No Thunder Down Under

It’s January. Tennis’ first major of 2007 is being played in Melbourne, Australia at, arguably, the finest tennis facility in the world.

There are great storylines.

Can Roger Federer continue his dominance? Can Rafael Nadal put in a strong performance on a surface many feel suits his game almost as well as his beloved clay? Can James Blake take that next step and move from “feel good story” to “serious contender”? Can Andy Roddick show that his performances at the end of last year’s hardcourt season were not a fluke? Which Marat Safin will show up?

On the women’s side, can Amelie Mauresmo defend her title and put to rest once and for all any questions about her mental toughness? Can Maria Sharapova win a second consecutive major title and secure the #1 ranking? Is Serena Williams serious about her comeback or is she simply “talking the talk”?

In spite of these positive factors, as usual, I find that I’m not particularly interested in the Australian Open.

Believe me, I have my reasons.

Are you people familiar with the concept of an off-season?

Tennis players often complain (justifiably) that their season goes on too long. The final of the year-end Tennis Masters Cup was played on November 20. The deciding match of the Davis Cup Final (won by Russia over Argentina) was played on December 4. Less than 6 weeks later, they’re playing the first round of the Aussie Open.

I contend that it’s not only the players who need a break. The fans need one, too. Only golf’s off-season is shorter, and they don’t play the Masters in mid-January.

Too many other sports viewing options


If you’re a sports junkie like me, you’ve got a lot on your plate at this time of year. The NFL Playoffs are in full swing. In college basketball, teams have just started playing their all-important conference schedules. The NBA season is nearing the mid-way point.

Something’s gotta give, and, for me, that something ends up being tennis.

3. Time Zone Issues

I know I’m going to sound like the stereotypical “Ugly American”, but I’m just being honest. In order for me to watch any of these matches live, I would have to stay up until the wee small hours of the morning. As much as I love tennis, I’m not pulling an all-nighter just so I can see whether David Nalbandian can make it to the Round of 16.

The matches are re-broadcast the next day, but, in this era of constant sports updates (via television, radio, or internet), it would practically require my locking myself in a sensory deprivation chamber in order for me to not find out the outcome of these matches before they’re re-broadcast. Again, as much as I love tennis, I’m not watching too many matches the outcome of which I already know.

4. The Power of History

In 1988, the Australian Open completed its transformation into the tournament many now know and love: rebound ace courts; a retractable roof; and everything done first-class.

Unfortunately, there are those of us who still remember when the Australian Open was the red-headed stepchild of sports’ major championships. I remember when the Aussie Open was played in December and the top players did not exactly flock to the tournament. In fact, they stayed away in droves.

I truly became a tennis fan in 1981. I loved Bjorn Borg and hated John McEnroe. During the early to mid-1980s, I generally did not find out who had won the Australian Open until I heard the player’s name mentioned during a French Open broadcast that next June. But wait, there’s more.

If anyone ever asks you who won the 1986 Australian Open, men’s or women’s side, and you draw a blank, don’t panic. It’s a trick question. There was no Aussie Open played in 1986. I know it was done because the championship was being moved back to its original January date, but that still eroded almost all of its credibility in my young mind. 20 years later, the Australian Open has regained much of that credibility, but not all of it.

5. Rebound Ace and the Agassi Factor

(If you’re an Andre Agassi fan, read the following at your own risk)

As stated above, starting in 1988, the Australian Open moved from the grass courts at Kooyong to the Rebound Ace hardcourts of Melbourne (nee Flinders) Park. Little did I know at that time that this would one day be a source of tremendous bitterness.

Rebound Ace, particularly in the January Australian heat, is a dangerous surface. If a player can walk away (preferably under his own power) with only a mild ankle sprain or two, he should probably consider himself lucky. That, however, is not why I’m bitter.

You see, once they started to play the Aussie Open on Rebound Ace, it meant that, technically, tennis’ 4 major championships were now played on 4 different surfaces: Rebound Ace hardcourt; clay; grass; and Har-Tru hardcourt. Fast forward to June 6, 1999, a date which will live in infamy. That was the date on which Andre Agassi defeated Andrei Medvedev to win the French Open Championship. This gave Agassi his 4th major title and made him one of only a handful of men to win all of tennis’ major championships.

This means that, until Roger Federer wins the French Open, I will have to listen to Agassi fans ramble on (ad nauseam) about the fact that their beloved ‘Dre is the only men’s player to win grand slam titles on 4 different surfaces. Granted, 99% of them don’t know what makes a Rebound Ace hardcourt different from a Har-Tru hardcourt, but that won’t stop them from waxing poetic about their hero’s unmatched accomplishment. They will cite it as compelling evidence that a player who wasn’t the greatest of his own era somehow merits consideration as the G.O.A.T. (greatest player of all time).

So, those are my reasons for not being as big a fan of the Australian Open as I am of tennis’ other three “slams”.

Aussie Aussie Aussie! Oi oi, oi!

"Caesar is Dead, Long Live Caesar" (Season Premiere of "Rome" on HBO)

After a hiatus of over a year, Season 2 of “Rome” picks up right where Season 1 left off.

Caesar is dead. The great man is right where we last saw him, lying dead in a pool of his own blood on the floor of the Senate. His slave, Posca, is by his side, weeping as he sees what they’ve done to his “dominus”.

