Angry Young Dem

A Fan's Biggest Dilemma

2007-07-02T05:35:00.001-07:00

Every fan has a favorite player. Every fan has an arch-nemeses. What do you to when free agency brings these two things together?

When I write of a favorite player, I am not talking about the here and now of whatever sport is currently in season. I am talking about the singular player who defines us as a fan. I am a Mets fan, and Jose Reyes is quickly becoming my favorite Met of all time. But he in not THE favorite player. I am a Jets fan. My wife recently bought me a Jonathan Vilma Jersey. I like Vilma. The Jets haven't had an impact linebacker like him for most of my life. But he does not inspire much passion inside me. The remaining team in my nom-de-plume is the Devils. The Devils have been my true passion since early childhood. My parents didn't get Sportschannel, so I grew up listening to the games on the radio, running reports down to my parents who were nice enough to pretend to care. Now, I loved Devils over the years. My first jersey had role player Doug Brown's name on the back. What Devils fan does not love Scott Stevens or Martin Brodeur. But the one player I truly love. The one player who defines me as a sports fan. The one player that my wife, after less than a year of dating, knew to get on the back of my new jersey was Scott Gomez. The diminutive center from Mexico (of all places) was invigorating to watch. The way he could skate, darting in and out of traffic, creating opportunities for his teammates the way that the Great One used to do it. Scott Gomez is my favorite player.

To this day, there is one word in sports that haunts me. If the mention this word on the radio, I have to change the channel. Believe it or not, this word ruined my senior prom. "MATTEAU." The year was 1994. The game was numbered 7. The score was tied 1-1, the Devils having scored with 7 seconds left to send the game to overtime. in the second overtime, Stephane Matteau picked up a loose puck around the net, swept out in front and jammed the puck home, propelling the Rangers to an eventual Stanley Cup and the Devils home (the Devils would rebound and win 3 cups in the next 10 years). Fittingly, I was listening to the game on my car radio, driving to the afterparty following a night of sneaking out of the prom to check the score. My date was not a hockey fan. Suffice it to say I did not get lucky that night. Thats why I married a woman who was recruited to an Ivy League school to play ice hockey. But I digress.

I hated the New York Rangers since childhood. I don't know if it was the proximity to my beloved Devils that fashioned this hatred, but the Rangers have always been my arch-nemeses. Now, I hate the Patriots and their faux dynasty and the Braves have broken my heart too many times to mention. I hate all thing Philadelphia (except the pretzel and Rita's water ice) and their boorish fans. But I only have one true hate. There is only one team whose demise can make me happy. There is only one team whose success can result in hefty psychiatrist bills, and that is the New York Rangers. The Rangers are Christianity's Judas, Judaism's Haman, Democrat's Cheney and Palestinians' Israeli all tied up into one. They are the epitome of evil.

So what do you do, as a fan, when good meets evil? What do you do when the Favorite signs a mega-deal with the Arch-Enemy? I still love Scott Gomez. I just love the way he plays the game. And I still despise the Rangers. Their failures since the '94 Cup have kept my therapy bills low. But yesterday, Scott Gomez signed a 7 year $53.5 million contract with the Rangers that will pay him $10 million this season . Now, other Devils have gone across the river and taken the money. Bruce Driver was a supporting defenseman who was reaching the end of his career when he went to the Dark Side. Bobby Holik left for a contract he never lived up to, but Holik was the kinda player you always knew you'd hate if he was on the other team. But Scott Gomez was my one true love. His enthusiasm for the game is now across the river playing for Satan's all-star team. Something has to give.

I honestly don't know how to solve this dilemma I still love Scott Gomez, and I still hate the Rangers. But this is only day 1. I have 7 more seasons to let this work its way out. 7 more seasons of watching my favorite player skate for the enemy while his jersey remains hidden in my closet reminding all that once upon a time there was a true love story. But free agency, money, and the work have Satan destroyed that true love.

Let's Call A Spade A Spade

2007-03-17T07:15:00.000-07:00

There it is. I have said it. Now, what does it mean?

I always assumed that this was a racially insensitive statement. In fact, I thought it was downright racist. But when someone suggested to me that I was way off on this one, I decided to do a little research.

It was only recently, in the 20th century, that the term "spade" was used to refer to a Black person. Its origin comes from the "spade" suit in a deck of cards. Thus, with that definition, "calling a spade a spade" could mean calling a "racial epithet a racial epithet."

However, "calling a spade a spade" as an expression long predates the racial connotation of the word spade. As Random House explains, "to call a spade a spade" originated in ancient Greece.

"The exact origin is uncertain; the playwright Menander, in a fragment, said "I call a fig a fig, a spade a spade," but Lucian attributes the phrase to Aristophanes. Later, Plutarch notes that "The Macedonians are a rude and clownish people who call a spade a spade." (It is worth noting that the Greek word translated as "spade" seems actually to mean something like "bowl" or "trough"; the "spade" may be based on a Renaissance mistranslation. In this case the original expression was "to call a bowl a bowl," and thus the "spade" expression is "only" 500, rather than 2,500, years old.)" http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=19970115

The meaning of "to call a spade a spade" is to speak bluntly. Bartelby.com provides an excellent example (maybe I am biased because I am a lawyer) of the proper usage of the idiom. “The prosecutor said, ‘Let’s call a spade a spade. You didn’t borrow the money, you stole it.’” http://www.bartleby.com/59/4/callaspadeas.html

The question in my mind, is where does this get us. The phrase "to call a spade a spade" is not a racially insensitive remark. At least not in its origin. However, there is a segment of the population who believes it is, and therefore is offended by it. For example, A Sacramento City Council meeting got a little heated when a council-member used the idiom and his African-American colleague was insulted commenting that the idiom was an “ethnically and racially derogatory remark”. http://www.worldwidewords.org/topicalwords/tw-spa1.htm

In this way, the idiom is much like the word "niggardly" which is sometimes met with outrage from people who believe it derives from the racial slur "nigger." A white aide to former Washington D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams resigned after using the word "niggardly," a student in Wisconsin was outraged when her teacher insisted on using the word, a 4th grade teacher was formerly reprimanded for uttering the word, and many many other controversies have arisen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niggardly

So what is the answer? What do we do with words or sayings that are not racially insensitive but people believe them to be? Do we stop using the phrase "call a spade a spade" because some people erroneously believe that it is a racial epithet? Do we stop using the word "niggardly" because people don't know what it means? Clearly this has happened before. I can't remember the last time someone used the word "faggot" and actually meant a bundle of sticks.

At the same time, there are racial epithets that are used all the time that people aren't aware of. Sometimes I feel like a one-man crusade to get people to stop using the term "gyp" which is a derogatory term for a gypsy. I don't think I have ever known a Gypsy, but I do know that the phrase "don't Gyp me" is the same to me as "don't Jew me."

At the end of the day, I am not sure where I come out on this. I don't use the term "gyp," am have never used the term "niggardly," and I never "call a spade a spade." It has made my life easier. However, the controversies over "niggardly" and "call a spade a spade" are always popping up. Knowing the actual definitions of these words and phrases leads me to side with the people who use them properly. I find the people objecting to be reactionary in that they are upset at the usage of words and phrases that they don't understand.

I am curious where other people come out on this. Do we stop using these words and phrases because of what people misunderstand, or do we stubbornly insist on using them in the proper form recognizing the storm that might erupt?

PS - can anyone tell me if the phrase "to welch on a bet" has anything to do with the Welsh? I have always assumed it does, but before I call someone out on its usage, I want some type of proof.

When war comes, blame the Jews

2007-03-09T12:03:00.000-08:00

In 1894, French military information was found in the garbage of the German Embassy in France. At the time there was one Jew in the general staff of the French Army, Captain Alfred Dreyfus. Suspicions quickly arose that Dreyfus was a traitor, and, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, Dreyfus was convicted of treason in a secret military court martial. He was stripped of his rank and shipped off to the famed penal colony, Devil's Island. France's political right wing, used this as evidence of the failure of the republic, and used the Dreyfus incident to blame the failing of the Republic on the treacherous Jews.

Evidence soon emerged that made it clear that the Military had fabricated much of the case, and Dreyfus was an innocent man. When Lt. Col. Georges Picquart, himself a known anti-Semite, came forward to the military with proof of Dreyfus' innocence he was told "what does it matter to you that this Jew remains on Devil's Island?"

The rest of course is history. Emile Zola publishes "J'accuse" accusing the French army of a cover up in the Dreyfus trial. Zola is convicted of libeling the French military. The political right said the Dreyfus affair was a plot by Jews and Freemasons to damage the prestige of the Republic and the military and thereby ruin France. Dreyfus is retried, convicted again, pardoned, and eventually, in 1906, was exonerated of all charges. The next story, of course, everyone knows.

On November 10, 1918, A young Adolph Hitler learns that the Fatherland has lost the War to End All Wars. Distraught at the prospect of his beloved Germany losing the war, Hitler searched for a reason. He focused on what he called "the Fifth column," Bolsheviks, Democrats and Jews. Germany lost the war because the German people did not support the war enough. The German people did not support the war enough because of the invisible foes of all German people, the Jews. The notion that the Germans did not lose the war but were "stabbed in the back" became a very popular theory in Germany. Hitler himself would rail against the Versailles treaty, blaming the indignation on the "Jewish Marxists."

Hitler came to prominence with his oratory style, and was always sure to mix in a tirade against the Jews. For a nation that was weary and looking for answers, the Jews became the obvious answer. The rest is a history I am not going to get into. Father Charles Coughlin was a vehement opponent of Franklin Roosevelt's "New Deal." From his weekly radio station, he would launch attacks against Roosevelt, "capitalists" and the Jews. Starting in 1936, Coughlin began to praise the new fascist leaders of Europe, Adolph Hitler and Benito Mussolini. The "Great Depression," he said, was the fault of the Jews. After Kristallnacht, Coughlin blamed the Jewish victims. Coughlin, and his supporters, would hold rally's against Jewish immigration saying "Wait until Hitler gets here" or "Send the Jews back to where they came from on leaky boats." Coughlin's supporters, mixed in with those of Charles Lindbergh and Henry Ford, would rail against America's entry into World War II. They were aligned with the famed anti-Semite Gerald L.K. Smith, who traced Roosevelt's "Jewish ancestry," and stated that The United States was entering WWII to protect "European Jewry." (Ford's anti-Semitism is well known. He blamed WWI on "Jewish-German" bankers.)

A December 9, 2005 Daily Telegraph article says a British Member of Parliament argued that Tony Blair entered the Iraq war because he came under the influence of a "sinister" group of Jews and Freemasons. Counterpunch, and other likeminded publications, make the routine pronouncement that America entered Iraq, at least in part, because of Israel. Potential war in Iran is because of guys named Perle, Wolfiwitz and Abrams. AIPAC, who, unfortunately mostly according to the "radical left,"controls/bribes Congress is responsible for pushing the United States to wage war with Iran.

I will be accused of being neurotic, or ignoring facts, of equating criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism. One thing that I can't be accused of is ignoring a certain trend. Where there is war, there is blaming the Jews.

Someone down there (meaning the comments) will turn this into a flame war about whether criticizing Israel is the same as anti-Semitism. That is not what this is about. Certainly, less and less people today are outright and outspoken bigots. Racists rail against "welfare and affirmative action" instead of African-Americans. Xenophobes rail against illegal immigration instead of Mexicans. Anti-Semites rail against AIPAC and Israel instead of the Jews. This makes it hard. Not all opponents of affirmative action are racists, but some are. Not all opponents of illegal immigration are xenophobes, but some are. Not all critics of Israel or AIPAC are anti-Semites, but some are.

Whether it be JINSA, or AIPAC, or PNAC, or Israel, there is a Jew somewhere to blame the war in Iraq on. Whether is be JINSA, or AIPAC, or PNAC or Israel, there is a Jew somewhere to preemptively blame a potential war in Iran on.

This is not new. Jews have always dealt with this. But we are used to dealing with it from David Duke, Pat Buchanan and Father Coughlin. We are not used to it coming from our natural allies within the progressive movement.

Don't get me wrong, I recognize that this crowd is still small. I do not believe they are representative of the progressive movement. My friends tell me to just ignore them. But I can't. Part of "My" movement says the same things, using the same rhetoric, blames the same people as David Duke, Pat Buchanan and Father Coughlin.

Why The Devils Are Better Than The Rangers

2007-02-26T16:00:00.000-08:00

In yesterday's Daily News, Sherry Ross (who used to do the Devils play by play) wrote the following:

"Both the Rangers (at No. 12) and the Islanders (at No. 15) had chances to draft Zach Parise in 2003 before the Devils traded up to get him at No. 17, in case you're wondering why the best hockey organization in the tri-state area is the one in New Jersey." http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/hockey/story/500475p-422016c.html

That got me thinking about the hockey draft in a way that is typically reserved for football. By examining the draft of both the Rangers and the Devils, one begins to see why the Devils have been the far better franchise since the ealry 1990s.

The 1st Round

I think a good place to start is 1987. It is the earliest draft that you still find a significant number of currently active players. Plus, with the typical trajectory to the NHL, 1987 is probably the best draft to look at for players impact in the 1990s.

1987 - Devils drafted 3rd Selected Brendan Shanahan; Rangers drafted 10th selected Jason Moye. Shanahan is still an all-star, was once one of the top players in the game, and brought the Devils back Scott Stevens. Moye was a journeyman defenseman who stuck around the NHL for a long time.

