The Flag and the Prophet

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution asserts, “Congress shall make no law… prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…”

But freedom of speech is not an absolute right. The United States Supreme Court has narrowed the scope of free speech to a “short list of forms of expression – including obscenity, incitement and defamation – that are not protected by the Constitution.”[i]

Yelling fire in a crowded theater is the classic example used to demonstrate that not all speech is protected.

In 1984 Gregory Lee Johnson set the American flag on fire to protest the policies of President Reagan during the Republican National convention in Dallas, Texas. He was arrested for “intentionally or knowingly desecrating a state or national flag” in Texas, and convicted. Mr. Johnson was fined $200 and sentenced to a year in prison.[ii]

The case reached the Supreme Court in 1989. The Court, in a 5-4 decision, reversed the Texas law. The majority argued the “function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or… even stirs people to anger.”[iii] 

Justice Brennan wrote, in the Texas v Johnson, “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive, or disagreeable…”[iv]

Furthermore, the Supreme Court’s decision “is a reaffirmation of the principles of freedom and inclusiveness that the flag best reflects, and the conviction that our toleration of criticism such as Johnson’s is a sign and source of our strength.”[v]

To the majority of Americans, burning the American flag is offensive, even blasphemous, but burning the American flag is protected speech in the United States.

Congress passed the Flag Protection Act in 1989 in response to the Supreme Court’s decision. The law stated, “Whoever knowingly mutilates, defaces, physically defiles, burns, maintains on the floor or ground, or tramples upon any flag of the United States shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.”[vi]

The federal law was struck down in United States v Eichman.

I am not a free speech absolutist. Personally, these are rules I try to abide by.

First, I would defend the right of any American citizen to burn the American flag – as political discourse.

But if I was going to attend a political rally, and found out someone was going to burn an American flag, I would use my right of free speech to persuade the individual from burning the flag.

Burning the flag would garner attention to a political cause, and would demonstrate the level of anger, but it would be counter productive because the visceral reaction of burning the American flag would negate the political argument that is being made.

If I were unable to persuade the individual from burning the flag, then I would exercise my right as an American citizen, and protest the burning of the American flag by not attending the rally.

Second, I understand that burning the American flag is painful to most Americans. Freedom of speech is an inalienable right, but I would not use that right to offend others. Personally, I would not use my right to speak freely to hurt other people.

Third, speech is used to persuade. I cannot think of an issue in which I can persuade an individual to change his opinion by burning an American flag.

Fourth, I have the responsibility to express an intellectually sound opinion. It is not enough to simply speak. I should be able to freely express a sound argument. However, flag burning is demonstrative speech, not expressive speech.

Unfortunately, respect for flags begins and ends with the American flag. In May 1998, NBC broadcast an episode of Seinfeld in which Kramer accidentally set fire to a Puerto Rican flag, and stomps on the flag to put out the fire. Kramer was not protesting any political issues involving Puerto Rico. The Puerto Rican flag was used as a comedic prop.

Americans are ethnocentric and are tone deaf to sensitive issues involving other cultures. The Seinfeld episode was a perfect example. It never occurred to anyone on the Seinfeld show, or in NBC that setting the Puerto Rican flag on fire, and stomping on it would offend Puerto Ricans.

The creators of South Park, in commemoration of their 200th episode, wanted to include all the famous people the show satirized since its inception in 1997. Matt Stone and Trey Parker wanted to include the Prophet Muhammad in the two-part episode. Stone and Parker were aware of Islam’s prohibition on depictions of Muhammad.

Their solution was to have Muhammad hidden in a U-Haul truck, then later in the episode appear dressed in a bear costume, thereby satisfying the prohibition depicting the Prophet. The two-part episode ended with a speech “about intimidation and fear.”[vii]

Comedy Central censored the episode.

This was not the first time Stone and Parker depicted Muhammad in South Park. The Prophet was included in a 2001 episode titled “Super Best Friends.”[viii]

In 2006, Comedy Central censored the episode “Cartoon Wars.” The episode was a response to “the violent aftermath of the illustrations of Muhammad published in the newspaper Jyllands-Posten.”[ix]

I used to be a fan of South Park. It was very funny, and there always was a hidden message beneath the outrageousness. I stopped following the show years ago, not because my taste in comedy changed, or the quality of the material declined. I only have four, maybe five free hours during the day, so I ration the amount of time I watch TV.

It is hard to objectively criticize or judge a show I did not watch. I cannot condemn something I did not see, and I cannot speak to the intent or message of the two-part episode.

Furthermore, as a free speech advocate, I cannot, in good conscience, condemn Stone and Parker.

Any depiction of the Prophet is strictly forbidden in Islam. This is Islamic religious doctrine. The depiction does not have to be negative. A benign depiction, such as a painting of Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad, would also be prohibited. The rationale for the prohibition is that paintings and statues could lead to idol worship.

In fact, Muslims would object to any artistic depictions of Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, Jesus, and the Virgin Mary for the same reason Muslims would object to a depiction of Muhammad. Muslims, as an article of faith, believe in all the prophets mentioned in the Old and New Testament.

Stone and Parker pride themselves on crossing the line of outrageous behavior through the cartoon characters on South Park. To them, there are no sacred cows. Stone and Parker used their freedom of speech to demonstrate against intolerance by depicting Muhammad disguised in a bear costume.

Again, I cannot condemn Stone and Parker, but I wished they had used better judgment. There had to be a better way to demonstrate against perceived “Islamic intolerance,” than depicting Muhammad dressed in a bear costume.

As an American, the best way to protest the depiction of Muhammad in South Park is to not watch the show. Muslims have the recourse to boycott the companies that run commercials during South Park. I can also write Comedy Central to express my outrage, but threatening Stone and Parker with violence is wrong.

