now against it, and several states are considering usurping federal law and creating their own laws to deal with the influx of illegals (take cover Arizona!). When the Governor of said state, Jan Brewer, signed a bill into law that would require illegals to be put through the state system and would have unavoidably lead to racial profiling, the President's Attorney General, Eric Holder, sued the state to prevent the law from being enacted. This still isn't good enough for liberals who want comprehensive legislation passed and right now.
Which brings me to a greater point. Do liberals want all or nothing? It seems to be the case. While most polls show tight races between Democrats and Republicans in the upcoming mid-terms, the surveys also show a significant enthusiasm gap between the followers of the two parties. In almost every single poll, Republicans hold a double digit lead when respondents are asked about how motivated they are to vote in November.
Why? Because Barack Obama is not the President of their dreams. He doesn't walk on air, isn't able to part the sea, and has not waved his magic wand to meet the unreasonable expectations that liberals are holding him to. Don't get me wrong, it's important to push your party and not just go along to get along. As liberals, we should always strive for more. We should also be realistic. We should try to understand that there are Democrats from more conservative areas of the country who may not agree with us on everything. And right now, there is an opposition party that has made a bet that sitting on their hands and doing nothing is a healthy strategy for mid-term ballot booth success. Guess what? They may just be right. They may indeed take over the House and/or the Senate (less likely).
So what will liberals be left with then? Ladies and gentlemen, I present you with House Speaker, John Boehner, and Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell. Is that not the stuff of your nightmares? How much of the liberal agenda do we think will make it to the President's desk after November if we decide to take our ball and go home? Can any of us imagine equality for gays and lesbians or immigration reform getting anywhere? Do any of us lefties think that Health Care Reform, Financial Reform, or even the Lilly Ledbetter act would have had a snowball's chance in Hades of becoming law. Even in the case of the former two as compromised as they were? Not bloody likely.
So be careful about how bad you make this administration out to be. Because if you think it can't get any worse, then go ahead and stay home this November. But expect that theory to be sorely tested when the new congress of 2011 takes to the halls with people like Rand Paul, Sharron Angle, Linda McMahon, and Ken Buck in tow.
As my father-in-law once said to me, "Never challenge worse."
Sumo-Pop
August 13, 2010
Monday, August 9, 2010
Behind The Mosque
I know that this is an election year and that before long we will be full on in the middle of "silly season." But someone needs to explain to me what the big ass deal is about the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque" in New York City.
First off, that description is a terribly poor fit. The mosque will not be located on ground zero. In fact, it is actually 2 1/2 city blocks from the site of the former World Trade Center. That's about 250 yards or 2 1/2 football fields away. So let us please dispel the notion that this mosque will be set up on hallowed ground.
Still. this is far too close for far too many. To those who would argue that a mosque has no business anywhere near the site, I would ask, "How far away is far enough?" 6 football fields? Albany? New Jersey? Where would it be okay with you to have a mosque? My guess is that many of these folks would wish that there be no mosques anywhere in the United States.
I'm also willing to bet that most of the people that espouse this point of view can be found in Tea Party rallies carrying on about the constitution. Ah yes, the constitution. That landmark document that preserves freedom of religion. Say what? Yeah, that's right, freedom of religion. Of course, I know many of these same people would argue that the founders of our nation were Christians, and therefore the freedom that they were referring to didn't include any heathen beliefs. However, if you are a strict constructionist and go by the letter of the constitution--and I know you do--then you are just flat out wrong. The constitution does not state a national religion. In fact, it seems to make great pains to avoid such a proclamation.
Now of course, there are people who aren't Tea Party types who have discomfort with this as well. They think it's in bad taste, or they just don't like the idea of a Muslim worship site near the place where our greatest modern national tragedy happened and was perpetrated by radical Muslims.
