Hillary,
You must divorce Bill right after the election. Don’t even think twice about it; don’t hesitate. Just do it! You know it’s the right thing to do.
Cynical, yes, but the American people will understand
If you win the Presidency, you don’t need him anymore. If you lose the Presidency, you clearly won’t need him anymore.
If you are elected, you cannot afford to have him in the same room, The White House, Washington, D. C., or even anyway in America. Harlem cannot contain him. Even if you appoint him Ambassador to Kazakhstan, he’s still here. Just like Jack Nicholson in The Shining: “He’s baaaaack.”
Give him the house in Chappaqua. You have the White House. Let him have the Presidential Library in Little Rock. You have the Presidency. Give him the office in Harlem; just keep him out of the Oval Office. You can never be truly liberated until you liberate Bill. Let Election Day become Independence Day as you Free Willy.
You know that if he comes anyway near your Presidency, he will suck the oxygen out of the air. He cannot control himself. Bill Clinton is a lovable, irrepressible, egomaniacal lothario. They once said: “Let Reagan Be Reagan.” Never “Let Bill be Bill”, or he most assuredly will embarrass you and your Presidency. His mere presence will serve as a dangerous distraction.
Any indication of a co-Presidency will doom yours. As a symbol to the women of America, you must stand tall in your own right.
Don’t worry about the reaction. Most women will approve your dumping the scoundrel who betrayed and humiliated you too many times.
You must establish yourself as a strong, decisive President. Reagan did it by firing the air traffic controllers. You can do it by dumping Bill right after the election.
That’s if you win the election. Your problem in November is Chronic Clinton Fatigue Syndrome. While some of it is directed at you, the reality is that your husband hurt you in Iowa and South Carolina.
I had lunch a few days ago with five women. Two were liberal Democrats and two Republicans. The two Democrats said they could not support you. The reason was Bill. The ABC’s of politics came into view: “Anyone but Clinton.”
His presence might be your biggest handicap in November. The public, rightly or wrongly, currently wants a change from Bush, but that does not mean they want a Clinton Restoration.
You know that while Bill was the first full two-term, albeit not two-timing, Democrat President since FDR, he never won the popular vote in either election.
Al Gore ran an excellent campaign in 2000, but we know that his candidacy was doomed by the specter of Clinton. It wasn’t Florida, the Supreme Court, Tennessee, West Virginia, or Elian Gonzalez, that cost Gore the Presidency. It was your husband. He could do it again – this time to you.
In a 60 Minutes interview in 1992 you said “I’m not sitting here as some little woman standing by my man like Tammy Wynette.” You stood by him in raising Chelsea and through all the Bimbo eruptions. You helped him achieve the Presidency. You experienced the World and the World Stage. Now it’s your turn to fulfill the destiny you laid out at Wellesley.
You don’t need him. Give Bill the walking papers after the election.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Friday, January 25, 2008
The 2008 Presidential Election of Change - Or Not
Change is the buzz word of the Presidential election cycle
The conundrum for the Republicans is that it’s difficult to be the party of change when you are the governing party. The problem for the Democrats is that they all come from the Senate. No problem though for politicians to claim change
The most consistent change is in their talking points as they watch which way the wind is blowing in their focus groups
For example, if Iraq seems a quagmire, then the roar of negativity is deafening, but with the Surge a success, all we hear are the Sounds of Silence
How can the Democrats claim to be for change when they still fail to use the “L” word, Liberal, in describing themselves
Change is a code word for anyone but Bush, but the change is that Bush is not on the ballot
Obama is the Agent of Change, but then again, so are Clinton, Edwards, Romney, McCain, Giuliani, Huckabee, and all the Democrats and all the Republicans
Obama’s cry for a gentler, kinder bi-partisan Washington echoes that of Bush 8 years ago
Obama: The change is one of style and rhetoric, but not of substance. His politics are those of the mainstream of the Democratic Party: peace and appeasement, high taxes, socialized medicine, and the rise of the Nanny State
Style can be a decisive factor as shown by JFK in 1960. America fell in love with his style
Change to Harvard after three Yale Presidents
Hillary: Change means return to Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton
Edwards has the most genuine call for change even if it comes from a skillful trial attorney owning a mansion. His populist call for change is to return the Democratic Party to the working class roots from the Professional Class it is increasingly responding to
Romney: Change in both his policies and change in how much of his own change he can spend
McCain: No change in his straight-talking, but plenty of tacking in his positions
Giuliani: Change in campaign strategy, ignoring Iowa, New Hampshire and other early contests
The American voters almost always want change
1920 Warren G. Harding and the return to Normalcy
1932 FDR and the New Deal in the depths of The Great Depression
1968 Richard Nixon and Vietnam
1976 Jimmy Carter and Watergate
1980 Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter’s incompetence, malaise, 20% interest
rates, 12% inflation and Iran’s humiliation the United States
1992 Bill Clinton and George H. W. Bush’s breach of the “No New Taxes”
Covenant
2000 George W. Bush and Bill Clinton’s peccadilloes and breaches of the public
trust
The American voters instinctively know that change usually comes from outside the Beltway.
The last sitting Senator to be elected President was JFK in 1960. Prior to that it was Warren G. Harding in 1920
Senators Goldwater, McGovern, Dole and Kerry have received their party nominations since then, but all lost in November
Governors Reagan, Carter, Clinton and Bush were elected. Dukakis was defeated. Coolidge and FDR were also Governors. Hoover was a humanitarian and Ike a general
No one can remember when the last sitting Congressman, much less a Mayor, was elected President
The Democrats will nominate either Clinton or Obama. If the Republicans nominate McCain, then the change will be to a sitting Senator after 44 years
If the Republicans nominate Romney, the next President will either be a sitting Senator or a Mormon
If the Republicans nominate Giuliani, then the next President will be either a sitting Senator or a Mayor, first Italian and only the second Catholic
If the Democrats win, then the next President will be an African-American or a woman. Either marks a tidal change in American politics and culture. If the Republicans prevail in November, the Democratic nominee will still be a major turning point in American history
Will the change result in a Carter or a Reagan? None of these changes tell us anything about whether the winner will be a competent leader of the American people
The conundrum for the Republicans is that it’s difficult to be the party of change when you are the governing party. The problem for the Democrats is that they all come from the Senate. No problem though for politicians to claim change
The most consistent change is in their talking points as they watch which way the wind is blowing in their focus groups
For example, if Iraq seems a quagmire, then the roar of negativity is deafening, but with the Surge a success, all we hear are the Sounds of Silence
How can the Democrats claim to be for change when they still fail to use the “L” word, Liberal, in describing themselves
Change is a code word for anyone but Bush, but the change is that Bush is not on the ballot
Obama is the Agent of Change, but then again, so are Clinton, Edwards, Romney, McCain, Giuliani, Huckabee, and all the Democrats and all the Republicans
Obama’s cry for a gentler, kinder bi-partisan Washington echoes that of Bush 8 years ago
Obama: The change is one of style and rhetoric, but not of substance. His politics are those of the mainstream of the Democratic Party: peace and appeasement, high taxes, socialized medicine, and the rise of the Nanny State
Style can be a decisive factor as shown by JFK in 1960. America fell in love with his style
Change to Harvard after three Yale Presidents
Hillary: Change means return to Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton
Edwards has the most genuine call for change even if it comes from a skillful trial attorney owning a mansion. His populist call for change is to return the Democratic Party to the working class roots from the Professional Class it is increasingly responding to
Romney: Change in both his policies and change in how much of his own change he can spend
McCain: No change in his straight-talking, but plenty of tacking in his positions
Giuliani: Change in campaign strategy, ignoring Iowa, New Hampshire and other early contests
The American voters almost always want change
1920 Warren G. Harding and the return to Normalcy
1932 FDR and the New Deal in the depths of The Great Depression
1968 Richard Nixon and Vietnam
1976 Jimmy Carter and Watergate
1980 Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter’s incompetence, malaise, 20% interest
rates, 12% inflation and Iran’s humiliation the United States
1992 Bill Clinton and George H. W. Bush’s breach of the “No New Taxes”
Covenant
2000 George W. Bush and Bill Clinton’s peccadilloes and breaches of the public
trust
The American voters instinctively know that change usually comes from outside the Beltway.