I have not watched South Park in years, but if I was a loyal viewer, I could decide to boycott the show. That is what I did following the episode in which the Puerto Rican flag was burned and stomped. I stopped watching Seinfeld.

Americans consider the American flag to be sacred. Burning or defacing the flag is intolerable, but we cannot understand why Muslims would be angered by the depiction of Muhammad dressed in a bear costume. Mocking a religious icon is not the best way to celebrate our freedom of speech.

The war on terrorism has also been depicted as a clash of civilizations. We proclaim ourselves to be a great nation, and try to persuade other countries that our way of life is better, but we will never persuade Muslims of the greatness of our country if we use our freedom of speech to mock Muhammad, or argue Islam is inherently evil, or generalize all Muslims are terrorists.

One of the Danish cartoons that outraged Muslims depicts Muhammad wearing a turban and concealing a bomb in the turban. The theme of the cartoon could be construed as Muhammad is a suicide bomber, or Islam is predisposed towards terrorism. This intellectual argument is false.

First, the argument is illogical. If we follow this line of reasoning: Muhammad was the founder of Islam. Al Qaeda are Muslim. Al Qaeda are terrorists. Muslims are terrorists, therefore Muhammad was a terrorist.

Then we must also say that: Jesus Christ was the founder of Christianity. The Klu Klux Klan are Christians. The KKK are racists. Christians are racist, therefore Jesus Christ was a racist.

Second, the foremost enemy in the war on terror is Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is a political movement. Al Qaeda’s goals are political, not religious. Their goal is to force the United States to withdraw their presence in the Middle East. Al Qaeda uses terrorism to achieve this goal. With the United States out of the Middle East, Al Qaeda would instigate political revolutions to overthrow “illegitimate” rulers in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan.

Al Qaeda is not a religious movement designed to force the rest of the world to convert to Islam. Forcing people to convert to Islam is against religious doctrine. In the Holy Quran, it clearly states, “Let there be no compulsion in religion.” (2:256)

We, as Americans, are blessed to be living in a country where we are allowed to express ourselves without the threat of government intervention. But we also have a responsibility to use our freedom of speech with wisdom and respect. We cannot demonstrate our greatness by mocking others solely for the purpose of demonstrating we can get away with it.

As an American, I have the right to express myself by waving my middle finger. It is considered an obscene gesture. It is rude and childish, but it can be funny under certain circumstances. The gesture can also provoke a harsh response.

To Muslims, flipping the middle finger is the equivalent of mocking Muhammad. It is rude and childish and it provokes a harsh response.

We forget, or choose to ignore, that comedy can hurt.

Americans believe the American flag is sacred, and we become outraged when people in other countries set the American flag on fire, therefore we should not be surprised when Muslims are outraged when we insult Muhammad, and shield ourselves with the First Amendment.

Freedom of speech should be used responsibly.


[i] “The Court and Free Speech,” New York Times, April 24, 2010.
[ii] “Can Flag Burning to Send a Political Message Be Made a Crime?” Austin Cline, About.com Guide.
[iii] “Can Flag Burning to Send a Political Message Be Made a Crime?” Austin Cline, About.com Guide.
[iv] “Can Flag Burning to Send a Political Message Be Made a Crime?” Austin Cline, About.com Guide.
[v] “Can Flag Burning to Send a Political Message Be Made a Crime?” Austin Cline, About.com Guide.
[vi] Public Law 101-131, 101st Congress, 1989.
[vii] “South Park Episode Altered After Muslim Group’s Warning,” Dave Itzkoff, New York Times, April 23, 2010.
[viii] “Baddest Toon on the Block (Again),” Joshua Alston, Newsweek, April 22, 2010.
[ix] “Baddest Toon on the Block (Again),” Joshua Alston, Newsweek, April 22, 2010.

Yanks Will Not Repeat in 2010

In the 2010 baseball preview, New York Daily News writer Mark Feinsand offers 28 reasons why the New York Yankees will repeat as World Series champions, but I have one reason why the Yankees will not repeat. The Yankees do not have a legitimate number five hitter in their lineup.

The Yankees have penciled second baseman Robinson Cano as their fifth place hitter. His 2009 offensive statistics were impressive. His batting average was .320. He scored 103 runs, had 204 hits, with 25 home runs and 85 RBI. But his numbers did not translate into the post season. He hit .192 overall, and .136 in the World Series.

Cano is an impatient hitter who does not draw walks, but he was practically an automatic out in the World Series. His World Series performance reflected the fact that he is not a clutch hitter in the regular season and the post season.

In 2010, Cano will be assigned the task of protecting Alex Rodriguez in the lineup. Frankly, if I were the opposition, I would dare Cano to beat me in a clutch situation.

Another option to hit behind Rodriguez is Jorge Posada, but he is the starting catcher, and he will only start 110 to 120 games in 2010. The Yankees plan to use Posada as a DH in games he will not catch, but that will disrupt their lineup because their projected number two hitter in the lineup is Nick Johnson.

Nick Swisher is another candidate to bat fifth. He has power. Swisher hit 29 home runs in 2009, and he has a high on base percentage (.371), but he never hit above .270 in his career.

The Yankees were operating with a budget this off-season. General manager Brian Cashman wanted to reduce the payroll to under $200 million. World Series heroes Johnny Damon and Hideki Matsui were not resigned. Their 2010 replacements are a significant downgrade.

In addition, Melky Cabrera, the 2009 starting center fielder, was traded to the Atlanta Braves for starting pitcher Javier Vazquez, who will be the fourth starter on the 2010 team.

In a sense, the Yankees traded Damon, Matsui and Cabrera for Curtis Granderson, Nick Johnson and Brett Gardner.

Granderson is an upgrade over Damon only because he is younger, but the Yankees are replacing their last season’s number two hitter in the lineup with someone who will hit seventh.