But therein lies the rub. Radical Muslims did this, not everyday Muslims. Most Muslims may have issues with some U.S. policies, but don't we all? And that doesn't mean that the average Muslim wants to blow up all of our buildings. Far from it. Most Muslims want to assimilate into our society while still retaining their core religious beliefs and a place to practice them. What's so bad about that?
Which brings me to another point: fear. Why are we so governed by emotion and so easily frightened? I have lived for the last seven years around the corner from a mosque. Hell, I think we were in the neighborhood for 2-3 years before a friend pointed it out to me. Up until then, I hadn't even noticed. I can tell you with a straight face that never once have I seen or heard a single disparaging word about that place of worship.
If we really want to worry about radical Muslims, we should probably be more concerned with what we don't see. I can't imagine a mosque that is less likely to be radical than one down the street from Ground Zero. And shouldn't we be trying to bring moderate Muslims in as opposed to pushing them away? Wouldn't we be better off as people if we understood their beliefs and traditions on a higher level? I certainly think so.
Lastly, I think it's important to remember that this is still America. A nation of laws and immigrants. We should no more disallow the lawful existence of a mosque in New York City than we should disallow rednecks driving up in trucks in front of the Oklahoma City Building.
Because, it's not who you are, it's what you do. And we can do better than this.
Sumo-Pop
August 13, 2010
First off, that description is a terribly poor fit. The mosque will not be located on ground zero. In fact, it is actually 2 1/2 city blocks from the site of the former World Trade Center. That's about 250 yards or 2 1/2 football fields away. So let us please dispel the notion that this mosque will be set up on hallowed ground.
Still. this is far too close for far too many. To those who would argue that a mosque has no business anywhere near the site, I would ask, "How far away is far enough?" 6 football fields? Albany? New Jersey? Where would it be okay with you to have a mosque? My guess is that many of these folks would wish that there be no mosques anywhere in the United States.
I'm also willing to bet that most of the people that espouse this point of view can be found in Tea Party rallies carrying on about the constitution. Ah yes, the constitution. That landmark document that preserves freedom of religion. Say what? Yeah, that's right, freedom of religion. Of course, I know many of these same people would argue that the founders of our nation were Christians, and therefore the freedom that they were referring to didn't include any heathen beliefs. However, if you are a strict constructionist and go by the letter of the constitution--and I know you do--then you are just flat out wrong. The constitution does not state a national religion. In fact, it seems to make great pains to avoid such a proclamation.
Now of course, there are people who aren't Tea Party types who have discomfort with this as well. They think it's in bad taste, or they just don't like the idea of a Muslim worship site near the place where our greatest modern national tragedy happened and was perpetrated by radical Muslims.
But therein lies the rub. Radical Muslims did this, not everyday Muslims. Most Muslims may have issues with some U.S. policies, but don't we all? And that doesn't mean that the average Muslim wants to blow up all of our buildings. Far from it. Most Muslims want to assimilate into our society while still retaining their core religious beliefs and a place to practice them. What's so bad about that?
Which brings me to another point: fear. Why are we so governed by emotion and so easily frightened? I have lived for the last seven years around the corner from a mosque. Hell, I think we were in the neighborhood for 2-3 years before a friend pointed it out to me. Up until then, I hadn't even noticed. I can tell you with a straight face that never once have I seen or heard a single disparaging word about that place of worship.
If we really want to worry about radical Muslims, we should probably be more concerned with what we don't see. I can't imagine a mosque that is less likely to be radical than one down the street from Ground Zero. And shouldn't we be trying to bring moderate Muslims in as opposed to pushing them away? Wouldn't we be better off as people if we understood their beliefs and traditions on a higher level? I certainly think so.
Lastly, I think it's important to remember that this is still America. A nation of laws and immigrants. We should no more disallow the lawful existence of a mosque in New York City than we should disallow rednecks driving up in trucks in front of the Oklahoma City Building.
Because, it's not who you are, it's what you do. And we can do better than this.
