The Saturday Morning Roundup

Permit me a few random observations on current issues that have been on my mind, and on the mind of many others.

We can't escape from the incessant Tiger coverage, it seems that every day a new revelation emerges, now that the list of bimbos seems to be exhausted, there are reports that offer a tenuous link between the world's greatest current golfer and most recognizable athlete with the one thing that can truly bring him down in the eyes of sports fans, that being performance enhancing drugs. The suggestion that Tiger used HGH to bulk up and gain an unfair competitive advantage in the gentleman's game of golf is disturbing, albeit given the current climate in the sports culture not altogether surprising if it does turn out to be true.

Tiger may well have lost much of his marketing and cross-over appeal, no doubt many women and more casual golf fans will no longer find themselves rooting for Woods when he inevitably comes back to the game and just as sure is making a charge in his trademark red polo on Sunday afternoon. But die-hard sports fans, most of whom are male, will I believe still enjoy seeing Tiger coming down the backstretch with the focus and determination that we have come to know and love. I know that I will be enjoying the scene when it happens, and most likely will be rooting for him. I don't defend his actions in any way, neither do I have sympathy if his image suffers irreparable harm, he made his bed and he can lie in it, apparently with any of the multitude of hoochie-mama's who lack the pride that would otherwise cause them to reject the advances of a married man with kids. But as for Tiger the golfer, I don't see how anything has changed, and I suspect that if I feel this way, most of my male counterparts in the the world of sports fandom will agree.

I've been following the climate talks in Copenhagen with some interest, and now that the conference has concluded it appears that the main effect on the climate was the damage done by all of the participants who flew thousands of miles to attend. There has been a non-binding agreement by some of the major powers, including America, India, and China, to do something. The developing countries are pissed off because they got left out of the final decision and feel that they will be hurt the most by effects that are exacerbated most by the actions of the major powers.

I'm on the fence as far as climate change is concerned, I believe that the effects are very real, and that there is much physical and even more circumstantial evidence to suggest that humanity is the main culprit, as opposed to long term geological cycles. The increase in carbon in the atmosphere since the advent of industrialization is too marked to be simply coincidence in my opinion. Yet while I don't support the chicken little assertions of many, I also reject the notion that we should bury our heads in the sand and wish this away as some great radical conspiracy as others would suggest.

The costs of inaction are potentially great, but so are the costs of action, and the question is what to do, and how much to spend doing so. While I don't have all the answers, I do think that a key is to finally get serious about reducing our dependence on oil as our primary energy fuel source. Wind and solar offer viable alternatives that if given the proper investment on both public and private levels, can accomplish three things. We can reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the environment by lessening the amount of fossil fuels we burn. We can eventually reduce the financial costs of transportation, thus freeing up money to be spent boosting our economy. And lastly, and perhaps most importantly in the short to medium term, is that we can bring what Thomas Friedman refers to as the petrol-dictatorships, most of which are hostile towards our interests, to their knees. Without revenues from oil, the oppressive and damaging policies of the Saudi, Iranian, Venezuelan, Russian, and Nigerian governments to name a few can no longer be funded. This alone ought to be a rallying cry that unites both environmentally concerned liberals, fiscal conservatives, and hawkish neo-conservatives.

Last on my mind is the health care debate, another vexing matter with no easy solutions. I don't know if we are better off passing a flawed bill and hoping that it can be improved in time, or if it would be better to junk everything and start from scratch. I have even heard an interesting suggestion that health care is only possible with a republican president and a moderate congress. This has some merit, but as I'm in no mood to see a republican president again anytime soon, nor do I hold much hope of a moderate congress, I suggest that we have to deal with the reality of the political situation that we have. It is probably best to have some form of legislation passed now, not big enough that it can cause any serious damage, but enough to at least start the long, gradual process of reform to the system, which is simply unsustainable in the long run. I don't trust the government to run the health care system, but neither do I trust private for profit insurers. Surely there is some grand bargain that can be struck, but until we reach that point, it is better to make smaller changes that can be built upon once we have a chance to see what works, what doesn't, and what all of the costs and unintended consequences of such reforms are.

Freedom of Choice

I am currently reading Dostoevsky's novel "Notes From the Underground", which is a first person narrative by the Underground Man, who is largely a self-imposed exile from society. One of the major themes is the free will of the individual, and that the exercise of this will is not based on a certain logical formula that always leads us to act in ways that are rational. Despite the arrogance of modern science, including the social sciences of economics, psychology, and political science that claims to have figured out why humans behave as they do and proscribes the best ways for people to behave, our species is often one that defies logic. Furthermore, it is individual freedom that is at the core of our existence. It is the ability to utilize this freedom that is one of our most fundamentally human desires, to do what we want to do for our own reasons, even when we can't even identify what those reasons may be.

In our society today there is a great deal of paternalism, which is to say everybody seems to want to mind each others business. We are constantly being told what we should and shouldn't be doing, and along with these directives is the inherent judgment that if we don't conform to the norms then there is something wrong with us. We shouldn't smoke or drink too much, we shouldn't eat certain foods and should eat others. We should raise our children a certain way, support certain political candidates and policies, we should believe in some theories and reject others, we should drive certain types of cars, buy certain products, and avoid engaging in risky behaviors.

I am not claiming immunity from such paternalism, I have my opinions on matters and often fall prey to the temptation to suggest how others should live their lives and what they should believe in and reject. To an extent it is human nature to try to convince others of the validity of our own ideals, and admittedly there is a line between persuasion and paternalism and that line isn't always clear. Yet it is also human nature to reject being told what to do, at least it is part of my own nature. Quite simply, if I want to live my life according to how I choose to do so that is my business, and it is your business to live yours according to how you choose to do so.

While I may disagree your beliefs and even on occasion make fun of those I find particularly silly, I nonetheless respect the right of grown men and women to make those decisions. So if you want to support Sarah Palin, spend $500 on a designer handbag, drive a gas guzzling SUV, and eat meat at every meal that is your prerogative. Don't get me wrong, I wish you wouldn't do certain things that have a negative effect on the common good, but is it really my place to be the arbiter of what is right and wrong and to impose those judgments on you? I certainly wouldn't want you telling me what to do or how I should be living my life. It is for this reason that I generally reject formalized institutions, at least to the extent that practicality allows.

I do not belong to nor do I support a political party, I consider myself a progressive libertarian when it comes to politics and support policies that accord with my views regardless of where they come from, likewise I reject policies that are in discord with how I view the world. I do not adhere to a particular creed or belong to any church, I consider myself a Christian Pantheist, guided by the basic tenets of the Christian faith but not limited by it. I have no desire to pursue formal education beyond that which I attained 15 years ago by gaining my bachelor's degree, reading what some professor thinks I should read and writing what someone else assigns me to write about seems both limiting and mostly a misuse of my time. I am not prone to join any groups or clubs, I much prefer to do my own thing in the manner in which I choose to do it.

This is not to say that there aren't certain standards by which individuals and societies should be judged, or to argue for some form of complete moral relativism. There are clear examples of right and wrong, just as there are representations of good and evil, there are sound policies and faulty ones. It is reasonable to judge matters based on the results that they produce. What is not reasonable is to believe that everything, or even most things can be judged in anything approaching an objective manner, or that it is the business of one person to tell another how they should live their lives. Or at least that's how I see it, you of course may or may not agree, as is your right as a free thinking human being capable of exercising free will and rational, or irrational thought and action.

C'mon Man!

My favorite segment this year on Monday Night Countdown, the pregame show to Monday Night Football, is one where the hosts show clips of players doing dumb stuff on the field and at the end of each clip they give a resounding, c'mon man! As in, are you kidding me, or to quote the great John McEnroe line directed at a line judge, you cannot be serious! So in that vein, I present today's column.

Apparently in Sarah Palin's new book there is a quote that is attributed to the legendary UCLA basketball coach John Wooden, a quote that has nothing to do with basketball or even resembles any lessons on life that a coach might impart. But this didn't prevent Mrs. Palin from using it, and also escaped the fact checkers that are supposed to find such obvious errors. The quote is from an American Indian chief named John Woodenlegs. Oops. I guess that's what happens when somebody who doesn't even read books writes one, the whole notion of accuracy and actually doing research and knowing what you are talking about goes by the wayside. Of course when your target audience for the most part shares and even basks in the glory of anti-intellectualism why sweat the small stuff, like knowing who you are quoting when you are making some inane commentary on politics and the world as you see it. C'mon man!

We'll come back to Sarah Palin later, but now it's time to move across the political spectrum to that one, the man who offered such great promise and hope but has so far delivered very little of either, the man, the myth, the reigning Nobel Peace Prize winner, President Barack Obama. As far as I can tell, his peace prize resume included giving a heck of a speech in Cairo a few months back speaking intelligently and respectfully towards the Arab and Muslim world and offering hope on both sides of the cultural divide for more peaceful relations between the West and the Greater Middle East. For that I commend him. He also paid some lip service to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, promising to serve as a more neutral honest broker in a way that President Bush, influenced by his born again Protestant beliefs and brainwashed to view Israel as being in the right regardless of little annoyances like actual evidence, could never be.