Nick Johnson replaces Damon as the second place hitter – when he is playing. Johnson is injury prone. Also, Johnson is not a base stealer, in contrast to Damon.

Johnson replaced Matsui, who batted fifth in 2009, and protected Alex Rodriguez in the lineup. Matsui was also a clutch hitter and proven RBI man. Matsui was the full time DH. In 2010, Johnson and Posada will share DH duties. Posada will replace Johnson as DH when Posada is not catching.

Gardner lost the centerfield job to Cabrera after a slow start in 2009. He will be the starting leftfielder in 2010, and hit ninth in the batting order.

The Yankees have a lot of two, seven, eight and nine hitters in this lineup. Jeter is not really a leadoff hitter. He is really a number two hitter, but the Yankees do not have a prototypical leadoff hitter.

Granderson strikes out too much to be a true leadoff hitter, or a number two hitter. With his speed, I would bat Granderson ninth, but Gardner occupies that spot in the lineup.

Gardner could be a leadoff hitter on most teams, but the Yankees have a “must win now” mandate, and do not have the patience to wait for Gardner to develop into a leadoff hitter.

The projected lineup of Jeter, Johnson, Teixeira, Rodriguez, Cano, Posada, Granderson, Swisher, Gardner does not project the length of a championship team. This team will have difficulty scoring runs in 2010.

To overcome this weak lineup and win another championship, the Yankees will have to depend on their starting pitchers. The Yankees added Vazquez to their staff. He will pitch fourth in the rotation behind Sabathia, Burnett and Pettitte.

Vazquez pitched successfully in the National League in 2009, but National League pitchers are not as effective when they switch leagues. National League lineups are easier to maneuver than American League lineups. I expect Vazquez’s ERA will jump from 2.87 to over 4.00.

As for Burnett, the number two starter in the rotation, it is worth repeating that he had virtually the same record as Hideki Irabu in 1998. Irabu was the fifth starter on that rotation. Burnett has the stuff of a number one, but the production of a three or four.

Phil Hughes beat Joba Chamberlain for the fifth spot in the rotation. This is a puzzling move for three reasons. First, Chamberlain was babied in 2009. The Yankees limited the number of innings he pitched because they wanted to protect his right arm.

The training wheels were supposed to come off in 2010, but management was not happy with Chamberlain’s velocity as a starter during spring training. He was throwing in the low 90’s. In contrast, Chamberlain was throwing in the high 90’s as a reliever during the 2009 post season.

The Yankees are mismanaging Chamberlain. They are sending him mixed messages. They were overly cautious with him in 2009, so he was cautious in the games he started. Chamberlain paced himself as a starter. He knew he could not throw in the high 90’s as a starter because he would run out of gas before the fifth inning.

Obviously, Chamberlain will throw harder as a relief pitcher knowing he will not pitch more than two innings. Sending Chamberlain to the bullpen nullified the progress he made as a starter in 2009. The Yankees are being seduced by the possibilities of the high 90’s fastball.

Second, the Yankees will need only four starting pitchers in the post season. As the fifth starter, Chamberlain would have been used in the bullpen during the post season.

Third, it will be Phil Hughes turn to pitch on a leash. The Yankees will face the same problem with Hughes. He will reach 120 innings by July or August, then he will be taken out of the rotation, or limited to three innings per start in order limit Hughes innings pitched to 150, and the Yankees will have to replace Hughes in the starting rotation with another retread.

The Yankees are fortunate there is parity in baseball. The era of the dominant team is over because baseball teams cannot afford to keep teams together. The Boston Red Sox upgraded their starting rotation at the expense of their starting lineup. John Lackey gives the Red Sox five solid starters, but their projected lineup of Jacoby Ellsbury, Dustin Pedroia, Kevin Youkilis, Victor Martinez, J.D. Drew, David Ortiz, Adrian Beltre, Mike Cameron and Marco Scutaro is not as imposing as their recent championship teams.

The Tampa Bay Rays are probably the best team in the American League East. They are young, talented, fast and have a stable of quality young pitchers, but the Rays are under a lot of pressure to win games early in the season. Carl Crawford and Carlos Pena are in the last year of their contracts. If the Rays are not in first or second place by June, then management will trade Crawford and Pena for prospects.

For the Yankees, winning the American League East, the pennant or the World Series is not improbable, but management’s decisions during the off season and spring training do not inspire confidence. For the first time, the Yankees are operating with budgetary constraints. Are the Yankees scaling back their payroll anticipating next year’s free agent class? As a Yankee fan, I have been salivating at the possibility of Carl Crawford joining the team as a free agent.

Also, Derek Jeter’s contract expires at the end of 2010. Will the Yankees lowball Jeter the same way they offered pay cuts to Pettitte, Damon and Matsui?

Or are the Yankees losing money, and can no longer afford the best players?

The Yankees do not have a viable farm system to replace players as they depart or retire. I wish they did. But the Yankees will have to sign free agents to remain competitive in the future.

What is troubling is that I am seeing a pattern of mismanagement first witnessed after the 2001 season. Players on World Series winners are being replaced with inferior talent. The Yankees were able to win division championships, but did not have the talent to become champions. You just cannot replace players according their position. You have to consider where they hit in the lineup.

This team could repeat, but I am predicting the Yankees will be in third place at the end of the season. The Rays and the Red Sox will finish ahead.

Saints Win Super Bowl XLIV

The New Orleans Saints defeated the Indianapolis Colts 31-17 in Super Bowl XLIV, but the game was closer than final score would indicate. The Saints were leading by seven with 3:12 left in the fourth quarter. Peyton Manning was leading the Colts to a potential game tying drive when he threw an interception to defensive back Tracy Porter, who returned the ball 74 yards for the game-clinching touchdown.