Sumo-Pop
August 13, 2010
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Inception: Choosing The Lie
***Spoiler Alert*** If you have not seen Inception, but intend to, read no further.
In the end, was it a dream or was Leo's return to his children a reality? Was that damn top about to topple over and provide a happy ending for Dom Cobb?
Without a true sense of closure, we are left with only theory. A recent discussion I had with a friend of mine revolved around his insistence that Cobb did indeed return to his children, and that totem was just about to tip over.
I disagree entirely.
First off, when Cobb touches down at the airport and is taken to his children, the scene is just a bit too perfect, too idyllic, too...well, dreamlike. When he enters the home, he finds his children are not only the same age as when he last saw them, but are wearing the same exact clothes. Earlier in the movie, Cobb references having been away from his kids for years. Considering both children appear to be in the 4-6 age range, they would look considerably different after even just two years. As well, there isn't a chance in hell that those same clothes would fit them. From a practical perspective, the only way Dom could have returned to his children and find them in the exact same state that he left them in is in either a dream or by use of a time machine. And since this is Chris Nolan's movie and not H.G. Wells,' I'm going with the former.
Of course, the preceding paragraph is an evidence based argument as opposed to an artistic one. In considering the latter, I think it's important to consider Nolan's modus operandi.
***Spoiler Alert part deux*** If you have not seen Memento, Insomnia, or The Dark Knight, or have been living under a rock, read no further.
In Memento, the tortured character played by Guy Pearce is searching for the murderer of his wife while dealing with the after effects of the beating he took when his wife was killed--leaving him with a horrendous case of short term memory loss. At the end of the film, Pearce's character makes a conscious decision to NOT resolve the mystery because to do so would leave him with no purpose in life. He chooses the lie.
In Nolan's follow up film, Insomnia (a remake of a Norwegian film by the same name), the police officer played by Al Pacino "accidentally" shoots his partner while tracking a serial killer in Alaska. As the film continues, Pacino is less and less certain if he shot his fellow detective on accident or on purpose. His partner was due to testify against Pacino in an internal affairs case that could end his career. In the end, as his character has become disoriented by the constant sunlight of the Alaskan summer, the obsessive nature of the serial killer chase, and his own guilt, he is still unsure of his own motives. Was the shooting an accident? Probably so. But was there a part of him that was satisfied that his partner would not be able to testify against him? Yes, indeed. As the local cop played by Hilary Swank stands over top of his dying body, he tells her not to "lose her way" like he did. Not to choose the lie.
In Nolan's most popular film to date, The Dark Knight, he takes a near sociopathic look at the Batman character played by Christian Bale. The movie asks many questions about vigilantism , torture, and the duality of man. Batman believes that Gotham City needs a "white knight" to counteract his darker version of criminal justice. He finds such a man in District Attorney, Harvey Dent, played so well by Aaron Eckhardt. However, later in the film when Dent is disfigured by the Joker and the love of his life murdered, Eckhardt loses his mind and becomes "Two-Face." He then goes on a murderous spree deciding the fate of his victims with the toss of a coin. During the film's climax, Batman saves Lieutenant Gordon's family from Two-Face, and kills him in the process. Knowing that if Dent's diabolical conversion is made public that it would be a severe blow to the citizens of Gotham City, Batman convinces Gordon to let him take the rap for the murders. Once again, the character chooses the lie.
Obviously, this is a consistent theme in Nolan's films. Characters who choose the lie because it is more expedient, or simply less painful. They sacrifice honesty for a seemingly less complicated option. Of course, that choice is fraught with it's own perplexity. How long can you live a lie before it destroys you (Insomnia), or potentially drives you to the brink of madness (Inception, The Dark Knight, Memento)?
This is what makes Nolan perhaps the most fascinating mainstream filmmaker around. His unwillingness to provide clean answers. But the answers are there, you just have to dig for them, and accept that the result may well be a grim one.
You have to be willing to accept the conclusion that Dom Cobb reaches in Inception. He chooses the lie.
