Sunday, December 19, 2010
Peace
I have always loved this song. This arrangement, which our church did this morning, is very powerful. This morning, this song convicted me in a new way. It brought tears to my eyes thinking about the millions and millions who do not experience "peace on earth." We should be bringing peace - to war torn nations, to poverty stricken families, to those suffering from domestic abuse and violence. We can't just wish peace into reality. We can't just ignore places where there is no peace. We, as Christians, are called by Christ to be peacemakers. I believe this peace is twofold. Peace in our souls and peace in our communities and world. At His birth, the angels called for "peace on earth." Yet today, our world is far from peace. What does it mean to be a peacemaker? At Christmas, I often think about love, joy, and hope. Those seem fairly easy to accomplish or at least to grasp. But peace seems much more daunting a task to me. So, what am I doing to bring "Peace on Earth"?
Monday, October 04, 2010
Claw and Antler Time
Now that the Texas Rangers are post-season bound, it is time to look back at my 2010 prediction. At the beginning of the season, after assessing the Rangers’ pitching and line-up and comparing them to the rest of the AL West, I predicted a 79-83 record and a 3rd place finish in the Division. Thankfully, I was off by 11 wins. Last Saturday, when the Rangers clinched the West was a happy, happy day. My kids are tired of me reminding them that the Rangers have made the playoffs.
What about the season? If at the beginning of the season I had said that Scott Feldman and Rich Harden would combine for a 12-16 record, Josh Hamilton would barely play the last month of the season, Nelson Cruz and Ian Kinsler would spend multiple stints on the DL, Vlad would hit .200 in July, Derek Holland would still be struggling, Saltalamacchia would be off the team, Chris Davis would hit .192 with 1 home run, and our catching would be pathetic offensively, I would expect this to be a down year. But somehow, in the magic that is 2010, the Rangers have taken all of that and come close to meeting Nolan Ryan’s expectation of 92 wins. Not only that, but they held a double digit lead in the West over the other three teams and may possibly possess the MVP, Manager of the Year, and Rookie of the Year.
So what of my prediction? My misses:
1. I assumed the Rangers’ starters needed a minimum of 70 wins to be postseason bound. This year, the starters went 58-51. What has compensated for this is that a number of relievers have more wins than all but three of our starters. Our starters have kept us in games that our offense has been able to win late. The 58 wins are 12 less wins than our starters had last year.
2. Scott Feldman. While I made allowance that last year was a fluke, I still predicted that he “had found his groove” and would win 16 games. Instead, he is 5-9 as a starter and 7-11 overall. He’s been terrible.
3. Wilson. I predicted a sub .500 pitcher. He has instead been the staff ace. While I don’t know if he has enough gas to make it through the postseason, he has certainly been a pleasant surprise for me this year.
4. Lewis. I did not expect him to be on the team for long this year. However, with a little run support, he could easily have 16 or 17 wins. If the offense had performed for Lewis and Lee, the starters would have been much closer to the 70 win mark.
5. AL West. I thought the West would be a good division. While my 79 win prediction would have earned the Rangers 3rd place, they would have only been 2 games out of first. The Angels underperformed, the As were pretty much what they should be, and Seattle was pathetic. The lineup they ran out there each night was awful.
My hits:
1. I predicted the failure of Rich Harden. Although, he has been even worse than I predicted.
2. Catcher and 1st base. I questioned the legitimacy of any of our first basemen and catchers. While the Rangers made trades to deal with these positions, the offense has still been lagging. I wouldn’t be surprised if the offensive production by our catchers and first basemen was the worst in the league. However, the postseason starts everything over again, so maybe this will change.
3. I questioned the overall health of the team: most notably, Hamilton and Kinsler. While it appears most of the team is now getting healthy, important pieces have been out significant time. Most alarmingly though is the current Josh Hamilton situation. Without a healthy Josh, our postseason offense is much weakened. And the guy who picked up the slack for Josh, David Murphy, is now nursing an injury. The health of the team is still a big concern going into the postseason. Hopefully Josh is healthy.
4. Hunter. I predicted he would be a great success, which for the most part he has been.
5. I thought the new ownership could make some moves to improve the team, which they have. Aside from Christian Guzman, they have made solid trades to go for it this year. That’s exciting. And it has made them better, given them a solid ace for the postseason, and kept the locker room a positive place. This is a fun team to root for.
So, I don’t know how they did it. When one looks at the offensive holes, the pitching record, and the shaky health of the team, one can only believe that this has truly been a magical year. A walk-off wild pitch, walk-off HBP, and walk-off strikeout are three examples of the baseball magic at the Ballpark. The steady leadership of Ron Washington should certainly receive a lot of credit. He has kept this young team calm, has weathered an unsettled ownership mess, and has really personified the team’s ability to come each day ready to win. While he may not be the best in-game manager, he deserves a lot of credit for where this team is. Without an unsettled ownership situation over the past year, Wash may not have survived as the manager. But he has won my respect for the way he leads the team. Josh Hamilton has been the best player in baseball. Through the Rangers’ tough stretches, Josh carried the team. I hope he can have a monster postseason. It will be a shame if the last month keeps him from being league MVP.
My postseason prediction: They will end their 9 game postseason losing streak, win at least their first postseason series, and quite possibly ride the claw and antlers all the way to the World Series win.
More specifically: Rangers will defeat the Rays 3-1. Then defeat the Twins 4-3. The defeat the Phillies 4-3 with Cliff Lee winning 3 games in the series.
What about the season? If at the beginning of the season I had said that Scott Feldman and Rich Harden would combine for a 12-16 record, Josh Hamilton would barely play the last month of the season, Nelson Cruz and Ian Kinsler would spend multiple stints on the DL, Vlad would hit .200 in July, Derek Holland would still be struggling, Saltalamacchia would be off the team, Chris Davis would hit .192 with 1 home run, and our catching would be pathetic offensively, I would expect this to be a down year. But somehow, in the magic that is 2010, the Rangers have taken all of that and come close to meeting Nolan Ryan’s expectation of 92 wins. Not only that, but they held a double digit lead in the West over the other three teams and may possibly possess the MVP, Manager of the Year, and Rookie of the Year.
So what of my prediction? My misses:
1. I assumed the Rangers’ starters needed a minimum of 70 wins to be postseason bound. This year, the starters went 58-51. What has compensated for this is that a number of relievers have more wins than all but three of our starters. Our starters have kept us in games that our offense has been able to win late. The 58 wins are 12 less wins than our starters had last year.
2. Scott Feldman. While I made allowance that last year was a fluke, I still predicted that he “had found his groove” and would win 16 games. Instead, he is 5-9 as a starter and 7-11 overall. He’s been terrible.
3. Wilson. I predicted a sub .500 pitcher. He has instead been the staff ace. While I don’t know if he has enough gas to make it through the postseason, he has certainly been a pleasant surprise for me this year.
4. Lewis. I did not expect him to be on the team for long this year. However, with a little run support, he could easily have 16 or 17 wins. If the offense had performed for Lewis and Lee, the starters would have been much closer to the 70 win mark.
5. AL West. I thought the West would be a good division. While my 79 win prediction would have earned the Rangers 3rd place, they would have only been 2 games out of first. The Angels underperformed, the As were pretty much what they should be, and Seattle was pathetic. The lineup they ran out there each night was awful.
My hits:
1. I predicted the failure of Rich Harden. Although, he has been even worse than I predicted.
2. Catcher and 1st base. I questioned the legitimacy of any of our first basemen and catchers. While the Rangers made trades to deal with these positions, the offense has still been lagging. I wouldn’t be surprised if the offensive production by our catchers and first basemen was the worst in the league. However, the postseason starts everything over again, so maybe this will change.
3. I questioned the overall health of the team: most notably, Hamilton and Kinsler. While it appears most of the team is now getting healthy, important pieces have been out significant time. Most alarmingly though is the current Josh Hamilton situation. Without a healthy Josh, our postseason offense is much weakened. And the guy who picked up the slack for Josh, David Murphy, is now nursing an injury. The health of the team is still a big concern going into the postseason. Hopefully Josh is healthy.
4. Hunter. I predicted he would be a great success, which for the most part he has been.
5. I thought the new ownership could make some moves to improve the team, which they have. Aside from Christian Guzman, they have made solid trades to go for it this year. That’s exciting. And it has made them better, given them a solid ace for the postseason, and kept the locker room a positive place. This is a fun team to root for.
So, I don’t know how they did it. When one looks at the offensive holes, the pitching record, and the shaky health of the team, one can only believe that this has truly been a magical year. A walk-off wild pitch, walk-off HBP, and walk-off strikeout are three examples of the baseball magic at the Ballpark. The steady leadership of Ron Washington should certainly receive a lot of credit. He has kept this young team calm, has weathered an unsettled ownership mess, and has really personified the team’s ability to come each day ready to win. While he may not be the best in-game manager, he deserves a lot of credit for where this team is. Without an unsettled ownership situation over the past year, Wash may not have survived as the manager. But he has won my respect for the way he leads the team. Josh Hamilton has been the best player in baseball. Through the Rangers’ tough stretches, Josh carried the team. I hope he can have a monster postseason. It will be a shame if the last month keeps him from being league MVP.
My postseason prediction: They will end their 9 game postseason losing streak, win at least their first postseason series, and quite possibly ride the claw and antlers all the way to the World Series win.
More specifically: Rangers will defeat the Rays 3-1. Then defeat the Twins 4-3. The defeat the Phillies 4-3 with Cliff Lee winning 3 games in the series.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Theology of a Three and Five Year Old
Every night when I tuck the girls into bed, they always ask me to sing the “Daddy Song.” I’m not sure how it came to be the “Daddy Song,” but “You Are God Alone” is the actual title. The chorus says:
“You are God Alone
From before time began
You were on Your throne
And You were God alone
And right now
In the good times and bad
You are on Your throne
And You are God alone.”