1989 - Devils drafted 5th Selected Bill Guerin. Rangers drafted 20th selected Steven Rice. Guerin also was one of the best players in the league. Rice was a speedster whose game never matched. Guerin brought the Devils Jason Arnott in a trade. Arnott was the pivot between the Devils famous "A" line.

1990 - Probably the worst "mismatch" draft year. The Rangers select 13th take Michael Stewart who never played an NHL game. The Devils select 20th and take hall of famer and one of the top goalies ever, Martin Brodeur. To make matters worse, the Devils actually traded down to get Brodeur.

1991 - Devils select 3rd, take Scott Neidermayer, one of the best all around defensemen in the game today. Rangers select 15th, take the highly skilled Alexei Kovalev. Good pick by both teams.

1993 - Rangers select 8th, take Niklas Sundstrom, a productive defensive forward. Devils select 13th, take Dennis Pederson, who turns out to be the same.

1995 - Rangers traded away 1st round pick in previous years run to the Stanley Cup. Devils trade up and grab Petr Sykora. In parts of 7 seasons, Sykora would score almost 300 points for the Devils.

1998 - The Rangers have the 7th pick and select Manny Malhotra who has found his place in the NHL as a 3rd liner. Selected with the last 2 picks of the 1st round, the Devils select Mike Van Ryn, the effective defenseman who bolted the Devils by going to juniors, and with the last pick of the 1st round, the Devils select the electrifying Scott Gomez who is quite the Rangers killer today. This is where is starts to get really ugly.

1999 - Much is made of the Rangers 2 high draft picks, 4 and 9. They take Pavel Brendl and Jamie Lundmark. Neither is ever a factor for the Rangers. Lundmark is still bouncing around the NHL while Brendl is playing somewhere in Europe. By contrast, the Devils 2nd round Pick Mike Commodore won a cup with the Devils and is the leader of the Hurricanes.

2000 - A bad Rangers team trades away its 1st round pick. Selecting 22nd, the Devils take current NHLer David Hale.

2003 - The Rangers and Islanders pass on Zach Parise, the Devils gladly scoop him up. He is on pace to score about 40 goals this year.

2004 - The jury is still out. The Rangers had the 6th pick and take prospect goalie Al Montoya. Selecting 20th, the Devils take Travis Zajac, currently in his rookie year as the Devils 2nd line center.

The "Other" Draft Picks

For this section I am going to look
at current players on each teams roster that where drafted by that team in any round besides the first.

The Rangers - Petr Prucha was drafted in the 8th round and had a highly productive rookie year. His 2nd year, not so much. Fedor Tyutin was slected in the 2nd round. He is a solid defenseman with potential to get better. Ryan Hollweg is another 8th rounder. He is a tough 4th line player. Henrik Lundqvist is an 8th round pleasant surprise.

The Devils - 2nd rounder Patrik Elias is the Devils captain. 3rd Rounder Brian Gionta has a knack for finding the net. He had 48 last year and was leading the team this year before he hurt his groin. 2nd rounder Sergei Brylin is a plugger who has been a key part of 3 stanley cup winning teams. Paul Martin and his offensive defensive skills were a steal in the 2nd round. Another 2nd rounder, Jay Pandolfo is probably the best defensive forward in the NHL. He is the guy you put on Jaromir Jagr to stop him. And stop him he does. Colin White, a 2nd round pick, is the backbone of the Devils blueline. Mike Rupp was drafted by the Devils in the 3rd round after the Isles failed to sign him after they took him in the 1st round in 1998. Rupp has been dealt and brought back and brings size to the PP in addition to his role on the 4th line. Jim Dowd is back with the Devils after a long career. The 4th line forward was originally an 8th round pick in 1987. Cam Janssen, a 4th round pugilist, is one of the NHLs most willing fighters. In his 2nd season, he scored his first career goal against the Caps this weekend. My wife and I still can't believe it.

Thats a pretty significant mismatch.

The Undrafted Free Agents

Every team has players who, for whatever reason, did not sign professional contracts. Some were drafted but never signed, others went undrafted and developed later into NHL players.

For The Rangers that group includes plucky Jed Ortmeyer, and NHL defensemen Daniel Girardi and and Thomas Pock.

The Devils again blow the Rangers away in this category as their undrafted players include top NHL defenseman Brian Rafalski who the Devils stole from Finland after a productive career at the University of Wisconsin. John Madden's coach at the University of Michigan told undrafted John Madden he would never be an NHL player. Madden has scored 20 goals in a season, won the Selke trophy for best defensive forward, and is probably one of the best 3rd line centers in the entire league. The Devils have grabbed other undrafted college players as well, including defensemen Andy Greene and Alex Brooks, who are both with the Devils but injured, Forward Rod Pelley who has been with the Devils for 4 games this year and is rumored to be on the trading block, and even Scott Clemenson, the ever patient backup goalie, who won his first game against the Caps this weekend.

This does not address trades because they are too hard to assess. The Rangers brought in Jaromir Jagr, who is the most talented player on either team to be acquired by trade. However, it would not be unreasonable to suggest that the Devils trade for unhrealded Jamie Langenbrunner was actually a better trade.

So, leaving trades aside, the Devils have done a better job scouting. They have done better in the 1st round regardless of where they have picked. They have had far more success in the later rounds and the heart and soul of the Devils was slected outside round 1 (Elias, Gionta, White and Pandolfo). And they have done a better job scouting and signing undrafted players.

One day, Lou Lamoriello will retire or leave the Devils and a whole bunch of NY Rangers fans will breathe a sigh of relief. Until then, the Rangers, with all their NY glitz and money, will always be looking up at the Devils in the standings.

Disagreement vs. Hatred

2007-02-20T06:50:00.000-08:00

My last post asked the question whether liberals were just as bad as conservatives when it came to rhetoric. The answer, for me, is no. I think the left has a long way to go until their rhetoric and hyperbole matches the bile spewed by Ann Coulter and her cult of hatred. At the same time, I concluded that the Left is getting there, and not so slowly.

Hatred is not something we should aspire too. Vilifying and degrading your opponent gets you nowhere. It wins you no friends and gets you no closer to a resolution. Instead of breaking down the walls of disagreement, it creates even larger blockades. One does not need to hate in order to disagree, and one does not need to respect their adversary to act with respect toward their adversary.

I don't hate Republicans. I don't even hate George W. Bush. I disagree with them. Often, I disagree with them forcefully. I think the vast majority of their positions are bad for America. Unlike Ann Coulter, or Bill O'Reilly, I don't have to make them the enemy in order to disagree with them. I don't have to insult them in order debate them.

One thing in particular that worries me is that when you demonize your opponent you run the risk of dehumanizing them. When politics becomes less about the policies and more about the persons, violence ensues. Aaron Burr and Charles Sumner know that all too well. I look at the political environment and I wonder whether we will have a future of political violence.

I think back to the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin in Israel. The rhetoric at the time was vile from both sides, but particularly the far Israeli right. Instead of a debate about whether the Oslo accords were in the bets interest of Israel, Rabin became the focus. Rabin was a Nazi. People publicly talked about the wrath of God would be brought down on whoever surrendered Jewish control over any part of Judea or Samaria. Rabin, as Ann Coulter smeared all Democrats years later, was a traitor. Likewise, Rabin and the Israeli left lambasted the Israeli right. They ignored the needs and the complaints of Israel's religious community calling their Rabbis "Ayatollahs." The left did not talk, act or feel, like their right wing opponents were human beings. The right wing not only felt the same, but thought that God was on their side. Everyone ignored the rhetoric as "politics as usual," but it made Leah Rabin a widow.

I don't bring this up to get into who was right, who was wrong, or whether the Olso accords are a good thing. I bring it up just to point out that the less human you make your opponent out to be, the more likely that violence can follow. It is no surprise that militias dehumanize their opponents in order to brainwash their fighters. Likewise, it is no surprise that negotiators try to humanize a kidnappers victim.

George W. Bush is wrong. His views are doing America harm. His policies are making the rich richer and sending our youth to fight in an unnecessary war. But George W. Bush is not the enemy. He, and the Republican Party, are the opponent, but they are not the enemy. There is a difference and it is one that I encourage everyone to try to understand and embrace. My fear is that if we keep following the same path that we are on, as I posted in October of last year, politics and violence will be forever intertwined.
http://angryyoungdem.blogspot.com/2006/10/is-this-what-politics-has-come-to.html

Are We Worse Than They Are?

2007-02-09T05:00:00.000-08:00

This is a diary that has been brewing in my mind for awhile. I am frustrated by the state of political discourse in this country. Rhetoric substitutes for substance. Insults substitute for argument. Hatred substitutes for conciliation. In short, political discourse in this country is dead.
I don't think I am the first person to say this. I remember reading a book when I was in college called "Amusing Ourselves to Death" by Neil Postman. I don't think I fully appreciated the book when I was in college, but when I look back on it, I understand Postman to have been saying exactly what I am saying. However, I think Postman goes further, squarely blaming entertainment, particularly television, for killing political discourse in America. I never blamed television for killing political discourse. I blamed the right wing. Theirs was the rhetoric of hate. Ann Coulter demonizes liberals. Bill O'Reilly insults anyone he disagrees with. Right wing politicians constantly verbally assault the judiciary. Weekly political discussion revolves around people yelling at each other. Everyone talking but no one listening. Lately, however, it has seemed to me that liberals are guilty of the offenses I always ascribed to the right. A court recognizes the right to gay marriage and the right starts the "tyranny of unelected liberal judges" assault. It disgusts me. But a military judge rules that he has no jurisdiction to rule on the legality of the Iraq war and he is dismissed as "a pure Bush toady, ignoring the US Constitution in his rush to support Bush's illegal war." Republicans accuse Democrats as being traitors and liberals accuse George W. Bush of being a war criminal.

I used to believe in hyperbole. I was really really guilty of it. But eventually I realized that it was counter-productive. It was good for expressing anger and outrage. It was bad for getting anyone to actually listen to me. I don't have to prove how outrageous I can be. I don't have to out-liberal the next person. Extreme language is fine if you want to be viewed as the political extreme. But the political extreme is marginalized, and rightfully so.

I want the Democrats to adopt a progressive agenda. I want the Democrats to push even further for equality. Racial equality. Gender Equality. Equality of all sexual orientations. I want the Democrats to fight for gun control, universal health care, stem cell research and better education. But the way to encourage that fight is not to use fighting words, but to fight for your ideas. To do so we need to ramp down the rhetoric and ramp up the argument.

Lets not be the Left’s version of the radical right (which has represented the Republican party since sometime around 1994). Our anger should not substitute for our argument. Lets be the party of fact, fairness and forward-thinking and leave the Republicans as the party of derision, distraction and destruction.

This is kinda cool

2007-02-07T11:37:00.000-08:00

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/02/07/prehistoric.love.ap/index.html

Great New Political Site

2007-02-02T07:36:00.000-08:00

From the creators of the best sports Wiki around (www.armchairgm.com) come a new political Wiki. http://politics.wikia.com/index.php?title=Main_Page.

Since shortly before the last election, I have been a devotee of www.dailykos.com. I really appreciate a liberal community on the web, and I believe that it plays a crucial, and practical role in electing Democrats to Congress. However, I have been frustrated with the intellectual discourse (more specifically, the lack thereof) at DailyKos. Please don't misunderstand me. I am not insulting DailyKos. I think it is the premiere liberal site dedicated to electing Democrats to Congress. I plan on continuing to be an active member of the DKos community.

I am also aware of what I consider to be the shortcomings of DailyKos. Most specifically, the flame wars, and the fact that many serious diaries, with serious ideas get ignored while people flock to the most base, inflammatory junk of the day. Knowing the people who created ArmchairGM, I think that politics.wikia is going to be a welcome addition to the world of political blogging. It has a main page and a page for people of all political persuasions. Anyone familiar with ArmchairGM, knows that this new site is going to be a terrific place for debate, and a smashing success. From now on, you will also be able to find all of my political musings at http://politics.wikia.com/index.php?title=Main_Page.

California Court Cites Me

2007-01-30T16:11:00.000-08:00

Ok. I know that a blog is no place to brag. However, today a California court ruled that a prior juvenile conviction could not later be used to enhance a sentence for a subsequent crime committed as an adult. What is notable about this decision is that I had articulated this position in a published article that I penned while in law school. (http://www.cardozolawreview.com/PastIssues/SCHNEIDER.WEBSITE.pdf)

My basic argument was that the Supreme Court in Apprendi v. New Jersey had stated that except for the fact of a prior conviction, anything that increased a sentence beyond the statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court did not require prior convictions to be submitted to a jury under the theory that the defendant had already received due process in the prior adjudication. Included in due process is the right to a jury trial. However, juveniles do not have a right to a jury trial. Hence, I argue that after Apprendi, a juvenile adjudication in which there was no right to a jury trial cannot be used to later enhance an adult sentence.

Today, a California court agreed with me. http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/H028798A.PDF

"The sole issue in this appeal is whether it is constitutional to use juvenile adjudications to increase the maximum punishment for an offense, in light of the United States Supreme Court’s opinions in Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466 (Apprendi) and Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 (Blakely).In concluding that it is not, we respectfully disagree with our colleagues on this court and others, and join the small but growing number of courts across the country that have likewise concluded that Apprendi and its progeny compel us to recognize that the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial is an integral part of the process that is due before a prior conviction may be used to increase the maximum sentence for a criminal offense."