The last sitting Senator to be elected President was JFK in 1960. Prior to that it was Warren G. Harding in 1920
Senators Goldwater, McGovern, Dole and Kerry have received their party nominations since then, but all lost in November
Governors Reagan, Carter, Clinton and Bush were elected. Dukakis was defeated. Coolidge and FDR were also Governors. Hoover was a humanitarian and Ike a general
No one can remember when the last sitting Congressman, much less a Mayor, was elected President
The Democrats will nominate either Clinton or Obama. If the Republicans nominate McCain, then the change will be to a sitting Senator after 44 years
If the Republicans nominate Romney, the next President will either be a sitting Senator or a Mormon
If the Republicans nominate Giuliani, then the next President will be either a sitting Senator or a Mayor, first Italian and only the second Catholic
If the Democrats win, then the next President will be an African-American or a woman. Either marks a tidal change in American politics and culture. If the Republicans prevail in November, the Democratic nominee will still be a major turning point in American history
Will the change result in a Carter or a Reagan? None of these changes tell us anything about whether the winner will be a competent leader of the American people
Change is the buzz word of the Presidential election cycle
The conundrum for the Republicans is that it’s difficult to be the party of change when you are the governing party. The problem for the Democrats is that they all come from the Senate. No problem though for politicians to claim change
The most consistent change is in their talking points as they watch which way the wind is blowing in their focus groups
For example, if Iraq seems a quagmire, then the roar of negativity is deafening, but with the Surge a success, all we hear are the Sounds of Silence
How can the Democrats claim to be for change when they still fail to use the “L” word, Liberal, in describing themselves
Change is a code word for anyone but Bush, but the change is that Bush is not on the ballot
Obama is the Agent of Change, but then again, so are Clinton, Edwards, Romney, McCain, Giuliani, Huckabee, and all the Democrats and all the Republicans
Obama’s cry for a gentler, kinder bi-partisan Washington echoes that of Bush 8 years ago
Obama: The change is one of style and rhetoric, but not of substance. His politics are those of the mainstream of the Democratic Party: peace and appeasement, high taxes, socialized medicine, and the rise of the Nanny State
Style can be a decisive factor as shown by JFK in 1960. America fell in love with his style
Change to Harvard after three Yale Presidents
Hillary: Change means return to Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton
Edwards has the most genuine call for change even if it comes from a skillful trial attorney owning a mansion. His populist call for change is to return the Democratic Party to the working class roots from the Professional Class it is increasingly responding to
Romney: Change in both his policies and change in how much of his own change he can spend
McCain: No change in his straight-talking, but plenty of tacking in his positions
Giuliani: Change in campaign strategy, ignoring Iowa, New Hampshire and other early contests
The American voters almost always want change
1920 Warren G. Harding and the return to Normalcy
1932 FDR and the New Deal in the depths of The Great Depression
1968 Richard Nixon and Vietnam
1976 Jimmy Carter and Watergate
1980 Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter’s incompetence, malaise, 20% interest
rates, 12% inflation and Iran’s humiliation the United States
1992 Bill Clinton and George H. W. Bush’s breach of the “No New Taxes”
Covenant
2000 George W. Bush and Bill Clinton’s peccadilloes and breaches of the public
trust
The American voters instinctively know that change usually comes from outside the Beltway.
The last sitting Senator to be elected President was JFK in 1960. Prior to that it was Warren G. Harding in 1920
Senators Goldwater, McGovern, Dole and Kerry have received their party nominations since then, but all lost in November
Governors Reagan, Carter, Clinton and Bush were elected. Dukakis was defeated. Coolidge and FDR were also Governors. Hoover was a humanitarian and Ike a general
No one can remember when the last sitting Congressman, much less a Mayor, was elected President
The Democrats will nominate either Clinton or Obama. If the Republicans nominate McCain, then the change will be to a sitting Senator after 44 years
If the Republicans nominate Romney, the next President will either be a sitting Senator or a Mormon
If the Republicans nominate Giuliani, then the next President will be either a sitting Senator or a Mayor, first Italian and only the second Catholic
If the Democrats win, then the next President will be an African-American or a woman. Either marks a tidal change in American politics and culture. If the Republicans prevail in November, the Democratic nominee will still be a major turning point in American history
Will the change result in a Carter or a Reagan? None of these changes tell us anything about whether the winner will be a competent leader of the American people
The conundrum for the Republicans is that it’s difficult to be the party of change when you are the governing party. The problem for the Democrats is that they all come from the Senate. No problem though for politicians to claim change
The most consistent change is in their talking points as they watch which way the wind is blowing in their focus groups
For example, if Iraq seems a quagmire, then the roar of negativity is deafening, but with the Surge a success, all we hear are the Sounds of Silence
How can the Democrats claim to be for change when they still fail to use the “L” word, Liberal, in describing themselves
Change is a code word for anyone but Bush, but the change is that Bush is not on the ballot
Obama is the Agent of Change, but then again, so are Clinton, Edwards, Romney, McCain, Giuliani, Huckabee, and all the Democrats and all the Republicans
Obama’s cry for a gentler, kinder bi-partisan Washington echoes that of Bush 8 years ago
Obama: The change is one of style and rhetoric, but not of substance. His politics are those of the mainstream of the Democratic Party: peace and appeasement, high taxes, socialized medicine, and the rise of the Nanny State
Style can be a decisive factor as shown by JFK in 1960. America fell in love with his style
Change to Harvard after three Yale Presidents
Hillary: Change means return to Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton
Edwards has the most genuine call for change even if it comes from a skillful trial attorney owning a mansion. His populist call for change is to return the Democratic Party to the working class roots from the Professional Class it is increasingly responding to
Romney: Change in both his policies and change in how much of his own change he can spend
McCain: No change in his straight-talking, but plenty of tacking in his positions
Giuliani: Change in campaign strategy, ignoring Iowa, New Hampshire and other early contests
The American voters almost always want change
1920 Warren G. Harding and the return to Normalcy
1932 FDR and the New Deal in the depths of The Great Depression
1968 Richard Nixon and Vietnam
1976 Jimmy Carter and Watergate
1980 Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter’s incompetence, malaise, 20% interest
rates, 12% inflation and Iran’s humiliation the United States
1992 Bill Clinton and George H. W. Bush’s breach of the “No New Taxes”
Covenant
2000 George W. Bush and Bill Clinton’s peccadilloes and breaches of the public
trust
The American voters instinctively know that change usually comes from outside the Beltway.