We have been singing this song at bedtime for at least a year now. But a couple of nights ago, as I was finishing up the song, Tessa, with a concerned look on her face, said, “God is not alone, he’s with Jesus.” And Claire added, “He’s also with us and everybody and every animal on earth too. He’s even with people in heaven!”
I love it. Obviously, they were hearing the song as if God were all alone, but still, I love that Tessa’s compassionate heart wanted to make sure God was not alone. And I love that Claire knows God is with her – and even with people in heaven! I like that Claire’s first reaction is to know that the God of the universe is concerned about her. He’s not just a far away God, but one that is here on earth with her.
Faith like a child. It’s beautiful. And inspiring.
“You are God Alone
From before time began
You were on Your throne
And You were God alone
And right now
In the good times and bad
You are on Your throne
And You are God alone.”
We have been singing this song at bedtime for at least a year now. But a couple of nights ago, as I was finishing up the song, Tessa, with a concerned look on her face, said, “God is not alone, he’s with Jesus.” And Claire added, “He’s also with us and everybody and every animal on earth too. He’s even with people in heaven!”
I love it. Obviously, they were hearing the song as if God were all alone, but still, I love that Tessa’s compassionate heart wanted to make sure God was not alone. And I love that Claire knows God is with her – and even with people in heaven! I like that Claire’s first reaction is to know that the God of the universe is concerned about her. He’s not just a far away God, but one that is here on earth with her.
Faith like a child. It’s beautiful. And inspiring.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Christians, Mosques, Ground Zero, Oh My!
I am a Christian, an American, and a political conservative. Because of this identity, I believe the group that wishes to build a Muslim center near Ground Zero has every right to do so. Those Christians who are political conservatives and are objecting to the mosque are failing to apply basic values to this issue. What I heard this morning on a local talk radio station was appalling. A host was calling people “stupid” and “dummies” for not objecting to the mosque. He couldn’t understand how any American would defend the building of the mosque, or religious center, near Ground Zero. Here’s why I do not oppose, and why I do defend, an Islamic group’s decision to construct a center near the site of the World Trade Center.
As I have already stated, I am a Christian. More specifically, I am a Baptist. Therefore, I believe in religious liberty. In this country, we should always protect religious rights – no matter the religion. Our Founders believed such. And Baptists at the time were the biggest supporters of religious liberty. Our Constitution and other founding documents protect our rights. Most importantly, these rights are protected for each individual, whether in the majority or minority. In this country, we don’t believe that the majority should be able to suppress the rights of others. We believe in majority rule with minority rights. No matter what the majority believes, certain rights of the individual will always be protected. One of those rights is free exercise of religion. If we allow society to restrict one group from worshiping where they wish, what stops the government from restricting others? Instead of protesting the building on an Islamic center near Ground Zero, we should be celebrating the ability of our country to protect and allow for religious freedom. As a Christian, I should cherish the idea that in America, we have the freedom to build multiple places of worship.
As a conservative, I believe in limited government. There are certain powers that the government should not have, especially in relation to our property rights. If a group owns a piece of land and they want to construct something legal on that land, the group should be allowed to do so. Conservatives talk about how the government seems too powerful today, reaching into our lives and telling us what to eat, what to drive, what kind of health insurance we should have, how much of our paycheck we need to fork over, etc. Yet, here is a case where these same conservatives think the government should tell a group of people what they should or shouldn’t do with their land. As a political conservative, I should champion the ability of a group to use private land for legal purposes, rejecting calls for the government to intervene.
Certainly, there are Muslims who think that building a mosque or religious center near Ground Zero is a bad PR move, and I may agree with that. But it also might be a bad PR move to build a mega-church in the middle of a neighborhood, or go door-to-door evangelizing during dinner time, or tell people Jesus is the Way, but because of religious liberty, we allow these practices. And I am thankful for that. If we could use Bill and Ted’s phone booth to go back in time, we should go ask Balthasar Hubmaier, as he is being burned at the stake for practicing believer’s baptism, if we should allow for minority faiths, (even faiths seen by some as threatening to society, as Hubmaier’s Anabaptists were), to construct a place of worship on private land in a country that claims to defend religious liberty.
As I have already stated, I am a Christian. More specifically, I am a Baptist. Therefore, I believe in religious liberty. In this country, we should always protect religious rights – no matter the religion. Our Founders believed such. And Baptists at the time were the biggest supporters of religious liberty. Our Constitution and other founding documents protect our rights. Most importantly, these rights are protected for each individual, whether in the majority or minority. In this country, we don’t believe that the majority should be able to suppress the rights of others. We believe in majority rule with minority rights. No matter what the majority believes, certain rights of the individual will always be protected. One of those rights is free exercise of religion. If we allow society to restrict one group from worshiping where they wish, what stops the government from restricting others? Instead of protesting the building on an Islamic center near Ground Zero, we should be celebrating the ability of our country to protect and allow for religious freedom. As a Christian, I should cherish the idea that in America, we have the freedom to build multiple places of worship.
As a conservative, I believe in limited government. There are certain powers that the government should not have, especially in relation to our property rights. If a group owns a piece of land and they want to construct something legal on that land, the group should be allowed to do so. Conservatives talk about how the government seems too powerful today, reaching into our lives and telling us what to eat, what to drive, what kind of health insurance we should have, how much of our paycheck we need to fork over, etc. Yet, here is a case where these same conservatives think the government should tell a group of people what they should or shouldn’t do with their land. As a political conservative, I should champion the ability of a group to use private land for legal purposes, rejecting calls for the government to intervene.
Certainly, there are Muslims who think that building a mosque or religious center near Ground Zero is a bad PR move, and I may agree with that. But it also might be a bad PR move to build a mega-church in the middle of a neighborhood, or go door-to-door evangelizing during dinner time, or tell people Jesus is the Way, but because of religious liberty, we allow these practices. And I am thankful for that. If we could use Bill and Ted’s phone booth to go back in time, we should go ask Balthasar Hubmaier, as he is being burned at the stake for practicing believer’s baptism, if we should allow for minority faiths, (even faiths seen by some as threatening to society, as Hubmaier’s Anabaptists were), to construct a place of worship on private land in a country that claims to defend religious liberty.
Monday, June 14, 2010
UT=Smoke Monster, A&M=Benjamin Linus
One of the issues in “Lost” was the ability of some to manipulate others – the long con, the wormhole, the ability to have others do one’s dirty work. Now, I have already compared the saga in the Big XII to Lost in the sense that Nebraska jumping ship was equivalent to Desmond pulling the obelisk out of the shiny pool, creating mass chaos on the island. But there is another parallel for the Big XII and Lost. (Warning: many holes in this parallel, I admit, but it’s not like “Lost” didn’t have plenty of holes too.) Think of this as a “flash-sport-sideways.” In “Lost: the Big XII,” playing the part of the Smoke Monster is UT. A&M has been cast as Benjamin Linus.
Dan Beebe and a new TV contract may play the role of the obelisk, but make no mistake, the evil Smoke Monster is currently calling the shots on the Big XII island. And it is doing a masterful job as well. The Smoke Monster knows Benjamin Linus, the Smoke Monster has conned and manipulated Linus before, the Smoke Monster calls the shots, the Smoke Monster wreaks havoc across the island by flirting with other conferences, attempting to find an escape from Big XII island. But the Smoke Monster is crafty. He is able to use Benjamin Linus as his pawn to do his dirty work. Benjamin Linus holds the knife, Benjamin Linus stabs Jacob in the heart, Benjamin Linus is blamed for Jacob’s death. Benjamin Linus feels all the guilt. Meanwhile, on Big XII island, the Smoke Monster has the ability to become the hero, or attempted hero, no matter what, while cashing in huge. This Smoke Monster is superior to the Smoke Monster on the TV show. Let me explain.
UT wants more money. UT flirted with other conferences. UT can leave the Big XII. But the political fallout from killing the Big XII will be immense. So, UT cons A&M. UT acts as if it wants to save the inhabitants of Big XII island. (Baylor, Kansas, Kansas St, and Missouri can fight over who plays the parts of Claire and Sayid, they willingly would follow the Smoke Monster anywhere, even if he is not planning on bringing them off the island with him.) In order to maintain political clout in the state and psychological dominance over poor Benjamin Linus (A&M), The Smoke Monster (UT) gives the knife to Ben. Here’s the con. UT wants more money without being the bad guy. Leaving for the Pac-10 without at least acting as if they want to save the Big XII would be bad, so now that A&M appears to be close to going to the SEC, UT sets them up. The Smoke Monster claims good intentions: “I want to save everyone, I promise. But it’s out of my hands.” If A&M plunges the knife into the heart of Jacob, then A&M is the bad guy for causing the death of the Big XII and forcing the break-up of the conference. If UT forces A&M to stay, then UT is the savior of the Big XII, until a better opportunity becomes available, makes more money, and continues to psychologically dominate A&M. UT in fact, would become the flash-sport-sideways version of Jack Shepard, too. Only UT could play the role of Smoke Monster and Jack Shepard at the same time. (It can be maddening.) In “Lost: The Big XII,” A&M loses no matter what. If they leave, they are responsible for the Big XII’s demise. (And they will be trounced in the SEC.) If they stay, they are under the influence of the Smoke Monster. Either way, A&M cannot escape its inferiority to UT. UT has outplayed A&M, not just on the field this time, but in the political maneuvering. It’s another brilliant move by the Smoke Monster.