Although I expect this case to be appealed to the California Supreme Court, it is an important development in the criminal law. Allowing juvenile convictions to later enhance adult sentences allows the State to pull a bait and switch on the juvenile defendant. In exchange for a more lenient justice system, the juvenile gives up certain constitutional protections, namely the right to a jury trial. However, if that juvenile commits a crime as an adult, the State argues that the juvenile conviction should be used to enhance a sentence as if the juvenile conviction was just like any other conviction. Such a process allows states to make an end run around Constitutional due process.

Anyway, I don't know if any of you will find this interesting or important. I certainly was excited. I just gave an interview to a San Francisco legal journal called "The Reporter," and I understand there may be an article on Thursday if anyone is interested.

Colts Adjust, Pats Go Home

2007-01-22T06:58:00.000-08:00

First off, let me say, that was one of the single most entertaining game I have ever watched. Certainly that is the most invested I have been in a game that my beloved Jets were not a part of.

With that out of the way, lets get directly to the questions that everyone is, or should be asking today. What happened to the Patriots? Five minutes, thirty five seconds into the second quarter I sighed at the realization that the Pats were going to the super bowl yet again, and would likely win. This game was looking like a typical Bill Belichick, super genius, vs. Peyton Manning, super choke, mismatch. New England went punt, touchdown, touchdown, interception for a touchdown, punt, kneel down. Their offense was efficient and their defense dominant. Manning on the other hand was struggling to get anything done offensively. 3 and out, long drive for a field goal, interception for a TD, 3 and out, 15 play drive for a FG. The score at the half was 21-6. NE was dominant. Their defense had Peyton's number again.

But something funny happened in the second half. The Colts adjusted and the Patriots did not. Except for Ellis Hobbs returning kicks, the Patriots were not prepared to play the second half. Indy got the ball and scored a TD. The air should have been out of the Colts when Hobbs returned the ensuing kickoff 80 yards to the Colts 20 and 5 plays later the Pats had a controversial touchdown. but the Colts just came right back and scored another TD, forced a 3 and out and scored another TD. This looked like a Rocky movie. Rocky was getting his face mashed in the entire fight, but he was still standing, still throwing punches of his own, and as long as he was throwing punches, as long as he was still standing on his feet, he had a chance.

Another short field field goal by the Patriots. At some point you had to figure that Manning would throw the crucial interception, or the Patriots defense would make the key stop as they have done, year after year. But not yet as Peyton drove the Colts to another tying field goal. About 5 minutes left, New England has the ball on their own 46 yard line. 5 plays later they have a 3 point lead.

Finally, the Patriots defense makes the plays you have grown to expect them to make. 3 plays by the Colts, 0 yards and a punt. They only have 2 time-outs because they lost one in a futile challenge. The Colts had one of the worst rushing defenses in the league. New England had an efficient, pounding running game. A first down and the game was basically over.

But, uncharacteristic of the Patriots, they take an inexcusable too many men in the huddle penalty, backing them up 5 yards. Now they need 15 yards to win the game. That was a Herm Edwards penalty, not a Bill Belichick penalty. Needed to run out the clock, Belichick throws. 7 Yards on first down. 4 yards on second down. Time out Colts. Game on the line. Ball in Tom Brady's hand. I say to my wife. Damn Tom Brady is going to pick up this first down. He does it every time. I was again resigned to another Patriots Super Bowl.

I am caught up in the emotion. I scream out loud. Tom Brady did something very unusual. Not only didn't he pick up the first down, but he almost ended the game himself as Bob Sanders should have had the interception and returned it for a TD. Instead it was just a pass breakup and a touchback later, The ball was in Peyton Manning's hands with 2:17 left. I figured in about 2 or 3 plays Teddi Bruschi would intercept a pass intended for Dallas Clark and I'd have to watch Bill Belichick be sloshed with Gatorade yet again. Maybe it was the losses of Romeo Crennel and Eric Mangini. maybe it was the aging linebacker core, or maybe it was the make shift secondary playing without Rodney Harrison. But, with the help of a questionable roughing the passer call on Tully Banta-Cain, Rocky had finally turned the corner on Apollo Creed. Unlike Rocky 1, where Rocky couldn't pull it out, this time, the Colts were Rocky 2. Surviving everything the Pats had to offer until they finally threw the punch that won the game in the last second.

This time it was Tom Brady who couldn't complete the pass when he had to. This time it was Tom Brady who had the game end after throwing an interception. This time it was Patriots fans, who for once, left the game decrying what could have been. Peyton Manning put his knee down. Tony Dungy exhaled having finally gotten over the hump. The State of Indiana cried tears of joy having finally slayed the playoff beast. The NFL said "shit!" knowing that the super bowl would never come close to as entertaining as this came. And in a luxury box in the RCA Dome, a sullen Eli Manning realized that Peyton Manning just created another expectation, another point of comparison, another level, that Eli could never live up to.

I don't this spells the end to the Era of the Patriots. They need to get younger and better at WR (If you had to point to a "goat" in this game, the only choice would be Reche Caldwell, who dropped 2 TDS, including one where the Colts simply forgot to cover him). They need an influx of youth and speed at LB, and they need help in the secondary, especially if Asante Samuel leaves as a free agent. These are the things that Patriots fans are thinking about right now. Because, like the fans of every team but two, they are counting the days to the NFL draft.

The Clutch (and anti-Clutch)

2007-01-18T09:39:00.000-08:00

In every sport there is the one guy that you know is going to produce in the clutch. The historical names are pretty easy to generate. No one was ever more clutch than basketball's Michael Jordan. Hockey's Claude Lemieux (no relation to Mario), just had a knack for scoring important playoff goals (for every team he played on). With 2 minutes left on the clock, up by 6, no defensive back wanted John Elway or Joe Montana lining up on the other side of the line of scrimmage. On the other hand, there are also those players that have a history of disappearing when their teams need them the most. Ron Hextall's 5-hole always seemed bigger in the big games. Phillies fans still have nightmare's of Jim Fregosi handing the ball to Mitch Williams in the World Series. Its unfair to have Scott Norwood on the list for one missed kick, but it did cost his team the Super Bowl. I have devised my lists of the most clutch current players and the anti-clutch current players. Please feel free to add your own.

CLUTCH

Golf - This is a no-brainer. Tiger Woods might be the most clutch golfer ever.

Tennis - Roger Federer simply does not lose (except the occasional lose to Nadal, typically on clay). There is a reason Federer and Woods hang out together.

Hockey - Martin Brodeur. Simply put, goaltending wins in the playoffs and there is not goaltender I would rather have in that situation that Martin Brodeur. Brodeur ranks up there with Patrick Roy as one of the best to ever play the game. The Devils were mostly able to survive the retirement of Scott Stevens, I don't know how they will survive when Brodeur finally hangs up his skates.

Baseball - Here's the thing. The obvious answer is Derek Jeter. The Yankees have just won the World Series too many times, and Jeter has just been the player who seems to make the plays that helps them win. I happen to think that a lot of it is just hype, but I can't think of anyone who belongs here more than DJ. Mariano would have had a chance but he has been on the mound when the Yanks lost a world series, and when they lost a 3-0 lead to Boston. I still think he is one of the most dominant closers to ever pitch, but he can't compete in the Mr. Clutch competition.

Basketball - This is not my area of expertise, and I can't think of any one player who belongs in this category. I can see an argument for Kobe or Jason Kidd. I will rely on people more informed than me on this one.

Football - When I first started thinking about this, I dreaded the fact that I was going to put Tom Brady down. However, the more I thought about it, the more I think it is a different Patriot who gets the gold. All of Tom's Brady successes have 1 thing in common, Adam Vinitiari. Tom Brady is a great QB. However, he has gotten a lot of help. The tuck rule and Adam V's heroics got him his first one. Adam V. got him his second one. The entire time he has had the mad genius cooking up his defense. Heck, even in the win over the Chargers, it wasn't Brady who saved the day, but an incredibly smart Troy Brown (this is a subject for another diary, but that play by Brown just shows what kind of players they have in NE!!). At the same time, Adam V. has lined up by himself, sometimes in the snow, sometimes in a dome, but always with the game on the line and nailed the kick. With the game on the line and within 50 yards, seeing Adam V lining up for the kick would make me cry if I were the opposing team. I know it is tough to give the award to a kicker, but too many important games have been won on his foot.

The Anti-Clutch

Golf - Phil Mickelson had this one all wrapped up until he went a won a major. He has been playing so well lately that the award is going to go to Greg Norman who won a lot less than he should have, or Jean Van de Velde, who was a relative nobody who had the British Open all sewed up only to choke in one of the greatest chokes in golf history.

Tennis - Ok. This one comes from women's tennis. The answer is easily Anna Kournikova. So much hype so few victories. Not only that, but her only attribute was that she was the best looking woman on the tour which she ceased to be once Maria Sharapova joined the tour.

Hockey - It is tough to single out a particular hockey player who is "un-clutch." I mean, it was easy to point out Ron Hextall, like I said, because he always seemed to give up a bad goal at a bad time. The best I can come up with recently is Eric Lindros. Now, Lindros did have some good playoffs. From 1994 to 1997 he averaged at least a point per game in the playoffs. However, he never led his team to a Stanley Cup win, was part of multiple Flyers collapses, and was one of many victims of Scott Stevens' playoff intensity. A quick look at his statistics reveals that Lindros, who came into the league hyped like no one before, hasn't even been to the playoffs since 2000.

Baseball - my original image is Kenny Rogers walking in the winning run in an extra inning playoff game. However, his record in last years playoffs might have saved him the indignity of be Mr. Anti-clutch. Maybe I am tainted by recent events, but Alex Rodriguez has to be considered Mr. Anti-clutch right now. His last 3 playoff series he has hit .258, .133, and .071, with a total of 2 HRs and 5 RBIs. All one need to do is compare those playoff numbers to his paycheck and its a pretty easy conclusion. I wonder if ever before in history Mr. Clutch played right next to Mr. Anti-clutch.

Basketball - My basketball answer is going to be a little bit of a cheat. Again, it might just be my lack of knowledge about basketball, but my Mr. Anti-clutch does not fail in the playoffs because he can't lead his team to the playoffs. The fact of the matter is that every team Stephon Marbury leaves gets immediately better and every team Marbury goes to gets remarkably worse.

Football – He gets another chance this weekend, but right now the answer has to be Peyton Manning. Thus far, the Colts have won this playoff year despite Manning. Manning has been stellar throughout the regular seasons, leading an offensive juggernaut. However, he has consistently failed to get things done in the playoffs, including a shutout by my beloved Jets. Manning’s big game failures date back to college. Manning has more talent than any other QB in the league. However, until he wins a Super Bowl, or at least gets to one, he will just be an example of why talent alone is not enough in the NFL.

An Important Article about Israel/Palestine

2007-01-15T15:57:00.000-08:00

Precisely because expectations of US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's trips to the Middle East usually plunge lower than the Dead Sea, she seems to feel that she can quietly gauge receptivity to new approaches to the Israeli-Palestinian situation without setting off world headlines.

As President George W. Bush puts forth a new strategy in an uphill battle in Iraq, there have been calls from British Prime Minister Tony Blair and others abroad, as well as calls by the Iraq Study Group (Baker-Hamilton Commission) at home, to demonstrate progress on the Israeli-Palestinian front. Moreover, Rice entered this administration as one of its brightest lights and now is portrayed by some in the media as lacking diplomatic achievement.

It is against this backdrop that Rice wonders if the Israelis and Palestinians might be willing to accept broad principles that would govern a final status deal. The advantages are clear: 1) An unprecedented statement by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in a speech at Sde Boker about Palestinian "full sovereignty" pending security performance led to no backlash in Israel. 2) Israel's Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, Rice's kindred spirit, ardently believes a "diplomatic horizon" could facilitate rather than hinder the revival of even the original three-phased sequence of the moribund roadmap since there would no longer be any question about the shape of its ultimate destination. 3) Critically, reaching such principles could vindicate Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in his struggle against Hamas as he asserts that the key to a final status deal is negotiations and not violence. 4) It is very tantalizing to at least some in the Bush administration to point to such principles as being not sharply at odds with the Saudi initiative even if terms are not identical, viewing such a move as cementing further the anti-Iran alliance among many Arab states led by Riyadh.

However, the drawbacks are also equally evident: weak leadership on both sides of the Palestinian-Israeli divide. Can Abbas, who is locked in a power-struggle with Hamas, compromise on the issue of Palestinian refugees or will he be reviled as someone who betrayed the Palestinian cause? With very poor polling numbers ever since the war last summer, can Olmert agree to Palestinian sovereignty in East Jerusalem without leading to sharp political turmoil in Israel? Moreover, if grand diplomatic pronouncements are not matched with deeds, will Hamas not exploit this and declare it the latest proof that negotiations are bankrupt? If we learned anything from 2000, it is that to try and fail has violent consequences. While the sequence here would be different, the Middle East corollary of philosopher George Santayana's famous edict haunts all: everyone remembers the past, but all repeat the same mistakes anyway.

Undoubtedly, public attention during her trip is likely to focus on security and economic confidence-building ideas that would improve daily life and could effectively bolster Abbas. Washington believes US inaction could guarantee that the Hamas militia in Gaza dubbed the "Executive Force"--now numbering 6,000 and headed for 12,000--gobbles up smaller Fateh security services. To do nothing means acquiescing to a twist on the old intifada bumper sticker: "let Hamas win". However, Rice wants to think bigger than confidence-building.

She does not know if Olmert is ready for such an approach, and one would be wrong to assume that the cautious Rice would publicly dive into something like this without the requisite backing of the parties. At the same time, it is hard to believe that Rice would raise such issues without the blessing of President Bush.

As Rice visits the region, she should dispel some of the mythology that exists in the Arab world on Middle East peacemaking.