The Saints were 4½-point underdogs going into the Super Bowl. Coach Sean Payton devised a game plan that was reminiscent of previous Super Bowl winners, but added a wrinkle that shifted the momentum to the Saints.

The Saints figured the best way to keep Peyton Manning and the Colts from scoring was to keep Manning off the field. In Super Bowl XXV, the Giants faced the potent Buffalo Bills offense, but neutralized the Bills by controlling the time of possession with a strong running game.

The Saints did not convincingly control the time of possession over the Colts, but did manage the clock in the second and third quarters. In the second quarter, the Saints had the ball for 13 minutes. They only scored six points on two field goals, but kept the Colt offense on the bench – after the Colts scored 10 points in the first quarter.

In the third quarter, the Saints had the ball for 7:33, and scored 10 points. The Colts scored a touchdown with the only offensive possession in the third quarter. The Colts scored on three of their first five possessions, but had the ball for only eight minutes during this crucial stretch.

The Saints started the third quarter with an onside kick, and kept possession of the football. The Colts were leading 10-6 at the time. Suppose the Colts had the first possession in the third quarter and scored a touchdown. The score would have been 17-6. Or suppose the Colts would have scored with a field goal. Any lead half way through the third quarter could have been a safe lead.

Instead, the Saints kept possession of the football, and scored to take a 13-10 lead. The onside kick shifted momentum to the Saints. Remember, the Colts had the ball for only 2:34 in the second quarter, and then had to wait 3:19 for the Saints to score. The Colts were able to score a touchdown with their only possession in the third quarter to take a 17-13 lead, but Peyton Manning must have been frustrated as he witnessed the Saints march up and down the field on the Colts defense.

The Colt defense held the Saints to six points in the second quarter, even stopping the Saints on fourth and goal, but the Saints offense was in complete control throughout the second quarter, and the rest of the game. The Colts did not have a pass rush. Saints quarterback Drew Brees had ample time to find open receivers.

Brees also borrowed from history, and copied the San Francisco 49ers’ game plan. In the early 1980’s, the 49ers did not have a running game. To compensate, Montana used to dump off passes to running backs, tight ends, and Dwight Clark. The 49ers methodically drove the length of the field. Defenses were forced to choose between rushing the passer, and leaving the secondary exposed, or sending three defensive linemen, and having six or seven defensive backs to cover the offense. The latter option allowed Montana to dissect defenses.

Brees completed 32 passes for 288 yards. He completed 29 of his last 32 attempts. He spread the ball around. Eight receivers caught at least one pass. Most of his passes were dumped underneath for six or seven yards, but Brees was able to complete passes for 10+ yards when he needed to. There were several offensive plays in which more than one receiver was wide open.

The Colts were not able to generate a pass rush. Defensive lineman Dwight Freeney was ineffective because he played with an injured right ankle. The Colts defense did not play aggressively, did not make any adjustments, and allowed the Saints offense to control the tempo of the game.

The Colts defense gave up 332 yards and 24 points, but more importantly their defense allowed the Saints to maintain possession of the football during the middle of the game. This really was a case of the Saints offense controlling the Colts offense.

I thought Manning would be able to score at will against the Saints defense. Offensively, the Colts outperformed the Saints, but the Saints offense kept the Colts offense off the field and off the scoreboard in the second quarter. This was the turning point of the game. The successful onside kick to start the third quarter shifted the momentum.

Coach Sean Payton deserves a lot of credit for taking chances, and crafting a successful game plan.

Governing in the Age of Obama

I believe it was film critic Roger Ebert who said, “You review the movie you saw, not the movie you wanted made.” We should use the same approach in judging President Obama’s first year in office.

Candidate Obama ran on hope and change and his inauguration last January stimulated the imagination of his supporters. A year later, the word “disappointment” is often used to evaluate President Obama’s first year in office.

If we work under the principle of reviewing who President Obama is, rather than the President Obama we would like him to be, then his first year cannot be considered a disappointment.

In 2008, the Democratic Party had two distinctive candidates running for president. Senator Hillary Clinton was the candidate who would fight on every issue. Senator Obama was the candidate who would be able to bring people together to solve our problems. It was a choice between a steamroller and a conciliator.

I believed electing Mr. Obama president of the United States would restore our image throughout the world because the election would demonstrate we prevailed over our original sin of slavery and racism.

In that sense, his first year was a success. President Obama perceives other world leaders as equals. He has demonstrated a willingness to work with other countries on various global issues. He listens instead of dictating policy like his predecessors. No wonder he is more popular overseas than he is in the United States.

President Obama has a gift, an ability to listen and work with others. This ability may work well in foreign policy, but it is not working well domestically. It is not entirely his fault. Structural problems within our government have nullified his ability.

President Obama is not a steamroller. It is not his nature to force others to accept his position. He believes in argument and persuasion and he will not make a decision until he has heard and analyzed everybody’s opinion.

The Conservative opposition’s notion that President Obama is a radical who intends to create a Marxist/fascist state is ridiculous. He campaigned as a centrist, and he has governed as a centrist.

Health care reform is an example of President Obama’s centrist tendencies. He did not want to impose a single payer, Medicare for all health care bill. Instead, President Obama wanted a bill that protected consumers. Furthermore, the single payer legislation would have eliminated the private health care insurance industry. He is trying to regulate the current health care system, not overthrow it.

President Obama believes in bipartisanship. He will stubbornly continue to seek support from Republicans in Congress. It is frustrating to watch President Obama constantly reach out to Senate Republicans, trying to coax at least one vote for his proposals. Republicans continue to reject his efforts, but President Obama is keeping his promise to work with Republicans.

President Obama said he wanted an administration that was willing to embrace ideas from Republicans as well as Democrats.