The one hope for A&M: it turns out Benjamin Linus had a soul after all. However, even after the Smoke Monster was gone, Linus still played second fiddle.
Dan Beebe and a new TV contract may play the role of the obelisk, but make no mistake, the evil Smoke Monster is currently calling the shots on the Big XII island. And it is doing a masterful job as well. The Smoke Monster knows Benjamin Linus, the Smoke Monster has conned and manipulated Linus before, the Smoke Monster calls the shots, the Smoke Monster wreaks havoc across the island by flirting with other conferences, attempting to find an escape from Big XII island. But the Smoke Monster is crafty. He is able to use Benjamin Linus as his pawn to do his dirty work. Benjamin Linus holds the knife, Benjamin Linus stabs Jacob in the heart, Benjamin Linus is blamed for Jacob’s death. Benjamin Linus feels all the guilt. Meanwhile, on Big XII island, the Smoke Monster has the ability to become the hero, or attempted hero, no matter what, while cashing in huge. This Smoke Monster is superior to the Smoke Monster on the TV show. Let me explain.
UT wants more money. UT flirted with other conferences. UT can leave the Big XII. But the political fallout from killing the Big XII will be immense. So, UT cons A&M. UT acts as if it wants to save the inhabitants of Big XII island. (Baylor, Kansas, Kansas St, and Missouri can fight over who plays the parts of Claire and Sayid, they willingly would follow the Smoke Monster anywhere, even if he is not planning on bringing them off the island with him.) In order to maintain political clout in the state and psychological dominance over poor Benjamin Linus (A&M), The Smoke Monster (UT) gives the knife to Ben. Here’s the con. UT wants more money without being the bad guy. Leaving for the Pac-10 without at least acting as if they want to save the Big XII would be bad, so now that A&M appears to be close to going to the SEC, UT sets them up. The Smoke Monster claims good intentions: “I want to save everyone, I promise. But it’s out of my hands.” If A&M plunges the knife into the heart of Jacob, then A&M is the bad guy for causing the death of the Big XII and forcing the break-up of the conference. If UT forces A&M to stay, then UT is the savior of the Big XII, until a better opportunity becomes available, makes more money, and continues to psychologically dominate A&M. UT in fact, would become the flash-sport-sideways version of Jack Shepard, too. Only UT could play the role of Smoke Monster and Jack Shepard at the same time. (It can be maddening.) In “Lost: The Big XII,” A&M loses no matter what. If they leave, they are responsible for the Big XII’s demise. (And they will be trounced in the SEC.) If they stay, they are under the influence of the Smoke Monster. Either way, A&M cannot escape its inferiority to UT. UT has outplayed A&M, not just on the field this time, but in the political maneuvering. It’s another brilliant move by the Smoke Monster.
The one hope for A&M: it turns out Benjamin Linus had a soul after all. However, even after the Smoke Monster was gone, Linus still played second fiddle.
Thursday, April 01, 2010
My 2010 Ranger Prediction
Lifelong Ranger fans have experienced more agony than triumph. We are constantly teased with “wait until next year,” “a bat away,” “look at all this pitching coming,” “DVD,” etc. For a while now, the organization has pointed to 2010 as the breakout year. With Hicks selling the team, young talent beginning to blossom, and a strong season in ’09, many prognosticators believe 2010 will be the Rangers’ year to claim the West. Nolan Ryan expects it, Josh Hamilton predicts it, local writers seem to hope for it. So will this be the fourth season the Rangers make the playoffs?
According to the late Johnny Oates, in order to make the playoffs, the starting rotation for a MLB team must average 15 wins per starter. In other words, a team’s starters should win 75 games. That total allows the bullpen realistically to pick up additional wins which will put the team into the playoffs. Looking over the stats of the three playoff teams, he’s pretty much right on. In 1996, the starting rotation (Hill, Pavlik, Witt, Oliver, Gross, and Burkett) had 77 wins, or 15.4 wins per pitcher in a 5 man rotation. That was arguably the best Ranger team in the last 20 years. The 1998 starters (Helling, Sele, Burkett, Oliver, Loaiza, Witt, and Stottlemeyer) won 71 games and the 1999 bunch (Helling, Sele, Burkett, Morgan, Clark, Loaiza, Glynn) won only 67. While those two teams won the division, the team was swept in the playoffs both years.
Last year, the starters earned 71 victories, but did not make the playoffs. While that 71 matches the 1998 team and exceeds the 1999 team, the West is much better now than it was 10 years ago. So I think Oates’ assessment that a good team will have 5 starters averaging 15 wins each is a good indicator of the team’s success. How will our starters fair this year? Here are my predictions:
Feldman – 16 wins. He had 17 wins last year. He may match that again, but I think he will be lucky to. While I can easily see him barely reaching 10, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt that he has found his groove.
Harden – 10 wins. In the past, Harden has been a great pitcher when healthy. However, he is never healthy. This spring, he has looked awful. I don’t expect much from him. Ten wins may be too optimistic. Hopefully, Nolan Ryan’s endurance will rub off on him, but I am not too hopeful.
Wilson – 8 wins. I have no confidence at all in this guy. He’ll pitch all year, so I assume he’ll pick up a few wins, but he will end the year with more losses than victories. 8-13.
Harrison – 8 wins. Will he stay healthy? Is he any good? I see him as a .500 pitcher.
Lewis – 7 wins. Are we really thinking a guy who had to go to Japan to find a job is suddenly going to be a great MLB pitcher?
Hunter – 12 wins. Hopefully he will get healthy and get back in the rotation soon, probably replacing a hurt Harden, an ineffective Wilson, or Lewis. He may be the team’s second best pitcher, but is currently hurt.
Total wins for starters: 61. Well short of Oates’ 75. Other spot starters might up this total to 65 or so, but still, I see the rotation short of ’09 totals and not strong enough to compete with Seattle or the Angels.
The shakiness of the rotation is only part of the problem. Kinsler is on the DL already. The catching situation is unsettled. Will Hamilton, Vlad, and Young hold up? Will Andrus have a sophomore slump? Will Chris Davis spend all year in the majors? Last year was exciting, and I am excited to see how they do this year, but realistically, I don’t see a winning team. Perhaps once the sale is official, the team can make a move or two to improve. Much will be answered in the first 20 games. Ron Washington’s teams have started slow every season. They (especially Washington) cannot afford a 7-13 start.
I am ready for the season and hope that in September I can look back at this post and be so wrong. But from my amateur assessment, I see the Rangers finishing 3rd in the division with an 79-83 record. Even so, I will be cheering for them all the way.
According to the late Johnny Oates, in order to make the playoffs, the starting rotation for a MLB team must average 15 wins per starter. In other words, a team’s starters should win 75 games. That total allows the bullpen realistically to pick up additional wins which will put the team into the playoffs. Looking over the stats of the three playoff teams, he’s pretty much right on. In 1996, the starting rotation (Hill, Pavlik, Witt, Oliver, Gross, and Burkett) had 77 wins, or 15.4 wins per pitcher in a 5 man rotation. That was arguably the best Ranger team in the last 20 years. The 1998 starters (Helling, Sele, Burkett, Oliver, Loaiza, Witt, and Stottlemeyer) won 71 games and the 1999 bunch (Helling, Sele, Burkett, Morgan, Clark, Loaiza, Glynn) won only 67. While those two teams won the division, the team was swept in the playoffs both years.
Last year, the starters earned 71 victories, but did not make the playoffs. While that 71 matches the 1998 team and exceeds the 1999 team, the West is much better now than it was 10 years ago. So I think Oates’ assessment that a good team will have 5 starters averaging 15 wins each is a good indicator of the team’s success. How will our starters fair this year? Here are my predictions:
Feldman – 16 wins. He had 17 wins last year. He may match that again, but I think he will be lucky to. While I can easily see him barely reaching 10, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt that he has found his groove.
Harden – 10 wins. In the past, Harden has been a great pitcher when healthy. However, he is never healthy. This spring, he has looked awful. I don’t expect much from him. Ten wins may be too optimistic. Hopefully, Nolan Ryan’s endurance will rub off on him, but I am not too hopeful.
Wilson – 8 wins. I have no confidence at all in this guy. He’ll pitch all year, so I assume he’ll pick up a few wins, but he will end the year with more losses than victories. 8-13.
Harrison – 8 wins. Will he stay healthy? Is he any good? I see him as a .500 pitcher.
Lewis – 7 wins. Are we really thinking a guy who had to go to Japan to find a job is suddenly going to be a great MLB pitcher?
Hunter – 12 wins. Hopefully he will get healthy and get back in the rotation soon, probably replacing a hurt Harden, an ineffective Wilson, or Lewis. He may be the team’s second best pitcher, but is currently hurt.
Total wins for starters: 61. Well short of Oates’ 75. Other spot starters might up this total to 65 or so, but still, I see the rotation short of ’09 totals and not strong enough to compete with Seattle or the Angels.
The shakiness of the rotation is only part of the problem. Kinsler is on the DL already. The catching situation is unsettled. Will Hamilton, Vlad, and Young hold up? Will Andrus have a sophomore slump? Will Chris Davis spend all year in the majors? Last year was exciting, and I am excited to see how they do this year, but realistically, I don’t see a winning team. Perhaps once the sale is official, the team can make a move or two to improve. Much will be answered in the first 20 games. Ron Washington’s teams have started slow every season. They (especially Washington) cannot afford a 7-13 start.
I am ready for the season and hope that in September I can look back at this post and be so wrong. But from my amateur assessment, I see the Rangers finishing 3rd in the division with an 79-83 record. Even so, I will be cheering for them all the way.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
"C'mon You Guys Play Ball"
Next week, MLB will be in full swing. It’s a great time of year. Every team, except for the Nationals, is full of optimism. The beginning of the baseball season sparks life into every fan. How will the team do? What about the rookies and second year players? The free agents? Will they stay healthy? Hope is prevalent on Opening Day.