The last sitting Senator to be elected President was JFK in 1960. Prior to that it was Warren G. Harding in 1920
Senators Goldwater, McGovern, Dole and Kerry have received their party nominations since then, but all lost in November
Governors Reagan, Carter, Clinton and Bush were elected. Dukakis was defeated. Coolidge and FDR were also Governors. Hoover was a humanitarian and Ike a general
No one can remember when the last sitting Congressman, much less a Mayor, was elected President
The Democrats will nominate either Clinton or Obama. If the Republicans nominate McCain, then the change will be to a sitting Senator after 44 years
If the Republicans nominate Romney, the next President will either be a sitting Senator or a Mormon
If the Republicans nominate Giuliani, then the next President will be either a sitting Senator or a Mayor, first Italian and only the second Catholic
If the Democrats win, then the next President will be an African-American or a woman. Either marks a tidal change in American politics and culture. If the Republicans prevail in November, the Democratic nominee will still be a major turning point in American history
Will the change result in a Carter or a Reagan? None of these changes tell us anything about whether the winner will be a competent leader of the American people
Thursday, January 24, 2008
The Republican Conundrum
Michigan has spoken. It has voted for its Native Son, Mitt Romney, for President in the Republican primary. Thus, Huckabee won Iowa, McCain New Hampshire and South Carolina, and Romney Wyoming, Nevada and Michigan. The general assumption is that the Republicans will lose in November, but Republicans do not want to nominate a candidate who will lead to a landslide defeat.
The problem is not that the Republicans have failed to coalesce on a candidate unlike recent elections in which an anointed candidate usually won the nomination. The problem is that none of the current candidates offer a broad appeal to the Republican base.
All have claimed the conservative mantra of Reagan. The more one claims to be Reagan’s successor, the less likely that is the reality. Reagan’s unique Presidency ended a generation ago.
I lived in Massachusetts for 18 years. A conservative Republican, adhering to the core Republican tenets, cannot get elected to statewide office. Thus, Mitt Romney ran for Governor of Massachusetts as a pro-choice, pro-immigration, pro-gun control, gay rights Republican. He then had an epiphany, not to be confused with a flip-flop, when he decided to run for President.
He also comes across as a preppie. It’s ok to be a preppie in Massachusetts, but the style does not necessarily connect with the voters of America. The secret of both Reagan and Clinton is that they touched the average American.
Senator John McCain is a war hero steadfast in his support of the Iraq War. He is genuine; his views do not shift with the wind, although he has been doing a lot of tacking recently. Unfortunately, with the exception of Iraq, his core values are mainly out of the mainstream of the Republican Party. His name is on the reviled McCain-Feingold abridgment of free speech. He supports amnesty for illegal immigrants, opposed the Bush tax cuts, and sold out the party with the Gang of 14 on judicial appointments. His views may appeal to independent and Democratic voters, as in New Hampshire and South Carolina, but not the Republican stalwarts. If he receives the nomination, then many Republicans will stay home on Election Day.
Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, a former Democrat, was elected Mayor of New York as a moderate, law and order Republican. He also has a checkered personal history, and is irregular with Church attendance, but he clearly is the leader in a time of crisis. Giuliani understands that leadership consists of keeping your cool when everyone else is losing theirs. Unlike Romney, he has not wholeheartedly changed his positions. He also cleaned up New York and made it safe to take the subway again. Such a feat exhibits true leadership.
His strategy though is interesting, defying conventional wisdom. He wrote off Iowa and New Hampshire, hoping to gain momentum from Florida and the tri-state primaries. No one can remember the last time a candidate was elected President of the United States by ignoring the early caucuses and primaries.
Senator Fred Thompson was the media’s favorite candidate until he formally entered the race. His candidacy shifted into reverse at precisely that nanosecond, and was abandoned on January 22.
Governor Mike Huckebee is an evangelical Christian, thereby appealing to the Christian base of the GOP. He is very articulate and intelligent and can be a compelling campaigner. He is though on most issues a populist more in tune with the left in America, and was endorsed by the Teachers Union. The GOP may offer a big tent, but it does not cover teacher unions. Huckabee’s populism is as popular with Republicans as Edwards with the Democrats.
It’s doubtful that America wants another ethically charged, huckster Governor from Hope, Arkansas. He has the potential to revive the Goldwater debacle of 1964, especially with his national sales tax proposal of 25%. He can explain it anyway he wishes, but it’s still a regressive 25% sales tax, which disproportionately falls on lower income Americans. He also wants creationism taught in schools alongside evolution. Did anyone say “Scopes Monkey Trial?”
Ron Paul expresses the courage of his convictions, a rarity among politicians, but has the same popular resonance as Barry Goldwater 44 years ago.
Candidates such as Sam Brownback, Tom Tancredo, and Duncan Hunter never had a chance.
The problem for the Republican Party is that it has several base constituencies: economic and Main Street conservatives, Wall Street, Christian conservatives, blue collar workers, law and order/national security Americans, and libertarians. Only a masterful politician, like Reagan, can hold them together.
Wall Street, as much of the professional class, has been defecting to Democrats in recent years. Wall Street was also the core constituency of the first President Bush. His betrayal of his “No New Taxes” covenant with the American public may have played well on Wall Street, but gave us Clinton as President. Bush’s conversion from pro-choice to pro-life to secure his Presidency was not trusted by the party regulars. Neither are Romney’s nor McCain’s.
President Nixon pursued the Southern strategy, which moved the geographic base of the GOP from the Northeast to the Sun Belt. President Reagan reached out to the working class. The current candidates are doing their best to shrink the base.
President Reagan and the current President Bush were able to balance the bases of the Republican Party.
No current candidate has similar appeal for the Republican voters.
The problem is not that the Republicans have failed to coalesce on a candidate unlike recent elections in which an anointed candidate usually won the nomination. The problem is that none of the current candidates offer a broad appeal to the Republican base.
All have claimed the conservative mantra of Reagan. The more one claims to be Reagan’s successor, the less likely that is the reality. Reagan’s unique Presidency ended a generation ago.