But then as Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu proceeds to do everything in his power to perpetuate the situation by allowing settlements to continue unabated in the West Bank, Obama remains as silent and middle of the road as he can be. Ditto on the issue of Tibet-China relations, unwilling to do anything to antagonize our financial benefactors in Beijing, he has failed to support the Tibetan cause of independence by refusing to meet with their moral and spiritual leader the Dalai Lama. Apparently our freedom initiative only extends so far, we'll spend the lives of thousands of soldiers and hundreds of billions to fight for the freedom of Iraqis and Afghans (or so we're led to believe) but for Palestinians and Tibetans our leadership is unwilling to even talk the talk, let alone walk the walk.

And for these grand accomplishments, the Norwegians in their infinite wisdom have awarded our president the highest honor in the realm of international diplomacy. To my way of thinking, in order to fight for something you have to be prepared to stand up to opposition. Martin Luther King didn't stay silent regarding Bull Connor, nor did Gandhi try to appease the British, or Nelson Mandela excuse the behavior of White South African apartheid leaders. The bar has certainly been lowered for this award, maybe Tiger Woods will be next year's recipient. C'mon man!

Speaking of the world's greatest golfer, how about good old Tiger. This guy seemingly had it all, wealth, prestige, respect, admiration, and accomplishment. Not to mention a beautiful wife and family. Turns out he also had a Cadillac Escalade with a faulty GPS system, led him right when he should have gone left. I'm sure if his jerk off caddy Steve Williams was in the passenger seat that night he would have given him better directions, or at least would have beat the crap out of the TMZ photographers who showed up on the scene and then proceeded to destroy their cameras.

If Tiger was such a player and enjoyed the company of multiple women, why not stay single and enjoy the life of wealth, celebrity, and constant companionship? Why not do it like Derek Jeter, nobody has a problem with Jeter showing up at events with a different girl on his arm, heck most guys and probably women too think it's cool. But memo to Eldrick, when you make the decision to get married and have kids the rules of the game change. We've seen the son of Earl get out of some impressive jams on the course over the years, this will be one of the biggest he's ever had to negotiate, and while time usually heals all wounds and most reputations, right now his chances of salvaging par aren't looking too good. Sanctimonious and cocksure sure looks different on the way down, you had it all Tiger but you just couldn't keep the putter in the bag. C'mon man!

A few quickies before the finale, starting with the Snowbowl ski resort north of Flagstaff, Arizona. The high country just got hit with a big winter storm earlier in the week that dumped a couple feet of fresh powder, the perfect motivation for city dwellers to pack up and head north for a day or two of local skiing. Only problem is that the mountain won't be opening for another week or two, by which time the fresh powder will have crusted over and the snow making machines will no doubt be pumping out snow cone ice that tries to pass itself off as the real thing. Who runs this place, and what kind of ski resort would fail to open after such a gift from nature, especially in Arizona which isn't guaranteed to get another such present anytime soon. C'mon man!

The person in line in front of me at Starbucks who delays my getting a refill on my cup of gold old-fashioned American coffee with an order that requires reference to note cards to execute. As if it wasn't enough to order your triple shot mocha latte yuppie bastachino with 18 pumps and extra whip, you've got to grab a blueberry bliss pumpkin spice cake from the pastry display. And you wonder why your fat ass is so big that you qualify to drive solo in the car pool lane during rush hour. C'mon man!

I can't leave this column without going back to old faithful, Sarah Palin, who I am rooting for by the way to gain the GOP nomination in 2012. My hope is that a race between the King of the (Middle of the) Road and the Nanook of the North will spur the American electorate to finally junk the two party system in favor of a third party, or even a multi-party system that could offer a true shot at reforming a largely broken political system. I heard that Sarah Palin recently wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post, so first off I have to shout out to the Post for allowing such an uneducated and ignorant blowhard and demagogue to write in their editorial pages, good job Washington Post. I hope the increased sales you got on that day and the hits on your website were worth the loss of credibility with intelligent citizens. C'mon man!

But back to Palin, the topic of her column was that Obama should not go to Copenhagen for the recent conference on climate change, because that would only encourage the radical environmental movement that is behind this sinister plan to destroy the world economy by facilitating the great lie that is global warming. Of course no one has of yet explained to me who benefits from such a nefarious plan, one that would be unprecedented in the extent of world leaders, scientists, and observers who would all have to be in cahoots to pull off this scam in the first place. The climate change deniers make about as much sense as the people who are convinced that 9/11 was an inside job, but common sense and logic have never been the strong suits of good conspiracy theories. Better to believe that the New World Order and the cabal that controls the world's money supply will somehow benefit from the great climate hoax and therefore we should all be wary of those who present scientific data and evidence.

Look, science is never settled, and there are legitimate arguments to be made that the effects of climate change may be less than anticipated and that the costs of taking certain action may be too high in relation to the benefits they will provide. We should be continuing to research and accumulate data and debating over consequences and solutions. But to suggest that nothing is really happening is to bury our heads in the sand, the overwhelming evidence in so far, both scientific and anecdotal suggests that plenty is indeed happening. To propose that nothing can be done is ridiculous, there are plenty of steps that individuals, corporations, and governments can and should take, starting with getting serious about using renewable energy sources to replace fossil fuels such as carbon to meet our increasing global energy demand. And to listen to Sarah Palin as some sort of expert on the matter is just plain silly. Yet no doubt many of her legions of loyalists will take her word on the matter as gospel and refuse to support common sense legislation dealing with the issue. Score that one as a victory for (Grand)Mama Palin and a setback for Mother Earth, and for those of us who care about her long term health and the impact on our own lives if we continue to mess up the planet we live on. C'mon Man!

Foreign Entanglements

Our nation’s first president warned in his farewell address, among other things, to avoid unnecessary foreign entanglements, advice that our current president would be well served to heed. Our last president, strong in resolve but sorely lacking in wisdom, as befits the anti-intellectual he portrayed himself to be, got us into two such entangling messes. The first one seemed reasonable enough at the time, go after the people who attacked us and prevent them from repeating the process. Perhaps had we kept after this mission, which had early success, we would have been able to accomplish what we set out to do. But we didn’t and we haven’t, and here we find ourselves closing in on a decade later and still clinging to the same rationale that gave us the impetus to invade Afghanistan in the first place despite evidence that seems to blatantly suggest that the original casus belli was flawed, and that our ability to carry out such a flawed strategy is suspect.

The notion that we can, with our military, keep our homeland secure from a terrorist attack by eliminating so-called safe havens is naïve and unrealistic. The world is a big place, and even if we could somehow create a stable centralized government in a place that hasn’t known such government control since antiquity, there are countless other swaths of anarchy across the globe where sworn enemies could migrate.

Furthermore, we have neither the will nor the ability to create such stability, and even if we did it still wouldn’t be a wise course of action. Liberals like to see the world as a place where if only a little tender love and care were applied then everything would just magically fall into place, and everyone would live in peace and harmony, happily ever after. Conservatives like to imagine that might makes right, and by the sheer strength of our military prowess we can remake the world in our image. If only it were that simple. We could bomb the bad guys into submission, convert the natives to Christianity and Western liberal political ideology, then pour in financial aid to build their societies into utopian gardens. We would be loved and respected and feared worldwide and we could all go back to feeling safe and secure in fortress America, full of paternal satisfaction.

It’s not that simple of course, but don’t try telling that to the majority of the public, who would rather believe the fairy tale version of foreign policy because it’s simpler and easier to grasp. And don’t try telling that to our political leaders, who would rather pander to people’s desire to feel that complex issues can be solved with minimal effort or sacrifice on their behalf. President Obama has come up with the brilliant plan, backed without dissent by his minions in the cabinet, that we can go in with some extra troops, train the Afghans to handle their own business, and be out within a couple of years. Sounds like a story I’ve heard before. Imagine FDR telling us on December 8, 1941 that we were going to fight the Nazis for a couple years and then pull out by the summer of ’43, by which time the French would be ready to handle things on their own and our boys could all come home.

Even if a military and nation-building strategy had even a remote chance of success, the cost alone is much too great given the return on the investment to our national interest such a mission would actually achieve. We are broke and are having to figure out how we are going to pay for basic social services here at home, states can’t fund education adequately, infrastructure is in disrepair, healthcare costs continue to put a drag on personal finances and the larger economy, the interest on our ever increasing deficit promises sooner or later to make the cost of borrowing, the lifeblood of our economy, more prohibitive. Amidst all of this, we are supposed to believe that we have the financial resources to put into rebuilding, or more appropriately building since you can’t rebuild something that never existed in the first place, a nation racked with poverty, illiteracy, and a culture that shows complete disregard for the fundamental rights of half of their population. Not to mention the situation in Iraq, which we would like to believe is miraculously all taken care of simply because our government and our media have conveniently forgotten about it, but which seems likely to explode into civil war and anarchy in the not so distant future, all while over 100,000 of our troops remained trapped there.

There comes a time when you must walk away from the table, cash in what few chips you have left, chalk up the losses and learn lessons to prevent the same thing from happening in the future. That time has come, and no amount of going all in with the hope of somehow salvaging a hopeless situation can change this reality. I realize that it won’t happen, our leadership doesn’t possess the wisdom and the courage to do so, and our electorate is as yet too immature to demand such measures. The only question that I have is how long it will take, how many more lives will be needlessly lost, how much more money will be wasted, before we grow up and figure it out. My hope is that we are close to a tipping point where the American public will say enough is enough, and our government will have no choice but to heed our demands. My fear is that we are still living in denial and that the realization of the error of our policy decisions won’t be realized until the situation reaches crisis proportions. My strong belief is that if we are waiting for our political leaders to guide us we are in for a long wait, and that our best hope of achieving a rational and realistic foreign policy won’t come from the so-called best and the brightest, but from the wisdom and common sense of ordinary citizens with the courage to see the world for what it is and demand policies that reflect that reality.