Just outside the Senate, Mark Antony is confronted by Quintus Pompey and several other armed men. They seem intent on making sure that Antony won’t be grieving Caesar for very long. Antony fights them off and makes a run for it.

A very shaken Brutus, one of the assassins and the figurehead of the assassination itself, returns home. His mother, Servilia, who spent the last episodes of Season 1 pushing him towards Caesar’s murder, continues guiding her son towards a role, “Savior of the Republic” to which he seems ill-suited and in which he seems uninterested.

In other news, our two main protagonists, Lucius Vorenus and Titus Pullo seem to have switched identities.

Stable, family man Vorenus has seen his wife commit suicide only minutes after he’s discovered that the child she’s been passing off as Vorenus’ grandson is actually her son by another man. Vorenus’ daughters arrive on the scene to find their mother dead and their father having seemingly lost his mind. A crazed Vorenus curses his sobbing children and wanders off in a daze. He learns of Caesar’s death, but it is not clear if Vorenus has figured out that many will blame him for it. He was supposed to have been Caesar’s personal bodyguard in the Senate, but was lured away from his duties through the machinations of Servilia.

Unstable, hard-partying Pullo, meanwhile, proposes to his former slave, Eirene. She accepts (after he promises her dresses, food, shelter, and no beatings) but the couple’s newlywed bliss is interrupted by news of Caesar’s death. To his credit, Pullo doesn’t shoot the messenger. He does, however, knock him off his horse before stealing it from the poor man. With his wife in tow, Pullo rides hard for Rome.

At the house of Atia, the balance of power is shifting. While the mistress of the house weeps in the arms of one of her slaves, her children, Octavian and Octavia, have put two and two together and figured out they played an unwitting role in Caesar’s assassination. Servilia was only able to lure Vorenus from Caesar’s side because of information that Octavian gave to Octavia, who in turn gave it to Servilia.

Atia wants to flee the city, but Octavian, shrewdly, argues that the better course of action is to sit tight and wait things out. A disheveled Antony shows up, vowing vengeance against Caesar’s killers.

At the house of the late, great Gaius Julius Caesar Dictator, Antony, Atia, Octavian, and Octavia are in attendance as Posca reads the contents of Caesar’s will. Posca gets his freedom, the common people get some money, and Octavian receives the remainder of Caesar’s estate and a posthumous adoption as Caesar’s son, to boot. Antony gets nothing, and is none too pleased about it. Although Antony claims that Caesar’s will is worthless, as his killers will simply declare that he was a tyrant, thus rendering all his acts null and void. Octavian is the only one who realizes that the assassins have painted themselves into a legal corner. If they declare Caesar a tyrant, they lose all rank and protection since Caesar was the one who appointed them to their current offices in the first place. Antony remains unconvinced, but Octavian is able to sway Atia with two simple sentences.

“If the will stands, and it might, you are mother to the richest man in Rome. If the will is broken, Servilia has that honor.”

Antony goes to the house of Brutus and Servilia. He uses Octavian’s line of reasoning in most persuasive fashion. They accept Antony’s offer of a truce, agreeing that Brutus and Antony will deliver the orations at Caesar’s public funeral. (In a later scene we see Antony’s unorthodox and definitely R-rated preparation for the funeral)

Pullo arrives in Rome and helps Vorenus regain a modicum of his former sanity. Vorenus is racked with guilt over having cursed his children. When he discovers that the children were taken by his old enemy Erastes Fulmen, he feels even guiltier.

Servilia, Caesar’s former lover and the true architect of his death, goes to the great man’s house to pay her respects. She is confronted by Caesar’s wife, Calpurnia. Servilia is coldly courteous. Calpurnia responds by spitting in her face. Twice. The exquisite Lindsay Duncan, who portrays Servilia, captures her character’s mixed emotions perfectly as she views the corpse of the great enemy who was also the love of her life.

The events of Caesar’s funeral are related to us through one of Erastes Fulmen’s henchmen. He tells his drinking companions that Brutus’ speech went over like flatulence in a cathedral, while Antony played to the masses and whipped them into a frenzy, particularly after displaying Caesar’s bloody toga and throwing it into the ranks of what had quickly become a bloodthirsty mob. At the end of it all, Brutus leaves the city on a thin pretext and Servilia remains at Antony’s home as his guest (read: hostage).

Episode 1 ends with Vorenus and Pullo confronting Erastes Fulmen. After butchering Fulmen’s henchmen, the two demand to know the whereabouts of Vorenus’ children. Fulmen tells Vorenus that he killed them before tossing their bodies into the Tiber River. Vorenus decapitates him, and the last thing we see is Vorenus carrying the head of Erastes Fulmen through the streets with Pullo trailing behind him.

All in all, this was a great episode. It’s marvelous to see that a show can keep a story interesting, even when its viewing audience knows the eventual outcome. (Did you catch that, “Smallville”?)

The groundwork for this period in Rome’s history was laid out for us. The power vacuum and instability caused by Caesar’s death and the eventual power struggle between Antony and Octavian.

Et tu, Brute?

