Archive for April, 2009

Politics and the Olympics

 | 

I have just read an interesting story about the Long Island University men’s basketball team and the 1936 Olympics.

To summarize, the LIU team, made up of descendants of Jewish and Italian immigrants, was not only talented enough to be the de facto Olympic squad but apparently to walk away with gold medals. The Olympics of 1936 were held in Berlin and Germany was, of course, under the rule of Adolf Hitler. Despite the desires of many for the LIU team do forego politics and participate, the team and university declined, citing the political atmosphere in Germany.

It was a principled, reasonable and understandable decision; after all, passing up the opportunity for the fame and glory of Olympic success does say a lot, even if, as the ESPN story says, the decision remained secret for over 60 years.

However, consider the following:

1936 was also the year Jesse Owens, a member of the “inferior” African race, won four medals in track and field. Though he arguably wasn’t personally making a political stand (Owens was against the US boycott of the Moscow Olympics in 1980), his victories certainly flew in the face of the idea of Aryan superiority.

In the Mexico City Olympics of 1968, two black athletes, Tommie Smith and Juan Carlos, placed first and third in the 200 meters. During the medal ceremony, each man lifted a glove fist and performed the Black Power salute.

Both of those actions seem just as principled and bold. In the case of 1968 Games, there was a call for black athlete boycott. If Smith and Carlos had done so, there is a good chance that the United States would have still won medals (see the results for the 100 and 400 meter races), so would the absence of black athletes have made as much of a point as Smith and Carlos did on the podium?

I certainly acknowledge that the politics of the Long Island University basketball team, the United States, the German citizens and what would eventually become the Third Reich are much, much more complicated than I could ever hope to state. However, I can’t help but to wonder what might have happened if LIU went to the Olympics in 1936.

Maybe going to the Olympics might have seemed like they were ignoring Hitler’s persecution of the Jews. It’s even possible they would have even been cheated out of the medals by unscrupulous officiating. Also given that Jewish sprinters Marty Glickman and Sam Stoller were removed from the competition by US Olympic Committee chairman Avery Brundage, the LIU players (or at least the ones of Jewish descent) may never have gotten the chance. But if the LIU team was clearly better than the other players they would have been competing against, wouldn’t their victory also have made a statement against Hitler, especially coupled with Owens?

To say it bluntly: What a middle finger that would have been.

In the end, however, you just have to do what seems right to you. So hats off to the 1935-36 Long Island University basketball team for doing something that was far from easy. May we all have the fortitude to do so if the time ever comes.

  

When the Pots Protest the Kettles

 | 

I thought about heading to one of the Tea Party rallies in my area, even though I rarely attend protests, vigils, or the like. Given the descriptions of them in my daily newspapers, I’m glad I didn’t waste my time. I should have known better.

What I didn’t like was that the two Tea Parties near me weren’t only Tea Parties. That is to say while there were those in attendance who would have been more aligned with what I believe, there were also a good number protesting illegal immigration, and the supposed moral bankruptcy of the government and the nation, and Obama’s bailout (conveniently forgetting that Bush was the first to suggest giving taxpayer money to failing banks) and Obama’s power grab (which party was responsible for the USA PATRIOT Act again?), and so on, and so forth.

If McCain were elected instead of Obama, how many of the protesters would have shown up? McCain, like Bush, also supported the bailouts. Just a guess, but I think there would have not only been fewer protesters, but also fewer Tea Parties.

I would have gone to a true Tax Day rally on any April 15, no matter who was in office. Taxes are too high, government spending and debt is rampant, and there is little accountability to the taxpayer in any sense. That is and has been true no matter which of the two major parties was in control or whatever level of government is considered.

But three hours hanging around a bunch of red parrots? No thanks.

It’s why I write. If I believe taxes are too high, I don’t have to stand next some idiot comparing Obama to Mussolini. If I want the troops home from overseas, I’m not also automatically advocating the farce that is universal health care. And I hope I’ll keep that in mind the next time some seemingly agreeable political rally catches my attention.