Mountain Man

I've always felt like an outsider. Not in an alienated or bitter way, I love being a part of the world and for the most part I like the people that I encounter, and while I am often critical and sometimes cynical about humanity, I ultimately have faith in humankind, and hope that given enough time we'll come around.

I enjoy considering myself an outsider. Not in an arrogant or superior way, although I will admit to having to fight that urge to put myself above others occasionally. I fight the urge because it's not how I want to be. I have my own take on things, my own view of the world and the way it should operate in the best of all possible worlds, and that view often goes against the grain of mainstream thought. But I don't view myself as inherently better than my fellow man (or woman), just often different. Although I suspect, at least I hope that deeper down we are all on the same plane, that we all see the same universal truths and desire the same goals out of life, but that many have a more difficult time breaking free from the constraints of mainstream conventional thought processes that for the most part hold humanity back from its' true purpose, which to my way of thinking is to create an ideal, compassionate, peaceful, just, and ultimately more humane society.

The place where paradoxically I feel most in touch with both the human and natural world is when I am by myself hiking in the back country of the Eastern Sierras in Northern California. By getting away from all of the trappings of modern life I feel that I become connected with ancient and universal truths that are accessible to us all if only we actively seek them and then allow ourselves to be penetrated by their beauty and wisdom. Being in the mountains is for me a truly religious experience, one that gets to the heart of my pantheistic philosophy. I believe that the true nature of God and of life can be found in what is most genuine, and that quite simply put is in nature.

While there are other natural settings that inspire similar feelings, the ocean and the desert offer an experience of holiness and bliss as well, for me there is simply no place like the mountains. The majesty of snow covered peaks, the plethora of colors, smells, and sounds of the grass and pines, the wildflowers and aspens, the lakes and streams, the animal life, and the glow of the sun away from the filters of pollution are quite possibly the perfect blend of stimuli. The mountains provide an experience that emanates from the core of our existence and contains the entirety of it. I look forward the entire year to my brief time every summer up in the mountains and inevitably suffer from a temporary depression upon my return to humanity while I gradually readjust. If I had my way I would spend more time in the high country and less in the lowlands, but of course we don't always get our way in life do we?

Don't get me wrong, my life in the city is wonderful, and while I'm not the biggest fan of desert life in the ridiculously hot summer months, Phoenix suits me fine. My kids are growing up in a good environment, which is the most important thing to me, and my wife and I have mostly adjusted to life in a city that is not native to either of us. Perhaps Phoenix will always be my home, there are always practical matters to consider, such as being able to bring home a paycheck and being close to family to name a few. But in my ideal scenario, after my kids are grown and off making their own way in the world, and if my writing ever provides me with the ability to make a living outside of the constraints of working for an employer, I would live in a mountain town. Mammoth Lakes, CA is my favorite such town, but staying closer to family and living in Flagstaff, AZ would be an option as well. Of course certain things would have to fall into place, but a boy can dream can't he?

For now I'll simply enjoy the cooler late fall and pending winter weather, wear my flannel coat and grow my mountain man beard, both symbols of how I see my true self. I have the pictures taken on my summer treks which serve as the background screen on my laptop and as a constant reminder of where I'd really prefer to be. I have the ability to load up my new backpack and head up north for a day hike now and then. I'll enjoy this desert life and the urban existence that most of us live out of practical concerns and necessity, but I'll keep dreaming of the day when my wife and I can put the city in the rear view mirror and head for the hills, to a place that brings one closer to all that is most real and beautiful, to a place that has been in existence long before the artifices of man, and most likely will continue to be long after we are done altering the planet in a vain attempt to bend it to our will.

Out of Afghanistan

President Obama has a crucial decision to make, and it is one that very well could prove to be a tipping point for his presidency. Of the many roles that a president fills, none is more important than his role as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, which becomes even more vital during time of war. The president is the decider, and choices about military strategy are literally life and death decisions, which takes precedence over any other type of policy that is the president's responsibility. President Obama should make the wise and courageous decision to begin an immediate withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, and to continue the withdrawal already begun in Iraq.

The conventional wisdom on Afghanistan is that it is the good war. Benjamin Franklin, one known for wisdom and for being anything but conventional, once stated that there never was a good war or a bad peace. I'm solidly with Franklin on this count. The story we are sold to justify this war is that we are fighting against Al-Qaeda and therefore both avenging 9/11 and ensuring that our nation is not attacked again. Neither point is true. We are fighting the Taliban, the group that originally had been harboring Al-Qaeda, but from different sources I have read, has long since kicked out their guests because they tired of the trouble caused by housing them. Al-Qaeda has since taken up shelter in the no-man's land that encompasses eastern Afghanistan and western Pakistan, an area that is both remote and not controlled by any national government. If we are serious about going after Osama bin Laden and his army, that is where we should be, not fighting against the Taliban, a group with no global designs or desire to attack America.

The notion of making our country safe from attack is also a false notion. We like to justify our Asian adventures with slogans like freedom isn't free and brandishing our support for the troops on bumper stickers and t-shirts. Defending the nation is arguably the most important job of the government, but there are more effective ways of doing it than the way we are going about it. Obama was elected by a majority of the voting populace just over a year ago, and many of us cast our votes in hope that we were getting an intelligent man who could understand the complexity and nuance of foreign policy. Our last president certainly could not, his view of the world was overly simplistic, in his philosophy you were either with us or against us, and his crusade was to rid the world of evil-doers with brute force. Our new president would understand that there are a variety of means at our disposal in order to make the world, and ultimately America, a safer place.

While Obama's rhetoric so far has given those of us who realize that the rest of the world is no longer our suzerain a measure of hope, his actions have yet to match that rhetoric. To win hearts and minds in the Arab and Muslim world it will take more than good speeches and intent to tackle difficult problems, such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It will take getting off of the fence and supporting nascent political movements, such as the one developing in Iran in opposition to the theocracy that has dominated that nation for the last 30 years. It will take more forceful opposition to sham elections, such as the one that recently allowed the government led by Hamad Karzai to maintain power in Afghanistan. It will take supporting education and social welfare to counter the impact of fundamentalist Islamist groups who are the ones that currently provide most of both throughout the Middle East.

By continuing to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan, we are misusing resources and wasting an opportunity to truly make our nation and the world safer by supporting conditions that will allow for the Middle East to become more modern, moderate, and less anti-Western. If Obama goes ahead with his plan to enact his surge in Afghanistan, the cost estimates are between $40-50 billion per year, according to a report in the New York Times. If more troops are added that means that more troops will be killed and maimed, that more families will be without fathers and mothers, sons and daughters. If we were fighting the Nazi's to prevent them from controlling Europe and going after the perpetrators of Pearl Harbor in the Pacific, we could justify both the financial cost and most importantly the risk of life and limb. We would be willing as a nation to sacrifice and not simply ask our military and their families to do the job themselves. But we are not fighting a war that must be fought or taking on an enemy that threatens our safety and way of life.

That enemy exists and must be dealt with, but massive military endeavors are not the most effective way to go about that. The American mindset that we can bomb our way to peace and security, if it ever were true, is certainly no longer a realistic way of looking at foreign policy. We are no longer the hegemony that can control events, we are a powerful force that must utilize our allies effectively and must lead the way with a combination of diplomacy, social aid, and targeted military force.

The question is whether or not President Obama really gets it, and if he does whether he will have the courage of his convictions to act on his beliefs. Or will he give in to political expediency and attempt to placate the war hawks without angering the doves who largely came to his camp during the campaign because of his strong stance against the Iraq War. It is a question that will more than any other decision seal Obama's fate as either a potentially great president who impacted the world in a meaningful way, or whether he goes down as one whose promise evaporated in a fog of weakness and indecisiveness. I among many will be carefully watching for this decision, hopeful but realistically not expecting those hopes to be realized. This one decision will more than anything else effect my personal support for Obama and the likelihood that my vote will be cast for him three years from now.

To my Iowa Friend

Dear Dorothy,

It's been awhile since we've seen each other, and while we occasionally get to talk on the phone, I mostly keep up with your life through Julie. She indicated that you had an enjoyable birthday the other day and that you are in very good spirits, which makes me happy. You deserve all the happiness in the world, for you are a truly unique and special person, and I have been fortunate in my life to come to know you well and to count you among the people that matter the most to me.

You are a friend in the truest sense of the word, one who accepts me as I am, faults and all, and who gives love without the expectation of gaining anything in return. I hope however that what I have been able to give in return is that same friendship and love to you, and that you know and have always known how important you are to me.

Quite simply, you are one of the best people I have ever known. You are generous with your time and affections, not just to me but to all of the people in your life. You are a kind-hearted and charitable person, your character and your actions are a true reflection of your faith. While many people profess certain beliefs but then fail to act in a way that is true to those beliefs, you have always been the genuine article. You probably have no idea how much I respect and admire you, which is a main point for me writing this.

I certainly don't have to tell you how many sacrifices you have made in your life for your family and friends, but I do need to tell how much I will always be in your debt for raising such a wonderful daughter as my wife, and instilling in her the virtues and morals of your character, which she so effectively instills in our own children. You are loved deeply by both of us, and by your grandchildren, who think the world of you and admire you as we do.