A Rose by Any Other Name: New Jersey and Same-Sex Civil Unions

On October 25, 2006, the New Jersey Supreme Court rendered its decision in the case of Lewis v. Harris. The case involved seven same-sex couples who sought to marry. The couples, who had been denied marriage licenses in their municipalities, brought suit challenging the constitutionality of New Jersey’s marriage statutes.

The Court decided, 4-3, that the state of New Jersey had not articulated a legitimate public need for continuing to deprive committed same-sex couples of the full range of benefits and privileges enjoyed by married heterosexual couples. The Court relied upon the equal protection guarantee of New Jersey’s Constitution.

The ruling exponentially increased the legal benefits available to same-sex couples in New Jersey. Same-sex couples could previously form "domestic partnerships" but that only afforded them a relatively small percentage of the rights conferred by marriage.

Here’s where a line was drawn in the proverbial sand, however.

The Court went on to state that the “name to be given the statutory scheme that provides full rights and benefits to same sex couples, whether marriage or some other term, is a matter left to the democratic process.”

In other words, we’re not touching the issue of whether the union we’ve just described is a “marriage” or something else.

If you think this looks like “separate, but equal”, I agree with you completely.

The Court was actually unanimous on the equal protection aspects of the case. The split was over the issue of defining same sex unions. Ironically, the four justices who held that it should be directed to the legislature were Democrat-appointees. The dissenting justices, Republican-appointees, argued for full marriage rights, including the right to the term “marriage”.

Marriages, from a legal standpoint, are simply legally recognized partnerships. When I see a heterosexual married couple, I don’t feel that the government is necessarily endorsing any other aspect of their relationship. They may be getting married because of an unplanned pregnancy. They may be getting married because she feels her biological clock is ticking. They may be getting married because one of them is wealthy and the other is a gold-digger. The government really takes no position on the dynamics of the relationship itself . . .unless and until one of them sues for divorce.

Still, when the issue of homosexual marriage is raised, counter-arguments either imply or explicitly state that recognizing the right of same-sex couples to marry would be tantamount to a government endorsement of specific sexual acts. Huh?

When a heterosexual couple gets married, the state is simply recognizing the desire of two individuals to form a legal partnership, with the attendant rights, privileges, and responsibilities. The government is not, to my knowledge, endorsing any aspect of their sexual activity. They can have as much sex as they want (and probably less than he wants). It’s no one else’s business (again, until it comes time to get that divorce).

I have several acquaintances who, while they support the notion of state-recognized same-sex civil unions, adamantly draw the line at referring to such a union as a “marriage”. One friend of mine even told me that it would cause confusion as to which person would be referred to as the husband and which would be referred to as the wife. I told him that the use of “spouse” or “partner” to refer to both might solve this confusion. I forget how he responded to this, but the sentence started with the obligatory “Yeah, but . . .”

Those who speak of preserving the "sanctity of marriage" usually fail to recognize that churches can still decide whether to grant their blessing or not. This is the same way churches have always handled marriages between heterosexual couples. I admit I am amused when I hear someone who was married by a justice of the peace or a ship captain refer to marriage as a sacred institution.

Still, the distinction (i.e. between marriage and civil union) carries a tremendous amount of weight for a great many people. It will continue to do so, as it touches upon issues of tradition, psychology, language, and behavior.

Here comes the spouse, all dressed in . . .

The Art of Being Roger Federer

(Despite his accomplishments, Roger Federer, the best player in men’s tennis, is not a household name in the United States. English is one of the many languages in which he is fluent, so the language barrier does not explain it. Those who claim that the public finds dominance “boring” seem to disregard the fact that Tiger Woods’ dominance has in no way diminished either his popularity or that of his sport. So, as a die-hard tennis fan, I thought I’d do my part and try to place the man and his accomplishments in a greater historical perspective.)

On Sunday, Switzerland’s Roger Federer defeated Chile’s Fernando Gonzalez in straight sets to win the Tennis Masters Series Event in Madrid. For Federer, who has already clinched the year-end world’s number 1 ranking for a third consecutive season, it was his 10th tournament victory of 2006. He became the first man in tennis’ “Open Era” (post-1968) to win at least 10 tournaments in three straight seasons.

According to tennis great Ion Tiriac, no player in tennis history has been as technically proficient as Roger Federer.

Federer won three grand slam tournaments in 2006. He captured the Australian Open in January, Wimbledon in July, and the U.S. Open in September. He also won three slams in 2004. He is the only player in the Open Era to accomplish this feat twice.

Roger Federer is the only man to ever defeat a brick wall in a tennis match.

This year, Federer won both Wimbledon and the U.S. Open for the third consecutive season. He is the only player to have accomplished this feat. He only lost two sets (one in each tournament) over the course of 14 matches played in both tournaments.

Roger Federer is not capable of hitting a target on the broad side of a barn with his forehand. Every time he tries, the whole damn barn falls down.

In 2006, Roger Federer has lost a total of 5 matches. Only two players have defeated him: Rafael Nadal and Andy Murray. One of Nadal’s victories over Federer occurred in the finals of the French Open. It prevented Roger Federer from capturing his fourth consecutive grand slam tournament, and, as it turns out, prevented him from winning all four slams in a calendar year. Neither feat has been accomplished since Rod Laver won all four grand slam tournaments played in 1969.

