A Whole New Ballgame

While the nation mourns the universe rejoices. But before either side gets carried away, let's remember there are still more than 50 games left to be played. There are also still 6 games left to be played between these rivals, including a three game set at Fenway in just two weeks. Baseball is a marathon not a sprint.

WOW!

0-0 through 14 1/2 innings. All that can be said is "wow"! Anyone who didn't like that game does not like baseball and definitely doesn't understand what makes baseball so great. Two incredible offenses were shut down for almost two complete games. Yankees pitchers held the Sox to 4 hits over 15 innings, 4 hits! And none of them were for extra bases! The Yanks were held to 9 hits, and four of those were in the 14th and 15th! Remember that just the night before the Yanks had 18 hits in 8 innings. Both teams were an unbelievable 13 for 82 (a .159 average). Incredible! In real estate it's all about location. In baseball it's all about the pitching and that changes each and every day.

This was the longest scoreless game the Sox-Yanks have played in their history, and it will go down as one of the all time greats in the series. That catch by Drew in the 14th was fantastic, Melky came within inches of a hit to win, and A-Rod breaks the longest homerless streak of his career. It was only the 5th time in major league history that a game scoreless in the 15th or later has ended on a walk-off homer. This is why baseball is the greatest game of all. Of course I'm happy with the outcome, but it would have been a great one even if the Yanks had lost. All I can say is "Wow"!

Here comes the judge, here comes the judge

Sonia Sotomayor was approved by the Senate yesterday by a vote of 68-31, and becomes the first Latino judge to sit on the Court. Judge Sotomayor's background is very impressive and she deserved the position. In fact, she has more time as a judge than anyone else currently serving on the Court had when they were appointed. But there are several things that I am troubled about or find puzzling in this nomination process.

The first is the fact that everyone keeps talking about an "impartial judge" and justice being "blind." Of course that is the ideal and what everyone wants, but the simple reality is it is impossible. Judge Sotomayor cannot see the world through anything other than the lens of being a Latino woman, which is what everyone was so upset about from her comments which were taken totally out of context. She can't do that just as Chief Justice Roberts cannot see the world through the eyes of anything other than a white man. That is his and her experience of life. While they certainly try and see things impartially it is impossible to ever fully do so. And why is it that we only ever try and apply this standard to minorities? We never talk about whites, or for that matter men, having to move beyond these categories in order to judge fairly. Why? Because our society expects people to see things like white males do.

Which brings me to my next point. If true impartiality was possible, there would be no question or debate about who should serve on the court. But, everyone brings with them a personal vision of the law, of justice and the role of the court. That means from the start that none of the judges are impartial because they all view what they are doing and how to interpret things, the Constitution in particular, very differently. That is a given from the start, and therefore indicates partiality. Another thing that is given is that ALL judges are "activist" judges.

Judges are activist by the very nature of what they do. If they strike down a law or ruling by a lower court, it is activist. If they uphold a law or ruling by a lower court it is activist. That is the way our courts are set up, and have been since Chief Justice John Marshall ruled in Marbury v. Madison that the court had the right to decide constitutionality. That little fact is not contained in the Constitution; the courts decided they had this right. Now if that is not judicial activism I don't know what is, but I don't hear anyone decrying this role of the court. Instead it is all about how people feel the Constitution should be interpreted, and again that is where no one is impartial. Everyone brings their own theory of interpretation to the court.

The other thing that is interesting is the Republican Party's take on Sotomayor. President Bush was trying to court the Hispanic vote, and many feel they are necessary for future victories. But for some reason they voted in large numbers against Sotomayor. This includes Senator McCain, who has talked about the need for the Hispanic vote, and then for the first time in his career voted against a Supreme Court nominee. First time, against Judge Sotomayor. How well do you think how she was treated will play in the Hispanic community? I could be totally wrong, but I don't think it has gone over very well.