I’ve been thinking about memorable Ranger seasons. Two come to mind. The 1996 Rangers, the first team to go to the post-season, began the year 7-0. Will Clark, Kevin Elster, Rusty Greer, Pudge, Juan Gonzalez, Ken Hill, Roger Pavlik, Darren Oliver. The late, great Johnny Oates as manager. This was a good team – lacking a closer – which won Game 1 in the playoffs, thanks to the commanding performance of the professional bowler John Burkett, and then lost the next three to the dreaded Yankees. I still remember the gem Darren Oliver threw in Game 3, which ended in a 2-1 loss. Even with the disappointment in the post-season, which saw Mike Henneman blow saves, the 1996 Rangers remain my favorite bunch.
The other memorable Ranger team for me was the 1989 group. This was Nolan Ryan’s first year, as well as W’s first as owner, I believe. The team began 10-1. Finished the first month 17-6. (I remember this from the win-loss calendar I kept that year in my room, faithfully marking the team’s record after each game.) This was going to be the year. Ryan was on the cover of Sports Illustrated. The team was on fire. So much so, that after the initial start, Y95’s morning show created a Ranger song, which will forever be in my memory:
Verse 1:
The Rangers are ready
It’s George instead of Eddie
And Tom and Bobby have a team that’s hot.
Nolan Ryan’s quite a lad
He makes the hitters mad
Three up, thee down, we go to bat and we’re really glad
Chorus:
We’re talking baseball
Bring on the boys of summer
Talking baseball
Let’s have some hits and runners
And when we see a homer clear the wall
We’ll know the boys have come to play some ball
Ranger baseball, c’mon you guys play ball.
Verse 2:
There’s Inky and Sierra
Don’t forget Toby Harrah
Along with Rafael and Buddy Bell
There’s Scooter and the Bue
Bobby Witt and Franco too
Charlie Hough’s on the hill and Cecil’s in centerfield.
Chorus:
We’re talking baseball
Bring on the boys of summer
Talking baseball
Let’s have some hits and runners
And when we see a homer clear the wall
We’ll know the boys have come to play some ball
Ranger baseball, c’mon you guys play ball.
Why that has stuck in my head all these years I’ll never know. But at the beginning of every season, it is on continuous loop in the recesses of my brain. This 1989 team which began 17-6, ended the season 83-79, well out of the playoffs. But still, a memorable season.
So will the 2010 team be a memorable one? Will they win the division? Will they start fast or slow? Will Ron Washington make it through the season? I’ll blog about all of that tomorrow.
I’ve been thinking about memorable Ranger seasons. Two come to mind. The 1996 Rangers, the first team to go to the post-season, began the year 7-0. Will Clark, Kevin Elster, Rusty Greer, Pudge, Juan Gonzalez, Ken Hill, Roger Pavlik, Darren Oliver. The late, great Johnny Oates as manager. This was a good team – lacking a closer – which won Game 1 in the playoffs, thanks to the commanding performance of the professional bowler John Burkett, and then lost the next three to the dreaded Yankees. I still remember the gem Darren Oliver threw in Game 3, which ended in a 2-1 loss. Even with the disappointment in the post-season, which saw Mike Henneman blow saves, the 1996 Rangers remain my favorite bunch.
The other memorable Ranger team for me was the 1989 group. This was Nolan Ryan’s first year, as well as W’s first as owner, I believe. The team began 10-1. Finished the first month 17-6. (I remember this from the win-loss calendar I kept that year in my room, faithfully marking the team’s record after each game.) This was going to be the year. Ryan was on the cover of Sports Illustrated. The team was on fire. So much so, that after the initial start, Y95’s morning show created a Ranger song, which will forever be in my memory:
Verse 1:
The Rangers are ready
It’s George instead of Eddie
And Tom and Bobby have a team that’s hot.
Nolan Ryan’s quite a lad
He makes the hitters mad
Three up, thee down, we go to bat and we’re really glad
Chorus:
We’re talking baseball
Bring on the boys of summer
Talking baseball
Let’s have some hits and runners
And when we see a homer clear the wall
We’ll know the boys have come to play some ball
Ranger baseball, c’mon you guys play ball.
Verse 2:
There’s Inky and Sierra
Don’t forget Toby Harrah
Along with Rafael and Buddy Bell
There’s Scooter and the Bue
Bobby Witt and Franco too
Charlie Hough’s on the hill and Cecil’s in centerfield.
Chorus:
We’re talking baseball
Bring on the boys of summer
Talking baseball
Let’s have some hits and runners
And when we see a homer clear the wall
We’ll know the boys have come to play some ball
Ranger baseball, c’mon you guys play ball.
Why that has stuck in my head all these years I’ll never know. But at the beginning of every season, it is on continuous loop in the recesses of my brain. This 1989 team which began 17-6, ended the season 83-79, well out of the playoffs. But still, a memorable season.
So will the 2010 team be a memorable one? Will they win the division? Will they start fast or slow? Will Ron Washington make it through the season? I’ll blog about all of that tomorrow.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
I Must Be Doing Something Right
There are moments in my life as a father when I realize, “Maybe I’m doing a pretty good job.” Like when Grant began his love for Star Wars and his dislike for the Yankees. Another one of those moments came last night. Every year during March Madness, I help our kids fill out a bracket. This began when Grant was less than 1 year old. I would set two cheerios in front of him for each team, and whichever one he grabbed first would be his selection for that game. Thus began our yearly family bracketology.
So last night, we filled out brackets. For Claire, she loved picking teams that shared names with some of her friends; hence, Xavier, Murray St., Morgan St., and Siena go pretty far in her bracket this year. Tessa decided to pick the ones that sounded cutest. Even so, they’ll probably do better than me with their picks. But what really affirmed my fatherhood is what Grant did for his picks. We initially went through the bracket together. But right before bed, he decided to redo his picks, so he wanted to take a blank bracket to bed last night with him. So I printed it off, he grabbed a pen and went to his room. About an hour later, he called us in his room – he had thoughtfully and completely filled out his bracket, including the final score of the championship game! Success. I must be doing something right.
So last night, we filled out brackets. For Claire, she loved picking teams that shared names with some of her friends; hence, Xavier, Murray St., Morgan St., and Siena go pretty far in her bracket this year. Tessa decided to pick the ones that sounded cutest. Even so, they’ll probably do better than me with their picks. But what really affirmed my fatherhood is what Grant did for his picks. We initially went through the bracket together. But right before bed, he decided to redo his picks, so he wanted to take a blank bracket to bed last night with him. So I printed it off, he grabbed a pen and went to his room. About an hour later, he called us in his room – he had thoughtfully and completely filled out his bracket, including the final score of the championship game! Success. I must be doing something right.
Monday, March 01, 2010
I'm Voting For Kay
In tomorrow’s Gubernatorial Election, I will cast my vote for Kay Bailey Hutchison. Over the coming years, Hutchison is the best person to lead the Texas Government to face such issues as education, immigration, and the budget. Additionally, I will support Hutchison because of the record Perry has amassed over the last 10 years as Governor. We have never had a Governor serve as long as he has (10 years), and now he wants four more. What exactly has Perry accomplished?
1. Perry overstepped his authority and mandated the HPV vaccine for 12 year old girls. Why? Because he received money from the pharmaceutical company that produces the vaccine and because he believes that he should have more power as Governor than the Texas Constitution gives him. Without consent of the legislature and with limited testing of the vaccine, Perry decided he knew better than parents and elected members of the Legislature in issuing his proclamation. Thankfully, the Legislature acted to stop his abuse of power.
2. He tried to pressure the Comptroller to certify a budget that wasn’t manageable and threatened to overstep the Constitution again by stripping the Comptroller’s power away from her. Again, while he campaigns as a small government guy, he has acted differently as Governor.
3. He said that Texas could secede from the Union. That kind of irresponsible comment should not be tolerated from an elected official who is the figurehead of the state.
4. He believes in using eminent domain to take land away from private landowners to build a roadway no one wants.
5. He received 39% of the vote in 2006, showing how few people actually supported the job he is doing as Governor. While the Republican nominee is likely to win in November, 39% should give Republicans pause.
The Texas Government has traditionally been a friendly government that steers clear of party ideology. Since Perry became Governor, partisanship in Austin has increased. While I think Perry will win the nomination tomorrow, I believe Hutchison would make the better leader for Texas. Unfortunately, the Governor who wants more control and power has somehow been able to convince others that he is for small government. He has run a successful campaign, but I feel that once 2011 is here, Perry will revert back to his controlling style. Meanwhile, I believe the last office Hutchison will seek is Texas Governor. She has no ambitions for higher office, which means she will be more interested in meeting the needs of Texans rather than trying to impress a national committee. So, I'm voting for Kay.
1. Perry overstepped his authority and mandated the HPV vaccine for 12 year old girls. Why? Because he received money from the pharmaceutical company that produces the vaccine and because he believes that he should have more power as Governor than the Texas Constitution gives him. Without consent of the legislature and with limited testing of the vaccine, Perry decided he knew better than parents and elected members of the Legislature in issuing his proclamation. Thankfully, the Legislature acted to stop his abuse of power.
2. He tried to pressure the Comptroller to certify a budget that wasn’t manageable and threatened to overstep the Constitution again by stripping the Comptroller’s power away from her. Again, while he campaigns as a small government guy, he has acted differently as Governor.
3. He said that Texas could secede from the Union. That kind of irresponsible comment should not be tolerated from an elected official who is the figurehead of the state.