You practically raised Chloe when she was little and we had the privilege of living but a few blocks from you. I'll always have great memories of you pulling up to pick her up for the day, and her excitedly calling out to Ma-ma, knowing that she was going to spend the day with someone who thought the world of her. I'll always have the image of you and Jake baking chocolate chip cookies together in our kitchen during your winter visits with us, a skill by the way that Jake picked up to the point of being able to claim the second best chocolate chip cookies around to this day.

Our rambunctious card playing sessions still bring a smile to my face, not to mention the game playing sessions where we would tend to get a bit competitive, but always ended on a good note. I like to tell people about our scrabble contests, where I would come up with some clever word, only to be bested by you putting up a three-letter word worth three times the points of mine.

I love the memories I have of you resting in the recliner after putting in your time around the house, cooking, cleaning, doing laundry, you wouldn't rest until the chores were done. But then you would sit back in the recliner, with a toothpick dangling from your mouth and quietly nod off, at least until you heard someone or something and then you'd start back awake and pretend as if you had never been napping, as if we would think less of you for resting.

We, and I could never think less of you for anything Dorothy. You have been such an important influence in my own life in so many ways. Your dedication to your family, your work ethic, your love of and zest for life are contagious and inspiring. You introduced me to such things as I would never otherwise have known of, from card games like 500, to Arabian horses, and even to figure skating. Not to mention your teaching me not to be afraid of a bat flying through the house. You always did what needed to be done, without complaint and without worrying about whether or not it would be appreciated.

So I just want you to know how much you are appreciated, by me and by our entire family. We may not always agree on politics or other somewhat trivial matters, but we do agree on a basic life philosophy, on the importance of living a moral, religious, and virtuous life. We agree that taking care of one's family and being a good friend, and a good person are the most important things in this life. And while neither of us is rich or famous or powerful, I think we've done pretty well for ourselves when it comes to what matters most. I count you as one of my dearest friends in this world, and my appreciation of you and my loyalty towards you knows no boundaries or limits. You told Julie that you wanted to know what I really thought of you while you were still around, and while I expect you to be around for a good long time to come, I thought now was as good a time as any to express how I feel. I only wish I could express better how highly I think of you, hopefully this imperfect attempt will suffice in getting the point across, the point being that you are pretty darn special in my book.

With all the love in my heart,
Your son-in-law
Mark

Politicians as Usual

It's hard to believe it was only a year ago at this time that our nation was on the verge of something special. We were only a couple weeks away from electing our first black president, quite a feat in a country with such a mixed racial history, a country that held on to the peculiar institution of slavery longer than anyone save Brazil, but that also produced the civil rights movement of the 1950's and 60's. But more than the historical aspect of this election, it was an exciting time for a people who had been beaten down by eight years of divisive politics and disastrous policies delivered by the Bush administration. The times they were indeed a-changin'.

Or were they? And have they? Here we are a year later, and now over 9 months into the new Obama administration and what of this change we all had so much hope for? We are still bogged down in two questionable wars, one in Afghanistan with no end in sight, and another in Iraq that while no longer on the front pages is still keeping well over a hundred thousand of our soldiers away from their loved ones and lives back home. Obama's plan for Afghanistan is so far much like the rest of his political ideas, painfully undefined and non-committal. While our new president fiddles, soldiers continue to die by the scores, and all we get are the usual promises of how things will be different this time, and if we just give it a little longer, well, you've heard this song and dance before from the last administration. I wonder how many more sons and daughters, fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters will perish before he comes out with the decision we all know is coming anyways, a nebulous commitment to more troops to fight a war with no real strategy or realistic chance at success.

How about the health care reform that had us fired up and ready to go? Our new leader showed anything but leadership in turning over such an important policy to the Congress, a body with a proven track record of getting nothing productive done, regardless of which of the two parties holds the reigns. One would think that a man supposedly as intelligent as Obama would have learned from the debacle known as the stimulus package, which followed on the heels of the misguided bank bailout, not to trust the legislative branch with the keys to the kingdom, but there he went again. What will come out of this is still up for grabs, but only the most optimistic of kool-aid drinkers can still have hope for any meaningful reform.

Ditto on the environment, where all our new president has managed is a watered down and ineffective energy bill that is akin to getting the foxes to promise to do a better job of guarding the hen house, which is exactly the same thing we are getting as it pertains to reform on Wall Street. Education reform is about as prevalent as coverage of serious issues on cable news. All the while the deficit continues to expand like Keith Olbermann's waistline or Glen Beck's fat head.

Every four years the candidate of change sells us the same line about changing the culture of Washington and ending politics as usual. The guy in office is a bum and the challenger is our white knight riding to rescue us from our own lesser angels. But every time we get sold the same bill of goods, and I can only wonder when we'll stop buying the same old song and dance and demand a new tune.

My belief in the relevance of electoral politics and the efficacy of civic participation is just about exhausted. The optimist in me wants to say that Obama needs more time, that this time things will be different, that incremental change is better than nothing at all. But the realist in me, which as I approach my fifth decade of life is increasingly kicking the optimist's rear end, tells me otherwise. I realize that my vote is but a drop of water in the ocean, and like our actual oceans, is becoming more polluted all the time. The thing is, I'm not disheartened or bitter at all, I have great anticipation and high expectations for the second half of my life. There is so much that I encounter and learn every day, the wonders of this world and the small pleasures never cease to amaze.

I just don't expect that those wonders will include political change I can ever believe in, or a politician who isn't cut from the usual cloth. Perhaps one day there will be someone worthy of my vote, but it will have to be a re-election campaign, because I am done putting my dime in the jukebox until I've heard the tune. Show me the money. If not, I'm more than happy to go about my life in search of real truth, wisdom, and enlightenment, and leave the political decisions to those who still think it matters one way or the other. I'm very close to coming to the realization and acceptance of the fact that it really doesn't, which isn't the end of the world as we know it, and yet I still feel fine.

The Joke is on Us

A great recent novel, "The White Tiger" by Aravind Adiga starts out with this captivating opening line, "What a f-ing joke." The protagonist is referring to Indian politics, but the line might as well refer to our own vaunted and highly overrated system of democracy. After much back and forth on the matter, I have come to the inescapable conclusion that our system, like much of our culture in general is indeed a big joke, and the joke is on those of us who have bought into it for so long.

Barack Obama was my last hope. His campaign and unexpected election was supposed to be the game changer in American politics, ushering in a new era of civility, intelligence, and efficacy. Despite what the Nobel Peace Prize committee, another joke, has determined, none of this has occurred and isn't likely to materialize. Obama is a disappointment at best, and a spectacular failure at worst, time will ultimately tell. He may indeed be a well meaning individual, he certainly is easy on the eyes and has the gift of gab, but as a leader thus far he has proven to be ineffective and surprisingly lacking in practical intelligence.

From the bank bailout, which he didn't preside over but supported strongly, to the fiscal stimulus bill, which he allowed the Congress to control to the detriment of our economy and federal budget deficit, to the Afghanistan War, which he is apparently still in the process of determining how to proceed with, his policies have been an utter failure. The health care debacle is the latest manifestation of his inability to lead with the force and determination required of a great president, and is also sadly an indicator of his inability to learn from past mistakes.

But Obama should not bare the brunt of the blame for our failed system alone, there is plenty of burden to go around. The Congress is perhaps the biggest rouse of all, claiming to be the representative of the people while representing merely their own selfish desire to maintain their power at any cost and is completely beholden to the the entrenched interest groups that allow them to achieve their main goal. The health care bill being debated, and I use that term loosely, is a perfect example of why meaningful legislation will never occur in our system. It could be argued that the last relevant piece of legislation to emerge from Capitol Hill was the landmark civil rights laws, the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965. And this only because we had a president, LBJ, with the guts to push forward with something that he knew would cost him politically. His famous line uttered after signing the bills was that this probably cost the Democrats the South for a generation. It is pretty hard to imagine a leader today, in the White House or in Congress, having the guts to pull the trigger on something knowing those consequences. He was right by the way, not that it is a great loss.

The Democratic Party is more disappointing to me as a liberal than the Republican party. With the Republicans you know what you are going to get, a blend of social conservatives who care more about unborn fetuses than actual living human beings and who want to ram their warped version of Christianity down our throats, mixed in with fiscal conservatives who think tax breaks for the well-to-do are the panacea for all of our economic ills, with a good mixture of war mongering hawks who want to destroy all our enemies, real and perceived with brute force.

But the Democratic party is supposed to be the party of common sense and justice for the little guy, the party that looks out for the ordinary Joe. I suppose at one time they were, if you harken back to the days of FDR's New Deal and LBJ's Great Society. All we have gotten since are Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and a bunch of blowhards in Congress who give us the old wink and a nod while they proceed to please their benefactors at the expense of the people they are in theory representing.

So what to do? There isn't much to do actually, there is no savior or political messiah out there who will deliver us from the tyranny and oppression of a system that is ineffective at best and corrupt at worst. Many of us thought that Obama would be the man for the job, a modern day Moses leading us out of the desert across the Sinai peninsula to the promised land. Perhaps it was naive to put so much stock in one man, perhaps we expected miracles where none were realistic or even possible. Perhaps we are looking for answers in the wrong places, politics is no longer capable of solving the issues that vex us, if it ever was. I would suggest that by looking for external solutions we are going about it in the wrong direction.