1. "If Israel does not go to final status talks, this shows it does not want peace." This is the reductionist, land-driven narrative that sees gradualism as an Israeli plot. It received a boost in the US last year due to contributions by American academics who are not Middle East experts (Walt/Mearsheimer) and by former President Jimmy Carter. This narrative conveniently ignores the fact that some of the biggest obstacles to resolving this conflict in 2000 were not land, but issues of refugees and security. Through land swaps, land seems the most easily resolved of these issues. The other issues helped doom the talks in 2000 and seem even less resolvable now. Apart from the impasse on refugees, security is a problem as well. From the Israeli side, how could the IDF withdraw from virtually the entire West Bank when 1,000 Qassam rockets have fallen on Israel from Gaza since its 2005 pullout? The distinction that Israel views final status talks as desirable but not feasible is seldom heard in the Arab world, even if the difference is heaven and earth.

2. "Everyone knows what the solution is but the parties just do not know how to get there." This makes it sound as if all that is missing is a book on diplomatic etiquette. In fact, rejectionism and terrorism are not marginal phenomena, as Hamas currently heads the Palestinian Authority government.

3. "The Arabs states are for peace. They put forward the Arab Initiative in 2002." It is axiomatic that Arab leaders will urge Rice to press Israel, but it is far from clear that they will do their share. Even though the Arab Initiative is an improvement on the past, there is no doubt that this is a very asymmetrical peace plan. The initiative requires Israel first to do all the front-loaded work by getting out of the West Bank and Golan Heights, with Arab reciprocation delayed, hence less binding. This process would be far more effective if Arab states were to take parallel steps to reinforce progress on all sides. This would bolster the center among Israel and the Palestinians, providing the latter with key political cover. If the Quartet's roadmap is to be revived, it should be matched by an Arab roadmap.

5. "The whole problem of the Arab-Israel conflict is that Israel enjoys too much support in Washington." The Walt/Mearsheimer/Carter thesis is a familiar echo of what famed American historian Richard Hofstadter described in his essay, "The Paranoid Strain in American Politics", about the American right's scapegoating of liberals as communists during the McCarthy period. Perhaps it is not surprising that scapegoating occurs during periods of turmoil like the Iraq War, but it is also unfair. American Jews did not stop Bill Clinton from proposing the partitioning of Jerusalem in 2000, for example.

6. "Everything in the Middle East is linked to the Arab-Israel conflict." Since September 11, 2001, the American public has been treated to an endless seminar on the Arab world. Its conclusion has been that Islamism has very deep cultural and political roots, linked to dysfunctionalism in Arab regimes but not driven by the Arab-Israel conflict. The 2000-2004 intifada did not cause a single Arab regime to fall; al-Qaeda prepared its plots at the height of US peacemaking in the Middle East in the 1990s. The Sunni insurgency in Iraq's Anbar province is not driven by the dynamics of Israelis and Palestinians. The US should be involved in the search for a two-state solution not because of Iraq, but because it wants to find problem-solving solutions that give dignity to both Israelis and Palestinians alike. An elevated debate that avoids unchallenged slogans as well as a carefully orchestrated policy that avoids the pitfalls ahead could even prove Santayana's Middle East corollary to be wrong.

David Makovsky is director of the Project on the Middle East Peace Process at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, where his latest monograph is Lessons and Implications of the Lebanon War: A Preliminary Assessment (2006).

From: http://bitterlemons-international.org/inside.php?id=666

A Dream Deferred

2007-01-15T06:49:00.000-08:00

What Happens to a dream deferred?
Does it dry up
like a raisin in the sun?
Or fester like a sore --
and then run?
Does it stink like rotten meat?
Or crust and sugar over --
like a syrupy sweet?

Maybe it just sags like
like a heavy load?

Or does it explode?

-- Langston Hughes

A little over a week ago I was sitting on an airplane listening to Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream Speech." I had downloaded it from a website called Learnoutloud (www.learnoutloud.com). I can't remember having listened to or read the entire speech before, having only heard or learned about the highlights in school. As I listened to the speech, it struck me how much of what Dr. King said today, and how little of his vision we had actually achieved.

I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation.

Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.

But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languishing in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. So we have come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.

This was the first thing that struck me. Clearly, the basic tenant of Dr. King's speech have been achieved, that is the basic freedom of Black people, the end of Jim Crow. However, looking around the country, it is still overwhelmingly true that Black people still live in an island of poverty. In 2003, the last year I had data for, so if you have something more recent please post it as a comment, the poverty rate among people who listed their only race as black, was 24.4%. In comparison, White people had 8.2%, 11.% for Asians, and 22.5% for Hispanics. (http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/002484.html)

Black poverty was exposed following Hurricane Katrina. It was the Black poor of Louisiana and Mississippi who were left behind to die. It was the Black poor who was left behind. It was the Black poor who was suffering at the Superdome. This was the type of poverty and racial inequality that Dr. King and an entire generation of civil rights activists was fighting against. It wasn't just the right to sit on the front of the bus. It was a fight to rise the Black people of Louisiana and Mississippi out of extreme poverty, a situation we still find them in today.

In a sense we have come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds." But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. So we have come to cash this check — a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice. We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quick sands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children.

It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment. This sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. Those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. There will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.

This raises a very simple question. Where is the fight today? Our struggle for civil rights is in a defensive mode. Instead of pushing to continue the struggle for true equality, we are in a defensive mode, trying to stave off attempts to end affirmative action. In the summer of 1963 there was an urgency, but as is the same with so many struggles for equality, the momentum stops well short of the ultimate goal. The images of Bull Conner and his fire hose, the story of Michael Schwerner, Andrew Goodman, and James Chaney, galvanized a nation, north and south, east and west, and Jim Crow was defeated. But so much more was left to be done. The fine print. The stuff that would prove much harder because simple changes in the law was not the objective. But Black leaders were murdered and undermined and White conservatives started a backlash against all civil rights movements, particularly for race and gender equality. And today, with so much left to do, the photos of Katrina, and the stories of Sean Bell, Amadou Diallo, Abner Louima, and Ousmane Zongo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amadou_Diallo) have failed to rekindle our fight for basic equality.

But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice. In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.

We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force. The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny and their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone.

As we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall march ahead. We cannot turn back. There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?" We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied, as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We can never be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.

Here Dr. King makes an important distinction between the right to vote, and having someone to vote for. Certainly, the right to vote is one of the achievements of the civil rights movement. Although, as I will discuss shortly, creative ways have been found to depress the Black vote. But Dr. King also talks about having something, or someone to vote for. He talks about such distrust and frustration with the system that Black people have nothing to vote for.

One of my frustrations with politics, and indeed today's civil rights community, is that people seem to have forgotten about the struggle. While affirmative action and the disparity in health care remain a central part of the Democratic agenda, there are so many Race issues that just aren't talked about enough today. The Death Penalty is an issue of race that politicians are scared to attack for fear of looking soft on crime. Along those lines, or criminal justice system as a whole, and particularly the war on drugs, are issues of race that people are afraid to address. Poverty, ghettos, and gun violence are all issues of race that we have made so little progress in fighting. What would Dr. King think if he were alive today to witness that the Death Penalty was overwhelmingly used on Blacks and Hispanics. What would Dr. King think about the shacks of Mississippi and the ghettos of New York. What would Dr. King think about the level of gun violence in Black communities and the level of black on black crime. And most importantly, what would Dr. King thing about the paltry attempts that are being made in Washington, and in state legislatures to address these societal ills.

It is not just a matter of having the political will to address these ills. As I said, although the right to vote is one of the signature achievements of the civil rights movements, creative ways to depress the black vote have been found. One of the most common is laws prohibiting voting by felons. This brings together so many of the things previously mentioned. Poverty, police, the drug war, gun violence, and fatalistic thinking. We live in a society that criminalizes certain behavior, and because of that criminalization, takes away the right to vote. Not surprisingly, this has an overwhelming affect on the Black community. As of 2004, 4.7 million Americans, 13% of which were Black, were denied the right to vote because they were felons. The 13% for Blacks was seven times the national average. (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/11/opinion/11SUN1.html?ex=1247284800&en=1ff1291f81330c2a&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland)
You can't deny the politics involved. Black people vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. For the most part, the people pushing for criminalization of certain behavior, and then purging the voting rolls of felons, are Republicans. Thus, purging the voting rolls of Black voters is a way to help Republicans get elected. This was a story in 2000 Florida, and it was a story in 2004 Ohio. Perhaps I see a conspiracy where the isn't one. But the way I see it we tolerate poverty and lack of opportunity for minorities, we criminalize behavior that predominantly pertains to minorities, we strip felons of the right to vote, and then we call anyone who wants to change it "soft on crime."

I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow jail cells. Some of you have come from areas where your quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive.

Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to South Carolina, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed. Let us not wallow in the valley of despair.

I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal."

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.

This is our hope. This is the faith that I go back to the South with. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.

This will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with a new meaning, "My country, 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim's pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring."

And if America is to be a great nation this must become true. So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania!

Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado!

Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California!

But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia!

Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee!

Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.

And when this happens, When we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"

The final question I have, is does anyone still have a dream. Does anyone still dream of equality or have we reached the point where we have achieved what we will, and any other achievements will have to come by sheer momentum alone. Have we abandoned the urgency of equality? Where is the next Dr. King. Where is the next person who can galvanize a nation in order to finish a job that ended prematurely. Freedom does ring in the sense that segregation as law has been defeated. But Freedom's ring has been muted by the defacto segregation in our nation's cities and schools. Freedom does ring in the sense that there are Black people in the House of Representatives. But freedom's ring is muted by the fact that all of them represent majority minority districts. Dr. King's basic dream, that we will judge people by the content of their character and not the color of their skin has not been achieved. And so today, on Martin Luther King Jr. day. In a new era, with a new leadership in Congress, I send out my hope that we can finish the job. I send out hope that we can give more than just lip service to the true issues of racial inequality that afflict our nation.

Hold fast to dreams
For if dreams die
Life is a broken-winged bird
That cannot fly
Hold fast to dreams
For when dreams go
Life is a barren field
Frozen with snow

-- Langston Hughes

A Jets Post-Mortem

2007-01-10T07:21:00.000-08:00

Three days removed from the Jets tough playoff loss to the Patriots, I can finally do an assessment of the 2006 New York Jets. They were a mediocre team, well-coached, and with an easy schedule. In my estimation, they won the games they were supposed to and lost the ones they supposed to, with the exception of the questionable loss to the Browns. The 2007 season figures to be tougher, with the schedule of a wildcard team instead of the powder puff schedule they had this year. As such, changes and improvements must be in store. Here is my assessment of where the Jets stand, position by position, and what they need to focus on in the off-season.

QB - Eric Mangini, while praising Chad Pennington, said that he will have to win the job again next year. I expect him to do so, but I expect that it might be his last year. I am a big Chad Pennington backer. Its hard not to like such a smart and gutsy QB. However, I finally realize that Pennington is merely an All-Star version of Trent Dilfer. Pennington is smarter and better than Dilfer ever was, but at the same time, Pennington is a game manager. He can't win games with his arm. The Jets will never have a dynamic, vertical passing game with Pennington at the helm. Certainly, you can win a super bowl with Chad Pennington as your QB, but every other position on your team has to be rock solid. Kellen Clemens is the future at the position and I expect he will eventually take over, likely in 2008.

RB - The Jets went with a RB by committee approach this year to replace Hall of Famer Curtis Martin. Houston, Barlow and Rookie Leon Washington did an admirable job, but realistically, the Jets need to find an every down back. Washington will be part of the Jets offense next year in a Kevin Faulk/Dave Megget/early Tiki Barber role. I suspect that either Barlow or Houston will be back as well. The other will either be released or, if they can get a late round pick, traded. The Jets will consider San Diego Restricted Free Agent Michael Turner, but otherwise I suspect they will take a shot in the draft. The tow names I would watch are Marshawn Lynch and Michael Bush. It would be a dream if Adrian Peterson somehow fell to the Jets.

FB - The Jets could do anything at this position. BJ Askew has shown nothing to suggest the Jets will be in a rush to bring him back. The Jets also have James Hodgkins, Stacy Tutt, and can use a TE like Sean Ryan. It would be pretty cool if the Jets spent one of their extra 2nd round picks on Rutgers FB and folk hero, Brian Leonard.

WR - I think the Jets are set at this position except for depth. Coles, Cotchery and Brad Smith can all be penciled in. After that it is an open competition with Justin McCareins, perhaps Tim Dwight. I have to admit to not getting too excited about who the 4th and 5th WRs will be. Whoever they are, they will be lucky to get 10 passes thrown to them all year and will be mostly special teams contributors. TE - I think the Jets finally realize that Chris Baker can be a weapon for them. I don't expect the Jets to address this position.

OLine - This was last year's project. Mangold and Ferguson are set, as is Pete Kendall and Brandon Moore. Anthony Clement, who did an admirable job at RT, is the only one up in the air. If the Jets don't bring him back, I expect the position to be filled by Adrian Jones or some unexciting signing. I don't see the Jets addressing anything during the draft until the 2nd day when you could see them grabbing a guard to eventually replace Kendall or someone who might project as competition at RT.