Sumo-Pop
August 5, 2010
In the end, was it a dream or was Leo's return to his children a reality? Was that damn top about to topple over and provide a happy ending for Dom Cobb?
Without a true sense of closure, we are left with only theory. A recent discussion I had with a friend of mine revolved around his insistence that Cobb did indeed return to his children, and that totem was just about to tip over.
I disagree entirely.
First off, when Cobb touches down at the airport and is taken to his children, the scene is just a bit too perfect, too idyllic, too...well, dreamlike. When he enters the home, he finds his children are not only the same age as when he last saw them, but are wearing the same exact clothes. Earlier in the movie, Cobb references having been away from his kids for years. Considering both children appear to be in the 4-6 age range, they would look considerably different after even just two years. As well, there isn't a chance in hell that those same clothes would fit them. From a practical perspective, the only way Dom could have returned to his children and find them in the exact same state that he left them in is in either a dream or by use of a time machine. And since this is Chris Nolan's movie and not H.G. Wells,' I'm going with the former.
Of course, the preceding paragraph is an evidence based argument as opposed to an artistic one. In considering the latter, I think it's important to consider Nolan's modus operandi.
***Spoiler Alert part deux*** If you have not seen Memento, Insomnia, or The Dark Knight, or have been living under a rock, read no further.
In Memento, the tortured character played by Guy Pearce is searching for the murderer of his wife while dealing with the after effects of the beating he took when his wife was killed--leaving him with a horrendous case of short term memory loss. At the end of the film, Pearce's character makes a conscious decision to NOT resolve the mystery because to do so would leave him with no purpose in life. He chooses the lie.
In Nolan's follow up film, Insomnia (a remake of a Norwegian film by the same name), the police officer played by Al Pacino "accidentally" shoots his partner while tracking a serial killer in Alaska. As the film continues, Pacino is less and less certain if he shot his fellow detective on accident or on purpose. His partner was due to testify against Pacino in an internal affairs case that could end his career. In the end, as his character has become disoriented by the constant sunlight of the Alaskan summer, the obsessive nature of the serial killer chase, and his own guilt, he is still unsure of his own motives. Was the shooting an accident? Probably so. But was there a part of him that was satisfied that his partner would not be able to testify against him? Yes, indeed. As the local cop played by Hilary Swank stands over top of his dying body, he tells her not to "lose her way" like he did. Not to choose the lie.
In Nolan's most popular film to date, The Dark Knight, he takes a near sociopathic look at the Batman character played by Christian Bale. The movie asks many questions about vigilantism , torture, and the duality of man. Batman believes that Gotham City needs a "white knight" to counteract his darker version of criminal justice. He finds such a man in District Attorney, Harvey Dent, played so well by Aaron Eckhardt. However, later in the film when Dent is disfigured by the Joker and the love of his life murdered, Eckhardt loses his mind and becomes "Two-Face." He then goes on a murderous spree deciding the fate of his victims with the toss of a coin. During the film's climax, Batman saves Lieutenant Gordon's family from Two-Face, and kills him in the process. Knowing that if Dent's diabolical conversion is made public that it would be a severe blow to the citizens of Gotham City, Batman convinces Gordon to let him take the rap for the murders. Once again, the character chooses the lie.
Obviously, this is a consistent theme in Nolan's films. Characters who choose the lie because it is more expedient, or simply less painful. They sacrifice honesty for a seemingly less complicated option. Of course, that choice is fraught with it's own perplexity. How long can you live a lie before it destroys you (Insomnia), or potentially drives you to the brink of madness (Inception, The Dark Knight, Memento)?
This is what makes Nolan perhaps the most fascinating mainstream filmmaker around. His unwillingness to provide clean answers. But the answers are there, you just have to dig for them, and accept that the result may well be a grim one.
You have to be willing to accept the conclusion that Dom Cobb reaches in Inception. He chooses the lie.
Sumo-Pop
August 5, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)