4. He believes in using eminent domain to take land away from private landowners to build a roadway no one wants.
5. He received 39% of the vote in 2006, showing how few people actually supported the job he is doing as Governor. While the Republican nominee is likely to win in November, 39% should give Republicans pause.
The Texas Government has traditionally been a friendly government that steers clear of party ideology. Since Perry became Governor, partisanship in Austin has increased. While I think Perry will win the nomination tomorrow, I believe Hutchison would make the better leader for Texas. Unfortunately, the Governor who wants more control and power has somehow been able to convince others that he is for small government. He has run a successful campaign, but I feel that once 2011 is here, Perry will revert back to his controlling style. Meanwhile, I believe the last office Hutchison will seek is Texas Governor. She has no ambitions for higher office, which means she will be more interested in meeting the needs of Texans rather than trying to impress a national committee. So, I'm voting for Kay.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Bye, Bayh, For Now
My favorite elected Democrat is leaving the Senate. Evan Bayh has surveyed the political landscape, the Democratic Party, the current administration, and the state of Indiana and has decided not to seek reelection. I think Bayh is one of the few true moderate Democrats, and I believe him when he says how frustrated he is with partisan politics and the Senate. And while he took shots at Republicans, he also took a mighty swipe and President Obama when he confessed that the government has not created one job this year and that spending is out of control. So what will Bayh do now?
I hope he is gearing up for a run for the presidency in 2012. As he sees the self-destruction of the leftward moving Democratic Party under Obama and Pelosi, I think he may be seeking to bring the party back to the “Bill Clinton” center. He may not have the fight to do so, but if he mounted a challenge against Obama in 2012, he could definitely make it interesting. Depending on whom the Republicans nominate, I would strongly consider voting for Bayh in 2012. He seems like a decent guy who truly feels that the partisan politics of Washington and the movement of the Democratic Party to the far-left are highly detrimental to our country and our future. Bayh for President in 2012!
I hope he is gearing up for a run for the presidency in 2012. As he sees the self-destruction of the leftward moving Democratic Party under Obama and Pelosi, I think he may be seeking to bring the party back to the “Bill Clinton” center. He may not have the fight to do so, but if he mounted a challenge against Obama in 2012, he could definitely make it interesting. Depending on whom the Republicans nominate, I would strongly consider voting for Bayh in 2012. He seems like a decent guy who truly feels that the partisan politics of Washington and the movement of the Democratic Party to the far-left are highly detrimental to our country and our future. Bayh for President in 2012!
Thursday, January 21, 2010
One Year Later
What a difference a year makes! This time last year, President Obama was inaugurated, the Republican Party was dead, and everything was George W. Bush’s fault. Obama’s approval rating was close to 70 percent. As the “moderate” candidate Obama became the “liberal” President, public opinion began to shift. After the 2008 Election, many pundits wondered if America, which traditionally has been a center-right country, had shifted to a center-left country. So what happened? The administration closed Guantanamo Bay and hired lawyers to defend terrorists. Delayed responding to the escalation of war in Afghanistan, and were caught off guard by Al Qaeda’s determination to attack the country. After campaigning on reducing abortions, Obama began funding abortions overseas with tax money. Meanwhile, unemployment had risen above 10 percent, even after the $800 billion stimulus which was supposed to keep unemployment under 8 percent. The Tea Parties across the country were laughed at and ridiculed. Purple Virginia and blue New Jersey elected Republican Governors. However, this was dismissed by the administration as merely the result of poor Democratic candidates. The Democratic Party and the President ignored the warning signs and pushed ahead with an unpopular health care bill. After campaigning on openness and transparency, the Obama administration became secretive, holding Democrat only meetings behind closed doors, paying off wary Senators in exchange for their votes. President Obama’s approval rating plummeted more than any other president in modern history. Yet, somehow, the American public was still ignored.
Then, in a stunning turn of events this week, the Senate seat held by the late Ted Kennedy in liberal Massachusetts, a state Obama won by 25 points last year, went Republican, electing Scott Brown as Senator. I still cannot fully wrap my mind around how stunning that is. The Republican Party, declared dead this time last year, won in Massachusetts of all places. Will the administration and Democrats ignore this too?
It appears so. In Robert Gibbs press conference yesterday, he tried to spin Brown’s election in Obama’s favor. Gibbs, Obama’s press secretary, tried to convince the American people that the vote in Massachusetts was not about Obama’s policies, but rather, the result of – get ready – what Bush had done to the country. In an interview yesterday, Obama believes the the same thing. Is he that delusional? Arrogant? Or just in denial and shock?
As we approach November and the mid-term elections, how will the Democratic Party respond? This may serve as a good wake-up call for them to take Clinton’s practical approach and move to the center before it’s too late. But Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are much more ideological than Bill Clinton was. The Democratic leadership continues to think one of two things: a.) they just simply aren’t explaining their plans well enough, or b.) the American people are stupid. If those remain their only two thoughts, then the Democratic Party is in for a major defeat come November. Yet to be seen is whether or not the Blue Dog Democrats are truly blue dogs and able to stand up against their liberal leadership. Evan Bayh, are you there?
As for the Republicans, Scott Brown laid out a great template for the campaign. Fight against spending and new taxes – attack terrorism instead of defending it – and allow states to decide for themselves what to do about many of these major issues such as health care. What Massachusetts proved last night, and what Virginia and New Jersey proved in November, and what the polls have said all along, is that this country is still a center-right country that values limited government and individual liberty. It will be interesting to see whether Obama and the Democrats understands this over the next few months.
Then, in a stunning turn of events this week, the Senate seat held by the late Ted Kennedy in liberal Massachusetts, a state Obama won by 25 points last year, went Republican, electing Scott Brown as Senator. I still cannot fully wrap my mind around how stunning that is. The Republican Party, declared dead this time last year, won in Massachusetts of all places. Will the administration and Democrats ignore this too?
It appears so. In Robert Gibbs press conference yesterday, he tried to spin Brown’s election in Obama’s favor. Gibbs, Obama’s press secretary, tried to convince the American people that the vote in Massachusetts was not about Obama’s policies, but rather, the result of – get ready – what Bush had done to the country. In an interview yesterday, Obama believes the the same thing. Is he that delusional? Arrogant? Or just in denial and shock?
As we approach November and the mid-term elections, how will the Democratic Party respond? This may serve as a good wake-up call for them to take Clinton’s practical approach and move to the center before it’s too late. But Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are much more ideological than Bill Clinton was. The Democratic leadership continues to think one of two things: a.) they just simply aren’t explaining their plans well enough, or b.) the American people are stupid. If those remain their only two thoughts, then the Democratic Party is in for a major defeat come November. Yet to be seen is whether or not the Blue Dog Democrats are truly blue dogs and able to stand up against their liberal leadership. Evan Bayh, are you there?
As for the Republicans, Scott Brown laid out a great template for the campaign. Fight against spending and new taxes – attack terrorism instead of defending it – and allow states to decide for themselves what to do about many of these major issues such as health care. What Massachusetts proved last night, and what Virginia and New Jersey proved in November, and what the polls have said all along, is that this country is still a center-right country that values limited government and individual liberty. It will be interesting to see whether Obama and the Democrats understands this over the next few months.
Thursday, November 05, 2009
Grantism, Claireism, and Tessism
One day this week (following the time change), Grant came home with his school work. In his math class, the students have 1 minute to complete a page of 25 math problems. Grant usually completes them all, but this time, he had only completed about 15 of the 25. I asked him what happened and he replied, "I don't know, the minute seemed really short. I think maybe the minute got messed up because of the time change on Sunday."
Our neighbors had a Halloween light display. Our kids loved to go look at it. One time, Claire kept walking up closer and closer to their front door. I told her to come back and she replied, "Do you think I'm a burglar or something?!"
The other day, in preparation for becoming a nurse, Jessica was shadowing at one hospital and then volunteering at Mission Arlington's medical clinic. As I was taking care of the kids, Tessa asked, "Where's mommy?" Since she was doing things preparing her to be a nurse, I said, "Mommy's at work." Tessa looked at me like I was crazy and said, "Mommy's not a boy!"
Our neighbors had a Halloween light display. Our kids loved to go look at it. One time, Claire kept walking up closer and closer to their front door. I told her to come back and she replied, "Do you think I'm a burglar or something?!"
The other day, in preparation for becoming a nurse, Jessica was shadowing at one hospital and then volunteering at Mission Arlington's medical clinic. As I was taking care of the kids, Tessa asked, "Where's mommy?" Since she was doing things preparing her to be a nurse, I said, "Mommy's at work." Tessa looked at me like I was crazy and said, "Mommy's not a boy!"
Friday, October 23, 2009
Election Day 2009! Get Excited!
I’m sure everyone is well aware of the election in 11 days. You know, that one with eleven propositions to amend the Texas Constitution and a local school bond proposal? I know, it’s not as sexy as a presidential election, but these local elections affect our lives much more than the president ever will (unless you are in the military). So it is important to go vote Tuesday, November 3rd. If you don’t care to read about each proposition, here’s my general rule of thumb concerning propositions (amendments to the Texas Constitution): When in doubt, vote “AGAINST.” For bonds: When in doubt, vote "FOR." However, if you take the time to read up on the propositions, you can make a more informed vote. So here’s my take: I’ll list the proposition number, how I’m voting, and the reasons why.
Proposition 1 – FOR - Basically, this amendment allows local governments to purchase land adjacent to military bases, thus allowing a buffer zone from encroaching development that might hamper the training on the base. Voters would be able to hold local governments accountable for every purchase, which will restrict unnecessary expenditures while allowing for the governments to protect the economic benefits the bases provide for their communities. I could just as easily vote against this amendment, but due to the ultimate accountability to the voter, I will vote for it.