Everyone has to realize that sometime in the next forty years, whites will become the minorities in this country. This scares many people. I think it is the reason so many people are throwing up ridiculous ideas against Obama. He doesn't look like them. Instead he looks like the future, and that is terrifying, and they don't know what to do about it. The time of white privilege and white majority is passing, which is all for the good, but any time there is change people become edgy, especially those who benefit the most from the status quo.

My final issue with this whole process is how ridiculous Supreme Court nominations have become. For the first time ever the last three Justices have been approved with more than 20 Senators voting against them. This, in and of itself, is not the problem. The problem is that rather than voting whether someone is qualified for the court or not, they are voting whether they like them ideologically (which again shows how ridiculous the whole idea of impartiality is).

What's worse is that most of the "ideological" requirements for serving on the court have little to do with what they will actually rule on. Since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973 the Court has ruled on only a handful of abortion cases. From the importance everyone puts on it you would think they issue numerous decisions every year, but they don't. They take up many issues regarding the death penalty every year, but this is never discussed. They also issue few decisions regarding affirmative action, but again this gets lots of attention.

What we should be focusing on is their partiality. How do they view the court? What does stare decisis mean to them and how do they use it in making rulings (ie is it of primary importance or just another consideration)? What do they think the courts role is in relation to the interstate commerce clause (which gets many more rulings)? In other words, lets ask them about the real issues they will be ruling on, not the things that are important to others but which the court rarely addresses.

And this is true for both Republicans and Democrats. I might not like Justice Scalia's view of the law, but I do not doubt his intelligence or his ability to serve on the Court. To me that should be of primary importance, because ultimately you never know what they are going to do once they get to the court. And if you don't believe me, look at Chief Justice Earl Warren who led one of the most "liberal" courts in history, even though he was selected by Richard Nixon for nomination by President Eisenhower.

It's time to move past petty party politics and begin working again on deciding what is best for the country.

it was fate

The Yankees had two things going for them last night (not counting the fact that the Red Sox couldn't drive in the twelve men they had on base from walks).

The first was that I was wearing my Joba shirt. They win the majority of the time I wear it, it's my only lucky Yankees shirt.

The second was that when we ordered last night from Sudbury Pizza our number was 19. For those who don't know who wore number 19 for the Yankees, which I'm assuming is all of you, it was Aaron Boone, hero of the 2003 ALCS. I took that as a sign we were going to win.

Now you might ask "are you superstitious?" And the answer, when it comes to baseball, is most definately yes. I guess when you balance it out with the rest of my life I'm sortastitious. (that's an old Smothers Brothers joke)

One down, three to go

Thems fightin' words

I was having a conversation with someone the other day about the Sox/Yanks, and of course they were telling me how great the Sox were and how the Yanks were going down and that Fenway is the Holy Grail of ballparks. This got me to thinking. I've been to 16 current and former league parks. How would I rank them and where would Fenway be? Initially I thought it would make the top ten, but as it turned out it didn't. This list, of course, is completely subjective, just ask Linda. So here it is:

1. Yankee Stadium (not the new one, haven't been there yet)
2. Wrigley Field (from the old days when stadiums weren't named after companies, LOL) (Cubs)
3. The Jake (now Progressive Field) (Indians)
4. Bank One Ballpark (now Chase Field, but the BOB was a much cooler name) (Diamondbacks)
5. Comiskey (now US Cellular Field) (White Sox)
6. Busch Field (not the new one, haven't been there) (Cardinals)
7. Comerica Park (Tigers)
8. Ballpark in Arlington (Rangers)
9. Kaufman Stadium (pre-renovations) (Royals)
10. Minute Maid Park (Astros)
11. Fenway (Red Sox)
12. Turner Field (although these were standing room only which affects the ranking) (Braves)
13. Angels Stadium in Anaheim (Angels)
14. Miller Park (Brewers)
15. Metrodome (Twins)
16. Olympic Stadium (Expos)
17. RFK Stadium (Nationals)

* Honorable Mention
a) Field of Dreams in Dyersville, Iowa (not quite heaven but not quite Iowa either)
b) Doubleday Field in Cooperstown, NY (saw the Braves play the Twins there)

The first few and the last few were easy. If I weren't a Yankee fan Yankee stadium would probably not be number one, but it would definitely be in the top three. It was a great stadium (the first to ever be called a stadium) and as a person interested in the history of the game this is where so much of it took place, and to look out and know all the great players who roamed those hallowed grounds was special.

