FOUR FOR A FORTNIGHT
Next
weekend, I am happy to say that I will be in my “adopted home state” of
Minnesota, visiting my daughter Rebecca at Carleton College. Consequently, this post will have to suffice
for an entire fortnight.
For your reading
pleasure, I offer you thoughts on four separate topics. You can expect to hear from me again in early
February.
First, what does
everyone think about the Israeli elections coming up next week? Yes, that’s right, the elections that nobody
is talking about. Normally, the American
media pays attention when the Middle East’s oldest democracy opens its voting
booths. The problem however, is that
this time around you can’t find any prognosticator who gives the centrist or
leftist parties a chance – at least not a chance to control the government (as
opposed to serving in a back-benching capacity). Clearly, the rightward shift in Israeli
politics has become tectonic. What it hasn’t been is sudden.
Some might trace the
current hawkish trend among the Israelis to the Palestinian’s refusal to accept
the deal that Clinton was trying to broker in 2000. Others might point to the Palestinian
response to the Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in 2005, or even to the
first Israeli Gaza War in 2008. All of
these developments have caused Israelis in increasing numbers to question
whether the Palestinians can ever be trusted as partners for peace. That’s another way of saying that Israelis,
in droves, are giving up hope in the two-state solution, because they don’t
believe that enough Palestinians will willingly allow one of those states to be
“Jewish.”
As a result, progressive
Jews are beginning to sound these days like Chicken Little. Not only have many lost their respect for the
Israeli Government, but they are also becoming alienated from the Jewish State
itself. Talk about an oi vay!
Well, my friends, I can’t
lie to you and predict that Bibi Netanyahu will taste defeat this week. He’ll be re-elected for sure, and the government
he’ll form will make the hawks of yesteryear look like George McGovern by
comparison. But this Purim, February 23rd,
I intend to deliver an essay with the goal of lifting up our spirits when it
comes to the prospects for Middle East peace.
I might even post that essay on this blog, so look for it. It will reveal my continued faith that,
despite all the Jeremiads about the extremism in Israel and Palestine, I do
foresee light at the end of this tunnel.
After all, we are talking about the most beloved real estate in the
world – the land adored by the entire family of Abraham -- and just like all
other family feuds, this one ultimately must come to end. Insanity can only go on so long before the
critical mass of our species comes to its senses.
Don’t believe me? Consider that we have now survived seven full
decades since the Manhattan Project began, and we’re still here. That wouldn’t have happened if our instincts
for peace were stronger than our instincts for domination and violence. So keep the faith. And join me in working hard to support that
faith. Without hard work, faith and
prayers can only go so far.
Second, Ecclesiastes
said that there is a time for war and a time for peace. Well, I say that there’s also a place for war
and a place for peace. The Holy Land is
an example of the latter. Our attitude
toward steroid-abusing athletes should, in my view, be an example of the
former.
I know that a certain cyclist has been in the news lately, but I’m not a cycling aficionado. I’d rather talk about a sport that I actually
follow: baseball. This year, Barry
Bonds and Roger Clemons, two of the most dominant players in the sport’s
history became eligible for the Baseball Hall of Fame. Also eligible were the sluggers who, in 1998,
electrified the baseball world with their Homeric hoists – Mark McGuire and
Sammy Sosa. Yet, when all the votes were
tallied, none of these suspected drug abusers were listed on even 40 percent of
the ballots cast (75% is needed for election to the Hall). In fact, the pall that these and other stars
of their generation cast was so great that nobody else was elected to the Hall
this year, not even worthy candidates whose names have never been linked to
steroids. It’s as if the baseball
writers wanted to send the same message to this past generation of players that
the Biblical God sent to the Israelis who left Egypt: if enough of you disobey, you ALL will be
wandering in the wilderness!
I would hope that the Hall
of Fame voters don’t keep this up for a full 40 years. But I REALLY like the statement they made
this year, and it wouldn’t break my heart to see it repeated next year either,
when such obviously deserving candidates as Greg Maddox and Tom Clavine come up
for a vote. We need to keep ringing this
bell over and over and over again: no more PEDs! Performance enhancing drugs are ruining
sports. They are destroying the physical
and mental health of athletes in the professional ranks, in college, and even
in high school. Those who abuse them don’t
only cheat the sport or abuse their own long-term health, but they are implicitly
harming the health of other players by, in essence, requiring them to take
drugs in order to compete. As a result,
they are better analogized to drug dealers, not drug users.