DLine - I suspect that this is the position to watch. Like they did last year when they took 2 OLinemen in the 1st round, I could see the Jets spending multiple day 1 picks to address the DLine. The Jets insist on playing a 3-4, even though their personnel is better equipped for a 4-3. DeWayne Robertson actually had a good season even as an undersized nosetackle. Sean Ellis is a good end, but at this point in his career Kimo Von Oelhaffen is a backup. At the end position, there are exciting free agents like Dwight Freeney and Justin Smith. I don't think either really fit as a 3-4 end. There is really great depth at DE in this draft. I don't think Gaines Adams or Quinton Moses will be available, but LaMarr Woodley, Adam Carriker, or Florida's Ray McDonald could be real options. At the tackle position, if Robertson had day 1 trade value I would move him. The Jets need a space eater at the DT position. Vonnie Holliday could be available as could Mammoth Oakland surprise Terdell Sands. The best fit would be Michigan's Alan Branch, but he will be long gone by the time the Jets pick. After that there is Amobi Okoye and Frank Okam. In any event, Eric Mangini was schooled in New England, where they were never afraid to just keep drafting D Linemen. Do not be surprised if the Jets address the D Line in free agency and then again multiple times in the draft.

LB - The key to the 3-4 defense is the linebackers. The Jets have some good ones with Vilma, Hobson, Thomas and Barton. However, this is another position I expect the Jets to attack. They spent a 3rd rd pick on Ohio State wild man Anthony Schlegel last year, who may or may not develop into a decent ILB. Drafting where they do, I would not be surprised to see the Jets go after a guy like Paul Posluszny or Patrick Willis. In fact, if I were to predict right now, I would expect the Jets 1st 3 picks (1st rd, 2nd rd, 2nd rd) to include a RB, DLineman, and LBer.

CB - This is a tricky call. The Jets have Andre Miller, Andre Dyson, Hank Poteat and David Barrett at CB. I think the Jets want Dyson and Miller to be their starters, but Miller simply has not snatched the job. There are a lot of good CBs in this upcoming draft, and I could see the Jets going after one if the board fell that way. I think it is somewhat of a luxury pick, because I think the Jets have bigger needs elsewhere, but at the same time, I don't think they could pass on a guy like Leon Hall in the unlikely event someone of his talent were to slip to them. If the Jets wanted to make a serious run at having a true impact secondary, they might look at a guy like Asante Samuel or Nate Clements, both of whom play in the division. If you want to see the Mangini-Belichicken relationship get really fiery, wait and see what would happen if the Jets threw serious money at Samuel.

S - The Jets are pretty much set at safety where they have the dependable Erik Coleman and the bussing star Kerry Rhodes. Coleman could be improved on, but again it would be a luxury pick. If LaRon Landry was sitting there waiting to be plucked, the Jets might do it, but otherwise I would not expect the Safety position to be seriously addressed. K - The Jets are set at kicker with the aged Aussie Ben Graham at punter and the improving K Mike Nugent. After a dismal start, Nugent proved to be an excellent, dependable kicker this year. However, his kickoffs were routinely, and maddeningly short. A kicker drafted in the 2nd round should not have his kickoffs landing at the 10 yard line. As a fan, it drove me nuts. I don't think the Jets are the type of team to waste a roster spot on a kickoff specialist, but if Nugent doesn't improve in that area, they might have to consider it.

Coaching - If not for the amazing job Sean Payton did with the Saints, Mangini would be the runaway coach of the year. With the exception of the Jaguars game, this Jets team was in every game and ready to fight. Mangini is a good combination of gruff and likeable, and unlike Herm Edwards before him, is a good game day coach. Young Brian Schottenheimer did a great job as O-Coordinator mixing inventive formations and play calling with the right game plan for his personnel. Bob Sutton did an OK job converting the team to a 3-4. The defense was much better during the 2nd half of the season, but they were never able to stop the run nor get to the QB without blitzing. I have faith in these coaches, and with the right players, I think they can build a winner.

GM - Mike Tannenbaum's first season as GM was a success. Ferguson and Mangold solidified the oline and guys like Hank Poteat were valuable contributors by the end of the season. I really liked the 2nd rd swap with Washington which got us both Kellen Clemens, and a high 2nd rd pick this year. Still, it is going to be a tougher draft this year, with the Jets drafting in the late 20s. Tannenbaum may be tempted to trade up with his 2 second round picks, but I don't think he should be deluded into thinking this team is just a player away. The Jets have a lot of holes to fill and it is his job, through the draft, free agency, and the rare trade, to give the coaches the horses they need to create a winner.

Darfur and Powerlessness

2006-12-26T08:33:00.000-08:00

"Never Again" is the mantra taught to young Jewish children in their Hebrew school classes. "Never Again" can we allow the Holocaust to happen. "Never Again" can we let genocidal maniacs kill millions of people because of who they are or what they believe. "Never Again" can the international community be slow to act or close its eyes as madmen kill indiscriminately. Never Again.

Yet, it is happening again. I am a firm believer that there was only one Holocaust. My reasons are two-fold. First, I believe that the Holocaust is a unique event in human history and should not be conflated with other events, even other genocides. Second, I believe that other genocides should likewise be recognized as unique. American Slavery, The Armenian Genocide, and now Darfur deserve their own recognition.

But that is neither here not there. That is not the purpose of this diary. The purpose of this diary is to express frustration. I know there is a genocide going on in Darfur. I know that the Janjaweed militia has killed hundreds of thousands of people and continues to kill today. I know that Millions have been forced from their homes. I know that women and girls have been raped. I know all of this and there is nothing I can do about it.

I can write my Congressman, but does that do anything? I can donate money, but does that fix the problem? What I am talking about here is powerlessness. With so many distractions with Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Afghanistan, and the Middle East, not to mention domestic issues, how do we focus the government on the fact that there is a genocide going on again in our century. And once we focus our government, how do we focus the international community?

Walking down the street I get these pangs of guilt. Guilt because I know that I am not supposed to let genocide happen again in my life. Guilt because it already happened in Rwanda and guilt because it is happening again in Darfur.

Wow, I'm Good

2006-12-20T09:53:00.000-08:00

Prior to the start of the football season, I predicted the Jets would win as many as 10 games.

http://armchairgm.com/mwiki/index.php?title=Why_the_Jets_will_not_be_as_bad_as_people_are_saying

Here is what I predicted and the actual results:

Titans - W (correct)
Patriots - W (at home) (incorrect, but merely flipped which pats game the Jets would win)
Buffalo - L (incorrect, but merely flipped which Bills game the Jets would win)
Indy - L (correct)
Jax - L (correct)
Dolphins - L (Incorrect)
Lions - W (correct)
Browns - W (incorrect but stolen by the Refs)
BYE
Patriots - L (see #2)
Bears - L (correct)
Texans - W (correct)
GB - W (correct)
Buffalo - W (See #3)
Vikings - W (correct)
Miami - W
Raiders - W

The Origins of a Conflict (Part 1 of 3 or 4)

2006-12-18T09:14:00.000-08:00

There is much misinformation in the cyber-world about the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There are a lot of people who are loaded up on opinion but deficient when it comes to facts. It is my intent to provide a factual background to the current conflict from a non-partisan perspective. History is never truly non-partisan, but I will do my best to keep the editorialization to a minimum. Because I feel it is important to provide people references for an undertaking like this, here are the sources I rely on. 1) ISRAEL by Martin Gilbert; 2) A History of the 20th Century by Martin Gilbert; 3) Arab and Jew by David K. Shipler; 4) Ben Gurion: The Burning Ground 1886-1948 by Shabtai Teveth; 5) Menachim Begin: The Man and the Legend by Eitan Haber; 6) From Beirut to Jerusalem by Thomas Friedman; and 7) Brother Against Brother by Ehud Sprinzak. Where I rely on websites, I will try to relate that in the text.

The Birth of Zionism (from 70 AD to 1918)

At the time of the American Revolution, 300 Orthodox Jewish families left Poland and settled in Jerusalem. Shortly after, 400 Jews made the trip from Lithuania to Palestine, settling in the country that had been under Muslim rule since the seventh century, and Ottoman rule since the early 16th century. By the middle of the 19th century, 10,000 Jews lived in Palestine, with 80% of them living in Jerusalem. They joined a small minority of Jews who had lived continuously in the village of Peki'in since Roman times. This is long before the ideals of Zionism were formally created.

This period was marked by attempts at creating Jewish communities throughout Palestine. These attempts were made difficult by the rough environment, attempts by the Sultan to forbid land transfers to Jews, and by occasional attacks from bands of Arabs. With the financial backing of European Jews like Baron Edmund de Rothschlid and Baron Maurice de Hirsch, several Jewish communities that still exist today were created, "Rosh Pinah, "Petah Tikvah," "Zichron Yaakov," "Rishon leZion," "Rehovot," "Hadera," and "Metulla." By 1850, Jews were the majority in Jerusalem and by 1889 there were 25,000 Jews in Jerusalem and 14,000 Arabs.

Meanwhile, Jews were suffering throughout Europe, were anti-Semitism was high. While life for European Jews was particularly bad in Tsarist Russia, the culmination was to be seen in France's "Dreyfus Affair." The 1891 trumped up conviction of Alfred Dreyfus inspired young journalist Theodore Herzl to start a movement to set up a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Between 1882 and 1903, 25,000 more Jews would settle in Palestine, marking what is called "the First Alliyah."

In 1897, in Basel Switzerland, Theodore Herzl convened the First Zionist Congress. The Congress agreed on a resolution that stated, "Zionism seeks to establish a home for the Jewish people in Eretz Yisrael secured under international law." The second Zionist Congress was held the following year and the Third in 1899. By the Fifth Zionist Congress in 1901, Herzl had met with Kaiser William II and Sultan Abdul Hamid II of Turkey to discuss the creation of a Jewish homeland. The Sixth Zionist Congress would be Herzl's last as he died the next year. With programs growing worse and Jews continuing to suffer, the Zionist congress considered other options besides Palestine. Most notably, the Congress seriously considered an offer of a Jewish homeland in Uganda. At the Seventh Zionist Congress, the Uganda plan was rejected and the Zionist Congress committed itself to a Jewish Homeland in Palestine.

At this time, between 75,000 and 100,000 Jews were already living in Palestine. As mentioned, life for the Jews in Europe was not good, especially in Tsarist Russia. thus, from 1904 to 1914, the Second Alliyah brought about 40,000 more Jews to Israel. It was a group of these Jews who, in 1909, set up the first communal farm, or Kibbutz. Likewise, they set up Ha-Shomer, the first Jewish self-defense organization in Palestine.

At the dawn of WWI there were competing interests. Those of the Zionists and those of Arab nationalists. The Zionists were lesser in numbers but greater in organization as the Arab nationalist movement was splintered among Islamists, pan-arabists, and statists. Promises of an Arab state led to the "Arab Revolt" attacks against the ruling Ottoman empire. Similarly, the British were worried about protecting their colonial interests in the region and securing another ally in the fight against the Ottomans. A major concern was that the Jews of Palestine, with their connection to Eastern Europe, could be persuaded to fight for the Germans with a promise of a post-war nation. Thus, in 1917, the British issued a private document called the "Balfour Declaration," promising a Jewish homeland in Palestine so long as the rights of non-Jews living in the area were safeguarded as well. The rest, as they say, is history.

Look for my next segment "From Balfour to Hitler" as soon as I get a respite from my busy work schedule.

A Short Post About the Mets

2006-12-13T07:38:00.000-08:00

I have been swamped at work lately and haven't been able to post recently. Yesterday a new crop of Free Agents hit the market as teams non-tendered players. Here is a full list:

http://www.baseballdigestdaily.com/blog/2006/12/final-non-tender-list.html

Here is my list, in order, of those most likely to be a Met next year.

1) V. Zambrano
2) M. Giles
3) J. Sosa
4) J. Piniero
5) C. Reitsma
6) B. Claussen
7) B. Duckworth
8) C. Tsao

In the Words of Dina Babbitt

2006-11-30T12:21:00.000-08:00

Dina Babbitt was a young girl at Auschwitz when Dr. Mengele noticed her painting ability. For the next several years that painting ability kept Babbitt and her mother alive. She has been involved in a decades long battle to get her paintings back. Here is her story in her own words.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DiSzjQRX44&eurl

Obama Mania

2006-11-30T09:08:00.000-08:00

Barak Obama is an amazing and inspirational man. I remember walking into my office the day after his keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention and telling my officemate that Obama's speech was the most inspirational speech I had ever heard. I can't even describe the emotions that ran through my body when he said:

"The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and have gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported it."

Nothing had ever captured my thoughts so succinctly in so few sentences. But it wasn't just that line. It was the whole speech. When he spoke of "the audacity of hope" he had me completely. I was willing to follow this man into the promised land. I knew he was special.

But now the Junior Senator from Illinois is testing me by allegedly considering running for President. I can't figure out why, besides his personal attributes, he would make a good Presidential candidate. I can't say I have any disagreements with Obama's politics. But I don't have a great sense of what his politics are. We are talking about a man who spent 2 years as a member of the minority party in the Senate. As a Senator he has few legislative accomplishments, and before serving in the Senate he served a few years as a State Senator.

However, there is the counter-proposal that sitting Senators do not make good Presidential candidates. After all, we have not elected a sitting Senator President since John F. Kennedy. Therefore, Obama should run sooner rather than later so that his Senate record does not weigh him down as it did, for example, John Kerry. Furthermore, Obama's record of accomplishment, even in his brief political career, is far more distinguished than president Bush's record as Governor of Texas. I don't think that the current President is a particularly good measuring stick, though. There probably hasn't been a less qualified President since Civil War General and raging alcoholic Ulysses Grant was in the White House.