But if you are looking for the quintessential baseball experience, go sit in the bleachers during a day game at Wrigley field. It really doesn't get much better than that.

Red Sox ownership has done a tremendous job on the renovations of Fenway which has improved it, but it still doesn't move it up much (sometime I'll write about the economics of baseball and why these renovations were not undertaken primarily for the fan.). Once they have replaced all the seats it will get better, but I have seen things take place at Fenway in person and on TV that would never happen in other stadiums. Beer and fanaticism are not good mates.

So let the debates begin, and before you attack me saying Fenway is the best, you need to have been to at least five other major league stadiums.

Let the battle begin

It's a huge weekend down at the big ballpark in the Bronx as Red Sox Nation and Yankees Universe square off once again. It's still a little too early to say that these games are very important, but they are important all the same. They will have a significant say in who is chasing whom down the stretch. All the Yankees need to do is win one to stay in first place. If they should sweep they will leave with a huge 6 1/2 game lead. If they should get swept, again, the Red Sox leave in the lead. My prediction is a split, but they are such evenly matched teams let's just hope for really good baseball.

I've posed this question before, but let me ask it again: Why is it that the people who give me the hardest time about being a Yankee fan are the people who seem to know the least about baseball?

Health Care Debate, Part 2

Yesterday I shared my thoughts and stories about nationalized health care. So, you might ask, what is the United Methodist Church's position? Well I'm glad you asked. This is from the social principles in the Book of Discipline ¶162.V:

"Right to Health Care — Health is a condition of physical, mental, social and spiritual well-being. John 10:10b says, 'I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly.' Stewardship of health is the responsibility of each person to whom health has been entrusted. Creating the personal, environmental, and social conditions in which health can thrive is a joint responsibility — public and private. We encourage individuals to pursue a healthy lifestyle and affirm the importance of preventative health care, health education, environmental and occupational safety, good nutrition and secure housing in achieving health. Health care is a basic human right. (emphasis mine)

Providing health care needed to maintain health, prevent disease, and restore health after injury or illness is a responsibility each person owes others and government owes to all, a responsibility government ignores at its peril. In Ezekiel 34:4a, God points out the failures of the leadership of Israel to care for the weak: 'You have not strengthened the weak, you have not healed the sick, you have not bound up the injured.' As a result all suffer. Like police and fire protection, health care is best funded through the government's ability to tax each person equitably and directly fund the provider entities. Countries facing a public health crisis such as HIV/AIDS must have access to generic medicines and to patented medicines. We affirm the right of men and women to have access to comprehensive reproductive health/family planning information and services that will serve as a means to prevent unplanned pregnancies, reduce abortions, and prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS. The right to health care includes care for persons with brain diseases, neurological conditions, or physical disabilities, who must be afforded the same access to health care as all other persons in our communities. It is unjust to construct or perpetuate barriers to physical or mental wholeness or full participation in community.

We believe it is a governmental responsibility to provide all citizens with health care."

In addition, a resolution in the 2008 Book of Resolutions, says "The United Methodist Church is committed to health care for all in the United States and therefore advocates for a comprehensive health care delivery system that includes access for all, quality care, and effective management of costs." (p. 352). In order to see health care available for all, the resolution calls for the implementation of a single payer system. (p 354). This particular resolution was first adopted in 2000 and has been reaffirmed each quadrennium since then.