The worst moment in a professional men's tennis player’s life is not when he finds out Santa Claus does not exist. It’s when he finds out that Roger Federer does.

Federer has now appeared in 6 consecutive grand slam finals. He is the first player to accomplish this feat in the Open Era and only the second in the history of men’s tennis.

Roger Federer’s forehand is the only hand that can beat a Royal Flush.

I first saw Roger Federer play at Wimbledon in 2001. He met 7-time (and 4-time defending) champion Pete Sampras in the 4th Round. I had heard about Federer, but, at that point, he was a promising player with a history of inconsistency. Federer defeated Sampras in 5 close sets. It proved to be the only meeting between the two players.

Someone once tried to tell Roger Federer that his forehand wasn't the best shot in the history of tennis. Many now believe this to represent the worst mistake in the history of mankind.

Speaking of Sampras, he is, in many ways, the primary player against whose career Federer will be measured. Pete Sampras owns the most career grand slam titles with 14 as well as the record for most years ranked number one on the ATP Tour (Sampras finished 6 consecutive years ranked number 1 in the world). Both players possessed exceptional movement and blistering forehands.

There are no steroids in men's tennis, just players Roger Federer has breathed on.

The careers of the two players, to this point, contain some eerie parallels. The two are exactly 10 years apart in age; Sampras was born in August 1971 and Federer was born in August of 1981. Sampras turned professional in 1988 while Federer turned pro in 1998. At this point in Sampras’ career, he had 8 grand slam titles. Federer has 9. In 1997 (2007 for Federer) Sampras captured the Australian Open and Wimbledon to bring his haul to 10. In order to remain ahead of Sampras’ “pace”, Federer must win at least two grand slam tournaments. It would be foolish to bet against his doing just that.

If tapped, the power generated by a Roger Federer forehand could power the country of Switzerland for 44 minutes.

The one glaring hole on Sampras’ resume is that he never captured a French Open title. Sampras’ best finish at Roland Garros was reaching the semi-finals in 1996, where he lost to eventual champion Yevgeny Kafelnikov. Federer already has one appearance in the French Open finals to his credit. Unlike Sampras (whose powerful serve was blunted by the red clay), Federer is an accomplished clay court player.

Everybody loves Raymond. Raymond loves Roger Federer.

Heading into 2007, the only serious challenger to Federer’s dominance remains Spain’s Rafael Nadal. Nadal is a 20-year-old left-hander who owns a winning career head-to-head record against Federer. After defeating Federer in the French Open final (the second consecutive year he defeated Federer in Paris), Nadal made it to last year’s Wimbledon final. Here, he lost to Federer in 4 sets. Nadal had a disappointing hard-court season, however, and has recently admitted to being both physically and mentally drained at this point in the ATP season.

Roger Federer once hit a forehand so hard that the tennis ball broke the speed of light, went back in time, and struck Amelia Earhart's plane while she was flying over the Pacific Ocean. Mystery solved.

So, as the 2006 tennis season winds down, I hope more of you will start tuning in. If you don’t, you may miss more of the stellar play of the man whom many feel will go down in history as the greatest player the sport has produced.

My New Fantasy League

I’ve tried them all (except for hockey). I am either currently participating in or have at one time participated in fantasy football, basketball, baseball, tennis, and even golf. Ever since I was old enough to understand that “March Madness” was not a reference to the furor over my birthday, I’ve filled out a tourney bracket, as well.

Now I’m trying something different: Fantasy Congress. I signed up for a public league yesterday, and, yep, I’m waitin’ to watch some legislatin’.

Here’s how it works: I drafted a team of legislators (yes, real-life legislators) from the United States Congress.

My team is composed of:

2 senior Senators, called “upper Senators”;
2 junior Senators, called “lower Senators”;
4 senior Representatives, called “All-Stars”;
4 mid-range experience Representatives, called my “Supporting Lineup”; and
4 junior Representatives, called “Rookies”

According to the league’s blurb, Fantasy Congress offers me, a humble citizen, the power to “play politics.

I compete against other citizens in my league. The goal is to accrue points based upon the legislation passed by our respective Members of Congress (MCs). As the coach of my “team” of legislators, it’s my decision which MCs should be playing at any given time and which should be “benched”.

Every bill is supposed to represent an actual piece of legislation. My MCs have to push legislation through, from introduction in their respective chamber to approval by committee in the opposite chamber to the President’s signature. Point values are assigned to each stage in the legislative process. For example, I get a whopping 50 points if a bill sponsored by one of my MC’s is signed into law by President Bush.

Selecting my team was quite difficult. All current members of Congress are listed and there’s an election coming up. I regard myself as fairly politically savvy, so I avoided the obvious pitfalls. For example, I did not select Cynthia McKinney. I also steered clear of MCs who are locked in pitched battles for their seats. If they lose, I don’t want to get stuck with a “supplemental” selection.

Once I separated the wheat from the Chafee (heh-heh), I still found myself faced with some difficult choices. Should I go for a bunch of insiders or should I choose a group of idealists? Should I stick to my principles or should I cynically go solely with those politicos who I felt had the best chance to get legislation through? As much as I was tempted to select Zell Miller, it doesn't appear that "pistols at dawn" garners me any points. Sorry, Sen. Miller.