I lived in Massachusetts for 18 years. A conservative Republican, adhering to the core Republican tenets, cannot get elected to statewide office. Thus, Mitt Romney ran for Governor of Massachusetts as a pro-choice, pro-immigration, pro-gun control, gay rights Republican. He then had an epiphany, not to be confused with a flip-flop, when he decided to run for President.
He also comes across as a preppie. It’s ok to be a preppie in Massachusetts, but the style does not necessarily connect with the voters of America. The secret of both Reagan and Clinton is that they touched the average American.
Senator John McCain is a war hero steadfast in his support of the Iraq War. He is genuine; his views do not shift with the wind, although he has been doing a lot of tacking recently. Unfortunately, with the exception of Iraq, his core values are mainly out of the mainstream of the Republican Party. His name is on the reviled McCain-Feingold abridgment of free speech. He supports amnesty for illegal immigrants, opposed the Bush tax cuts, and sold out the party with the Gang of 14 on judicial appointments. His views may appeal to independent and Democratic voters, as in New Hampshire and South Carolina, but not the Republican stalwarts. If he receives the nomination, then many Republicans will stay home on Election Day.
Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, a former Democrat, was elected Mayor of New York as a moderate, law and order Republican. He also has a checkered personal history, and is irregular with Church attendance, but he clearly is the leader in a time of crisis. Giuliani understands that leadership consists of keeping your cool when everyone else is losing theirs. Unlike Romney, he has not wholeheartedly changed his positions. He also cleaned up New York and made it safe to take the subway again. Such a feat exhibits true leadership.
His strategy though is interesting, defying conventional wisdom. He wrote off Iowa and New Hampshire, hoping to gain momentum from Florida and the tri-state primaries. No one can remember the last time a candidate was elected President of the United States by ignoring the early caucuses and primaries.
Senator Fred Thompson was the media’s favorite candidate until he formally entered the race. His candidacy shifted into reverse at precisely that nanosecond, and was abandoned on January 22.
Governor Mike Huckebee is an evangelical Christian, thereby appealing to the Christian base of the GOP. He is very articulate and intelligent and can be a compelling campaigner. He is though on most issues a populist more in tune with the left in America, and was endorsed by the Teachers Union. The GOP may offer a big tent, but it does not cover teacher unions. Huckabee’s populism is as popular with Republicans as Edwards with the Democrats.
It’s doubtful that America wants another ethically charged, huckster Governor from Hope, Arkansas. He has the potential to revive the Goldwater debacle of 1964, especially with his national sales tax proposal of 25%. He can explain it anyway he wishes, but it’s still a regressive 25% sales tax, which disproportionately falls on lower income Americans. He also wants creationism taught in schools alongside evolution. Did anyone say “Scopes Monkey Trial?”
Ron Paul expresses the courage of his convictions, a rarity among politicians, but has the same popular resonance as Barry Goldwater 44 years ago.
Candidates such as Sam Brownback, Tom Tancredo, and Duncan Hunter never had a chance.
The problem for the Republican Party is that it has several base constituencies: economic and Main Street conservatives, Wall Street, Christian conservatives, blue collar workers, law and order/national security Americans, and libertarians. Only a masterful politician, like Reagan, can hold them together.
Wall Street, as much of the professional class, has been defecting to Democrats in recent years. Wall Street was also the core constituency of the first President Bush. His betrayal of his “No New Taxes” covenant with the American public may have played well on Wall Street, but gave us Clinton as President. Bush’s conversion from pro-choice to pro-life to secure his Presidency was not trusted by the party regulars. Neither are Romney’s nor McCain’s.
President Nixon pursued the Southern strategy, which moved the geographic base of the GOP from the Northeast to the Sun Belt. President Reagan reached out to the working class. The current candidates are doing their best to shrink the base.
President Reagan and the current President Bush were able to balance the bases of the Republican Party.
No current candidate has similar appeal for the Republican voters.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Don Dunn, R.I.P.
Donald J. Dunn succumbed to lung cancer on Saturday, January 5, 2008. Don was a great man who achieved greatness in life. No, his obit did not make the New York Times nor the Los Angeles Times. No dams, bridges, skyscrapers, corporations, foundations, prizes have been named for him, but he accomplished great achievements. No portraits, statues, or busts bear his likeness, but they should.
The CV often tells us nothing about the essence of a person. His simple CV shows Don was a law librarian, but not at one of the nation’s great universities. He was twice a dean, but not at an elite law school. His law degree was from a Fourth Tier Law School. A.B. Texas, M.L.S. Texas, J.D. WNEC, Law Librarian WNEC 1973-2004, Acting Dean, 1996-1998 WNEC, Dean, 1998-2002, WNEC, Dean, University of La Verne, 2004-2008.
All he did was enrich under endowed schools and touch people.
From the hard East Texas soil outside Tyler, Texas, this soft-spoken Texas gentlemen accomplished wonders. The single son of a single mom (His father died when he was 4) had a single son, but the love of thousands. In a classic American or Texas dream, the high school football player married the majorette, Cheryl, his life-long companion. This true son of Texas lived over half his life in Massachusetts and California, but remained ever a Texan.
Don joined the inaugural faculty of the full time Western New England College Law School in 1973 as the librarian. He lacked a law degree at the time, but his mentor, the demanding Roy Mersky of Texas law School, vouched for him. Don then earned his J.D. in the part time program of WNEC, immediately earning the respect of his very talented classmates. Don wisely recused himself from personnel matters at Faculty Meetings, but remained Faculty Secretary.
Howard I. Kalodner was the successful Dean of WNEC for 17 years before retiring in 1994. His successor lasted only two years, leaving the Law School in disarray. Don was the obvious choice as Acting Dean. He worked miracles with unifying the Faculty. He then became the Dean.
Those of us in the Academy recognize that meek, mild law professors can turn into flaming prima donnas without great leadership. Both Don and Howard were wonderful leaders.
The University of La Verne called, wanting Don to lead them to the promised land of ABA accreditation. La Verne is a California University on the rise. Moving the unaccredited law school to full ABA accreditation would be a significant accomplishment and an external validation of academic quality.
Don was the obvious choice. Not only did Don have experience from WNEC, but also expertise with the ABA. Don served on scores of ABA site visitation teams, often on the most difficult inspections, including start up law schools.
The cross country move to California brought both personal and professional success.
His son, Kevin, daughter in law, Wendy, and grandsons, Camden and Tobin, moved close by, and Don was able to attend two Rose Bowls, watching his beloved Longhorns beat Michigan and then USC for the national title.
He shaped up La Verne’s facilities, recruited an outstanding faculty, and received provisional ABA accreditation. Like Moses though, he did not live to see final success, but the request for full ABA accreditation goes forward. Don was diagnosed with the cancer a year ago, at an all too young an age.
I believe he accepted the La Verne appointment because, deep down, he enjoyed the challenge. To achieve success at a WNEC or La Verne is exemplary. To maintain success at an elite institution is expected, and often only requires an ability to raise funds, mollify faculty and presidents, and satisfy trustees and regents (not always an easy task as President Lawrence Summers can attest). Don had turned down many an offer of the librarianship at prestigious law schools. He enjoyed the challenges and camaraderie at WNEC.