Most of us know what we ought to be doing, how we ought to be treating each other, and what types of policies we should support and pursue. We have the answers within us if we care to go through the process of self-reflection and introspection that are required. I'm unsure how we go about putting this knowledge into play, but I know that it won't come about by sitting back and waiting for the so-called political leaders to guide us. Those of us who have it within us must reject the ignorance of the politicians, the shallowness of the punditry, and the short-sightedness of the media. All we can do perhaps is work on bettering ourselves and the lives that we lead in hopes that the cumulative effect will eventually transcend our politics and our mainstream culture. It may or may not have the intended impact, but at the least we will be living more relevant and humane lives in the way that we were intended to live. I for one think that is quite enough.

Promoting the General Welfare

Promoting the General Welfare
Saturday, September 19, 2009

Last Thursday, September 17 was Constitution Day, which as holidays go gets infinitely less noticed than the made up marketing holidays like Valentine’s Day, St. Patrick’s Day or my personal choice for silliest holiday, Cinco de Mayo. It says a lot about our society that we get more fired up over some obscure 19th century battle between Mexico and France than we do about the commemoration of our guiding legal document that has done more to guarantee stable and workable government and protection of individual rights in our country, and has had a great impact on human rights and freedom around the globe.

The preamble to our Constitution refers to the ideals of our nation, including such lofty concepts as ensuring domestic tranquility (a topic for another column but something that is increasingly on the decline in our contentious culture) and establishing justice. It also references a primary job of our government as promoting the general welfare. I contend that this task of government was important enough for the framers and founding fathers to include in such a prominent spot, and therefore should rightly be a major concern. Education, environmental protection, economic security, and certainly health care qualify as promoting the general welfare, and therefore are proper for the purview of the federal, as well as state governments.

So let’s stop acting as if the goal of providing affordable quality care to all of our citizens is some form of nefarious socialism and a way for the government to control our lives. In the middle of all the summer vitriol at town hall meetings across this great land, one of the most inane confrontations was the uneducated but apparently quite wealthy (she didn’t even know how much money her husband made apparently, how nice is that?) woman from Pennsylvania who got her 15 minutes of fame ranting about how she wants to go back to what our founding fathers would want. I’m quite sure she couldn’t name three founding fathers, but aside from her ignorance about politics, which only puts her in the same class as the majority of our uneducated and politically illiterate culture (on both the right and left I might add) she expressed a desire to return to our political roots. Promoting the general welfare is a vital part of this original ideology.

In my 10th grade history course the other day I had my students read from Heraclitus, a 5th century BCE Greek philosopher who predates the great Socrates. One of the quotes chosen had to do with doctors charging for services rendered that they didn’t have any business performing, let alone charging exorbitant prices for. The ancient Greeks didn’t have HMO’s, so the analogy isn’t perfect, but it didn’t take long for the discussion to turn to our health care debate, especially as I always encourage my students to draw analogies and relate the themes of history to modern and contemporary issues. The point here is that we can learn a lot from our younger generation, they see the issue in terms of basic fairness and provision of needed services for the population. The other point is that the medical industry (if you include insurance providers in that industry) has been gouging, or in the words of Heraclitus, burning, racking, and stabbing the consumer for around 2500 years. It’s about time that comes to an end.

It is not the purpose of this column to provide specific solutions, nor is it my intent to gloss over the difficult and complex issues that must be dealt with. Any reform must include cost controls so that our federal deficit doesn’t continue to balloon like Newt Gingrich or Keith Olberman’s waistline. The notion of cost controls also must put an onus on the consumer, who must start taking better care of themselves, avoid the drive through line at the nearest fast-food joint, get some exercise and mix in something fresh and green in their diets at least once in awhile.

The insurance industry is not evil and as a private industry they should be entitled to a reasonable profit, but they are an important cog in a wheel which provides a necessity and should be regulated the same way we regulate public utilities. While I do have my doubts about a government run program given the track record of publicly run entities, I’m not sure I see viable alternatives at this point. When held up to the light of the inadequacy of the current system and the burden it puts on workers and employers alike, a public option doesn’t look quite so bad to me.
When the private sector can’t or won’t get the job done, the public sector has a place and even an obligation to step up to the plate. Government per se is not the enemy of the people (although many of the ridiculous right would have you believe otherwise, at least during times when their party isn’t in control) and not every public program is automatically socialism. There is a fundamental difference in both kind and degree between socialism and redistribution of wealth. Meaningful health care reform will require the latter and need not morph or slide down the slippery slope into the former, despite what the right wing demagogues are ranting and raving about at every turn.

This issue has been on the back burner for far too long, and like a cancerous tumor will not heal simply by ignoring it. Yet that’s what many propose we do, and despite the rhetoric the Democratic controlled Congress seems more than happy to play along. So far they have failed to produce a truly liberal (in the definitive sense of the word, meaning advocating reform and positive change) bill, and has spent the past week debating whether and how to punish a fellow member for popping off to the president. Meanwhile another week just goes by and the problem continues to fester and worsen with nary a legitimate solution in sight. One need not have the wisdom of a philosopher to realize that we can’t afford to go another 2500 years without a solution, let alone another political cycle, which is exactly where we are headed if the forces of reasonable reform get drowned out amidst the flood of distractions and politics as usual.

Return of the 20 minute blog

In an effort to start writing more frequently, I am bringing back the 20 minute blog, where I will make my best effort to discuss the issues of the day or whatever happens to be on my mind in 20 minutes or less. So with no time to waste on yet another promise to start writing more frequently, here goes.

Today's topic is the start of the new season, and while it is tempting to write about the new football season that is upon us, there is an even more important, and likely more brutal and bloody season about to take off, namely the fall political season. While this isn't an election year, save for the local elections which almost no one pays attention to, it figures to get nasty with plenty of hard knocks coming from all directions. At least that is the hope from this corner.

The reason it is my hope that we have a knock down drag out political season is two fold. From a pure entertainment perspective good old-fashioned bare knuckles politics makes for good theater. Bipartisanship sounds good in theory, the way that a vegetarian diet sounds like a good idea, that is until someone puts a barely cooked steak on your plate with the blood still dripping onto your potatoes. I'm ready for some raw meat.

The main reason though is because without getting some blood on their hands, the forces of progress (the root of the political descriptor progressive which is how I define my political ideology) have no chance against the reactionary and often ridiculous right. Name your issue, health care, economic and tax policy, foreign policy, domestic and social policy, the progressive agenda beats the reactionary agenda of conservatives across the board. Most reasonable and rational thinking Americans who aren't blinded by mindless partisan dogma (which applies to both extremes on the left and right) would probably agree with me on this.

The issue du jour is health care reform, or more accurately health insurance reform. The actual health care that we receive is pretty high quality as far as I can tell, I've never had an issue or question with the level of expertise or the professionalism and dedication of those who provide the care. The issue lies with how that care is rationed and the increasing cost involved in accessing it.

Most Americans have health insurance, but with increasing premiums cutting into what measly raises we get anymore, and co-pays that go up incrementally every year, what we really have is catastrophic coverage. Most of us whether we realize it or not are paying out of pocket for what we actually use in a given year, in short the system as it is currently set up provides us with very little benefit unless something serious comes up.

Granted I speak as someone who thankfully rarely gets sick, and wouldn't go to see a doctor for the most part even if I did, I don't take any medications and were it not for having a family to consider I would probably do without and take my chances. But that isn't a viable option, so I pay a good deal for my coverage and I get little to nothing in return for the cost I bare.

There are different issues that affect different people in different ways of course, but the overlying theme here is that the system of private insurance needs to be reformed and managed better so that it serves the people who utilize it. I'm not arguing for a government run program or the elimination of private for profit insurance companies, merely for some common sense, progressive reform that will save individuals, businesses, and the economy as a whole a good deal of money, while continuing to allow insurance companies to make a profit for the service they provide, albeit a smaller one, while allowing for the continued deliverance of the high quality care we as a society have come to expect.

Which gets us back to the political season, which kicks off in earnest tomorrow night with Mr. Obama's speech to the joint session of Congress. What I will be watching for are signs that our president is ready to take off the kid gloves and get busy fighting for a major part of his campaign platform, and signs that the Congress will awake from its malaise and realize that their fortunes rise and fall with those of the president, and the fortunes of both will be greatly determined by how effectively they can deal with this issue. I am hopeful and skeptical at the same time, but like many Americans I will be watching the festivities with great interest, and scoring along with the judges at home. I don't expect a quick decision, this one may go the distance and that's fine so long as the ultimate result comes out on the side of hard working common folk who simply want rational and sensible reform. That would be progress indeed, and would offer greater hope that other important issues can be dealt with as the season moves along.

The End of the Honeymoon

Nothing lasts forever, and it appears that the period of America's infatuation with Barack Obama has come to an end. But just as the honeymoon period doesn't signify the end of a marriage, but rather the transition into the real thing, so too is our president transitioning into a period of rule over rhetoric. It is time to start to lead the country in the direction that he, and those of us who support him want to see. It is time to roll up the sleeves and get after it, and as health care reform is the issue on the table, that's as good a place to start as any.

Opinion polls, which show decreasing support for the president in general, and on health care specifically, are about as meaningful at this point in his presidency as baseball standings in early May. The outcry coming from town hall meetings, some of it manufactured and some of it legitimate, but most of it lacking in political intelligence, should not be an excuse to derail meaningful reform. This is a golden opportunity for the new administration to show the discipline needed to effectively rule, and while this is a vital issue in its own right, it is also very much a barometer for how effective this team will be on a variety of other important issues.