In the end, I balanced the two, though my line-up is extremely Democrat-heavy. I’m banking on the Dems winning both houses on November 7. So, if the mid-term elections do not see such a transition, several political pundits will be getting nasty e-mails from me on November 8.

Anyway, here’s oba’s starting lineup:

House of Representatives:

All-Stars:

John Murtha; Barney Frank; Charles Rangel; Nancy Pelosi

Supporting Lineup:

Mary Bono; Spencer Bachus; Jesse L. Jackson; Patrick Kennedy

Rookies:

James Langevin; Rodney Alexander; Joe Wilson; Bobby Jindal

United States Senate:

Lower Senators:

Evan Bayh; Hillary Rodham Clinton

Upper Senators:

Joseph Biden; Edward Kennedy

So, that’s my team. Needless to say, I’ll be tuning into CSPAN on a far more regular basis.

Um, I feel almost guilty saying this (but, hey, I’m a very competitive person) if you’re reading this, and have no other reason to vote for or against any of the legislators on my team . . . well, I think you know where I’m going with that one.

Let's Go Mets!

The year was 1983. In January, President Ronald W. Reagan proclaimed it “The Year of the Bible.” He also signed a bill creating a federal holiday on the third Monday in every January to honor American civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr. Iran invaded Iraq. Tom Brokaw became lead anchor for NBC News.

Whatever. I was ten years old, and had other things on my mind. I was waiting for “Return of the Jedi” to come out, and, even more importantly, I needed to choose a baseball team.

My mom and I had moved to New Jersey from Illinois in 1981. I had been too young to really have a team when we’d lived in Evanston. I’d rooted for the Phillies in 1980, the Dodgers in 1981, and the Cardinals in 1982. I was a front-runner, first and foremost, and still young enough to get away with it. Now, sadly, my age had reached the double-digits and childhood was over. I needed a “real” team to root for. I decided that team was going to be a local one.

In my mind, every other kid in my neighborhood was a Yankees fan. Their uncles, older brothers, and fathers were Yankees fans, too. Even at that age, I had a strong contrary streak. I was attracted to what I already knew of the pinstripes and their tradition, but I didn’t just want to follow the crowd. I’d also watched a few of their games on WPIX, and, frankly, something about Phil Rizutto’s voice disturbed me. Greatly. Still does.

So, at the start of the 1983 baseball season, I decided I was going to root for the New York Mets. From that moment forward, I no longer referred to the Mets in the third person; I referred to the Mets in the first person plural. “They” became “we”.

Shortly thereafter, I decided I’d better learn what a “Met” was and who was on the team.

Armed with this knowledge, a 23-year love affair began.

We finished that first season with a record of 68 wins and 94 losses. George Bamberger started the season as manager, and Frank Howard finished it.

A young slugger named Darryl Strawberry hit 26 home runs and was named the National League’s Rookie of the Year. We’d acquired perennial All-Star and former League MVP Keith Hernandez, who hit .306 on the season and won a gold glove playing first base. Oh, yeah, I also heard some good things about some pitcher named Dwight Gooden.

What a long, strange trip it’s been: the highs, the lows, the laughter, the tears; the thrill of victory, the agony of defeat; scandal, controversy, failure and redemption. But, that’s enough about 1986.


The 20 years in-between have been odd, as well. We somehow found a way not to win in 1987. That team had the best pitching staff in baseball, a solid defense, and two 30-30 players (back when 30 home runs actually meant something). The end result will mystify me to the end of my days.

The 1988 team was a juggernaut. All we had to do was get past the Dodgers (a team we’d owned during the regular season) and we were all set for a showdown with the A’s in the World Series.

We lost in seven games, and I’ve hated the Dodgers ever since. I’m still convinced Orel Hershisher was an alien impersonator and that Mike Scioscia made a deal with the devil. I will admit to a few dark fantasies in which I attempted to prove to Tommy Lasorda that he did not, in fact, bleed Dodger blue.

Still, as upset as I was, I got over it pretty quickly. I’d gotten used to our winning. Surely there’d be other chances, right? Wrong. We suddenly found ourselves unable to beat the Pittsburgh Pirates. For those of you too young to remember, this is the Pirates squad that boasted an outfield of Barry Bonds, Bobby Bonilla, and Andy Van Slyke.

After the Pirates succumbed to the fate which awaits all successful small-market teams, someone in major league baseball’s front office finally looked at a map and realized that having the Atlanta Braves play in the N.L. West really didn’t make any geographic sense. Yeah, who knew that Georgia didn’t abut California? Sadly for us Mets fans this also coincided with the Braves’ going on a run of unparalleled regular season success.

We missed the playoffs by four games in 1997 and one game in 1998. 1998 was really tough. We went 0-5 against the Braves and the Montreal Expos to end the season.

We didn’t get back to the post-season until 1999, and we didn’t even win the division. I did take pleasure in the fact that we beat out the Cincinnati Reds in a one-game playoff to win the Wildcard.

We ended up advancing to the N.L. Championship Series, and, after spotting the Atlanta Braves 3 games, we roared back to force game 6. In that game, pitcher Kenny Rogers walked Andruw Jones with the bases loaded to force in the winning run. Contrary to what I said at the time, it was not the first walk issued to the free-swinging Jones that season. It sure seemed that way, though.