Every school has its issues, but success at a WNEC or La Verne is much more notable than at one of the nation’s great universities. Reputation, finances, faculty and student quality, and even survival are challenges. Don worked miracles within the constraints of tight resources.
Don instinctively understood the role of La Verne and WNEC. The La Verne’s and WNEC’s provide the American Dream, offering a quality education, often to the first generation to attend college.
Don was a populist, reflecting his roots, but politics never influenced his relationships with others. He judged people on their inherent qualities, working well with others. He had an advantage because Don had an innate ability to assess the competence of individuals and then bring out their best.
He had a steadying effect on his employees, colleagues, administrators and fellow students. Patience and fortitude were his virtues. A great example of Don’s ability to sooth is shown when his secretary’s fiancé called off the wedding shortly before the ceremony- obviously a traumatic act. Tracy was back working in a few days and within a few months the fiancé came back, hat in hand praying for Tracy’s forgiveness.
The glass was always full for Don. The question never arose as to whether the glass was half full or half empty. He was the eternal optimist, but always cognizant of the foibles and weaknesses of humans. There were no problems – only challenges and opportunities. Sometimes he needed a few extra puffs to maintain his equilibrium, but he always conveyed calmness and coolness.
His loyal library staff reciprocated his respect. They were competent, collegial and loyal. Significantly, staff turnover was low.
His office and mind were always open, even when he was outside smoking in the freezing winters of New England.
We celebrate the life of Don because we were fortunate to share in it.
The CV often tells us nothing about the essence of a person. His simple CV shows Don was a law librarian, but not at one of the nation’s great universities. He was twice a dean, but not at an elite law school. His law degree was from a Fourth Tier Law School. A.B. Texas, M.L.S. Texas, J.D. WNEC, Law Librarian WNEC 1973-2004, Acting Dean, 1996-1998 WNEC, Dean, 1998-2002, WNEC, Dean, University of La Verne, 2004-2008.
All he did was enrich under endowed schools and touch people.
From the hard East Texas soil outside Tyler, Texas, this soft-spoken Texas gentlemen accomplished wonders. The single son of a single mom (His father died when he was 4) had a single son, but the love of thousands. In a classic American or Texas dream, the high school football player married the majorette, Cheryl, his life-long companion. This true son of Texas lived over half his life in Massachusetts and California, but remained ever a Texan.
Don joined the inaugural faculty of the full time Western New England College Law School in 1973 as the librarian. He lacked a law degree at the time, but his mentor, the demanding Roy Mersky of Texas law School, vouched for him. Don then earned his J.D. in the part time program of WNEC, immediately earning the respect of his very talented classmates. Don wisely recused himself from personnel matters at Faculty Meetings, but remained Faculty Secretary.
Howard I. Kalodner was the successful Dean of WNEC for 17 years before retiring in 1994. His successor lasted only two years, leaving the Law School in disarray. Don was the obvious choice as Acting Dean. He worked miracles with unifying the Faculty. He then became the Dean.
Those of us in the Academy recognize that meek, mild law professors can turn into flaming prima donnas without great leadership. Both Don and Howard were wonderful leaders.
The University of La Verne called, wanting Don to lead them to the promised land of ABA accreditation. La Verne is a California University on the rise. Moving the unaccredited law school to full ABA accreditation would be a significant accomplishment and an external validation of academic quality.
Don was the obvious choice. Not only did Don have experience from WNEC, but also expertise with the ABA. Don served on scores of ABA site visitation teams, often on the most difficult inspections, including start up law schools.
The cross country move to California brought both personal and professional success.
His son, Kevin, daughter in law, Wendy, and grandsons, Camden and Tobin, moved close by, and Don was able to attend two Rose Bowls, watching his beloved Longhorns beat Michigan and then USC for the national title.
He shaped up La Verne’s facilities, recruited an outstanding faculty, and received provisional ABA accreditation. Like Moses though, he did not live to see final success, but the request for full ABA accreditation goes forward. Don was diagnosed with the cancer a year ago, at an all too young an age.
I believe he accepted the La Verne appointment because, deep down, he enjoyed the challenge. To achieve success at a WNEC or La Verne is exemplary. To maintain success at an elite institution is expected, and often only requires an ability to raise funds, mollify faculty and presidents, and satisfy trustees and regents (not always an easy task as President Lawrence Summers can attest). Don had turned down many an offer of the librarianship at prestigious law schools. He enjoyed the challenges and camaraderie at WNEC.
Every school has its issues, but success at a WNEC or La Verne is much more notable than at one of the nation’s great universities. Reputation, finances, faculty and student quality, and even survival are challenges. Don worked miracles within the constraints of tight resources.
Don instinctively understood the role of La Verne and WNEC. The La Verne’s and WNEC’s provide the American Dream, offering a quality education, often to the first generation to attend college.
Don was a populist, reflecting his roots, but politics never influenced his relationships with others. He judged people on their inherent qualities, working well with others. He had an advantage because Don had an innate ability to assess the competence of individuals and then bring out their best.
He had a steadying effect on his employees, colleagues, administrators and fellow students. Patience and fortitude were his virtues. A great example of Don’s ability to sooth is shown when his secretary’s fiancé called off the wedding shortly before the ceremony- obviously a traumatic act. Tracy was back working in a few days and within a few months the fiancé came back, hat in hand praying for Tracy’s forgiveness.
The glass was always full for Don. The question never arose as to whether the glass was half full or half empty. He was the eternal optimist, but always cognizant of the foibles and weaknesses of humans. There were no problems – only challenges and opportunities. Sometimes he needed a few extra puffs to maintain his equilibrium, but he always conveyed calmness and coolness.
His loyal library staff reciprocated his respect. They were competent, collegial and loyal. Significantly, staff turnover was low.
His office and mind were always open, even when he was outside smoking in the freezing winters of New England.
We celebrate the life of Don because we were fortunate to share in it.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
God Bless America
As we enter the New Year, let us solemnly remember, only 353 shopping days till Christmas. Only 353 more days of litigation over crosses, crèches, pledges of allegiance, Ten Commandments, legislative invocations, and intelligent design. Only 353 days of dispute between Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays.
Not exactly!
America is engaged in a defining debate between religion and non-religion, between religion and secular humanism. The religious schism manifests itself in such diverse issues as abortion, Boy Scouts, capital punishment, definitions of marriage, gay rights, school vouchers, stem cell research, and Supreme Court nominations.
America is a pluralistic society centered on assimilating waves of immigrants while respecting their customs and religious beliefs. Tolerance has largely freed us from the religious wars, crusades, jihads, and genocides which periodically ravage civilization.
The United States has paradoxically become the most religious country in the Western world precisely because we are not a religious country. The state neither compels an official religion nor atheism.