Negotiations over last year’s stimulus package was an example of President Obama’s willingness to consider Republican ideas. Most economists argued the stimulus bill should be a pure jobs bill aimed at so-called “shovel ready projects.” Republicans argued for tax cuts. The same economists counter argued that tax cuts were not necessary. Tax cuts would lessen the impact of the stimulus bill. President Obama listened to the Republicans and included tax cuts in the stimulus bill. President Obama’s concession to the Republicans was for naught because they voted against the stimulus bill.

President Obama does not lead in a vacuum. He shares power with Congress, and the Senate is responsible for government inaction during Obama’s first year in office.

Before the inauguration, Senator Harry Reid said that the Senate was not going to rollover for President Obama. That was a bold statement considering the Democrats in the Senate allowed President Bush to prosecute a false war against Iraq.

For a brief period in late 2009 and early 2010, Democrats had 60 seats in the Senate, enough to defeat a filibuster. Even with this tactical advantage, the Senate was unable to pass health care reform in a timely manner.

The problems in the Senate are structural. Senate Republicans have adopted former First Lady Nancy Reagan’s anti-drug mantra of “Just Say No” as a political tactic, and have colluded to vote against President Obama’s proposals. Republicans are forcing the Democrats to vote as a bloc to stop filibusters and enact legislation.

The Republican Party is acting like the Sunnis in Iraq. The Sunnis initially refused to participate in the new Iraqi government. They wanted to continue ruling Iraq, like they did before the American invasion. Republicans do not want to cooperate. They want to run the country, like they did from 2001 to 2006.

Before President Obama, a simple majority (51 votes) was needed to pass legislation. Currently, bills need a supermajority (60 votes) to pass.

The problems in the Senate are exacerbated by a weak Majority Leader. Current Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will never be confused with former Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson. Democratic senators are not afraid of Mr. Reid. He cannot impose his will on his colleagues. President Obama would be better served if he had a steamroller as Majority Leader in the Senate.

Republicans are betting the economy will not improve in 2010. Voters will blame President Obama. Republicans are gambling voters will punish the Democrats in the fall.

Republicans are aided and abetted by the Mainstream Media (MSM). President Obama’s failures are exaggerated. Republican talking points have a wide platform, greater than Fox News. President Obama’s birth certificate has received an inordinate amount of attention. Several thousand tea-bag protesters are magnified as a vast movement against President Obama. False notions, like death panels in the health care bill, are given constant coverage, thus making it a legitimate issue to cover. A special election in Massachusetts, to replace deceased Senator Ted Kennedy, won by a Republican is reported as a referendum on President Obama’s policies.

The MSM constantly give a platform to the Republican opposition who use the coverage to portray President Obama’s agenda as radical. Republicans use code words to inflame the public, like radical, socialist, and fascist. Big government becomes totalitarian. Repeat code words enough, and President Obama’s approval ratings will drop.

This tired tactic is not even original. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and current political pundit Bill Kristol used these tactics against the Clinton Administration.

President Obama is not beyond criticism. He prides himself on considering all options before making a decision, but in two instances he did not consider all the options available to him.

First, the health care reform bill. President Obama did not include the single payer option in negotiations with Congress. Also, President Obama did not include a provision to purchase cheaper prescription drugs from Canada and Europe. Furthermore, he did not include a provision to negotiate the cost of prescription drugs with pharmaceutical companies.

Second, the war in Afghanistan. President Obama limited his choices to no escalation, and escalating troop levels by 20, 40 or 60 thousand troops. Withdrawing troops, the best option in my opinion, was never considered.

President Obama has demonstrated the tendency to limit his policy decisions to a group of second best options while completely ignoring the best options. He tries to build consensus by seeking policy options that are not disagreeable.

Liberals and progressives were expecting another FDR, but Mr. Obama never campaigned as a progressive. He wanted to bridge the gap between liberals and conservatives and he’s trying. It is not his fault Republicans are refusing to cooperate.

He wanted to tone down the rhetoric in Washington. President Obama has not resorted to denigrating the opposition, but the Republicans are.

During the presidential campaign, he figured out independent voters were not interested in ideological solutions. Voters wanted someone who could manage the country and the economy. President Obama is trying to be a nonpartisan manager.

President Obama is trying to be the president he campaigned to be. The problem has been governing. The inability to govern is not entirely his fault. President Obama’s most neglected accomplishment during his first year in office was demonstrating our system of government is obsolete and is in need of repair.

Please go to the enclosed link for a list of President Obama’s achievements during his first year: http://mediamatters.org/research/201001270003?lid=1092301&rid=40913829

McGwire Wrong About Steroids

In the summer of 1998, it became obvious that Mark McGwire or Sammy Sosa was going to break Roger Maris’ single season home run record. I remember a conversation I had with a friend that summer. I said it was a shame a steroid user was going to break that record. Almost twelve years later, Mark McGwire confirmed “what people have suspected.”[i] He used steroids during most of his career.

McGwire was hired as the hitting coach for the St Louis Cardinals. He had to address the steroid issue before spring training. McGwire released a statement to the media in which he admitted to using steroids during the off season in 1989 and 1990, in 1993, and throughout the rest of the decade, including 1998, the year he broke the single season home run record.

In his statement, and later in an interview with Bob Costas on the MLB Network, McGwire stated he used steroids to overcome a series of injuries that limited his playing time. He thought steroids would allow his body to heal faster. Once healthy, and able to play for a full season, McGwire continued using steroids because he believed steroids helped his body recover after games, and allowed his body to withstand the rigors of a 162 game season.

I have always argued steroids help baseball players recover energy faster. McGwire is the first baseball player to actually admit to using steroids as a method of sustaining physical performance during a baseball season. “I took very, very low dosages because I wanted my body to feel normal,” McGwire said. “The wear and tear of 162 ballgames… and what I had to go through to get through all these injuries…”[ii]

But McGwire did not make the connection between steroids and performance. In his mind, steroids helped him recover from injuries and from the grind of the long baseball season. He believes that he would have hit 70 home runs in a season or almost 600 home runs in his career without steroids. McGwire is wrong.