For the second time in six months, Obama has made the mistake of turning over a vital piece of legislation to the Congress, the first time was with the stimulus plan in the waxing days of his term. I had hoped that he would have learned from that experience, but right now I'm not so sure if this is the sign of an inexperienced politician without strong advisers, or if this is indicative of a hands-off approach that is at the core of his leadership style. Both are troubling signs, the former suggests a failure to learn as quickly as the times require, but the latter is even more troubling.

The American people didn't elect a Democratic Congress in a vacuum, they were merely swept into power in the draft of a master campaigner who was able to capitalize on an electorate disgusted with the inept rule of the prior administration. The tanking economy certainly did its share as well. What is clear to most voters, but apparently not to the members who benefited from their collective decision, was that support for the Democratic Congress will be short-lived if they do not produce. The sooner they realize that the better off we all will be, and it is the job of Mr. Obama to make them see the light.

Obama needs to be clear about what it is he wants to see in this legislation, and then he needs to get tough with his own party about getting the job done. Forget about the opposition, they are simply playing the game the way it has always been played and to expect any differently is naive. The public doesn't need to necessarily be on board at this point either, our system is a republican democracy, which quite simply means that our say is mostly limited to voting every few years for people to represent our interests. We don't need to be polled weekly, the only polls that matter are the ones we go to in order to cast our votes. And the last time we did, the majority of us voted for Obama and the reforms he promised. It is time to deliver, and it is results upon which he will be judged when it really counts.

Almost One for the Ages

The ultimate long shot almost came through on Sunday, and while it was a heck of a ride and a very entertaining final round, it ended in disappointment, not only for one of the game’s legendary players and gentlemen, but for true golf fans around the world. Three shots away from claiming not only golf but sports history, the nearly 60 year-old Watson hit his approach shot over the green and couldn’t get up and down to save par and the win, and the rest was almost a foregone conclusion.

Tom Watson was my first love in golf, as a young kid in the late 70’s and early 80’s, he was the guy I chose as my favorite player, namely because he was one of the best players in the game at the time and I liked his style and his humility, and because my dad was a huge Jack Nicklaus fan and I wanted someone I could claim as my own. So to see old Tome as the Scottish fans who revere him refer to the unpretentious mid-westerner, compete for one magical weekend brought back memories of the game the way it used to be, the way it was before Tiger came on the scene and brought with him a new power style of grip it and rip it that has come to define the game over the last decade or so.

I heard a radio commentator the other night refer to Watson playing old man’s golf. I would call it just golf, the way the game was meant to be played before the technology of the clubs and the design of the courses gave us the predictable game we have today. Watching guys hit 350 yard drives and 175 yard nine irons into receptive greens is exciting for about fifteen minutes but it gets old quick. It’s the sports equivalent of going to a strip club. It is the main reason I rarely bother to watch a regular tournament anymore, where a bunch of young guns with driver heads bigger than my Yorkie hit bombs and fire birdies and eagles on their way to winning scores of 25 under par.

Tiger has been great for the game in many ways, he has undoubtedly opened the game to a new set of fans and has inspired his competitors to greater heights. He is one of the game’s all time greats, and may very likely become the all-time leader in majors won, although that alone won’t make him the greatest player of all-time, but that is an argument for another day. I enjoy watching Tiger play as much as the next guy, and while I am a Mickelson fan (he’s a fellow ASU alum who matriculated there at the same time as I did) and I have watched and rooted for Lefty since his amateur days, I appreciate and admire Tiger’s greatness and am right there with the rest of the sporting public in front of the tube when he is in contention.

But I am also a fan of the game, and unlike many Tiger fans, I loved the game well before he came on the scene and will appreciate it long after he has faded into the sunset. This past weekend was a refreshing break from the Tiger era, and proved to all of us who love the game more than any one player that a great tournament comes from the setting and the competitive drama as much if not more than the characters. It was a reminder that keeping the ball in the fairway off the tee beats a bomb into the rough, and imagination and creativity are much more sporting than sheer power.

The drama of golf is at its best when the greatest players in the world, with skills the rest of us can only dream of struggle and overcome those struggles, when a guy goes from hero to zero in the span of ten minutes with a snowman that takes him from the lead to off the leader board. It is the most riveting when it is full of ups and downs, triumphs and tribulations, all within the span of a four hour round. And for my money, there is nothing better than links golf, this is the game in its original form as it was invented to be played, on land unsuitable for farming along the British coast.

Old Tom almost closed the deal and almost won one for all the old guys out there, for all of us who despite aching muscles and sore knees and stiff backs, still get out of bed and get in our morning workout, or who put off the comfort of our easy chair and cold bottle of beer for a couple hours after work to get in our afternoon exercise time. Old Tom almost got one for all of us regular guys and gals who go out to our local course every time hoping that maybe the next round will be the one for the ages, the one where we play an entire round the way we are capable usually of playing only for a few holes on a given side, before the Golf Gods get back from break and put us in our rightful place.

It was almost one for the ages, and while we can’t expect Watson to repeat that performance again, it should keep the rest of us coming back for more, because the promise of watching golf, as it is for all sports, is that just like Forest Gump and his box of chocolates, you never know what you’re gonna get. I’d say this past weekend golf and sports fans got more than we bargained for, and short of the hoped for storybook ending, that will have to be enough, at least for now.

The Third Wave

The way I understand it, there have been two previous waves of the feminist movement in America, the first dating back to the middle of the 19th century where women like Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott petitioned for voting rights, or suffrage for the female population. It is assumed that once political rights are granted, that the exercise of such will lead to additional rights and more opportunities. While this is true to an extent, it is my understanding that in the early years of women gaining the franchise, which was finally accomplished in the early 20th century, it was not particularly utilized for the betterment of the gender, most women who did vote did so in agreement with their husbands, and the examples of females holding political office or wielding power behind the scenes are rare.

The second wave began in the 1960’s, an era of protest in general, against social conventions considered to be oppressive, against the war in Vietnam (imagine that, people having the courage to not stand by idly while young men were sent off to fight in a war of choice) and protest against sexism and gender discrimination. This was the era of sexual freedom for women made possible by the pill, a demand for more opportunities in the workplace, a push for an equal rights amendment that was never realized, and by the more militant wing of the movement the burning of bras and a rejection of any role that was associated with traditional femininity as being inherently repressive.

In many ways, women have gained what they sought, and it is my contention that we are much better as a society for it. I believe firmly in the notion expressed by Dr. King, that if any of our brothers or sisters are in chains, then none of us are truly free, if one of us feels the weight of oppression that burden is shared by the society in general, that what affects one of us affects all of us. Women are free to pursue an education in the field of their choice, and have the opportunity to become what they wish to become. While there are still certain barriers in the workplace and specific industries that are male bastions, and while equal pay for comparable work is still a goal that must be pursued, as the line goes, you’ve come a long ways baby.

So where does the notion of feminism go from here? White middle aged conservative males have tried their best to maintain the status quo, as terms like feminazi (coined I believe by the ultra WMACM Rush Limbaugh) attest to, but for the most part women have shed the slave mentality that kept them from realizing their potential in the earlier days. The question then becomes, what do you do with power once you have it? My hope is that together with enlightened members of the male species, we can build a better, more just, compassionate, and ultimately more humane world to live in. My fear is that women will take what has been dearly bought and squander it on becoming just like men. There are plenty of signs of this if you look around.

Women today are more likely to swear in public, sport multiple tattoos, practice casual sex, cheat on their mates, have beer guts, and act ruthlessly and with little compassion in the workplace. In other words, we are in danger of simply doubling the male population! The one male prerogative still unavailable to women is the ability to go shirtless in public, although it has become apparently acceptable for women to have half of their boobs hanging out of their tops, and to wear the sheerest possible coverings, to the point of where nipples have become a public commodity. Not to sound too prudish, but is all of this really progress? While I am certainly no pious Muslim man who averts all glances at the fairer sex, I am admittedly old school when it comes to certain things being best left to the imagination.

Leave it to a man to go off on a tangent about women’s breasts, let me get back to my main idea, which is the question of where this new, third wave if you will, of feminism should take us. My feeling is that a woman should not need a man, but should not bash males for sport either. A woman can certainly live a meaningful life without male companionship, as Catherine Sloper, the protagonist of Henry James’ novel Washington Square did after being jilted by the snake Morris Townsend. Along with her father, the men in Catherine’s life were disappointing, but she nonetheless carves out an existence with merit in the mid 19th century, an era well before feminist notions had entered our consciousness. Yet to my way of seeing it, men and women are more complete as humans when we join together, there is much to be said for being able to see the world from each other’s perspective, and we are infinitely more productive when we are allies rather than adversaries.

My hope is that men will become less macho, while retaining a certain toughness and sense of honor and duty that serves us well, and that we will become more enlightened and appreciative of the world and the people around us. My hope for women is that they will maintain their unique and wonderful feminine qualities of nurturing and compassion and empathy, while continuing to assert their strength and courage and independence. Men aren’t from Mars, and women aren’t from Venus, we both share planet Earth, and the best hope for a better society here is for the two genders to blend the best qualities of each, to teach and to learn from each other, and if it is done properly, there may not be a need for a fourth wave of feminism.

Not a Fool for the City

As I mentioned yesterday I just recently got back from what has become my annual pilgrimage to the Eastern Sierras in what is generally referred to as Northern but is more geographically actually in Central California. If there is such a place as “God’s Country” then this has to be it, at least it must be on the short list of finalists. One week leaves me with the indelible impression for the other 51 of the tall green pines, the aspens quavering in the afternoon wind, the clear rural skies, the crispness of the morning air, and always surrounded by snow covered mountain peaks. The town that we stay in is a ski resort in winter, but summer has always been my favorite time to visit Mammoth Lakes, CA.