The First Amendment’s Freedom of Religion frees us to follow the religious views of our choice. The First Amendment is a clear statement that the government can neither discriminate in favor of religion (The Establishment Clause), between religions, or against religion (The Free Exercise Clause) - thus the separation of Church and State.
Significantly, the Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment to mandate strict neutrality between religion and non-religion.
The legal, jurisprudential, and political error of those advocating and litigating against “symbols of religion” is their tenet that anything that is even remotely “religious” violates the cardinal principle of separation of Church and State. Their approach would affirmatively require the state to unconstitutionally discriminate against religion. Much to their legal dismay, courts have consistently ruled religious groups can hold meetings at public schools, and student religious organizations must be recognized on an equal basis as non-religious organizations.
The anti-religion advocates are selective in their efforts. Since we are a highly religious nation in which believers greatly outnumber non-believers by a 9:1 ratio, they dare not risk pushing the envelope too far.
For example, our marriage license was issued by the State of New York. The ceremony was performed by Msgn. James McDermott at Sts. Peter and Paul Church in Mt. Vernon, New York.
The significance is not that, like most Americans, we were married by a priest, minister, rabbi, iman, pandit, or gian ji, but that the state, followed by the federal government, recognizes religious weddings without requiring a separate secular ceremony.
Under a strict separation of Church and State, religious marriages would have no legal validity. Similarly, all crosses and Stars of David would be removed from our national cemeteries.
An even more literal interpretation would mandate the renaming of all cities, towns, villages, and counties, whose name has a religious significance, such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, Santa Ana, and Corpus Christi.
Opponents of school vouchers unsuccessfully argued before the Supreme Court that they are impermissible at religious schools, thereby effectively neutralizing the value of vouchers in most urban areas.
By analogy, the guaranteed student loan at my Jesuit alma mater would be unconstitutional, as would any government research grants to a religiously affiliated institution. Religious hospitals would be barred from receiving government funds, such as Medicare and Medicaid/Medi-Cal. Indeed, by this reasoning we should end all charitable tax deductions and property tax exemptions for religious institutions. As with vouchers, the separation of Church and State does not go that far.
The teaching of religion in the public schools is, of course, unconstitutional, but not teaching about religion as an academic exercise. For example, the understanding of Thanksgiving and the settlement of America only makes sense in the light of the Pilgrims and Puritans. Similarly, the cross on the seal of the City of Angels is not an affirmation of religion, but the recognition of the historical founding of the Pueblo of Los Angeles by Spanish missionaries.
“In God We Trust” is also suspect by analogy, along with official oaths on the Bible, religious phrases on courthouses, including the Supreme Court, and prayers to start legislative sessions.
The reality is that many opponents of organized religion prefer a state sponsored religion of the own, but do not openly refer to it. It is known as secular humanism, and has governed some of ruling class for the past 50 years. Secular humanism looks to the self for meaning in life, morality and values. In other words, morality emanates from within each one of us rather than from the Judeo-Christian heritage. The effect is to border on anarchy and nihilism, and encourage amoral and immoral behavior.
Let us remember that Nietzsche’s famous phrase “God is dead” reverberated through the college campuses of the 60”s. Less well known was prescient graffiti on the walls of the New York City subway system: “Nietzsche is dead! God.”
Not exactly!
America is engaged in a defining debate between religion and non-religion, between religion and secular humanism. The religious schism manifests itself in such diverse issues as abortion, Boy Scouts, capital punishment, definitions of marriage, gay rights, school vouchers, stem cell research, and Supreme Court nominations.
America is a pluralistic society centered on assimilating waves of immigrants while respecting their customs and religious beliefs. Tolerance has largely freed us from the religious wars, crusades, jihads, and genocides which periodically ravage civilization.
The United States has paradoxically become the most religious country in the Western world precisely because we are not a religious country. The state neither compels an official religion nor atheism.
The First Amendment’s Freedom of Religion frees us to follow the religious views of our choice. The First Amendment is a clear statement that the government can neither discriminate in favor of religion (The Establishment Clause), between religions, or against religion (The Free Exercise Clause) - thus the separation of Church and State.
Significantly, the Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment to mandate strict neutrality between religion and non-religion.
The legal, jurisprudential, and political error of those advocating and litigating against “symbols of religion” is their tenet that anything that is even remotely “religious” violates the cardinal principle of separation of Church and State. Their approach would affirmatively require the state to unconstitutionally discriminate against religion. Much to their legal dismay, courts have consistently ruled religious groups can hold meetings at public schools, and student religious organizations must be recognized on an equal basis as non-religious organizations.
The anti-religion advocates are selective in their efforts. Since we are a highly religious nation in which believers greatly outnumber non-believers by a 9:1 ratio, they dare not risk pushing the envelope too far.
For example, our marriage license was issued by the State of New York. The ceremony was performed by Msgn. James McDermott at Sts. Peter and Paul Church in Mt. Vernon, New York.
The significance is not that, like most Americans, we were married by a priest, minister, rabbi, iman, pandit, or gian ji, but that the state, followed by the federal government, recognizes religious weddings without requiring a separate secular ceremony.
Under a strict separation of Church and State, religious marriages would have no legal validity. Similarly, all crosses and Stars of David would be removed from our national cemeteries.
An even more literal interpretation would mandate the renaming of all cities, towns, villages, and counties, whose name has a religious significance, such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, Santa Ana, and Corpus Christi.
Opponents of school vouchers unsuccessfully argued before the Supreme Court that they are impermissible at religious schools, thereby effectively neutralizing the value of vouchers in most urban areas.
By analogy, the guaranteed student loan at my Jesuit alma mater would be unconstitutional, as would any government research grants to a religiously affiliated institution. Religious hospitals would be barred from receiving government funds, such as Medicare and Medicaid/Medi-Cal. Indeed, by this reasoning we should end all charitable tax deductions and property tax exemptions for religious institutions. As with vouchers, the separation of Church and State does not go that far.
The teaching of religion in the public schools is, of course, unconstitutional, but not teaching about religion as an academic exercise. For example, the understanding of Thanksgiving and the settlement of America only makes sense in the light of the Pilgrims and Puritans. Similarly, the cross on the seal of the City of Angels is not an affirmation of religion, but the recognition of the historical founding of the Pueblo of Los Angeles by Spanish missionaries.
“In God We Trust” is also suspect by analogy, along with official oaths on the Bible, religious phrases on courthouses, including the Supreme Court, and prayers to start legislative sessions.
The reality is that many opponents of organized religion prefer a state sponsored religion of the own, but do not openly refer to it. It is known as secular humanism, and has governed some of ruling class for the past 50 years. Secular humanism looks to the self for meaning in life, morality and values. In other words, morality emanates from within each one of us rather than from the Judeo-Christian heritage. The effect is to border on anarchy and nihilism, and encourage amoral and immoral behavior.
Let us remember that Nietzsche’s famous phrase “God is dead” reverberated through the college campuses of the 60”s. Less well known was prescient graffiti on the walls of the New York City subway system: “Nietzsche is dead! God.”