Health Care Debate

Just as a disclosure so you know where I stand. Right out of high school I did volunteer work on a drive for national health care. This was 4 years before Clinton tried and failed. At the time the only national figures talking about it where Ted Kennedy and Bob Kerry. So it is with great interest that I watch what is going on now, with all the same arguments, and many of the same mistakes being made. (I will write more about this later.)

You may have seen some of the disruptions of town hall meetings on the news (I will give my opinions about these later on as well). In one of them, a woman at the back of the hall is holding up a Bible and she keeps showing it to the camera saying it's the truth, it's the truth. Since she is standing with the protesters I'm assuming she is with them, but I can't figure out what the Bible has to do with the protest. What is even stranger is that the Bible she is holding up is the New American Bible, which is published by World Catholic Press. What she might be surprised to know is that the Catholic Church is the largest health care provider in the world. In many parts of the world, they are the health care provider. In other words, they are reaching out and providing care to those who need health care who don't have access to it otherwise. So there is a disconnect for me between her protesting giving universal access to health care here in the US when that is what the Catholic church is also trying to do.

Let me tell you two stories that involve me and my family:

I had left one job, with insurance, started a new job, that also had insurance, but was in that dead zone after the old insurance had ended but before the new one had begun, and COBRA is way to expensive to take on. I was out chopping wood when a piece flew up and hit me in the eye, scratching it. So here I am with an injury, no insurance, and no money to be able to afford to go to the emergency room. I went out and got a patch, some eye drops in order to wash out any residue, and put up with it best I could, but it hurt a lot and was very irritating. Fortunately for me, my roommate's mother was a doctor, so she called her told her what happened, and she called in a prescription for me, under her daughter's name, so that I could get treatment. (This is illegal by the way but not being American by birth she thought it was absurd that people couldn't have access to health care when they needed it) I used the cream in my eye and fortunately everything worked out fine, but it might not have.

The other story involves my sister-in-law and brother-in-law. Like me, they were between insurance because of a job change. In fact they were one week away from being covered. Their oldest son was playing with his best friend on the jungle gym, when his friend fell and shattered his elbow. A long surgery and days in the hospital later he was on the road to recovery. But it could have just as easily have been Spencer as it was his friend, and if it had been Spencer they would not have been able to have afforded the bills, but obviously would have needed to seek treatment. More than likely they would have become one of the close to one million people who declare bankruptcy each year due to medical expenses.

These stories are not unique or strange, they happen everyday all over the place. Regardless of where you stand on this issue, something needs to be done, it's what is done that we should be discussing (not arguing or shouting each other down, but discussing). So let's begin an honest and open discussion of these issues and what should be done. What's happening now is not helpful to the process and does not deal with the seriousness of the problem.

Yesterday's Sermon

At some point I am going to figure out a way to post my sermons on here and then allow for comments to be made. I would love to be able to have a dialogue about them . But for the moment I don't know how to do that. If you do, please let me know.

I am trying to make my sermons a little more interactive. I had several ideas for yesterday's sermon on unity in the church and all being a part of the body of Christ, but I couldn't get any of them to work in my mind. What are your ideas? What do you think might have worked?

I meant it in the nicest possible way...

Okay, this will be my last post on this particular circumstance I promise, but I can't let Justin Barret's comments go by without a comment. For those of you unaware, Barret is a Boston police officer who recently wrote an email that went out to his friends and also the Boston Globe referring to Gates several times as a "banana eating Jungle Monkey." He is now saying that he made a mistake, he is not a racist and it didn't come out right.

However, calling a person of color a "banana eating jungle monkey" regardless of what you intended is racist. There is no other way to look at it. None. And to think that he sent this out not only to his friends but also the Boston Globe just boggles the mind. Barret can claim he didn't mean it the way it sounded, but this was clearly not taken out of context and there is no other way to hear it then as it sounds. Barret's comments serve to illustrate what the black community has been talking about all along.

On the positive I am very glad the Boston PD, and the national guard, have dealt with this issue the way they have. It does show how far we've come.