In summer is when the town is at its best. And at its best it is a simple and quaint place, with a stated population of 7000 locals supplemented by the scores of San Diegans and Los Angelinos who come up for a weekend or midweek retreat from city life. As Phoenician refugees we are in the minority, but the impetus is the same, and in our case we are escaping not only the blandness of modern suburban life, but the oppressive desert heat as well. A week is never nearly enough, if money grew on trees and I had a couple of those bad boys in my back yard, I’d spend my entire summers up in the Sierras, but since the only trees in my backyard are palm trees and bougainvilleas that leave me looking like a heroin addict with track marks up and down my arms after trimming them, a week has to do. I get in all of the running, back country hiking, lazy days fishing or at least pretending to fish while relaxing at Lake Mary, and trips to the Jacuzzi that I can squeeze into the time I am allotted. The bonus this trip was the discovery of the Java Joint, a cool little coffee house within walking distance of our condo, where the java is smooth, the music funky, and which has a great space in the back where I can sit in a comfy chair, drink my morning beverage and read my book. I finished Henry James’ Washington Square on this trip, a novel that I will be referencing soon as I expound on my thoughts on feminism.

Perhaps nothing in life brings out characteristics as much as contrasts, at least that is my belief and something that I am trying to explore in some short stories that I am currently working on. We enjoy happiness most after periods of sadness and we tend to appreciate good people more when we encounter evil, that sort of contrast. For most of us, we are basking in the light of having an articulate and intelligent president with sound judgment after a long stretch of being saddled with one who was sorely lacking in all of these elements. So upon my return to the desert life it becomes apparent to me how much I really am not ultimately cut out for big city living.

I am not driven by material gains, I am not interested in driving the best car or living in the most prestigious neighborhoods, I don’t dress to impress, and I don’t walk around with an air of self-importance, like most of my fellow city dwellers. I enjoy simple pleasures in life, good conversation, a good book, the beauty of nature, a five mile run on a cool afternoon, a relaxing evening at home with my wife and kids watching TV, a bowl of strawberry ice cream before bed, that kind of stuff. I believe in looking people in the eye, a friendly smile, and a little light conversation if the situation allows. To ignore other humans is rude and arrogant, but in Phoenix, as I imagine in most big megalopolises that most Americans today live in, this seems to be the cultural norm. Keep your eyes down and stay moving, you’re important, you’re busy, you’ve got no time for idle chit chat, acknowledgement of others, or any other forms of basic humanity. There are a few exceptions that I encounter, but these merely go to delineate the rule.

The people that I know that seem to be the most content all live in small towns, and I have come to believe that a small town, or at least a small city is where I would be the happiest for the balance of my life. My wife agrees, being a small town girl herself, and while I don’t idealize this life, I find that I much prefer it to life in the big city. There are certainly tradeoffs and I am aware of these having lived for two years in small town Iowa, but they are deals I am willing to make in order to live in a place that is more authentic and genuine than this artifice in the middle of the desert that I now call home. I’m not going anywhere anytime too soon, my kids still have a few good years left and I feel it’s important for them to grow up in one place, a place they seem to like, and I should add that for the most part I enjoy as well. Yet I have never felt completely at home in this city, and the notion of being in a place where even if not everyone knows your name, they at least acknowledge your existence, a place with a pace more to my liking, this is appealing to me. I don’t know where I’ll end up eventually, for all I know I’ll end up right where I’m at, but if I have my way I’ll be somewhere with natural beauty, a good coffee house, trails to run and hike, and a yard sans any prickly plants.

The First Rule of Complaining

It’s been said that everyone complains about the weather but nobody does anything about it. Guilty as charged on that account, I may be the biggest whiner when it comes to the ridiculously and inhuman desert summers, no more so than after returning from the much more hospitable climate of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. I’ve been pissing and moaning about how hot it is in this blasted desert since returning from my annual trek to the high country last weekend, but as yet I have been unable to come up with a solution, short of covering the city with a giant tent and pumping in air conditioning, or locking myself in a restaurant deep freezer until November.

We love to complain, not just Americans but all people. It is part of our nature, sometimes it is just a way to blow off steam, the way we complain to our spouse about our boss, we know that we can’t change our boss or our job, but it feels good to let out a little vitriol nonetheless. Sometimes it is just a way to pass the time, sitting around gossiping and griping. Sometimes it is a serious attempt to solve a problem because you can’t make things better unless you are sufficiently worked up enough to do something about it.

And therein lays the key to successful complainers, as opposed to those who just piss and moan into the wind, the ability to do something about it, or at least the attempt to do so. My old boss had a rule that applied to gripes that came up in meetings, and it was that if you saw a problem, you were in charge of fixing it. I can only estimate how much shorter that kept our weekly meetings, because nothing shuts up the naysayers more quickly than requiring them to come up with a solution. Perhaps this first rule of complaining could be applied to Congress, to the political punditry, and even more broadly to the public at large.

The idea for this column came from recent conversations regarding unsolicited emails sent from friends and acquaintances that make sport of bashing our new president. Many of you have probably received them, they make plausible but unsubstantiated claims that are easy to buy into if one is so inclined, but not so easily proved or backed up with any facts. They generally run along the lines of, Obama is a socialist, he wants to take over the banks and General Motors, he wants to turn us into a bunch of African Muslims, he wants America to be just like France and Sweden. He wants to force us into rationed health care, take away our guns, tax us until we bleed, and force us all into driving hybrid Chevy Malibus.

And those of us, who at last count was well over 60% of the population if you believe the opinion surveys, that actually support the president are just a bunch of suckers that are being taken in by Obama’s charm and good looks and smooth talk. We’re just a bunch of high school sophomore girls being swept off their feet by the popular senior and we’re only going to get taken for a ride and then dumped in the back of the gym parking lot when all is said and done.

So my charge to the Obama haters out there is to propose some solutions to the problems they love to moan about. The next time one of those annoying emails comes across your inbox mocking the president and anyone with the audacity to hope that he will turn out to be the real deal, reply with a simple question, what is your proposed solution? Not happy with the health care proposal, or with immigration law, or with the stimulus package or the size of the deficit? Fine, then what do you propose we as a nation do about it?

We have plenty of things to complain about, a multitude of problems to solve and the only way to do that is through open and honest debate among people who disagree about the best way to address these concerns. Groupthink doesn’t have a great track record of bringing about positive change, so divergent opinions and challenges to conventional thinking should be welcomed. But the first rule of complaining should be adhered to at all times, if you’ve got a gripe, then you need to propose a solution. Unless of course you’re talking about the 115 degree Phoenix weather in July, which is a complaint without a solution, and a problem that even Obama can’t solve.

Book Review-The War against Al-Qaeda

I have been doing a great deal of book reading over the last year or so, especially within the past six months, and I'd like to share some of the important ideas that I've picked up along the way. While I am not intending to offer literary criticism I will say that I do reccomend all of the books which I will be discussing if one is so inclined. If a book isn't worth recommending it certainly isn't worth writing about. I'll give the caveat that I am a bit of political junkie and specifically a foreign policy geek, so what is worthy of my time may or may not be deserving of yours. Consider these columns to be a brief abstract of the issues these books deal with. In the interest of keeping the column to a reasonable level, I will discuss one book at a time, and leave the others for a future time.

All of these books have the qualities that I look for in a non-fiction book on politics, contemporary issues, and history, my three favorite topics of non-fiction to read. They are very well-researched and the assertions and information is based on a wide variety of credible and knowledgeable sources. They are interesting and relevant. They are well-written and organized. And perhaps most importantly, they offer a well-constructed narrative. With that said, onto the books and their impression on me.

The most recent book that I just finished is by Lawrence Wright and is titled "The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11".
http://www.amazon.com/Looming-Tower-Al-Qaeda-Road-11/dp/B001H4K15M/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246123407&sr=1-2

This book really takes on two tasks, the first is to offer an insightful history of the Islamist movement, starting with the godfather of the movement, an Egyptian named Sayd al-Qutb, who became disenchanted with America after studying here in the late 1940's and early 1950's. He is the chief influence of America's public enemy #1, Osama bin Laden, who founded al-Qaeda in 1988 after fighting against the Soviet Union in the Afghanistan-Soviet War.

Bin Laden believed that if his jihadists could take down one superpower they could take down the other. Put aside the fact that the Arab mujahideen played a limited role in the 1980's war, which was mostly won by the Afghan fighters, the point is that this is the propoganda that al-Qaeda sells and that many recruits and supporters buy into. There are various groups that make up the Islamist movement, with varying agendas and methods. Bin Laden's group has become the most noted, and also the one most focused on taking down America.

In his world view, as most Americans now realize after 9/11, we are responsible for holding down the Arab and Muslim world, and by drawing us into a decisive war in the Middle East, we will go the way of the Soviet Union. His strategy is long on violence and bloodshed, but short on how this would lead to a renewed caliphate and a return to the glory days of the Arab and Muslim world, which is the goal of the Islamist movement.

However it's short-sightedness has done little to discourage the mostly young and disaffected men who join up, namely because many of them are focused on reaching paradise by becoming martyrs, and if your main goal is death, you probably aren't too concerned with long term planning. The attacks of 9/11 then are to be seen as an attempt not only to inflict damage on America, but to draw us into a long, protracted, and ultimately fatal battle with Muslim jihadists.