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Obama as an Agent for Change (?)
The Times They Are A’Changing
Obama is the agent of change.
Change in the political didactic.
Change in optimism
The politics of optimism – not sleeze, not the politics of personal destruction
Change – America now recognizes an African American as a viable candidate for the Presidency, not that Shirley Chisholm, Reverend Jackson, Reverent Sharpton, and Allen Keyes weren’t serious candidates
Change to multi-culturalism
Change from the World War II generation to the Baby Boomers to the post-Baby Boomers
Change from Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton-Bush
Change back to a Republic and Democracy from an oligarchy
Change back to the charisma, magnetism and telegenicity of John Fitzgerald Kennedy
Change from Yale - but only to Harvard
Change in the fervor of his supporters
Change in the energizing of the younger generation
But the change is one of style – not of substance
Change back to the politics of the far left wing of the Democratic Party
The change to high taxes, appeasement and defeatism, socialized medicine, command and control economy, and protectionism
Kennedy was a Cold War Warrior unafraid to project American military might
Kennedy lowered taxes
Change back to total inexperience
The change of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton
Change back to lack of gravitas
Obama may be the voice America is desperately searching for, but not the leadership
Change for better or worse
Change for Iowa
No change for New Hampshire
Obama is the agent of change.
Change in the political didactic.
Change in optimism
The politics of optimism – not sleeze, not the politics of personal destruction
Change – America now recognizes an African American as a viable candidate for the Presidency, not that Shirley Chisholm, Reverend Jackson, Reverent Sharpton, and Allen Keyes weren’t serious candidates
Change to multi-culturalism
Change from the World War II generation to the Baby Boomers to the post-Baby Boomers
Change from Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton-Bush
Change back to a Republic and Democracy from an oligarchy
Change back to the charisma, magnetism and telegenicity of John Fitzgerald Kennedy
Change from Yale - but only to Harvard
Change in the fervor of his supporters
Change in the energizing of the younger generation
But the change is one of style – not of substance
Change back to the politics of the far left wing of the Democratic Party
The change to high taxes, appeasement and defeatism, socialized medicine, command and control economy, and protectionism
Kennedy was a Cold War Warrior unafraid to project American military might
Kennedy lowered taxes
Change back to total inexperience
The change of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton
Change back to lack of gravitas
Obama may be the voice America is desperately searching for, but not the leadership
Change for better or worse
Change for Iowa
No change for New Hampshire
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
'Roids in Baseball
The Mitchell Report was released a few weeks ago, immediately followed by fulminations, ruminations, excoriations, a few limited mea culpas, and then the sounds of silence.
“Roids in baseball. Who wudda thunk it? Next thing you know, they’ll tell us steroids are in football, basketball, track, the colleges, high schools, and even the Tour de France. So too with human growth hormones (HGH) and amphetamines.
The Mitchell Report identified stars and scrubs, current players and retirees, but omitted such prominent users as Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa.
McGwire, Bonds, Sosa, Clemens should not be in the Baseball Hall of fame because they cheated. What a standard! Baseball has historically condoned cheating when it added to the gate. Baseball also tolerates violence with the specific intent of injuring players. Football conversely is an inherently violent sport in which injuries are expected, albeit not inflicted intentionally.
Gaylord Perry is in the Hall. The “Ancient Mariner’s” true claim to fame is not his impressive 315 wins, but that no one, at least not an umpire, ever found spit, resin, Vaseline, tar, whatever, on his notorious spitballs. Of course, you can’t find it when you look the other way.
One of the greatest players of all time, Ty Cobb, is in the Hall even though he is also one of the nastiest, dirtiest, and most obnoxious players in baseball’s history.
Don Drysdale, the Dodgers pitcher, is in the Hall. His claim to fame was his Motto: “Batters get the outside; I get the inside.” He intentionally threw at batters crowding the plate. He set the modern National League record with 144 hit batters. He learnt his craft from a Dodger predecessor, Sal “The Barber” Maglie, so named because Sal would shave the chins of batters with his fastball.
Sliding into second with the spikes up to break up a double plate, and perhaps injure the defender, is a fundamental practice in baseball, as is sliding into home again with cleats up. First basemen, who don’t get off the bag quickly enough, risk the runner aiming for their feet with spikes down.
Pete Rose may be banned from baseball for life, and thus ineligible for membership in the Hall of Fame, for betting on baseball games, but cheating is tolerated in the game itself. In the deciding third playoff game in 1951 between the Brooklyn Dodgers and New York Giants, Bobby Thomson for the Giants hit “The Shot Heard Around the Globe;” a game winning home run. He knew what pitch was coming because the Giants stole the signals from the Dodgers. Stealing signals is an accepted practice in baseball.
If only Pete Rose had engaged in spousal abuse, then baseball would tolerate his misdeeds.
Baseball has continuously sanctioned an ethos of alcoholism by managers, coaches and players and tolerated spousal abuse by managers and players. The death of St. Louis Cardinals pitcher Josh Hancock in April 2007 caused many teams to reassess their policies of alcohol in the clubhouse. Josh was speeding with a .157 blood alcohol level while talking on his cellphone when he rear ended a parked tow truck. He also wasn’t using his seat belt. Only a few months earlier Tony LaRussa, the Cardinals Manager, was found drunk slumped over his steering wheel with the engine running.
After the disastrous players strike of 1994, the owners needed for baseball to have a lift. Thus the encouragement for Cal Ripken, Jr. to break Lou Gehrig’s record of 2130 straight games played. That wasn’t enough, so baseball then touted the home run race between Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa to break the records of Babe Ruth and Roger Maris. All sorts of theories were offered, including “Is the ball juiced?” when the answer, known to baseball, is that the players were juiced. We know this because Jose Canseco, a former teammate of McGwire, told us. The response to Canseco’s disclosures is that opposing fans would taunt him with “Roid” in the batter’s box.
Many baseball writers were not fooled, but lacked evidence to write public accusations about the players.
Jim Bouton, a pitcher, published Ball Four decades earlier in 1971, revealing the extensive use of alcohol and drugs by major leaguers. He publicly disclosed the alcoholism of the great Mickey Mantle. Baseballs’ response was to circle the wagons and turn on Bouton.
Most of us sadly gain weight as we age. It usually does not turn into muscle regardless of the workout regime. Pitching speed and bat speed do not mysteriously increase in the 30’s. And even if we can attribute increased muscle tone to rigorous fitness programs, they do not explain how a head can morph into Mr. Potato Head or veins pop to the surface. Sudden, violent mood changes are also a clue to drug usage.
Unfortunately, these chemicals will not benefit those of us, most of us, who lack athletic ability. But they do provide an edge, and may extent the careers and performances of those with outstanding athletic achievements.
The problem with the Mitchell Report is that it did not, could not, go far enough. For example, it ignored amphetamines, which are also commonly used by pros.