The next year, after again winning the N.L. Wildcard, we made it to the World Series. We faced off against the hated New York Yankees in the first subway series since 1956. We lost four games to one.

Now, though, we’re back. It’s been 20 years since that 1986 team. I know that china is the traditional 20th anniversary gift, but I can’t think of a better way to celebrate this 20th anniversary than by winning the World Series.

We won our division for the first time since 1988. We’ve also taken a commanding lead in our N.L. Division Series against the Dodgers. This team is not a juggernaut, but we’ve got a good blend of power and speed and a pitching staff that has a bend but don’t break attitude.

So, Let’s Go Mets.

Which Box Should I Check, and Why?

My previous entry on Tiger Woods notwithstanding, I’m truly not opposed to the so-called multiracial movement.

The central topic of my senior thesis was the political activism of New Orleans’ freeborn people of color during the Civil War and Reconstruction. In antebellum New Orleans, this was a predominantly “multiracial” group living in a tripartite racial system. After 1865, this group found itself coping with the realities of a monoracial society.

A monoracial view of the United States ignores not only our history, but also social, cultural, economic, and political realities. The fact that this monoracial viewpoint continues to be reflected in the manner in which the federal government collects data on race is not, in my opinion, a very good thing. I was surprised, however, at my own reaction when I looked at the new guidelines proposed by the Department of Education with respect to racial classifications for students. This reaction ran the gamut of emotions from skepticism to more skepticism.

Nine years ago, the United States Office of Management and Budget set forth guidelines mandating that individuals completing federally required forms be allowed to mark more than one racial category to identify themselves on such forms. The U.S. Census adopted that change, using it in 2000. 6.8 million people elected to identify themselves as multiracial. Timely, as ever, the Department of Education is now proposing regulations allowing students to self-identify in as many categories as they want.

As it stands now, institutions of higher learning must report how many of their students fall into one of five categories. These categories are the “old stand-bys”: (1) black; (2) white; (3) Hispanic; (4) Asian/Pacific Islander; and (5) Native American/Alaska Native.

There were plenty of reasons why it took the Department of Education such a comparatively long time to propose its own new set of standards, “stability” being perhaps the most obvious and important. Most institutions affected by these changes have been collecting their own data on this for years, and they certainly expected the Department of Education to eventually implement such changes.

The regulations proposed by the Department of Education asks first if the student is Hispanic and then asks students to select one or more descriptions from the groups American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, black, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and white. Uh-oh.

Aggregate statistical data and statistical comparisons to previous years will be extremely difficult, as the new regulations would not require updating existing records and statistics. A student who self-identified as “black” in 2006 but as “multiracial” in 2007 will make it seem as if yet another black student has fallen from the rolls. At this point, sociology is causing at least as big of a fuss as logistics.

In case you missed it, under the new regulations, students who self-identify as Hispanic would be counted only as Hispanics, regardless of whether they also check off or circle other categories. If non-Hispanic students responding to the second question check off more than one racial category, these students will be listed under “two or more races.” Those races will not be specified.

I’m not a conspiracy theorist. I don’t think that the Latino/Hispanic “lobby” threw its weight around on this. I just think the Department of Education got this one wrong. An obvious outcome under these proposed regulations appears to be that the number of Hispanic students counted would be maximized while counts for other racial groups would be diminished. Someone who self-identifies as Hispanic and black is counted as Hispanic. Someone who self-identifies as black and Native American is counted as "multiracial".

So, two students rightly or wrongly limited to identification as black under the current regulations would now be counted as Hispanic and "multiracial" under the proposed regulations. Substitute any non-Hispanic racial classification for "black" and the example still holds true. "Vanishing" non-Hispanic students who reappear in a generic "other" category does not seem like such a great thing to me. There has to be a better way to recognize the need for multiracial identification.

In addition, while the proposed regulations provide, on the surface at least, a greater opportunity for accurate self-identification, the end result seems unsatisfactory. An individual who self-identifies as “multiracial” is lumped into this “two or more” category with no ultimate distinction made as to which two or more races she has selected. At the end of the day, for statistical purposes, there’s still no distinction made between lots of racial categories. Instead of having one or more aspects of your racial heritage “ignored”, all are now ignored or at least not identified with any degree of specificity.

I don’t even pretend to have an answer for this one. The Department of Education, as with a lot of other federal agencies, has to balance a lot of concerns and interests. The department is accepting public comments on its proposed guidelines until September 21, 2006. At least there is now a greater opportunity for a legitimate discussion on an important issue.

oba

How the Game is Played

On Thursday, August 3, a bill, already approved by the House of Representatives, went up to a vote by their counterparts in the U.S. Senate. The bill included a phased-in increase of the federal minimum wage, which, after three years, would see the minimum wage rise from $5.15 an hour to $7.25.

A Republican-controlled Senate needed 60 votes to pass the bill. The Senate voted 56-42 against, leaving us with the unlikely situation in which Democratic members of the U.S. Senate are, on the surface, responsible for keeping the minimum wage laughably low. Has Hell frozen over? Was that a pig I just saw flying past my window? Did the Cincinnati Bengals just win the Super Bowl?