Proposition 2 – FOR – This amendment will protect homeowners from having their home values taxed at a higher "potential use" rate of the property rather than the current value of the property. While it could limit the amount of taxes local governments take in, I think it is only fair to tax people for what their property is currently worth as they are using it, not what it might be in the future if a developer owns it and the value explodes.
Proposition 3 – AGAINST – This amendment would take away local control of property appraisal and create a statewide standard instead. Local appraisers are trained by the state already, and the local appraiser may know more about the local issues affecting property values than the state. I guess I just prefer local government to handle this.
Proposition 4 – AGAINST – This amendment funnels money to seven universities in the state in an attempt to make them top-tier public research universities. I’m not opposed to having more top-tier public research universities in Texas, but to spread money between seven of them seems too broad of a stroke. Also, a big concern when universities become top-tier is that the focus shifts from the undergraduate student to the graduate student. I wouldn’t want to see undergrad education weakened in the process. Additionally, with our economy currently sputtering along, this money may be better spent elsewhere.
Proposition 5 – FOR – Small counties that struggle to find enough qualified people to sit on appraisal boards can partner with neighboring counties to share the process. It eases the challenge of small communities to find enough qualified personnel and allows them, if they choose, to join forces with others.
Proposition 6 – FOR – This would allow the Veterans’ Land Board to provide adequate services to Texas veterans dealing with home mortgages. I assume a veteran has earned a little extra help, so I’m for it.
Proposition 7 – FOR – This amendment allows a member of the Texas State Guard to hold another public office if they so choose. During times of disaster, this amendment would make it easier for civil officials to serve in the guard to respond to the needs of the community if they so choose.
Proposition 8 – FOR – Allows for more funding for Veterans’ hospitals in Texas. Provides hospitals that will perhaps be closer than the current ones for those in need. My one worry - I would like to make sure that the Veterans’ hospitals are providing for the needs of veterans though. I wouldn’t want to throw our money at something that is not adequately serving the veterans. So I am open to change my mind on this one.
Proposition 9 – AGAINST – This amendment would give the government too much authority to infringe upon local land owners near beaches.
Proposition 10 – FOR – This amendment lengthens the terms of emergency service board members from 2 years to 4, basically allowing for more continuity for the districts and reducing the amount of needed elections.
Proposition 11 – FOR – Although I think this amendment is a little unnecessary (we already have laws on this) and confusing (what does “enjoyment of the property by the State” mean?), it will strengthen the requirements for eminent domain to protect property owners, while also allowing for eminent domain to be used to eliminate “urban blight.”
AISD Bond Election – FOR – the money from this bond election will be distributed equally across the district, providing funds to meet the needs of the school district. A strong, vibrant, and economically sound city must have healthy schools in order to maintain and improve the satisfaction in a community. We need to pass this to keep Arlington schools as one of the best in the area.
If you read this, I hope you will be part of the 5% turnout in the election November 3rd. Every vote counts.
Proposition 1 – FOR - Basically, this amendment allows local governments to purchase land adjacent to military bases, thus allowing a buffer zone from encroaching development that might hamper the training on the base. Voters would be able to hold local governments accountable for every purchase, which will restrict unnecessary expenditures while allowing for the governments to protect the economic benefits the bases provide for their communities. I could just as easily vote against this amendment, but due to the ultimate accountability to the voter, I will vote for it.
Proposition 2 – FOR – This amendment will protect homeowners from having their home values taxed at a higher "potential use" rate of the property rather than the current value of the property. While it could limit the amount of taxes local governments take in, I think it is only fair to tax people for what their property is currently worth as they are using it, not what it might be in the future if a developer owns it and the value explodes.
Proposition 3 – AGAINST – This amendment would take away local control of property appraisal and create a statewide standard instead. Local appraisers are trained by the state already, and the local appraiser may know more about the local issues affecting property values than the state. I guess I just prefer local government to handle this.
Proposition 4 – AGAINST – This amendment funnels money to seven universities in the state in an attempt to make them top-tier public research universities. I’m not opposed to having more top-tier public research universities in Texas, but to spread money between seven of them seems too broad of a stroke. Also, a big concern when universities become top-tier is that the focus shifts from the undergraduate student to the graduate student. I wouldn’t want to see undergrad education weakened in the process. Additionally, with our economy currently sputtering along, this money may be better spent elsewhere.
Proposition 5 – FOR – Small counties that struggle to find enough qualified people to sit on appraisal boards can partner with neighboring counties to share the process. It eases the challenge of small communities to find enough qualified personnel and allows them, if they choose, to join forces with others.
Proposition 6 – FOR – This would allow the Veterans’ Land Board to provide adequate services to Texas veterans dealing with home mortgages. I assume a veteran has earned a little extra help, so I’m for it.
Proposition 7 – FOR – This amendment allows a member of the Texas State Guard to hold another public office if they so choose. During times of disaster, this amendment would make it easier for civil officials to serve in the guard to respond to the needs of the community if they so choose.
Proposition 8 – FOR – Allows for more funding for Veterans’ hospitals in Texas. Provides hospitals that will perhaps be closer than the current ones for those in need. My one worry - I would like to make sure that the Veterans’ hospitals are providing for the needs of veterans though. I wouldn’t want to throw our money at something that is not adequately serving the veterans. So I am open to change my mind on this one.
Proposition 9 – AGAINST – This amendment would give the government too much authority to infringe upon local land owners near beaches.
Proposition 10 – FOR – This amendment lengthens the terms of emergency service board members from 2 years to 4, basically allowing for more continuity for the districts and reducing the amount of needed elections.
Proposition 11 – FOR – Although I think this amendment is a little unnecessary (we already have laws on this) and confusing (what does “enjoyment of the property by the State” mean?), it will strengthen the requirements for eminent domain to protect property owners, while also allowing for eminent domain to be used to eliminate “urban blight.”
AISD Bond Election – FOR – the money from this bond election will be distributed equally across the district, providing funds to meet the needs of the school district. A strong, vibrant, and economically sound city must have healthy schools in order to maintain and improve the satisfaction in a community. We need to pass this to keep Arlington schools as one of the best in the area.
If you read this, I hope you will be part of the 5% turnout in the election November 3rd. Every vote counts.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Don't Stress About Those Unhealthy Details
“While there remain significant details to be ironed out…” President Obama, September 9, 2009
This speech last night was what I love and hate about politics. Here’s a speech crafted well to say one thing while actually meaning another, to praise the opposition while calling them liars, to decry scare tactics while using them (“If my plan is not passed, people will die!”), and to offer a proposal without any details. This was Obama in full campaign mode. What continues to baffle and intrigue me is how people still swoon over his rhetoric when his actions don’t match up.
The key quote of the night: “While there remain significant details to be ironed out....” The President talked about his proposal, when he has not submitted a bill to Congress. In fact, there are currently up to five different bills in Congress. So which proposal is he talking about? And what details still need to be hammered out? When the President seems intent on passing a bill now, it seems to me that all the details should be hammered out by now. And I wonder just how the cost of this plan can be truly measured when “there remain significant details to be ironed out.” Details are what caused the projected deficits to escalate from $7 trillion at the start of the summer to $9 trillion currently. Details are what made the so called Stimulus bill not very stimulating. (A lack of details always makes government run programs underestimate costs and overestimate effectiveness.) Well, unfortunately, the President offered no details last night, but rather broad campaign promises and partisan attacks.
This certainly is a contentious issue. Just before the now notorious Rep. Wilson, in the middle of the speech, shouted out “You lie,” the President had called opponents to his plan liars. He said people who question the wisdom of the government’s ability to ration health care “lie, plain and simple.” Now, certainly, Rep. Wilson was wrong to shout out when he did, but so was the President in calling honest debate “lies.” Obama’s “liar, liar” accusation was referring to those who believe the President’s plan will create “death panels” – bureaucrats who will make future decisions about who gets health care, based on the idea that if this plan is going to be deficit neutral, and if everyone will be covered, then at some point, the government will have to decide who gets what care and when. The President calls that logic a lie; however, a few minutes after the President denied that bureaucrats will do this, he said that his proposal would create a “commission” which will identify “waste” in the years ahead. And how will the details of the bill define “waste”? How will the government save money in the future? What procedures will be deemed “wasteful”? While the President is correct to say there is nothing called a death panel in the proposal, the result of a commission to identify waste could easily end up doing just that. He said as much in a town hall a few months ago, when he mentioned that it didn’t make sense for the elderly to receive certain expensive treatments, but merely a pain pill instead.
One last thing, a pattern seems to be developing in Obama’s speeches and then subsequent action. He has said, “I don’t like big government” but has increased the size and scope of the government. A few months ago, he said “I have no interest in running a car company,” and then took over GM. And last night he said, “I have no interest in putting insurance companies out of business…” Hmm.
According to President Obama, he will once and for all address health care. We’ll never have to deal with health care again as a society. Once the bill passes, he can finally declare, “It is finished.”
This speech last night was what I love and hate about politics. Here’s a speech crafted well to say one thing while actually meaning another, to praise the opposition while calling them liars, to decry scare tactics while using them (“If my plan is not passed, people will die!”), and to offer a proposal without any details. This was Obama in full campaign mode. What continues to baffle and intrigue me is how people still swoon over his rhetoric when his actions don’t match up.
The key quote of the night: “While there remain significant details to be ironed out....” The President talked about his proposal, when he has not submitted a bill to Congress. In fact, there are currently up to five different bills in Congress. So which proposal is he talking about? And what details still need to be hammered out? When the President seems intent on passing a bill now, it seems to me that all the details should be hammered out by now. And I wonder just how the cost of this plan can be truly measured when “there remain significant details to be ironed out.” Details are what caused the projected deficits to escalate from $7 trillion at the start of the summer to $9 trillion currently. Details are what made the so called Stimulus bill not very stimulating. (A lack of details always makes government run programs underestimate costs and overestimate effectiveness.) Well, unfortunately, the President offered no details last night, but rather broad campaign promises and partisan attacks.