Maybe Obama is the best choice because the remaining candidates are so seriously flawed. Many argue Clinton is unelectable, Biden is wacky, and Bayh is too centrist. Clark has zero legislative experience, Dodd has more Skeletons in his closet than a Halloween store after Halloween, and no one has ever heard of Vilsack. With this matchup, why not just put your faith in the guy who inspires people the way Bill Clinton did?

I am suspicious of all the attention Obama has gotten. I suspect it is helping him sell books. I also suspect that the media would love to write stories about the first serious African American Presidential candidate (with apologies to Shirley Chisholm, Jesse Jackson, Alan Keyes, and others). I must admit though that the idea of voting for such an intelligent, inspirational, African-American man tugs at my liberal heart strings. His candidacy could be so vitally important to this country, and his victory could be the world-changing event the caliber of Kennedy's 1960 victory.

Still, I go back to a basic principle. A man should be qualified to lead this country. Bad things happen when they are not. Is Barak Obama qualified to be President of the United States? I am not ready to say no, I am just waiting for someone to convince me.

Derek Jeter Irrelevant Again

2006-11-21T12:49:00.000-08:00

Derek Jeter added to the Yankees season of failure by losing the MVP race to Twins Designated Hitter Justin Morneau. Jeter's loss is one of the most embarrassing in MVP race history. First of all, there is the coastal bias as Jeter plays for the media darling NY Yankees and Morneau plays for the almost contracted Minnesota Twins. Not only is Moenuau a designated hitter offering his team nothing defensively, but he is Canadien as well. Derek Jeter and the Yankees are said to be shocked and embarrassed. Alex Rodriguez was seen laughing and was heard saying under his breath "see, I am not the only lose on the Yankees."

Apocolypto Never

2006-11-20T08:31:00.000-08:00

In case you have been under a rock, Mel Gibson has a new movie coming out. In typical fashion, the Gibson movie, titled "Apocolypto," is filled with blood and guts, and traces history back all the way to the Mayan empire. When the preview came on in my New York City movie theater, it was met by boos and hisses.

Mel Gibson had everything going for him. He was a great action hero. Not only did he star is such great films as Lethal Weapon, but he made a name for himself as a director with films like Academy Award winner "Braveheart." But Gibson really stuck his neck out with his last film, "The Passion of the Christ" which perpetuates a long debunked anti-Semitic myth of Jewish deicide. At the same time, Gibson refused to distance himself from his father, Hutton Gibson, who has long espoused anti-semitic religious views. For example, Hutton Gibson is on record as saying that the Second Vatican Counsel was a secret anti-Catholic plot perpetrated by Jews and Masons. Mel's father has also denied much of the Holocaust.

Mel was able to sidestep much of the negative publicity surrounding the film and his father and "The Passion" was a commercial success. However, those who believed that Gibson was in fact an anti-semite had their suspicions confirmed one August evening when Gibson had a little too much to drink. An inebriated Gibson was arrested for DUI and once in police custody said "fucking jews...The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world."

Now this brings us to his latest film Apocolypto. As far as I am concerned it is reprehensible that Gibson's movie is being released with fanfare and a million dollar push. There are higher causes for a movie studio than making money. We must speak out against hatred and bigotry. In this instance, the only way we can speak out against Gibson's anti-semitism is by not going to his movies. We need to send a message to the studios that would allow this man to continue to make movies that we will not tolerate hatred. Mel Gibson has a right to make movies. But because he has that right, we have the responsibility to counter that by advocating that people not pay to see his movies. Gibson may be a good filmmaker but then again, so was Leni Riefenstahl.

I still have not seen "The Passion" and I will never see Apocolypto. If you are thinking of going to see Apocolypto, I say don't. Take the 20 bucks you were going to spend on tickets and popcorn and send it to the Anti-Defamation League. Send a message, no matter how small, that anti-semitism has its consequences.

Is Tom Brady Hurt?

2006-11-14T17:43:00.000-08:00

My beloved Jets completely outplayed rival New England in their victory this past Sunday. Of particular note, Tom Brady had his second poor performance. Brady was off all day sunday continually missing his receivers who helped him out with a series of very nice one-handed grabs. Today the Patriots announced that Vinnie Testaverde is coming out of retirement to sign with the team. Tha Patriots have only one other QB on the roster, former USC backup Matt Cassel. The signing of Testaverde is curious. The Pats have gone this far with only 2 QBs on the roster. The signing of the veteran suggests that there might be concerns about Brady's health. After all, the most plausible reason for the signing is that they are worried that Brady might miss some time and need/want a veteran QB to back up Matt Cassel. Not exactly sure what is going on in NE, but this is something worth keeping an eye on.

Its Time to Welcome Joe Back to the Party

2006-11-09T07:06:00.000-08:00

Ned Lamont ran a great campaign and the Democratic Party of Connecticut let Joe Lieberman know what they think of him. I have serious reservations about whether Joe got the message. While the Democratic party was telling Joe he is too far to the right, that only pushed Joe to the right in order to win the Republican vote. Joe's election is due to a calculated decision by the Republicans. Perhaps in a race between Lamont and Schlesinger they would have been full steam behind their candidate, but with Joe in the race they conceded the seat to work for the more conservative Democrat. This was there one victory on election day. They won, we lost. Now its time to welcome Joe back to the Democratic Party.

I say this not because of craven political reasons, such as we need to keep him from defecting to the Republican party. I don't think that is a real possibility. I say that because it is the right thing to do. Joe Lieberman never changed his political ideology. Joe Lieberman never said he wasn't a Democrat (although his campaign tactics sure were Republican). And as Democrats we need to continue to have our big tent philosophy. Ours must be a democratic party that is as welcoming to Joe Lieberman, however painful that might be, as we are to Ted Kennedy.

I am not a defender of Joe Lieberman. I can't ignore his views on the war, the rhetoric he employed, his views on school vouchers and his attempts to censor Hollywood. But I also can't discount his economic policy, his work for civil rights (even as he talks out of both sides of his mouth attacking certain African-American Leaders) or his work on health care and other important social issues. The bottom line is that as a Democrat I can't dismiss Joe any more than I can Ben Nelson.

I hope that Joe Lieberman is as forgiving to us as we are to him. While the people of Connecticut put Joe back in the Senate, the rest of the country rejected the agenda that Joe Lieberman aligned himself with. With a new Democratic majority in both the House and the Senate, I would hope that Joe realizes that the right wing policies he championed have been rejected and come back left. I have no illusions that he actually will. But if we are going to be a party of big and diverse ideas we have to accept Joe Lieberman back into our fold.

The Republican Party is a party that has no room for dissenting views and no room for moderates. We are a better party than that. We accept Bob Casey and James Langevin into our party despite their incorrect views on a woman's right to decide what to do with their own bodies. We accept Roberty Byrd into our caucus despite the bile that he has spewed in his life about racial equality. And God knows how many Democrats we accept despite their perfect voting records with the NRA.

I wish Ned Lamont had won. I wish that Joe Lieberman had the vision and integrity of Jon Tester and Jim Webb. He doesn't. He is easily the least likeable Democrat since Zell Miller. But we must remember that the Democratic Party that rejected the Bush agenda is millions strong while Joe Lieberman is but one person. Joe Lieberman may have won his battle, but the rest of us are winning the war.

The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly

2006-11-08T16:49:00.000-08:00

Today is a great day. Democrats have regained majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate for the first time since losing control in 1994. However, we would be remiss if we did not analyze everything about this election, both what went right and what went wrong. So, stealing a methodology that has been done over, over and over again, here is my list.

THE GOOD - I am really bummed that some of our best and most exciting candidates lost. Tammy Duckworth, Larry Grant, Scott Kleeb and Gary Trauner would have been terrific members of congress. However, even their losses demonstrated how great Howard Dean's 50-state strategy was. These races were in Henry Hyde's district in Illinois, Idaho, Nebraska and Wyoming. Not exactly Democratic strongholds. Yet we lost these seats by a TOTAL of 36,579 votes. An amazing result in its own right.

Since the Good, the Bad and the Ugly is a movie theme, I will continue along those lines. The key phrase from the great baseball film "Field of Dreams" is a great way to describe Dean's 50-state strategy. "If you build it, they will come." First of all, if you put credible candidates on the ballot, people will come out and vote for them. Some of them will win, and some of them will lose, but you won't know unless you get the candidates. We could have easily given up on Hyde's district but we didn't. We found a terrific candidate whose integrity and ideas simply forced people to vote for her. She created Democratic voters where there hadn't been any before.

By finding these candidates you also force the Republicans to spend money. If you build the Democratic Party everywhere, the Republicans will be forced to come and spend their money to protect their position. Every dollar spent in Idaho, Nebraska and Wyoming is a dollar not spent in New Jersey, Missouri, and Florida. The viability of the candidacies of Duckworth, grant, Kleeb, and Trauner forced the Republicans to spend money in Red districts making it easier for Joe Courtney and Chris Murphy to win their blue districts.

THE BAD - I hate to focus on the negative on what is such a great day. However, if we ignore these things we will be worse of for it. Chris Shays is still a Member of Congress. Heather Wilson is still a Member of Congress. Jim Gerlach is still a member of Congress. These are blue seats that we absolutely had to win. There is no reason with the national climate that these three were able to hang on.

It probably shouldn't, but it worries me that so many of our victories came from 2nd, 3rd, and no-tier races. I am ecstatic that wife-beating John Sweeney was shown the door, but how hard are we going to have to fight to keep NY-20 in the blue column. Florida 16 sent Mark Foley a message, but is Tim Mahoney going to be anything more than a 2 year Congressman? In perhaps the most favorable atmosphere a political party could hope for, we lost more close races than we won. John Doolittle, Marilyn Musgrave, and Jon Porter are all still in Congress. If the Democratic message isn't resonating with these constituencies in the current atmosphere, we need to take a long hard look at why. We would be remiss if we celebrated the victories of John Hall, Jerry McNerny, Jason Altmire, Paul Hodes and Carol Shea-Porter without analyzing the failings of Diane Farrel, Patricia Madrid, Lois Murphy, Charlie Brown, Angie Paccione, and Tessa Hafen.

THE UGLY - I try to stay as naive as possible and pretend that elections really are about contrasting ideas. When I was working on "The Hill" I really thought that for the most part people on both sides of the Aisle were doing their civic duty. They really believed in the message they were trying to sell to the American people. But this election has disillusioned me of that notion, perhaps for good.

Robo-calls and election shenanigans demonstrate that politics is not about having a conversation with the electorate. It’s not about laying out contrasting visions for America's future. Politics has become such a win at all costs endeavor that where the message was not resonating with the voters the solution became suppressing the vote. The American people deserve better. If, as the media and the Republicans claimed, the Democrats had no message, than there was no reason for the Republicans to resort to dirty tricks. But it turned out to be the Republicans whose message the people rejected. And as poll after poll suggested this, the Republicans turned their attention away from holding a political discourse to intimidating and lying to voters. They Republicans lost, they lost ugly, and I just hope they didn't drag down the notion of a national political discourse with them.

POSTSCRIPT - No movie themed post would be complete without the promise of a sequel, and that is what we need to work for. We need a sequel that is even better than the original, which movie fans know is rare. We need a sequel where we fix the problems with our message and/or operation that caused us to lose winnable seats in Connecticut, Pennsylvania and all over the country. We need a sequel that finds more and better candidates than we ran in 2o06. We need a sequel that talks to the American people in such a way that they demand a trilogy.

So go and out and celebrate tonight. We deserve to revel in our success. But we have the responsibility to govern now, and we have the responsibility to do the people's work so that they keep demanding another sequel.

Vote Democrat

2006-11-07T07:11:00.000-08:00

I know the title to this post isn't all that surprising, but it is actually an important message. Over the last few weeks I have heard a lot of people saying that they were going to vote for the Working Families Party ("WFP"). For those of you who don't know, New York has a lot of different lines on the ballot. Besides Democrat and Republican there is also the Conservative party, the WFP, and the Independence Party. Typically, those parties endorse one of the major candidates. Thus, Eliot Spitzer is running on the Democratic line AND the WFP line.

The rationale of the people advocating for voting the WFP line is commendable. In a state as blue as New York voting the WFP line is seen as a good way to influence the party. Their thinking goes that by voting for a progressive party forces the Democratic candidate to the left. I am all for forcing the party to the left, I just wonder if this is the proper methodology.

The importance of voting or not voting for the WFP is that if the party gets a certain amount of votes they are guaranteed a spot on the ballot and do not have to participate in petitioning. For example, I believe that if the WFP gets 50,000 votes for governor, it guarantees that a WFP candidate will be on the ballot next election. That is all well and good if the WFP continues to endorse Eliot Spitzer. But, if the WFP decides it wants to run a WFP candidate and not endorse the Democratic nominee it creates the possibility of vote splitting on the left.

With Spitzer and Clinton ahead by so much, it is difficult for a lot of people to think of Republicans in New York as having any success. I merely wish to remind them that we just survived 11 years of Republican governance. Republicans can, and have, won elections in New York state. I am not willing to take the chance that I might be assisting them the next time around by creating a challenger on the left of the Democratic candidate.

So I went into the booth today and I voted for Eliot Spitzer, and I voted for Hillary Clinton, and I voted for Andre Cuomo, and I voted for Yvette Clarke. But more important than all of that...most important in our two party system...I went into that booth and I voted Democrat.

Blog pimping

2006-11-06T15:12:00.000-08:00

With an election tomorrow there is only 1 thing to do. Pimp some blogs.

Therefore, please check out 2 blogs that have recently been brought to my attention. The links are on my sidebar.

http://taooffau.vox.com//

and

http://stilldocked.vox.com/

Enjoy and please vote (unless you are a Republican. if you are a Republican please remember that you vote on WEDNESDAY!)