Hell is still hot, they tell me. That was a pigeon (with a weight problem) I caught out of the corner of my eye. And the Bengals aren’t winning the Super Bowl in this or any other century. It was actually just business as usual in our nation’s capital. Six Senators in total crossed the aisles, 4 Democrats voted for it and 2 Republicans voted against it. Otherwise, it was just another example of pre-election electioneering.

You see, the bill didn’t just call for a show of hands as to who thought the minimum wage should be increased. (If it had, the bill still wouldn’t have passed, but at least we’d all be a little less confused as to why.) It actually combined a reduction in the estate tax (and the revival of other tax cuts) with the proposed minimum wage increase. For what it’s worth, the AFL-CIO also opposed the bill.

This was a double-edged GOP strategy, and a pretty shrewd one at that. An earlier attempt at bringing the estate tax issue up for debate fell a mere three votes short. So, they linked the proposed estate tax reduction to the proposed minimum wage increase. Even if Democrats succeeded in blocking the bill’s passage, the Republicans could claim that it was the Democratic minority that was responsible for yet another stalled piece of legislation. On a sports discussion board I frequent, Republicans were already asking Democrats to explain why “their” party was against increasing the minimum wage. Oh, boy.

I am not arguing that Democrats have never been guilty of the same type of maneuvering. Filibusters, shutdowns, hey, it all comes with the territory. It’s why politics is the dirtiest game going (though cycling made a strong push during and after this year’s Tour de France)
I shed no tears over the fact that this bill died on the vine. Under the proposed bill, by 2015, the amount of an estate exempt from taxation would have been increased to $5 million for individuals and $10 million for couples. Estates less than or equal to $25 million would have been taxed at capital gains rates (currently 15% and scheduled to increase to 20%). The top tax rate on larger estates would have fallen to 30% (again by 2015).

Don’t get me wrong, I think the minimum wage is long overdue for an increase. I just do not believe that increase is worth it when inextricably linked to yet more tax breaks for those least in need of them. A reduction in the estate tax will arguably lead to cuts in federal programs for the poor due to reduced federal revenue.

The “double taxation” argument against the estate tax has never made any sense to me. You’d be hard-pressed to find a legal transfer of funds that doesn’t constitute “multiple taxation.” My employer has paid taxes on the money that has gone into every paycheck I’ve received. If I don’t get relief from this “double taxation” why should the scion of a wealthy family be exempt from it for money he hasn’t worked for?

Let me put it this way. If I win the lottery, I will gladly pay taxes on my winnings. Likewise, if I inherit an estate large enough to qualify, I will gladly pay estate taxes. In neither instance am I somehow deserving of a tax-free windfall.

The games people play. . .

oba

Flag Daze: South Carolina and That Whacky Confederate Flag

I was genuinely surprised to find out yesterday that the NCAA is considering expanding its ban of championship events in South Carolina because the flag of the former Confederacy is still displayed on Statehouse grounds. That is to say, I was surprised that the ban hadn't already been expanded.

The NCAA is responding (or rather, considering a response) to a request from the Black Coaches Association. Predetermined NCAA postseason events (e.g. conference championships, regionals, etc.) have been barred from the state since 2001. The NCAA is weighing whether or not to expand the ban to postseason events which individual teams in the state might host due to their regular season performance.

In 2000, the NAACP led an economic boycott of South Carolina because, at that time, the Confederate flag flew high over the state's Capitol dome. [Begin sarcasm] In an extremely bold and progressive move, the South Carolina Legislature voted, in the spring of 2000, to move the flag to the Confederate monument located in front of the Statehouse. Surprisingly, the NAACP was not satisfied. [End sarcasm]

South Carolina was the first state to secede from the Union in 1860. Truth be told, they were pretty close to doing so in 1832, but, as they say, almost only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. A scant 97 years after Lee's surrender at Appomattox Court House, the Confederate flag was placed atop South Carolina's Statehouse dome in 1962, where it was to remain until July 1, 2000.

Many individuals, both inside and outside of South Carolina, claim that the Confederate flag is not a racist symbol. They cite the flag's ties to an important part of Southern heritage. The Confederate flag is now displayed as part of a monument to soldiers of the former Confederate States of America. The vast majority of these soldiers were not Rhett Butler. Like most other wars, the have-nots get put on the front lines to defend the interests of the haves. I get that.

What these individuals do not seem to get, is that the Confederate flag is also inextricably linked to the institution of slavery, de jure racial segregation, and opposition to the Civil Rights Movement. These are not good things, and to display the Confederate flag anywhere near the Statehouse is, in my opinion, an implicit endorsement of this legacy. You can't have one without the other.

I'm a big fan of the Bill of Rights. I moved back to Louisiana in early 2006. Since that time, I have passed more houses than I can count whose owners choose to fly the Confederate flag. The First Amendment and I both say, "more power to you." Fly whatever flag you want. As long as you're not violating a content-neutral noise ordinance, you can sit in a rocking chair under that flag and sing "You Fought All the Way, Johnny Reb." If, however, "Trading Spaces" chooses not to use your home because you won't get rid of the Confederate flag hanging in your living room, I have no sympathy for you. Similarly, the NCAA is well within its rights not to allow its postseason games to be played in South Carolina until the Confederate flag is no longer displayed on top of, in front of, or around the Statehouse.