This certainly is a contentious issue. Just before the now notorious Rep. Wilson, in the middle of the speech, shouted out “You lie,” the President had called opponents to his plan liars. He said people who question the wisdom of the government’s ability to ration health care “lie, plain and simple.” Now, certainly, Rep. Wilson was wrong to shout out when he did, but so was the President in calling honest debate “lies.” Obama’s “liar, liar” accusation was referring to those who believe the President’s plan will create “death panels” – bureaucrats who will make future decisions about who gets health care, based on the idea that if this plan is going to be deficit neutral, and if everyone will be covered, then at some point, the government will have to decide who gets what care and when. The President calls that logic a lie; however, a few minutes after the President denied that bureaucrats will do this, he said that his proposal would create a “commission” which will identify “waste” in the years ahead. And how will the details of the bill define “waste”? How will the government save money in the future? What procedures will be deemed “wasteful”? While the President is correct to say there is nothing called a death panel in the proposal, the result of a commission to identify waste could easily end up doing just that. He said as much in a town hall a few months ago, when he mentioned that it didn’t make sense for the elderly to receive certain expensive treatments, but merely a pain pill instead.
One last thing, a pattern seems to be developing in Obama’s speeches and then subsequent action. He has said, “I don’t like big government” but has increased the size and scope of the government. A few months ago, he said “I have no interest in running a car company,” and then took over GM. And last night he said, “I have no interest in putting insurance companies out of business…” Hmm.
According to President Obama, he will once and for all address health care. We’ll never have to deal with health care again as a society. Once the bill passes, he can finally declare, “It is finished.”
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
A Little Civility Is Good for Our Health
I’m weary of seeing footage of angry people at town halls yelling constantly at members of Congress. However, I am not naïve enough to think that this is occurring at every town hall meeting or even a majority of town hall meetings. I imagine that most town halls have civil discussions on the issue that border on boredom. But certainly, there seems to be a frenzy at a few of these meetings that grabs all the headlines. The problem? It takes the discussion off of health care and onto the protesters. It gives members of Congress the ability to simply dismiss the dissent as irrational, thus weakening the dissenting viewpoint for those discussing it rationally. For those who are overly vocal: Your point has been made. People are upset and scared about health care reform. Everybody gets that. Thanks for bringing it to everyone’s attention. Now, though, ask your questions rationally. Allow the members of Congress to respond. Let’s have this debate on the merits of the bill and not on pure emotion. Win the argument with real discussion, not shouting. Because what will eventually happen, if this remains emotionally charged, is that more and more people will support the health care plan out of frustration with the protesters. It’s why Bill Clinton’s approval rating was highest during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. People had enough of the heated rhetoric and attacks and circled the wagons. It’s human nature. If the protesters aren’t cautious, they are going to cause a circling of the wagons around this health care reform as well and end up contributing to its passing rather than defeat. So chill out a little. Keep writing and calling your Representatives and Senators if you want. Keep talking to your friends. Keep attending town halls and asking questions. The argument against this particular bill appears to be winning. However, at this point, outrageous protesting at town halls only hurts the argument.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Who is Now the Most Trusted Person in America?
Walter Cronkite was considered the “Most Trusted Man in America” during his reign as the original anchorman. His coverage of such enormous events as JFK’s assassination and the moon landing are classic examples of how he earned this moniker. But with his passing, who now is considered the most trusted person in America? In our cynical culture, is it even possible anymore to have someone recognized as the most trusted person?
The Candidates for “Most Trusted Person in America”:
1. Oprah Winfrey. Pros: everyone knows who she is, she is often mentioned as one of the most influential people in our society. Cons: her ratings have recently gone down. I think it is directly related to her endorsement of Obama last spring. Who watches Oprah? Mainly women. She endorses Obama, the Hillary supporters get mad at her and the Republican women get mad at her. She had always stood above politics before the endorsement. While it helped Obama, I think it hurt her. She has also become even more self-obsessed in my estimation over the last few years (if that's possible). So while she is highly influential, could she be “the most trusted”?
2. Colin Powell. Pros: Thoughtful, well respected, fairly apolitical. Cons: the liberals dislike him because he helped lead us into the Iraq War; the conservatives don’t like him because he endorsed Obama. So his seemingly apolitical style has taken some political hits. Still a strong contender though, but his political life probably disqualifies him.
3. Charlie Gibson. Pros: delivers the news in a straightforward manner. Has been on television for years as both a serious newsman and a morning show guy. Cons: the news has become so politicized since Cronkite’s day that it is probably impossible for any news anchor to ever be considered “the most trusted.” Tom Brokaw perhaps might be included in this discussion as well, but he is rarely on anymore.
4. Tom Hanks. I heard someone on the radio throw out Hanks as a possibility. He is certainly a well respected actor, but the stigma of Hollywood is too much for any actor to overcome. But of all the actors, he probably would be the most trusted. He’s Forrest Gump, after all!
5. Rick Warren. Among evangelicals, he might not even be the pick, but he has had such a high profile lately, that he would be a candidate. But not enough people probably even know who he is to be considered “the most trusted.” Plus, he has not attained Billy Graham's stature yet.
6. Ryan Seacrest. Just kidding...kind of.
Do any of these come close to Cronkite? Are we too politicized, and do we have simply too many media outlets these days for anyone to amass enough credibility to be “The Most Trusted Person in America”? I think so. Of course, there's always Nolan Ryan.
The Candidates for “Most Trusted Person in America”:
1. Oprah Winfrey. Pros: everyone knows who she is, she is often mentioned as one of the most influential people in our society. Cons: her ratings have recently gone down. I think it is directly related to her endorsement of Obama last spring. Who watches Oprah? Mainly women. She endorses Obama, the Hillary supporters get mad at her and the Republican women get mad at her. She had always stood above politics before the endorsement. While it helped Obama, I think it hurt her. She has also become even more self-obsessed in my estimation over the last few years (if that's possible). So while she is highly influential, could she be “the most trusted”?
2. Colin Powell. Pros: Thoughtful, well respected, fairly apolitical. Cons: the liberals dislike him because he helped lead us into the Iraq War; the conservatives don’t like him because he endorsed Obama. So his seemingly apolitical style has taken some political hits. Still a strong contender though, but his political life probably disqualifies him.
3. Charlie Gibson. Pros: delivers the news in a straightforward manner. Has been on television for years as both a serious newsman and a morning show guy. Cons: the news has become so politicized since Cronkite’s day that it is probably impossible for any news anchor to ever be considered “the most trusted.” Tom Brokaw perhaps might be included in this discussion as well, but he is rarely on anymore.
4. Tom Hanks. I heard someone on the radio throw out Hanks as a possibility. He is certainly a well respected actor, but the stigma of Hollywood is too much for any actor to overcome. But of all the actors, he probably would be the most trusted. He’s Forrest Gump, after all!
5. Rick Warren. Among evangelicals, he might not even be the pick, but he has had such a high profile lately, that he would be a candidate. But not enough people probably even know who he is to be considered “the most trusted.” Plus, he has not attained Billy Graham's stature yet.
6. Ryan Seacrest. Just kidding...kind of.
Do any of these come close to Cronkite? Are we too politicized, and do we have simply too many media outlets these days for anyone to amass enough credibility to be “The Most Trusted Person in America”? I think so. Of course, there's always Nolan Ryan.
Friday, July 10, 2009
My Palin Admission
So I admit it. I was wrong about Sarah Palin.
I still think she has an inspiring back story. PTA-Mayor-Governor-VP nominee. It’s quite Hollywood. I still think the press demonized her: she never banned books, she never thought dinosaurs only lived 4,000 years ago, etc. I still don’t understand why so many on the left hated her so much (but I guess an equal amount on the right felt the same toward Hillary Clinton). I still think she was the best choice available for McCain – he was going to lose no matter what, at least she made it interesting.
However, since the election, the wheels have come off. Instead of studying up on the issues, she was fighting with David Letterman. Instead of building support, she acted like a diva within the party. And now, instead of enhancing her experience, she is quitting her job as governor. Why? It appears she has bought into the Hollywood story herself. She’s going to cash in now. I guess I don’t blame her. However, she is no longer the “Hockey Mom” fighting for the people, but rather the latest celebrity seeking to capitalize on her fame.
Perhaps she realized she has gone as far as she can. There’s no hope for her to capture the 2012 nomination. She’s not going to be anyone’s VP pick in 2012 either. She was about to face political challenges in Alaska. So, instead, she is set to write a book, make a load of money, and fade from the scene. It’s great for her. But she’s not the Sarah Palin I thought she was back in the summer of 2008. And it’s for the best. If she is not willing to put in the work as Governor or to sound more knowledgeable on the campaign trail and in interviews, then the Republican Party is better off without her as a serious contender in 2012. Not that she won’t have a voice in the Republican Party – she certainly does and should. But she shouldn’t be the voice of the Republican Party, which now with her latest actions, she will not be.
I still think she has an inspiring back story. PTA-Mayor-Governor-VP nominee. It’s quite Hollywood. I still think the press demonized her: she never banned books, she never thought dinosaurs only lived 4,000 years ago, etc. I still don’t understand why so many on the left hated her so much (but I guess an equal amount on the right felt the same toward Hillary Clinton). I still think she was the best choice available for McCain – he was going to lose no matter what, at least she made it interesting.