Is This What Politics Has Come To?

2006-10-31T12:31:00.000-08:00

Political rhetoric can get very heated. However, the American political system has been pretty good about keeping the anger at just rhetoric, and not actual violence. Sure, we have an Aaron Burr in our history, and the canning of Charles Sumner, but by and large, American politics has avoided outright violence.

We have historically been able to avoid political events like this (from India):

Or like this (from Taiwan):

But I don't feel as secure about our ability to continue to have heated debate whithout violence entering the picture. The Ann Coulter's of the world have escalated the political rhetoric to the point where I believe we are at serious risk of seeing increases incidents of political violence.

This brings me to events that happened today in Virginia. I was not there. All I know is what I have read and seen in the video. But what I saw were staffers for Senator George Allen accoust a man who was attempting to speak to, perhaps yell at the Senator. The video clearly shows one Allen staffer trying to put the man in a headlock and another Allen staffer wrestling the man to the ground. In case you haven't seen it, here is the video.

This is completely unacceptable. Political violence must niot be accepted. No matter what words were spoken to Senator Allen, no matter how bad these staffers wanted to silence this man, using violence to achieve their political ends is not acceptable. I don't know what the end result will be, but in my mind, if we are going to prevent our political discourse from devolving into an actual shoving match, instead of the historic verbal shoving match, the people seen on this video must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

It does not matter whether the assailant was a democrat or a republican. If you can not win an election without resorting to violence, than you simply don't deserve to win the election. If we don't put an end to this type of political violence now, this is our future (actual political violence from Ukraine:

Can MY Democratic Congress get elected

2006-10-23T06:07:00.000-07:00

I am a Democrat. That should come as no surprise considering the name of my blog is www.angryyoungdem.blogspot.com. (And as a point of reference, it alludes to a Billy Joel song, and nothing else). I always have been a Democrat, and always will be a Democrat. I grew up in the 12th district of NJ where Dick Zimmer was a well thought of moderate Republican who I had the joy of voting against numerous times. The 12th eventually turned blue when Zimmer ran for Senate and lost and his replacement, Mike Pappas, sang "Twinkle Twinkle Kenneth Starr" on the floor of the house. The 12th may have been a moderate district, but the district representing Princeton University had little tolerance for such nonsense. So they elected a rocket scientist, and former Jeopardy champion, Rush Holt. Holt is an excellent Democrat, who, in my mind, always votes the right way.

I gave you that introduction as a hope of showing my Democratic credentials. If you insist, I also worked for a Democratic Congresswoman for 2 years in Washington D.C. The reason I feel I need to explain this all up front is that I understand that there is an election coming up in less than 2 weeks, and I understand that people are sensitive about any distraction from the task at hand...Winning the Election.

But winning elections is not enough for me. Politics was never intended to be a baseball game. The end result is not supposed to be winning elections for the sake of winning elections. Make no mistake about it. I will be among the celebrating, ecstatic, and relieved if the Democrats can take back the House, or the Senate, or both. But come November 8, my concerns will begin again.

When it is election season, I let it slide when I read about the West Virginia candidate who got an A rating from the NRA. I rationalize it by saying that no matter who gets elected from West Virginia they are going to be supported by the NRA, so better it be a D than an R. When I read about the Pennsylvania Senate race and the views of both candidates on a Woman's right to choose what to do with her own body, I comfort myself by reminding myself how evil Rick Santorum is. When I think about the assault on the Constitution I think of Montana where...Wait, hold it a sec, Jon Tester had the most impressive statement of the election season when he said he wanted to obliterate the Patriot Act.

When I wake up on November 8, I want to wake up to a Democratic Congress. But I want to wake up to a Democratic congress that has an pro-active and progressive agenda. Merely stemming the tide of atrocious Republican legislation is not enough for me. I want a democratic Congress that is going to get real about gun violence in America. I want a Democratic Congress that is going to proudly stand behind a Woman's right to choose what to do with her own body. I want a Democratic congress that is going to restore a sense of rationality and even compassion to out criminal justice system. I want a Democratic Congress that is going to get rid of government sanctioned murder, i.e. the death penalty. I want a Democratic Congress that is going to restore the balance between the three branches of government. I want a Democratic congress that is going to restore respect for the Judiciary. I want a Democratic Congress that is going to restore the constitution, is going to restore international human rights, is going to restore civil rights, and is going to restore our nation's commitment to racial equality.

I recognize that Rome was not built in a day. I recognize that my agenda can only happen if Democrats are elected. That is why I have supported so many Democratic candidates. That is why I have sent money to candidates with platforms I don't necessarily agree with (aka Harold Ford).

I consider myself a Bread and Butter Democrat. I support racial equality, a living constitution, a living wage, and healthy respect for disagreement. I just hope that on November 8 that is the agenda we have elected. Because if my ideals are not realized in a Democratic congress, I have nothing left to fight for.

The Polarizer vs. The Flip Flopper

2006-10-23T06:06:00.000-07:00

I have been reading a lot lately about how Hillary Clinton is a polarizing figure in American politics. Those that support her suggest that she is an intelligent, articulate, and effective voice in Washington. Those who oppose her see her as an aggressive, overbearing political opportunist. As a side note, I would just note that the primary critics of Senator Clinton are white men. I suspect that there is a feeling that the good Senator from New York threatens the white male establishment.

As a contrast to Senator Clinton, Senator John Kerry was greeted with a very different moniker. He was viewed as a flip flopper. Whether true or not (and it was not particularly true) Kerry's views on Iraq, social security, health care, and education were understood to be constantly changing. Again as an aside, I have never understood why it is a bad thing if a politician changes their mind. In some instances it should be a sign of strength. As Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfutter once said, "Wisdom too often never comes, and so one ought not to reject it merely because it comes late."

The attacks on Senators Kerry and Clinton suggest to me a fundamental problem with how Democrats are perceived by the public and the media. Kerry is viewed as a flip flopper because people didn't think his views were strong enough. Clinton is viewed as polarizing because her views are too strong. This despite the fact that Kerry's views tended to be pretty consistent and Hillary is seen by some as shifting her views on issues like a Woman's right to choose and the Iraq war.

Just like the ability to change ones mind should be viewed as a strength and not a weakness, in the current political climate, being polarizing might be a plus. We live in a polarized time. There is a thirst on the left for someone to stand up and just say what they think and not back down. There is a thirst on the left for someone not to back away from the Democratic or even "liberal" tag. And while Democrats would stand up and cheer at such a candidacy, I also think that the ever so important independent vote would respect it.

The 2006 midterm elections are drawing to a close. Soon the Democratic free for all will begin. Will it be Clinton, Obama, Clark, Gore, Kerry, Bayh, Feingold, I don't know. But whoever it is I say be polorizing. Make is your strength. Say what you mean, mean what you say, and dare them to come after you for it.

Republicans - For the War...Against the Vets

2006-10-17T07:23:00.000-07:00

For as long as I can remember (say maybe the last 23 or so years) the Republicans have been the party of favor in the military. The perception was that Republicans had the best interests of America's troops in mind and Democrats always wanted to cut spending for the military. There was some grain of truth, especially during the Reagan years, to the notion that Democrats wanted to cut military spending which was, after all, enormous. Today, America is at war in the streets of Afghanistan and Iraq and the Republican party is portraying themselves as the party of national defense and homeland security.

However, the party that is all too eager to send our youth to war reacts violently when those same troops come back. In the current election cycle the Democrats have done an excellent job recruiting military veterans to run for multiple seats in Congress. The list includes Iraq war veterans Tammy Duckworth, Patrick Murphy, Joe Sestak, and Charlie Brown. Overall, there are more than 30 military veterans running for Congress as Democrats this cycle.

In response to so many military veterans running for office as Democrats, Republicans have taken to attacking the military service of these Democrat veterans. Like they did to John Kerry and Max Cleland, the Republicans have questioned the loyalty of these military veterans for the simple reason that they disagree with the Republican platform. Jean Schmidt attacked John Murtha from the floor of the House of Representatives, Representative Mike Fitzpatrick, in a battle for his political life, stood by silently as his political hacks questioned the service of Patrick Murphy. Senator Jim Talent attacked disabled veteran Josh Lansdale solely because he supports Democratic Senate nominee Claire McCaskill. And perhaps most reprehensible, Republican candidate Peter Roskam accused Duckworth, who lost both her legs fighting for her country in Iraq, of wanting to "cut and run."

These types of attacks on veterans are sickening and should not be tolerated. One can only imagine what would happen if a democrat who never served in the military a day in his life, were to question the military service of a Republican. The papers would go crazy, and the switchboard would light up all over rightwing radio. Imagine, for example, if someone were to question John McCain's military service, saying that he was never really a prisoner of war or that even if he was a prisoner of war he has greatly exaggerated the condition of his captivity. It would not be tolerated.

I bring up John McCain because I think it should be noted how silent John McCain has been while his fellow veterans have had their service questioned. What self respecting military veteran stands by silently while people we never served a day in their life attack a veterans military record? Veterans should be speaking out and not clamming up because "all's fair in politics." Veterans should be treated with respect regardless of what political party they are from. When I worked in Washington support for Veterans was one of the only true bipartisan issue there was. Who in their right mind doesn't support someone who sacrificed for this country? The answer, apparently, is endangered Republicans.

Charlie Brown, Joe Sestak, Patrick Murphy, Tammy Duckworth and countless other Democrats served out nation honorably. They saw people die fighting for our nation's flag. Yet when they come back home their honorable military service is questioned solely because of their political affiliation. Military veterans should be speaking loud and clear on this issue. Whether Republican or Democrat, the message must be enforced. We will not slander our nations fighting men and woman to score cheap political points.

Rebuilding the Yankees

2006-10-09T17:50:00.000-07:00

I am not a Yankee fan. In fact, most of my friends would think of me as a Yankee hater. However, I can't help myself from adding my two cents on how to rebuild the Yankees. I am not saying that this is what will happen, but if I were GM this is what I would make happen. So, here comes my recipe for how to rebuild the decaying Yankees.

First of all, the Yankees have to get rid of the dead weight. That means not resigning Gary Sheffield, Mike Mussina and Bernie Williams. Also gone are Randy Johnson, Cory Lidle, and Jaret Wright. Miguel Cairo can come back for another year.

The Yankees don't need Jason Giambi in order to win. Andy Phillips is far better defensively and can handle the bat decently. If Jorge Posada is going to last another few years, he is going to need to get some ABs at 1b also. Another option allows Hideki Matsui to play LF, Damon CF and Cabrera in LF and get Bobby Abreu some ABs at 1b. I also like Craig Wilson and would resign him to split time with Phillips at 1b. Giambi has rehabilitated himself and his reputation. Trading him should be easier than it would have been right after the steroid scandal. However, an American league team is a better fit than a National league team. Thus, I would trade Giambi to the Cleveland Indians for Kelly Shoppach. Shoppach is an excellent defensive catcher who has nice offensive upside. Even better, he is a former Red Sox prospect so if develops into a solid major leaguer it would really piss the Red Sox off.

That brings us to the big question. What do you do with Arod. Arod has 4 years left on a contract that has the Yankees on the hook for about another 66 mil. He also has a no trade clause. However, the Yankees are going to try to move him. He represents the failures of this Yankee team and just can't get it done during crunch time. Finding a trade partner is going to prove difficult though.

I have to believe that the Yankees will want to move him to the National League if possible. The Marlins are probably the best match in terms of talent, but the problem is finding a place for Arod to play. The Marlins have Hanley Ramirez at SS and Miguel Cabrera at 3b. I imagine the Marlins could move Cabrera back to the OF, but I don't think that Arod will play 3b for the Marlins. I think if he agrees to waive his no trade clause, it is going to be for a team that he can go back to playing SS. If the Yanks were able to get Arod to agree to the trade, I think A package of Dontrelle Willis and either Scott Olson, Yusmiero Petit, or Ricky Nolasco should get the job done. The Yanks would have to pick up a chunk of Arod's salary.

Another NL team that might make sense for Arod would be the Cubs. The cubs would have no problem supplanting Ronny Cedeno and Cesar Itzuras with Arod at SS. The Cubs have some nice pitching prospects, although they are not as MLB ready as the Marlins' prospects. Would the Yankees bite at a deal for Angel Guzman and either Sean Marshall or Rich Hill?

There is no doubt in my mind that the LA Angels would love to get their hands on Arod. I question whether the Yanks would trade Arod to an AL competitor, but if they were to do so, trading him to the opposite coast would make sense. Before Yankee fans get too excited, there is no chance the Angels would trade Jered Weaver. But would the Yankees do a deal for Ervin Santana and Joe Saunders? Another option would be Ervin Santana and the oft-injured but highly regarded Dallas MacPherson.

At the end of the day, I think the Yankees pick up enough salary and Arod is convinced to return home to Miami and play 3b. The Yankees get Dontrelle Willis and Yusmeiro Petit. Just like with Shoppach, if Petit becomes a star it will drive Mets fans crazy.

With Arod gone, the Yankees are going to need someone to play 3B. Fortunately, there are some nice ones available in free agency. Aaron Boone could make his return to NYC. I am a big fan of Pedro Feliz, even though I am not sure he can get the job done defensively. I am not sure how much Aubrey Huff has left in the tank. I always like Scott Brosius. Joe Randa could be exactly that type of player. However, with Giambi, Sheffield and Arod all departing, the Yankees might need a little more power in their lineup. Aramis Ramirez has a clause in his contract allowing him to become a free agent. Ladies and gentleman, meet the Yankees new 3Bman. Aramis Ramirez.