First, steroids are performance enhancing drugs. That is why steroids are banned from every sport. Taking McGwire’s statement at face value, steroids allowed him to take the field because steroids helped heal his body. “During the mid-90s, I [McGwire] went on the DL seven times and missed 228 games over five years. I experienced a lot of injuries, including a rib cage strain, a torn left heel muscle, a stress fracture of the left heel, and a torn right heel muscle.”[iii]

In the interview with Bob Costas, McGwire admitted he contemplated retiring from baseball in 1996. Without steroids, McGwire’s career would have been shortened due to injury. In that sense, McGwire is wrong about steroids.

Second, McGwire used steroids to get through the 162 game season. Steroids helped his body recover after each game, and he was able to perform at peak physical condition by the end of the season. That created an unfair advantage.

Mike Piazza was a gifted offensive player. He produced great offensive numbers during the early part of the season with the New York Mets, but as Piazza got older, his numbers routinely dropped off in August and September. Piazza was a catcher. He used to get hit with foul balls, errant baseball bats, blocked pitches in the dirt, and was run over by opposing players. The wear and tear of the 162 game season physically drained Piazza. Piazza was a baseball player that did not take steroids. His late season performances are a testimony to that statement. McGwire had an offensive advantage Piazza did not have.

Third, steroids increase strength. McGwire argues his ability to hit home runs was due to hand-eye coordination, but McGwire does not talk about another important factor in hitting – bat speed.

McGwire’s muscle mass increased when he used steroids. He became stronger, therefore he was able to generate greater bat speed after he got stronger. After using steroids, McGwire was able to make contact, through greater bat speed, earlier in the hitting zone, and had better success driving the baseball. Pitches that used to jam him, or he used to hit off the end of the bat suddenly became tape measured home runs – which brings me to…

Fourth, McGwire was a pure home run hitter. He hit over .300 once – over a full season. In 1998, he hit .299. He was a fly ball hitter. Early in his career, McGwire admittedly “hit wall scrapping home runs.”[iv] He attributed his unfathomable home run production in the late 90’s to better technique. But he got stronger through steroids, even if it was low dosages, and he was able to hit the baseball harder. Fly balls that normally would have been caught at the warning track became home runs.

McGwire never got more than 161 hits in a season. Early in his career, the percentage of home runs in relation to hits was in the 30% range. But the percentage increased to over 40% when he was using steroids. McGwire was getting about 145 hits per season during the late stages of his career, but over 40% of those hits were home runs.

McGwire refuses to acknowledge the connection between steroids and performance because then he would have to admit his career statistics are illegitimate. McGwire believes he could have hit 70 home runs in a baseball season without steroids, but steroids helped him stay healthy, improved his stamina, increased his bat speed, and gave him the strength to hit tape measured home runs.

But I do not blame McGwire for tainting some of Major League Baseball’s most treasured home run records. He played during a time when Commissioner Bud Selig, the Major League Player’s Association, the media and fans casually ignored steroid use. They were all caught up in an orgy of tape measured home runs, and refused to acknowledge the infestation of steroids.

I can forgive McGwire for using steroids, but I cannot and will not accept his rationalization that steroids did not impact his performance during his career.


[i] Mark McGwire statement to the media, January 11, 2010.
[ii] “Transcript: McGwire Interview,” MercuryNews.com, January 11, 2010.
[iii] Mark McGwire statement to the media, January 11, 2010.
[iv] “Transcript: McGwire Interview,” MercuryNews.com, January 11, 2010.

If I Had a Ballot

The National Baseball Hall of Fame will announce the 2010 inductees on January 6, 2010. Candidates must appear on 75% of the ballots to be elected. Members of the Baseball Writers Association of America (BBWAA) can vote for up to 10 candidates.

I am not a member of the BBWAA, but if I was, these are the candidates I would vote for:

Roberto Alomar
This is Alomar’s first year on the ballot. He was clearly the best second baseman of his era. He won 10 Gold Gloves. Alomar had incredible range. I never saw a second baseball that could cover as much ground as he did.

He was a career .300 hitter. In 17 seasons, Alomar hit over .300 nine times. His 2,724 career hits ranks 53rd on the all time hits list. He won four Silver Slugger awards.

He was the starting second baseman in nine All Star Games, and was selected as a reserve in three All Star Games.

Barry Larkin
This is Larkin’s first year on the ballot. He was the best shortstop National League of his era. He was a career .295 hitter with 2,340 total hits. He was the first shortstop to hit over 30 home runs and steal over 30 bases in the same season (1996).

Larkin won the National League’s Most Valuable Player Award in 1995. He won 3 Gold Gloves and 9 Silver Slugger awards. He was the starting NL shortstop in five All Star Games, and was selected as a reserve in seven All Star Games.

I am partial to the American League; therefore I did not have the opportunity to watch Barry Larkin play, but as an avid baseball fan, I read about Larkin, and was aware of his greatness as a player.

Roberto Alomar and Barry Larkin are the definite first ballot candidates of the 2010 class, but there are other first ballot candidates that are not as obvious.

Fred McGriff
This is McGriff’s first year on the ballot. Fred McGriff home run numbers will suffer in comparison to the steroid inflated home run totals generated by other players during his career.

From 1987 through 1999, McGriff hit over 30 home runs 8 times, and a total of 390. By comparison, Barry Bonds hit over 30 home runs 9 times and a total of 445 home runs during the same period.

During this 12-year period, the best player in baseball out homered McGriff by 55. In other words, Bonds hit 4.5 more home runs per year than McGriff.