However, since the election, the wheels have come off. Instead of studying up on the issues, she was fighting with David Letterman. Instead of building support, she acted like a diva within the party. And now, instead of enhancing her experience, she is quitting her job as governor. Why? It appears she has bought into the Hollywood story herself. She’s going to cash in now. I guess I don’t blame her. However, she is no longer the “Hockey Mom” fighting for the people, but rather the latest celebrity seeking to capitalize on her fame.
Perhaps she realized she has gone as far as she can. There’s no hope for her to capture the 2012 nomination. She’s not going to be anyone’s VP pick in 2012 either. She was about to face political challenges in Alaska. So, instead, she is set to write a book, make a load of money, and fade from the scene. It’s great for her. But she’s not the Sarah Palin I thought she was back in the summer of 2008. And it’s for the best. If she is not willing to put in the work as Governor or to sound more knowledgeable on the campaign trail and in interviews, then the Republican Party is better off without her as a serious contender in 2012. Not that she won’t have a voice in the Republican Party – she certainly does and should. But she shouldn’t be the voice of the Republican Party, which now with her latest actions, she will not be.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
ABC: All Barack Channel
Tonight, ABC holds an hour long infomercial for President Obama to promote his national health plan. I can’t wait to hear all the “tough” questions Charlie Gibson and Diane Sawyer will ask. After seeing Diane Sawyer’s interview with Obama on GMA, I am not expecting much. She was practically massaging his feet by the end of the interview, but that’s Diane Sawyer. It’s fine for ABC to provide someone free airtime, but usually the network would have to provide the opposition equal time to respond, something which is not happening tonight. But with the current state of GOP leadership, no response might be a good thing for them right now – thanks Sen. Ensign and Gov. Sanford.
This infomercial is a great move for President Obama – why not take advantage of the fawning press? Even his press conference yesterday was full of staging – two of the reporters’ questions were pre-arranged with the President. Which is good for him, because he doesn’t handle criticism very well – after all, he is obsessed with everyone, including dictators, liking him. But imagine what would have happened had a conservative blogger and Bush pre-arranged press conference questions.
On Iran, I would have respected Obama’s position concerning Iran had he stayed the course of not “meddling.” However, his sharpening dialogue undermines his previous reason for not meddling, and according to his own rationale, puts the people of Iran at greater risk. I actually agree with him there. Meanwhile, North Korea is strengthening its nuclear program, promising to wipe America off the map if we meddle with them. It’s probably time for Obama to give a speech again, so that all these bad guys will stop being so aggressive. Maybe he should cook them hot dogs. What can’t be settled over a good hot dog?
This infomercial is a great move for President Obama – why not take advantage of the fawning press? Even his press conference yesterday was full of staging – two of the reporters’ questions were pre-arranged with the President. Which is good for him, because he doesn’t handle criticism very well – after all, he is obsessed with everyone, including dictators, liking him. But imagine what would have happened had a conservative blogger and Bush pre-arranged press conference questions.
On Iran, I would have respected Obama’s position concerning Iran had he stayed the course of not “meddling.” However, his sharpening dialogue undermines his previous reason for not meddling, and according to his own rationale, puts the people of Iran at greater risk. I actually agree with him there. Meanwhile, North Korea is strengthening its nuclear program, promising to wipe America off the map if we meddle with them. It’s probably time for Obama to give a speech again, so that all these bad guys will stop being so aggressive. Maybe he should cook them hot dogs. What can’t be settled over a good hot dog?
Friday, May 29, 2009
Is Sotomayor a "Racist"?
Why is the Republican Party so out of power these days? Oh, maybe due in part to the practice of taking a line out of context and then smearing someone as a racist. In the past week, a plethora of conservatives have accused Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor of being a racist. Why? Because in 2001, while delivering a speech at Berkeley, she said: “… I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
Any intellectually honest reader should place the phrase into context. In her speech, Sotomayor discussed how a judge’s life experiences can affect his or her rulings. A few sentences earlier than the oft cited passage, Sotomayor said, “Our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.” Throughout her speech, she wrestled with how our experiences affect the way we think. She was honestly discussing how a judge, who should aspire to have no bias, will nevertheless be influenced by his or her background. Is she claiming that because she is a Latina she will automatically make better decisions? No, I don’t perceive that. For one, she used the word “hope.” She was not making a definitive statement, but a hopeful one. If judges are affected by their pasts, then hopefully someone in her position will be able to make a better decision because of it, particularly if the issue is dealing with gender or minority issues. But she followed this statement by cautioning, “we should not be myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable… nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown [v BOE].”
Further, in the following paragraph, Sotomayor expounded a little more on what she means about life influences:
“Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.”
But does she believe these experiences trump the law? She continued:
“I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires…I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experiences and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.”
When placed in context, there is simply nothing in her speech that would lead me to believe Sotomayor is a racist. For some to suggest otherwise is just furthering the wilderness experience for Republicans. I am not surprised that Rush Limbaugh made this about race, but I am disappointed that Newt Gingrich has. He should be smarter than this.
I hope during the confirmation hearing that Sotomayor will be asked how she balances empathy and the law, how she goes about processing her background and experiences in her decisions, and whether she would ever violate the Constitution in favor of empathy. These are good legal arguments. But to suggest she is a racist is repugnant. It was beneath the Senate to accuse Sam Alito of racism, it should also be so to accuse Sotomayor of the same.
On empathy, I do not mind a judge having empathy as long as the rule of law is followed. In fact, when voting for judges in a primary in Texas, I often vote for a female over a male because of empathy and perspective, so I understand what Sotomayor is saying. Additionally, in reading some of her decisions, it appears that Sotomayor is a defender of religious liberty, which was encouraging to see. So from what I have read and researched, this is not a radical leftist that many would have us believe. Do I agree with her on everything? No. Would I prefer a more conservative pick? Sure. But conservatives didn't win the election. And if we don't change our tone, we will not win many in the future either.
Any intellectually honest reader should place the phrase into context. In her speech, Sotomayor discussed how a judge’s life experiences can affect his or her rulings. A few sentences earlier than the oft cited passage, Sotomayor said, “Our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.” Throughout her speech, she wrestled with how our experiences affect the way we think. She was honestly discussing how a judge, who should aspire to have no bias, will nevertheless be influenced by his or her background. Is she claiming that because she is a Latina she will automatically make better decisions? No, I don’t perceive that. For one, she used the word “hope.” She was not making a definitive statement, but a hopeful one. If judges are affected by their pasts, then hopefully someone in her position will be able to make a better decision because of it, particularly if the issue is dealing with gender or minority issues. But she followed this statement by cautioning, “we should not be myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable… nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown [v BOE].”
Further, in the following paragraph, Sotomayor expounded a little more on what she means about life influences:
“Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.”
But does she believe these experiences trump the law? She continued:
“I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires…I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experiences and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.”
When placed in context, there is simply nothing in her speech that would lead me to believe Sotomayor is a racist. For some to suggest otherwise is just furthering the wilderness experience for Republicans. I am not surprised that Rush Limbaugh made this about race, but I am disappointed that Newt Gingrich has. He should be smarter than this.
I hope during the confirmation hearing that Sotomayor will be asked how she balances empathy and the law, how she goes about processing her background and experiences in her decisions, and whether she would ever violate the Constitution in favor of empathy. These are good legal arguments. But to suggest she is a racist is repugnant. It was beneath the Senate to accuse Sam Alito of racism, it should also be so to accuse Sotomayor of the same.
On empathy, I do not mind a judge having empathy as long as the rule of law is followed. In fact, when voting for judges in a primary in Texas, I often vote for a female over a male because of empathy and perspective, so I understand what Sotomayor is saying. Additionally, in reading some of her decisions, it appears that Sotomayor is a defender of religious liberty, which was encouraging to see. So from what I have read and researched, this is not a radical leftist that many would have us believe. Do I agree with her on everything? No. Would I prefer a more conservative pick? Sure. But conservatives didn't win the election. And if we don't change our tone, we will not win many in the future either.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
On the Nomination of Judge Sotomayor
Elections have consequences. One of the perks of the ruling party is to nominate and confirm Supreme Court Justices. George W. Bush and a Republican Senate placed Roberts and Alito on the Court. Obama and a Democrat Senate now will place Judge Sotomayor on the highest court. Obama won the election, the Democrats dominate the Senate, end of story. The Republicans can certainly question Judge Sotomayor on her rulings, leanings, etc. It is highly responsible to do so, but I hope they do not engage in character assassination or heightened attacks on minor issues. The debate should be: Is she qualified? If the answer is yes, then she should be confirmed. While from what I read leads me to believe I disagree with her political leanings, she does appear to have the credentials. I know this will upset many people on the conservative side, but this is how our system works. Opposition to Sotomayor should be based on legal rulings, not on personal politics. I know this is not how Obama voted while in the Senate, (he opposed Roberts and Alito on pure personal politics) but it is how a Senator should approach these nominations. Presidents nominate Supreme Court Justices. Senators confirm. That’s the Constitution. If people are upset at her nomination, then they should start electing like-minded people to the Presidency and Senate so it won’t happen in the future.
In the long run, this pick will do little to alter the shape of the court. Retiring Justice Souter is one of the liberal justices, so Sotomayor will not be shifting the court any direction, but just maintaining the status quo. As the first Hispanic and third woman ever to serve, she also has a very compelling life story which should be an inspiration to all, no matter one’s political viewpoint.
In the long run, this pick will do little to alter the shape of the court. Retiring Justice Souter is one of the liberal justices, so Sotomayor will not be shifting the court any direction, but just maintaining the status quo. As the first Hispanic and third woman ever to serve, she also has a very compelling life story which should be an inspiration to all, no matter one’s political viewpoint.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)