Ramirez isn't the only big ticket free agent to come to NY this summer. Japanese Fireballer Daisuke Matsuzaka is exactly the type of players the Yankees love to go after. They don't have to give up anyone from their depleted minor league system and all they have to do is what they typically do, throw more money at him than anyone else.

I know that these moves seem drastic. Getting rid of Sheffield, Giambi and Arod gets rid of over 300 RBIs and about 110 HRs. However, if any offense can survive that it is the Yankees. Most importantly, the end result is a much better team. They'd still have one of the best offenses in the league with a younger and more talented pitching staff.

The lineup would look like this:
Damon - CF
Jeter - SS
Abreu - RF
Matsui - DH
Ramirez - 3B
Posada - C
Cano - 2B
Cabrera - LF
Phillips/Wilson - 1B

The vastly improved rotation would be
Willis
Wang
Matsuzaka
Petit
Carl Pavano (until he hurts his ass again or Hughes is ready, whichever comes first)

Snooker Shame

2006-10-06T09:24:00.000-07:00

The International Billiards and Snooker Federation became the most recent in a disturbing trend of international sporting bodies biased against the State of Israel. FIFA, the world's governing football (or "soccer") association has long been biased against Israel. Israel is forced to play outside of their geographical region because FIFA succumbs to pressure from the Arab states, and Israel is often forced to play its home games outside the country for the same reasons. The same has been true with FIBA, FIFA'a basketball equivalent.

As reported in the Jerusalem Post, the Snooker Federation has informed Israeli champion Roei Fernandez that he is not invited to play alongside the other national champions at the IBSF World Snooker Championship in Annan, Jordan. Officially, the Snooker Federation said it could not guarantee the safety of the Israeli athlete, stating, "I personally believe that due to the local precarious situation and the present serious unrest that still exists between your country and Lebanon, the country of Jordan is certainly not the right place to guarantee the security of your players." Of course Jordan and Israel have been officially at peace for a decade and have enjoyed peaceful relations since the 1970s.

No other athlete, form any other country, was similarly blackballed. It is unclear whether a Lebanese Snooker player was invited to play or not. What is clear is that the Snooker Federation's decision reeks of politics and anti-Israel bias. Shame on you Snooker. Shame on you.

Pedophilia

2006-10-03T07:46:00.000-07:00

A grown man who hits on 16 year old boys is not "gay." He is a pedophile. Stopping his illegal behavior is not "gay-bashing" it is complying with the law.

A grown man hitting on a 16 year old girl is not "straight." He is a pedophile who has attempted to commit statutory rape.

The issue is not the gender of the victim, but the age of the victim.

The Jets Are Better than Mediocre

2006-09-25T08:20:00.000-07:00

The Jets 28-20 victory over the Bills on Sunday has the team at 2-1. The Jets were once again led by their passing attack and their running game again failed to get on track. What is clear is that the Jets have an above average passing game led by two tough, physical wide receivers in Laverneus Coles and Jericho Cotchery. Both of these players are not afraid to make catches over the middle and excel at coming down with the ball in a crowd. With Chad Pennington's excellent accuracy and football smarts, the passing game should be as good as Pennington's health will let them. Pennington has been getting excellent protection from his young offensive line which has allowed him to pick apart opposing defenses.

That same offensive line has struggled in the run game. Combined with the loss of Curtis Martin, the Jets running game has really suffered. However, I would expect big improvements as the season continues. Nick Mangold and D'Brickshaw Ferguson are both rookie 1st round picks. Often with offensive lineman, the pass protection is light years ahead of the run blocking. As these two key players gain more experience, the running attack should improve. I would expect that Kevin Barlow will be the primary running back as Derrick Blaylock has shown he can't handle the job. Speedy Leon Washington should also get some touches because of his big play ability and game breaking speed.

On the defensive side of the ball, the Jets epitomized the "bend but don't break defense." They gave up an obscene amount of rushing yards to Willis McGahee and allowed J.P. Losman to have a career passing day. Yet they were able to keep the Bills of the scoreboard when it mattered. They continue to play a 3-4 even though they are better suited for the 4-3. As predicted by many, myself included, former 1st round pick Dewayne Robertson has struggled as a nosetackle as the team has proven unable to shut down the run. The Jets have four solid linebackers although they have struggled to create a pass rush. The saving grace thus far has been the secondary who not only have played well, but emerging star Kerry Rhodes has proven an effective pass rusher and has caused 3 fumbles in the last 2 games. There is cause for concern as the Jets cannot count on their secondary to pressure the QB and certainly cannot count on Rhodes creating turnovers every game.

The kicking game has been inconsistent. Punter Ben Graham had a very good day against Buffalo after being one of the main culprits against New England. Mike Nugent has been fine since his opening day failures, although he hasn't really been tested. I was frustrated by his kickoffs against the Bills as he failed to reach the endzone even with a strong wind behind him.
At the end of the day, there are two factors that I believe will keep the Jets in the hunt for the wildcard all year. The first is the coaching. I have been very impressed with the Jets game plan each game. They have come out and played hard and smart. The offense especially has been more dynamic than in the past. Brian Schottenheimer deserves a lot of credit. However, the schedule is really where the Jets success can be found. Their remaining schedule includes Detroit, Cleveland, Houston, Green Bay, Buffalo again, Oakland, and a very beatable Miami team (twice). As a young team in transition, I would not expect them to win all of those games. However, from what I have seen winning 6 of 8 out of that group is possible, if not likely. That would put them at 8 wins. The difference between being 8-8 and vying for a playoff spot is whether or not they can pull off an upset against Indy, Jax, New England, Chicago, or Minnesota.

The truth is that the Jets can make it to the playoffs with the schedule they have. However, with the schedule they have the playoffs means nothing. All it means is that the Jets were the best of the bad and mediocre teams. Still, that's not a bad thing for a first year coach and a changing team. I was worried about 6-10. I read that the experts thought more like 3-13. I can more than live with 9-7. Lets go Jets, keep proving people wrong.

Happy New Year

2006-09-23T06:30:00.000-07:00

Bush Mobilizes Salvation Army

2006-09-19T10:53:00.000-07:00

With the United States military facing extended stays in Afghanistan and Iraq, and facing a recruiting crisis of epic proportions, President Bush today announced the shocking decision to mobilize the Salvation Army. It is expected that the first Salvation Army units will be deployed to Tikrit within the week.

President Bush announced the unprecedented decision last night during a prime-time, live, televised news conference. "The U.S. Constitution makes the President the commander in chief of the army. I am responsible for every branch of the military. The Salvation Army is clearly just that, an army." White House Press Secretary Tony Snow added "The President did not take this decision lightly. He sought the legal advice of his top legal experts, including Alberto Gonzalez and John Yoo. They steered him right on Guantanemo and we are confident that they have steered him right again."

The Salvation Army is an international relief organization best known for providing disaster relief, alcohol and drug counseling, and soliciting charity from men and women dressed as Santa Claus during the Christmas season. It is one of the best known and longest serving Christian organization. Commissioner Israel L. Gaither, National Commander of the Salvation Army was reached for comment early this morning. "I learned about this development this morning while I was at a conference about Katrina. Obviously when the shock wears off we will do what we can to support this President."

Not all Salvation Army "Soldiers," as volunteers are called, were excited about the proposition of serving in Iraq. "I know we are soldiers, but I think the President got confused on this one," said 52 year old Salvation Army Volunteer Jon Swanson. "I mean I know we are called soldiers and all, but I thought I was signing up to be a soldier of god. I never expected to get deployed." that view was echoed by 37 year old mother of two Martha Gibson "I am much more comfortable with a bell in my hand than an AK-47."

Stuart Matheson, a 23 year old Salvation Army "soldier" from Flint Michigan was

excited about the opportunity to be deployed and serve his country overseas.

"I have always wanted to serve in the military but my deeply held religious beliefs and poor eyesight prevented me in the past. I tried to serve last year with the Reserves, but it didn't work out. I am just glad the President gave me a second chance."

It is unclear whether this is an expansion of the military offensive
in Iraq or if the deployment of the Salvation Army means
members of the National guard currently in Iraq will be coming
home. The only thing that is certain is that Christmas time
will sure be different this year.

Race and Politics in Brooklyn

2006-09-16T07:24:00.000-07:00

For my first substantive post I want to talk about the most recent candidate I supported. You have to understand that I am the kiss of death for a candidate. The first vote I ever cast was for Bill Clinton. I haven't supported a winner since. Before I moved to NYC I used to drive a green Jeep that had all my bumper stickers on the back. Chuck Robb, Bill Bradley, Gore/Lieberman. My brother used to call it the "loser-mobile."

I moved to Brooklyn in April, and I'll be gosh-darned, but there was a hot congressional primary going on in my district. I actually first read about it on DailyKos. There were four candidates. Yvette Clark, Carl Andrews, Chris Owens, and David Yassky. Each candidate had a defining charecteristic. Yvette Clark was the only woman. Carl Andrews was connected to the corrupt former democratic leader Clarence Norman. Chris Owens was the son of the retiring incumbant. David Yassky was white.

The thing you have to understand about Brooklyn's 11th Congressional district is that it is a "voting rights district." That is, it was created as a district intended to have a minority representative. Indeed, Shirley Chisholm, the first black woman to run for president, once represented this district. There has always been a sense that this is a "Black" district.

Much to my chagrin, race became the defining issue in this election. Yassky, a white councilman and law professor moved his home a few blocks so that he could run for congress in this district. He was immediately accused of exploiting the fact that the three Black candidates would split the black vote allowing him to win. The retiring incumbant, Congressman Major Owens, went as far as calling him a "colonizer."

I did not set out to support David Yassky at first. There was no chance I was supporting Andrews. In a time when corruption is running rampant in the Republican party, and, to be fair, afflicting the Democratic party in places as well (La. and NJ), the stench of corruption from Andrews meant he was a no go. Major Owens himself was a completely ineffective member of Congress, so there was no way I was supporting his son (who rumor has it was a Patriots fan). So I was basically going to chose between Yassky and Clarke, both of whom I had heard good things.

It quickly became clear to me that I was going to support Yassky. I saw him speak a couple of times. He spoke about guns, health care, and the failed policies of the Bush administration. I even asked him how he could possibly win in this district and he answered by talking about guns, health care and the failed policies of the Bush administration. All the other candidates could talk about was race.

The truth of the matter is that I was really offended by this congressional race. I am a Democrat, tride and true. I vote for the person who best embodies the things I believe in. I strive to live in a post-racial world where we finally realize that race is a social construct. If we didn't create differences there wouldn't be any. I had read some bad things about Clarke, she had lied about her college education, and had been on the wrong side of some housing debates. By and large though, she came off as an effective councilwoman who was popular in her district. I looked forward to hearing what she had to say. But I never saw her talking about her positions. All I heard was that they shouldn't vote for Yassky because he was white. Black people need to vote for Black candidates. But after reading that, I would see Clarke's people handing out flyers to White people. It struck me as odd. I mean how could they villify Yassky for being white but then come and ask white people for their vote? If a Black person had to vote for a Black candidate, shouldn't the White person vote for the White candidate?

I know it is uncomfortable to talk about race. It is a really sensitve issue. But it seemed to me that the message being delivered by Clarke, Andrews and to a much lesser extent Owens, was that black people need black representatives and white people need white representation. This mentality saddens and frustrates me. It is this mentality that limits our growth as a country but also limits the sucess of the democratic party. We should be moving toward a system where the quality of our representatives is more important of the color of our representatives. As long as we tell constituents that this is a black district and therefore you have to vote for a black candidate, the longer we will need "black" districts.

I gave Yassky a lot of credit because he never deviated from his message. No matter who he talked to, he always stuck to the issues. He never got dragged into the muck. He never responded to the accusations and racial attacks. He believed in the people. He believed, like I want to, that people are not pursuaded by the color of ones skin, but by the power of their ideas. In the end, he lost. But he ran a campaign to be proud of.

I am glad that Clarke won instead of either Owens or Andrews. Like I said, besides some resume padding, and a hit piece in the Village Voice, most of what I have heard about Clarke is decent. Not that there is much of a choice, but I will gladly support her when the general election rolls around next month. That doesn't change the fact her campaign left a really bad taste in my mouth. And it doesn't change the fact that this little congressional race evidenced how far away we are from achieving a post-racial society.

A little background

2006-09-15T14:49:00.000-07:00

So my friend was concerned with the name of my blog so I decided to explain. There are other blogs with some combination of Angry and Democrat in the title. I am not trying to copy them. Although I don't like the way this nation is headed right now, and I certainly don't support the policies of the current administration, I don't think of myself as mad. I would hate for someone to disregard my postings as the rants of an angry person. The title is merely a play on the Billy Joel song "Angry Young Man." When I was in high school this was my favorite song. In fact, I quoted it in my highschool yearbook. Thus, sometime yesterday I came up with the idea to name my blog Angry Young Dem.

The name is supposed to reference some of the topics that you will see on this site. Music and politics. If I make it as big as DailyKos and people think I should change my blog name, perhaps I will change it. For now, I think I will stick with what I got.

Hi

2006-09-14T14:18:00.000-07:00

So this is going to be my blog. Its going to be my daily (?) rant about whatever is on my mind. Politics, Sports, Entertainment. This isn't going to be one of those this is what I ate for dinner blogs. Its also not going to be very flashy as I don't have the technical skills. But I hope it is insightful more often than not, and gives you something to think about.