Players understand the risk. 300 pound football linemen understand that they risk severe heart problems in their 40’s and 50’s, including fatal heart attacks. Yet the decision is to follow Alexander the Great’s path. The Delphic Oracle told Alexander when he was 15 that he could either lead a long life full of peace or a short life full of glory. He, and many athletes, choose fame and multi-million dollar contracts.
Clearly the Players Union has been unabashedly opposed to drug testing of the players eventhough it is the non-drug using players who pay the highest price. The Union opposes blood testing for HGH, knowing that no urine test currently exists to detect HGH in the body. Invasion of privacy claims have little, if any, legal justification.
Yet, the Union is not solely at fault for there in fact has long been a conspiracy between labor and management to condone drug usage by players. Management openly looked the other way, from trainers, managers, general managers, and owners. The Three Monkeys were present in baseball. Players even received warnings days in advance of testing so that they could purge their systems. The Commissioner, Bud Selig, was amazingly blind on the issue. Only the threat of Congressional action has forced baseball to take the few steps that it has.
Baseball banned steroids in 1991, but did not require testing until 2003. HGH was banned in 2003 but no meaningful testing is allowed.
The attitude of management is shown by a simple fact. The Yankees and Dodgers were two teams with the largest numbers of drug users. Only a few days after issuance of the Mitchell report the Dodgers signed, as a backup catcher, one of those named in the report.
“Roids in baseball. Who wudda thunk it? Next thing you know, they’ll tell us steroids are in football, basketball, track, the colleges, high schools, and even the Tour de France. So too with human growth hormones (HGH) and amphetamines.
The Mitchell Report identified stars and scrubs, current players and retirees, but omitted such prominent users as Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa.
McGwire, Bonds, Sosa, Clemens should not be in the Baseball Hall of fame because they cheated. What a standard! Baseball has historically condoned cheating when it added to the gate. Baseball also tolerates violence with the specific intent of injuring players. Football conversely is an inherently violent sport in which injuries are expected, albeit not inflicted intentionally.
Gaylord Perry is in the Hall. The “Ancient Mariner’s” true claim to fame is not his impressive 315 wins, but that no one, at least not an umpire, ever found spit, resin, Vaseline, tar, whatever, on his notorious spitballs. Of course, you can’t find it when you look the other way.
One of the greatest players of all time, Ty Cobb, is in the Hall even though he is also one of the nastiest, dirtiest, and most obnoxious players in baseball’s history.
Don Drysdale, the Dodgers pitcher, is in the Hall. His claim to fame was his Motto: “Batters get the outside; I get the inside.” He intentionally threw at batters crowding the plate. He set the modern National League record with 144 hit batters. He learnt his craft from a Dodger predecessor, Sal “The Barber” Maglie, so named because Sal would shave the chins of batters with his fastball.
Sliding into second with the spikes up to break up a double plate, and perhaps injure the defender, is a fundamental practice in baseball, as is sliding into home again with cleats up. First basemen, who don’t get off the bag quickly enough, risk the runner aiming for their feet with spikes down.
Pete Rose may be banned from baseball for life, and thus ineligible for membership in the Hall of Fame, for betting on baseball games, but cheating is tolerated in the game itself. In the deciding third playoff game in 1951 between the Brooklyn Dodgers and New York Giants, Bobby Thomson for the Giants hit “The Shot Heard Around the Globe;” a game winning home run. He knew what pitch was coming because the Giants stole the signals from the Dodgers. Stealing signals is an accepted practice in baseball.
If only Pete Rose had engaged in spousal abuse, then baseball would tolerate his misdeeds.
Baseball has continuously sanctioned an ethos of alcoholism by managers, coaches and players and tolerated spousal abuse by managers and players. The death of St. Louis Cardinals pitcher Josh Hancock in April 2007 caused many teams to reassess their policies of alcohol in the clubhouse. Josh was speeding with a .157 blood alcohol level while talking on his cellphone when he rear ended a parked tow truck. He also wasn’t using his seat belt. Only a few months earlier Tony LaRussa, the Cardinals Manager, was found drunk slumped over his steering wheel with the engine running.
After the disastrous players strike of 1994, the owners needed for baseball to have a lift. Thus the encouragement for Cal Ripken, Jr. to break Lou Gehrig’s record of 2130 straight games played. That wasn’t enough, so baseball then touted the home run race between Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa to break the records of Babe Ruth and Roger Maris. All sorts of theories were offered, including “Is the ball juiced?” when the answer, known to baseball, is that the players were juiced. We know this because Jose Canseco, a former teammate of McGwire, told us. The response to Canseco’s disclosures is that opposing fans would taunt him with “Roid” in the batter’s box.
Many baseball writers were not fooled, but lacked evidence to write public accusations about the players.
Jim Bouton, a pitcher, published Ball Four decades earlier in 1971, revealing the extensive use of alcohol and drugs by major leaguers. He publicly disclosed the alcoholism of the great Mickey Mantle. Baseballs’ response was to circle the wagons and turn on Bouton.
Most of us sadly gain weight as we age. It usually does not turn into muscle regardless of the workout regime. Pitching speed and bat speed do not mysteriously increase in the 30’s. And even if we can attribute increased muscle tone to rigorous fitness programs, they do not explain how a head can morph into Mr. Potato Head or veins pop to the surface. Sudden, violent mood changes are also a clue to drug usage.
Unfortunately, these chemicals will not benefit those of us, most of us, who lack athletic ability. But they do provide an edge, and may extent the careers and performances of those with outstanding athletic achievements.
The problem with the Mitchell Report is that it did not, could not, go far enough. For example, it ignored amphetamines, which are also commonly used by pros.
Players understand the risk. 300 pound football linemen understand that they risk severe heart problems in their 40’s and 50’s, including fatal heart attacks. Yet the decision is to follow Alexander the Great’s path. The Delphic Oracle told Alexander when he was 15 that he could either lead a long life full of peace or a short life full of glory. He, and many athletes, choose fame and multi-million dollar contracts.
Clearly the Players Union has been unabashedly opposed to drug testing of the players eventhough it is the non-drug using players who pay the highest price. The Union opposes blood testing for HGH, knowing that no urine test currently exists to detect HGH in the body. Invasion of privacy claims have little, if any, legal justification.
Yet, the Union is not solely at fault for there in fact has long been a conspiracy between labor and management to condone drug usage by players. Management openly looked the other way, from trainers, managers, general managers, and owners. The Three Monkeys were present in baseball. Players even received warnings days in advance of testing so that they could purge their systems. The Commissioner, Bud Selig, was amazingly blind on the issue. Only the threat of Congressional action has forced baseball to take the few steps that it has.
Baseball banned steroids in 1991, but did not require testing until 2003. HGH was banned in 2003 but no meaningful testing is allowed.
The attitude of management is shown by a simple fact. The Yankees and Dodgers were two teams with the largest numbers of drug users. Only a few days after issuance of the Mitchell report the Dodgers signed, as a backup catcher, one of those named in the report.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)