  

When is second also first? When you’re Larry Doby.

 | 

Bud Selig, the commissioner of Major League Baseball, has done a number of things in his tenure I find, let’s say, less than palatable. He merged the American and National Leagues by eliminating the offices of league presidents and separate pools of umpires in 2000. Then, sensing there was no feeling of competition between the two leagues after the tie game in the 2002, decided the thing to do was to turn an exhibition game in which the players are mostly selected by fans into a competition in which the winning league gets home field advantage for the World Series. (Arguably, Interleague Play began that dilusion, and while my semi-traditionalist side is annoyed by it because it makes the schedules even more unbalanced than they already would have been, the Cubs fan in me kind of likes having games against the White Sox mean something.)

Selig also created the Wild Card. I’m not against the Wild Card because it expands the playoffs or even the Wild Card itself per se, but because of the unbalanced schedule in baseball, teams in poor divisions or with favorable schedules can win playoff berths while teams with better records and/or tougher schedules are locked into competing for the Wild Card.  (This is not to mention that one division, the NL Central has six teams, and one, the AL West, has four. And yes, the Cubs do play in the NL Central.) He cites the reasoning for the Wild Card is to increase fan interest later in the season when their teams would have otherwise been out of competition; giving playoff berths to the top four records in each league *or* the top two in each of the four former divisions would have accomplished the same thing while eliminating some of the problems of the unbalanced schedule.

However, one of Selig’s acts that really gets to me is Jackie Robinson Day.

Let’s get something straight first. I’d be a fool not to recognize how important Jackie Robinson was to civil rights in this country, and therefore to me personally. He is up there with the black troops that fought in the Second World War and Rosa Parks for helping to slowly make things right in this country. In fact, I feel Robinson is a far superior icon and civil rights role model than Martin Luther King Jr.

And I would have had almost no problem with Jackie Robinson Day if it simply consisted of a reflection of the importance and accomplishments of Jackie Robinson. However, Selig and Major League Baseball’s celebration and league-wide number retirement is little more than politically correct hoopla.

Larry Doby played for the Cleveland Indians and timewise was the second black player to play in the Majors. However, while Robinson played in the National League, Doby played in the American League. The two leagues did share some cities then, but as there was no such thing as Interleague Play outside the World Series, Doby and Robinson played in different ballparks. In short, Larry Doby is arguably as important to the integration of baseball as Jackie Robinson was. Yet Larry Doby is rarely mentioned in the same breath, and only in Cleveland is his number retired.

Besides, the greatest part of Jackie Robinson’s legacy is that when you go to a baseball game (or any sporting event, for that matter) and see athletes of a multitude of ethnicities and nationalities on both teams, for most of us they are simply athletes, or at the very least, their race is nowhere as important as whether or not they have the range to play shortstop or the ability to hit the split finger.

Seeing all of Major League Baseball wear number 42 isn’t going to make me any more “aware” of great that is.

  

Environmentalism v. Fundamentalism: Fear Wins

 | 

I have my own thoughts on climate change, global warming and such, but I’m not going into them quite yet. I do, however, want to share a thought that has crossed my mind.

You have two general camps in the whole climate “debate”, at least in the Western world: Those who think the earth is getting warmer mainly or completely due to man-made pollution, and those who don’t buy into the idea of climate change at all.

Likewise, two thoughts in regard to the age of the planet is the scientific explanation that the Earth is in the neighborhood of 4.5 billion years old and the Biblical story, that when taken literally says Earth was created somewhere around 6,000 years ago.

In combining the beliefs on climate change and the age of the Earth, the two former groups usually are the same as are the two latter: that is, people who think Earth is warming due to man also believe the age of the planet is in the billions of years, and those who don’t believe in global warming also believe the Earth is a few thousand years old.

Shouldn’t these be reversed?

I mean, shouldn’t the people who believe the Earth has been around for eons be the same ones who think that while the guy driving a Hummer or the factory bellowing out smoke might not be the greatest things for the environment, the Earth has seen greater natural pollution in its history and survived? Would that reduce the fear necessary to give environmentalists the clout to press their agenda on everyone?

And why isn’t there a more visible movement for global warming being some sort of warning or punishment by God? Frankly, I’m sure they’re probably out there and I really don’t want anyone to send me links to any of them. But when, just in passing, I’ve seen people claim the terrorist attacks of 2001, the constant fighting in the Middle East and the Asian tsunami of 2005 were examples of “God’s wrath”, not hearing of any major religious figure taking advantage of the global warming hysteria surprises me. Is it because to do so, they would have to take some science into account and potentially bring doubt to their faith?

And is it just me, or do the environmentalists and the religious fundamentalists seem more than just a bit alike sometimes?