The athletes do not suffer under the current ban. They will not suffer if the ban is extended. They still get to compete, and there are worse things in life than having to play on the road instead of at home. The schools and cities just don't get the extra revenue that comes with hosting these events. This particular combination of "carrot and stick" which the NCAA is considering is no different, really, than the combo used by the federal government with respect to states, the combo used by state governments with respect to counties, and county governments with respect to municipalities. Withholding a benefit is not the same as a punishment under these circumstances.

I must confess, I still chuckle when I see a "You've Got Your X, I've Got Mine" baseball cap or bumper sticker. I first saw these on my way to Myrtle Beach in the spring of 1994, and I still think that's pretty clever. Tacit state endorsement of the Confederate "X" was, is, and always will be a different matter entirely.

Continuing to display the Confederate flag in front of the South Carolina Statehouse is not clever. It's offensive and shortsighted. The NCAA should have no qualms about playing hardball with the State of South Carolina on this issue.

This fight's been over for a long time, Johnny Reb.

oba

In Vino Veritas: Mel Gibson, Drunken Rants, and Forgiveness

I'm usually up on my celebrity "dish". E! is programmend on my remote as one of my "favorites", I'm no stranger to tmz.com, and I catch "Showbiz Tonight" whenever my schedule permits. (Which is quite often, in case you're wondering) This weekend, however, I was obviously a little bit off my game. I get a little distracted once NFL training camp starts.

I honestly did not find out about Mel Gibson and his tequila-fueled run-in with LA County police until yesterday.

I knew about Mel Gibson's history of problem drinking. He's a self-proclaimed alcoholic, and, for what it's worth I applaud him for taking responsibility for that aspect of last week's events. Relapses are not a required part of the recovery process, but they happen quite frequently. His celebrity means that his relapse is front page news. I'd be hard pressed to wish that kind of publicity on anyone. I can't defend drunk driving, though. He put his own safety and the safety of others at risk. This seems to have been somewhat forgotten in all the furor over his words and behavior after getting stopped by police. Reports are that Gibson is taking steps to get back on the wagon. I wish him all the best. To err is human, to forgive divine.

I also knew about the persistent allegations of anti-Semitism leveled at Mel Gibson. His father's comments on the subject of the Holocaust notwithstanding, Gibson's own statements always raised a few eyebrows. His drunken ramblings last Thursday night/Friday morning, however, contained invectives that would make a skinhead blush. A lot of discussion both on and off the 'net has been devoted to what extent these hateful remarks can be attributed to or explained by a problem drinker's having had too much to drink.

From a chemical standpoint ether and alcohol are close relatives. They're close enough to be brothers, as a matter of fact. Both are highly flammable and both are known to cause giggling, dizziness, and vomiting. A patient anesthetized by ether is liable to say some pretty strange things; things which he would probably not say under normal circumstances. Still, ether should not be considered the equivalent of "truth serum", and neither should alcohol. Statements made when a dying man knew he was about to die are given great weight under our legal system. Statements made when a man is dead drunk are not.

In my own experience, I've said many bluntly honest things while under the influence; things that, rightly or wrongly, I might not have said while stone cold sober. I've also lied like a rug. For every instance in which I've seen alcohol remove a man's inhibitions against hurting someone's feelings or making others uncomfortable by saying exactly what's on his mind, I've seen another instance in which alcohol has removed a man's fear of getting caught in a bald-faced lie. All that's to say that "in vino veritas" is always true . . . except when it's not.

No amount of alcohol, though, can justify or explain away the things Mel Gibson said to the arresting officers. Pour a fifth of whiskey down my throat and I'm liable to tell you launch into many diatribes. These could range from my hatred of the New York Yankees to my conviction that Lyndon Johnson gets short-changed by most Presidential historians. Most of these rants will probably not make any sense. They will, however, tend to be exaggerations of views and opinions I held long before the alcohol began to take effect. The circumstances under which I say them and the manner in which I express myself will be the major change brought about by my state of intoxication. Tequila can relax a shy man's inhibitions to the point where he'll get up in front of a crowd and start singing in a bad falsetto. He can't, however, blame the booze for the fact that he knows all the lyrics to "I Will Survive". Alcohol can't bring out anything that's not there to begin with.

The "don't you know who I am?" part of Gibson's rant is pretty commonplace. Many of us who are only household names in our own households might be tempted to say something similar given the right (or wrong) mixture of circumstances and alcohol. The guy no doubt has an ego. He wouldn't have achieved the success he has in a tough industry if he didn't. Our greatest strengths are usually tied to our greatest weaknesses as well.

Mel Gibson's timing could not have been worse. ABC has reportedly scrapped his project dealing with the Holocaust. His movie, "Apocalypto" also seems to be up in the air. As I've said, I hope that Gibson follows through on his plans for treatment. I also hope that he can work through the other issues which that bottle of tequila brought to the surface. These issues include his anti-Semitism and sense of entitlement. I hope he was motivated by a genuine sense of regret and acknowledgement that he needs to work on these things when he asked members of the very community he offended to help him in his recovery. I hope that concern for the future of his career wasn't the primary motivating factor.

oba