I often hear talking
heads on TV or radio make excuses for the PED abusers: they just wanted to be
able to ply their trade when they got injured; they just wanted to be able to
compete on a level playing field with those who started resorting to PEDs; they
were just doing what their coaches condoned, or even encouraged. Blah, blah, blah.
Folks, I’m not saying
that the steroid takers are evil people.
What I am saying is that they’re not Hall of Famers. And we as fans need to throw our support
behind those who wish to deter PED use through various means, including not
only the symbolism of Hall of Fame votes but, more importantly, punitive and
comprehensive drug testing policies (the ones so commonly balked at by the
players’ unions). The sooner we clean up
professional sports, the safer it will be to compete at every level.
Third, speaking of
comprehensive policies, let’s give a big round of applause to President Obama
for his recent effort to attack another scourge on our society – guns and
ammo. Oh, I know: we can’t say we’re “anti-gun.” That wouldn’t be politically correct in this
gun-adoring country. But it’s clear
that in the liberal parts of coastal America, most of us really dislike guns,
and for folks like us, it is clear that the President’s plan is about as
sweeping as we could possibly hope for.
He’s fighting for criminal background checks, an assault weapons ban, a
ten-round limit on magazines, the elimination of cop-killing, armor-piercing
bullets, terminating the freeze on research involving gun violence, increasing
resources designed to improve the mental health of students, and various other
measures. This is bold leadership – just
the kind that many of us having been calling for since he was first elected
President in 2008.
I hate to quibble, but
there is one thing I wished the President could have added to his massive
proposal. I wish he could have taken a
more affirmative stand on the need to curb violence in movies and video
games. I realize that there is no research
support for the linkage between mass murders and violent programming. But common sense indicates that Hollywood’s
love affair with gun violence doesn’t exactly make us safer, if you get my
drift. Moreover, by refusing to assign a
larger role to Hollywood, President Obama creates the impression that he is
simply throwing red meat to his liberal base, and ignoring the legitimate
comments of conservatives. Massacre control shouldn’t be a partisan issue,
and those of us who are concerned about the violence epidemic in America had
better seek a broad tent when it comes to garnering allies. The President is missing a big opportunity
to do just that by taking on Hollywood violence. I love Quentin Tarantino as much as the next
guy, but taking him on could be Obama’s Sister Souljah moment.
Maybe President Obama
is indeed planning to take on Hollywood as part of his anti-violence
program. Maybe we’ll hear more about violent
filmmakers during his State of the Union address, or perhaps he intends to
deliver a passionate speech on the topic at around the time of the Academy
Awards. I certainly hope so. Because the longer he ignores that side of the
equation, the easier it will be for the NRA to capitalize on his omission and
make him sound like he’s just playing politics.
At the moment, though, that organization seems hell bent on shooting
itself in the foot, and from all appearances, its magazine has an endless
number of rounds to draw from. How
fitting.
Fourth and finally, I
would ask that on Monday morning, while our nation celebrates a day off of
work, we take a few moments to reflect on exactly why it is we won’t be going
to go to the office. Martin Luther King,
Jr. doesn’t have his face on American currency.
He didn’t sign the Declaration of Independence, didn’t free the slaves,
and isn’t represented on Mount Rushmore.
He didn’t get us out of a Great Depression or lead us to victory in
war. So does it make sense that we
selected him, and only him, as the one 20th century figure whose
birth merits a holiday?
In a word, yes! More than any other recent figure, Martin Luther
King, Jr. reminds us that racism, classism, and war mongering have been a
profound part of American history, but do not need to be part of America’s
future. He is the face of the movement
without which we would have no President Obama or Justice Thomas. Those of us who cannot imagine a time when
American blacks and whites drank from separate fountains or used separate
bathrooms have MLK above all others to thank.
Today, we tend to take
for granted the great figures of our past.
Monday is a day to remember one of the greatest. Let’s use it wisely.
P.S. -- Earl Weaver (1930-2013) -- RIP, and from every old-time baseball fan who grew up in Maryland, thanks for the memories.
No comments:
Post a Comment