McGriff was a throw back home run hitter. He consistently hit over 30 home runs each year when 30 home runs meant something.

McGriff yearly totals do not compare favorably with Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, Jose Canseco, and Juan Gonzalez. But the home run was cheapened during McGriff’s playing career. Hitting 50 home runs in a season became the norm due to steroids.

Hitting 500 home runs was the magic number. It meant automatic induction in the Baseball Hall of Fame. McGriff hit 493 home runs. Steroids have overshadowed McGriff’s career. There are seven players, who were suspected or accused of using steroids, ahead of McGriff on the all time home run list.

Critics will mention McGriff never won the Most Valuable Player (MVP) award, but he was in the top ten in MVP votes six times.

McGriff had the unfortunate luck of playing in the same league as Barry Bonds from 1991 to 1997. Bonds won two MVP awards (1992 and 1993). Ken Caminiti, an admitted steroid user, won the MVP in 1996. Larry Walker won the MVP in 1997. Walker’s offensive numbers were inflated because played for the Colorado Rockies.

McGriff had over 100 RBI’s five times in his career. His 1,550 RBI is ranked 41st on the all time list. He is front of Hall of Famer Willie Stargell and right behind Hall of Famer Willie McCovey on the RBI list. Also, six players suspected or accused of using steroids are ahead of McGriff on the RBI list.

McGriff was the starting first baseman on three All Star Games, and he was selected as a reserve in two other All Star Games. McGriff won the 1994 All Star Game MVP on the basis of one at-bat.

The 1994 All Star Game was played in Three Rivers Stadium in Pittsburgh. The American League was leading 7-5 going to the bottom of the ninth inning. Lee Smith was pitching in relief. Marquis Grissom led off the inning with a walk. Craig Biggio grounded to third base, and Grissom was forced out at second.

Manager Jim Fregosi kept McGriff on the bench because he wanted McGriff to face Lee Smith in the ninth inning. McGriff hit a home run off Lee Smith to left-center, and tied the game. The National League won the game in the bottom of the tenth inning, 8-7.

McGriff was not the most dominant first baseman of his era. He was not the most prolific power hitter of his era, but his reputation as a home run hitter was diminished due to the steroid era.

Edgar Martinez
This is Martinez’s first year on the ballot. He was primarily a Designated Hitter during his 18-year career. It was not due poor defensive skills. He was a third baseman by trade, but unfortunately Martinez was as a fragile as glass. It seemed he got hurt every time he put on a glove and was asked to play the field.

My most vivid memory of Edgar Martinez was during the 1995 playoffs against the New York Yankees. Martinez massacred the Yankee pitching staff. Anything over the plate was hit hard. It felt like he was hitting with runners in scoring position in every inning. His batting average in that series was .571. He hit two home runs and drove in 10 RBI.

Martinez was a late bloomer. He did not become a regular until he was 27 years old. Otherwise his career numbers might be more impressive. His career batting average is .312. He hit over .300 ten times during his career. He won two batting titles. Martinez drove in over 100 RBI’s six times. He ranks 41st on the all time doubles list.

Martinez was the starting DH in four All Star Games, and was selected as a reserve in three All Star Games.

Andre Dawson
This is Andre Dawson’s ninth year on the ballot. I have heard that Dawson’s .323 On Base Percentage (OBP) is the statistic that is keeping him out of the Hall of Fame. If it’s true, then it is one of the most ridiculous baseball related argument ever made. Andre Dawson is a Hall of Famer.

Sometimes statistics do not tell the whole story. In 21 seasons, Dawson hit over 30 home runs three times. He drove in over 100 RBI’s four times. He batted over .300 four times. These numbers do not appear impressive.

But Andre Dawson was a five-tool baseball player. He could hit for average, hit for power, play great defense, had a great throwing arm, and could run – until artificial turf ruined his knees.

Dawson was a dominant player. He was the best player on the Montreal Expos and the Chicago Cubs.

Dawson won the Rookie of the Year Award in 1977. He won the MVP Award in 1987 while playing on a sixth place team. He was the top ten in MVP votes three times. He was the starting outfielder in seven All Star Games, and was selected as a reserve in one All Star Game. Dawson won eight Gold Gloves and four Silver Slugger awards.

Dawson’s career statistics are more impressive. He is 36th on the all time home run list with 438; 45th on the all time hit list with 2,774; 34th on the all time RBI list with 1,591; 25th on the all time total bases list with 4,787; and 48th on the all time doubles list with 503. He stole 314 bases. Dawson is in the top 50 of five all time offensive categories.

Dawson last played over 140 games in 1992. Baseball has changed a lot since 1992. A baseball player who averages 27 home runs, 98 RBI’s with a .279 batting average will not look impressive next to the gaudy numbers produced in an offensive laden, small ballpark, inferior pitching, steroid era. But if you saw Andre Dawson play, you saw a Hall of Famer.

Bert Blyleven
This is Blyleven’s 13th year on the ballot. Winning 300 games is the magic number that gets pitchers inducted into the Hall of Fame. Randy Johnson may be the last pitcher to win at least 300 games.

Blyleven won 287. There may not be another pitcher who will ever approach 287 career wins as well.

Pitching has changed in the time that I have been a baseball fan. Pitchers were expected to pitch complete games and accumulate over 250 innings.

Currently, pitchers are on pitch counts, and are expected to throw for six innings in a game. Instead of innings, pitchers accumulate no decisions.

Bert Blyleven is a dinosaur. Pitch counts did not matter. At the age of 20, Blyleven pitched 278.1 innings. At age 21, 287 innings. At age 22, 325 innings. Compared to pitchers of this era, Blyleven is a Hall of Famer.

But is Blyleven a Hall of Famer compared to pitchers of his era? It depends on whom you compare Blyleven to.

Blyleven won 20 games once. He struck out over 200 batters eight times in his career. His ERA was under 3.00 nine times. He pitched over 200 innings sixteen times. An average Blyleven season would be 14 wins, 12 losses, with a 3.31 ERA, 245 innings pitched, and 183 strikeouts. These are not overwhelming statistics.

But compare Blyleven with Hall of Famer Don Sutton. There numbers are similar. Sutton won 20 games once. He struck out over 200 batters five times. His ERA was under 3.00 eight times. Sutton pitched over 200 innings 20 times. An average Sutton year would be 14 wins, 11 losses, with a 3.26 ERA, 235 innings pitched, and 159 strikeouts.

Compared to Sutton, Blyleven’s career statistics and his ranking on several all time lists make him a Hall of Famer.

His 287 career wins – 27th on the all time wins list. Sutton is ranked 24th with 324 wins.

Blyleven career innings pitched is 4,970 – 14th on the all time innings pitched list. Sutton is ranked 7th on the list with 5,282.3.

Blyleven is ranked 4th on the all time strikeout list with 3,701. Nolan Ryan, Randy Johnson, Roger Clemens and Steve Carlton are ahead of Blyleven. Sutton is ranked 7th with 3,574.

Blyleven is ranked 11th in games started with 685. Sutton is ranked 3rd with 756.

Blyleven is ranked 91st in complete games with 242. Sutton is ranked 176th with 178 complete games.

Blyleven is ranked 9th in shutouts with 60. Sutton is ranked 10th with 58 shutouts.

If Don Sutton is a Hall of Famer, then Bert Blyleven is a Hall of Famer.

Jack Morris
This is Jack Morris’ eleventh year on the ballot. He was one of my favorite pitchers during the 1980’s and early 1990’s. He was a horse. You could count on Jack Morris to pitch deep into games and accumulate innings during the course of a 162 game season. He was capable of winning a game 1-0. But Morris won plenty of games in which he allowed over four runs.

Unfortunately, his career ERA of 3.90 reflects the fact Morris pitched to the scoreboard with some disregard for his ERA. In seven seasons, Morris’ ERA was over 4.00. In 18 seasons, he never had an ERA under 3.00.

He won 20 or more games three times. He pitched over 200 innings eleven times. He struck out over 200 batters only three times. For a dominant pitcher that is a low number.

He was the ace on three different teams. He started three All Star Games, and was selected as a reserve in two other All Star Games. Morris never won the Cy Young Award, but was in the top ten in voting seven times. He was the World Series MVP in 1991. He will be remembered for pitching a classic 7th game of the World Series in which he pitched 10 innings and won the game 1-0 over the Atlanta Braves.

In baseball, statistics are a point of reference. The past is compared with the present through statistics.

Jack Morris was a great pitcher in his era even if the statistics do not support my argument. At times, I witnessed greatness when he pitched.

Ron Santo (Veteran’s Committee)
Ron Santo is no longer on the Hall of Fame ballot. His last year on the ballot was 1998. Only the Veteran’s Committee can elect Ron Santo to the Hall of Fame.

Ron Santo’s played at the same time as Hall of Fame third baseman Brooks Robinson. Maybe Santo is being unfavorably compared to Robinson.

Robinson won 16 Gold Gloves. Santo won 5 Gold Gloves. Robinson also played in six World Series. In the 1970 World Series, Robinson displayed his great fielding ability, and was awarded the MVP. He was also the American League MVP in 1964, and the MVP of the All Star Game in 1966.

Santo never played in a World Series. He never won the MVP. But Santo hit over .300 four times. Robinson hit over .300 twice. Santo hit over 30 home runs four times. Robinson never hit 30 home runs in a season. Santo had four 100 RBI seasons. Robinson had 2.

Santo was overlooked because he played on a team that was not as successful as the Baltimore Orioles (from 1966 to 1974), but Santo was one of the best third baseman of his era.

Natalie

Adrian Monk is a memorable character. He is a man most find to be intolerable because of his countless quirks, phobias and idiosyncrasies. He suffers from Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD), which can be excruciatingly frustrating.

But Mr. Monk has a special assistant, Natalie. At first, Natalie thought he was odd and strange and sometimes unbearable. She wondered if she could trust the man who suffered from hundreds of phobias. She wondered if he was dependable.

But Natalie has a good heart. She was able to look past the quirks, phobias and idiosyncrasies and understand Mr. Monk is a brilliant, sensitive man who is able to authoritatively function beneath the façade of phobias.

Natalie is also a memorable character. Mr. Monk is able to function with Natalie’s steady guidance. She is patient and kind, understanding and companionate, intelligent and independent, protective and assuring. She has an inner strength that compensates for Mr. Monk’s inner fears.

I admire Natalie because she reminds me of someone special in my life. She also has a good heart. She is patient and kind, understanding and companionate, intelligent and independent, protective and assuring. She has integrity and an inner strength I admire. I seek her opinions because I trust her judgment.

I do not possess the quirks, phobias and idiosyncrasies Mr. Monk is burdened with, even though my Natalie has on occasion said I am crazy, and I should be committed to an institution. There is some merit to her observation, but she says it with affection and humor, not with malice and we are able to laugh at that statement.

But there were times when I was unbearable and irritating and most people would have walked away, but my Natalie was patient because she understood that aspect of my personality, like bad thunderstorms, would pass.

My Natalie finds in me qualities that make up for the obstinate aspects of my behavior and she believes in our friendship.

It may have taken Mr. Monk some time to fully appreciate Natalie, but I immediately realized how important my Natalie is to me not long after I met her.

In contrast with Mr. Monk, I am able to function, but I cannot imagine my life without her. She is indispensable. Everyone should have a Natalie in their lives. I thank God I have a Natalie in my life.