This is where the CIA and the FBI come into the story, and the second task that the book accomplishes is to track the men and women of these two competing government agencies and the myriad of clues that each encountered while investigating al-Qaeda in the decade leading up to the attacks. The main thing the reader takes away here is that had the two organizations worked together, it is very likely that the plot could have been uncovered and prevented. Not only that, but bin-Laden likely could have been captured and arrested, which would have most likely brought al-Qaeda to its knees prior to the fateful day of September 11, 2001.

However, due to territorial rivalries and turf battles, neither shared the information that could have led to a complete picture being revealed. In addition, neither the Clinton administration nor the Bush administration appeared to take the threat of al-Qaeda very seriously, although there was a great deal of information available to them that should have led both to do so.

It occurs to me while writing this that what I am describing is pretty much common knowledge to most informed people, and that this book doesn't present any new groundbreaking theories or explanations of 9/11, of Islamist terrorist groups, or of the performance of the two agencies charged with defending us from such groups.

What the book does do however is provide vivid details and weave a fascinating narrative of the individuals that make up the story. Based on extensive research and numerous interviews with the key actors, it is a riveting inside the locker room look at the groups that provide the greatest threat to our national security and those who are its sworn protectors. Wright strikes a balance between maintaining journalistic integrity and neutrality while working in astute observations and analysis, and leaves the reader pondering many relevant issues, which also is a key feature of a worthwhile work of non-fiction, that it gets the reader to think and consider what might have been and what could be.

Looking it up on amazon.com I found out that it is ranked a mere 153,000 in sales, which while not necessarily surprising is nonetheless somewhat disheartening, considering how important this issue is to our way of life. What I take away most of all is this: Global terrorism is here to stay, and all of the vigilance in the world won't keep us completely safe. There isn't anything we can do in terms of our policy towards the Middle East that will change the hearts and minds of those who support jihad and interpret the Quran in such a way as to justify their heinous actions. But that by a combination of aggressive pursuit of terrorist groups (politically, economically, and militarily) and a more sensible and intelligent foreign policy as it regards the Arab and Muslim world, we can greatly reduce the threat by taking much of the wind out of the sails of the terrorist wing of the Islamist movement.

It will take a great deal of political will and an understanding of the complexities of the issues and the different cultures that we are dealing with. Simple solutions will not do the trick, and as the Bush administration and neo-conservative response has shown, will only exacerbate the problem. Whether or not our political leadership, and as importantly the American people are up to the task is an open question. We tend to like quick decisive action ("just nuke the ignorant bastards") and shows of strength, but the bull in the china shop approach won't work here.

Neither will the pie in the sky liberal viewpoint that if we just change our ways all will work itself out. The answers to global jihad are complex, are bound to be fluid as different political scenarios and events play out, and any solution will take years if not decades. But to my way of thinking, this is the most serious issue that we face as a people, and one that is worthy of our time, intelligence, and energy as the guardians of the great American experience.

Speaking Softly

President Obama is often compared to Franklin Roosevelt, and while those on the left and right enjoy making this comparison for different reasons, I think that at least as it pertains to foreign policy, our new president is more akin to FDR’s distant cousin, Teddy Roosevelt.

Teddy became president in 1901 when William McKinley was assassinated by an anarchist, so in many ways there is a parallel in that neither person was necessarily expected to serve in this office. Certainly before Obama’s improbable Iowa caucus victory he was not taken seriously as contender. TR went on to become one of our more important and distinguished leaders, and one might argue that it’s been pretty much downhill for the Republicans in the hundred years since he left office.

TR was a swashbuckler, think of the cool guy in the Dos Equis commercials, known for leading his Rough Riders on the charge up San Juan Hill in the Spanish-American War, and for his adventures out West in the late 19th century. He was an outsider’s outsider, not feeling the necessity of conforming to the mainstream expectations of our Eastern dominated society. Obama is certainly an outsider, he comes to the presidency without the family connections and typical aristocratic upbringing that is the general path taken by most of our political class.

TR’s famous foreign policy slogan was to speak softly and carry a big stick. At the time the size of our stick was as yet to be established, it would be another half century before the U.S. became a major force in international relations, after the Second World War. Today we certainly carry the biggest stick, and as such we are saddled with the burden of the world’s problems. This burden can also be a privilege, depending on whether one takes a isolationist or interventionist view of foreign policy. I assert that in the interconnected and interdependent 21st century, isolationism is no longer a viable alternative, especially for the globe’s dominant economic, political, cultural, and military power.

In short, what we do and say matters, not only to us but to everyone. This should not be confused with the notion that we can dictate events or that we should be trying to run other civilization’s affairs, but it is to say that we have a vital role to play. This is often a complex and delicate balance, as has been brought to light with recent events in Iran. In the interest of keeping this column to a reasonable length, I will refrain from describing the situation, but instead will provide a link for interested readers who may not be aware of the situation or who would like to read further.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Iranian_election_protests

Obama has been criticized, mostly by the Right (big surprise) for not responding forcefully enough, for not roundly condemning the Iranian regime for repressing the rights of protesters. They want him to be more like our former president I suppose, one who is well known for tough talk and mostly ineffective use of the stick. The Bush administration was a nearly complete disaster as it pertains to foreign policy, and any suggestion that we should go back to the bad old days of cowboy diplomacy are laughable.

Obama has taken the right tone, he has called attention to the situation and expressed in no uncertain terms where America stands on the issue. And then he has done what the neo-cons can’t fathom, he has kept quiet.

This is an Iranian issue that is being, and will eventually be settled by a sovereign nation which represents one of the world’s greatest and longest surviving civilizations, that of the Persians who accomplishments as a people stretch back to antiquity. To dictate to the Iranians would only serve to alienate both their regime and their citizenry. By not adding unneeded fuel to the fire, we are letting events play out, which is what needs to happen in order for any real change to come out of this situation.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was recently on TV publicly calling out Obama, and by extension America for meddling and compared him to Bush. The fact that Obama has displayed discretion only serves to make the Iranian’s claims that much more laughable. The more often this guy opens his mouth the more he exposes his shallowness and lack of political intelligence. When an idiot starts running at the mouth, a general rule of debate is to get out of his way and let him dig his own grave. Our president gets this, and the way this story is playing out so far serves to validate Obama’s, and TR’s notion of foreign policy and diplomacy.

The Hot Stove League

In baseball it's called the hot stove league, the off season manuveurs that are made in the dead of winter, presumably around a hot stove, hence the name, that often have a major impact the following summer and fall. I'm not sure that the name is apt when used to describe basketball's off season, there sure as heck aren't any hot stoves running where I live these days, but until someone comes up with a better name, hot stove it is. Today's topic is the NBA moving and shaking in advance of the amateur draft that is likely to have an impact on next year's playoffs.

Of course I say playoffs because the regular season in the NBA is mostly a formality, an 82 game, 6 month prologue that fills the space in between football weekends and the college hoops tournament during the late fall and winter. The heart and soul of pro ball is the 2 month playoff tournament that runs for most of the spring and is easily the best two months of the sports calendar outside of the NFL and college football season.

The moves made in the summer will have an impact on what happens next spring, and of course it's anybody's guess how those moves will play out, so here's my guess. The big splash move is Shaq O'Neal going from Phoenix to Cleveland to team up with King Lebron in an attempt to get the Cavs their first title and to convince their franchise player to re-up with his home state team after next season. If it works it's a great move, if it doesn't it probably doesn't cost them much, as Cleveland didn't have to give up much to get the aging big man. My guess is that the impact will be minimal, but the hype will be enormous, as enormous as the big fella's supersized ego.

Shaq in his prime was the most dominant center to ever play the game, at least in the modern era. Shaq in his prime was nearly unstoppable, except for when he was on the free throw line, and led the Lakers to three consecutive titles at the start of the decade. Kareem was the greatest all-around center, and is still the NBA's all-time leading scorer, but for sheer physical dominance in the paint, nobody can match the Diesel.

But Shaq will turn 38 next season, and like many veteran players, he can still exhibit his former greatness on a given night, even for a few games at a time, but not over the course of a season, or more importantly in a 2 month playoff run at the end of that season. So while getting Shaq will grab the headlines and make Clevelanders excited about having another superstar in a town that hasn't had too many over the years, it is doubtful that he will be the presence that puts them over the hump. The two best teams in the East remain the reigning conference champs Orlando, who are younger and more balanced, and Boston, who if Kevin Garnett comes back healthy and they resist the silly notion of trading their impressive young point guard Rajon Rondo, will once again be the team to beat on the right side of the country.

The move of the hot stove league so far, and one that will get much less run than the big Shaq move, is the Spurs picking up Richard Jefferson, a younger veteran, and all around athlete who averages nearly 20 points and 8 boards a game. Add this to Tim Duncan, the premier big man in the game and best all-around center or power forward of his generation, Tony Parker and Manu Ginoboli, and you have a team that will be awful tough to beat in a 7 game series. The Spurs faded down the stretch after Ginoboli got hurt, but earlier in the season when they were healthy they were neck and neck with the Lakers.

Speaking of the Lakers, the defending champs are simply looking to hang on to what they have, and as is often the case in sports with championship teams, they must fend off the migration of top players who often look to cash in after winning a title. Lamar Odom is the big gun that LA needs to keep in purple and gold, and while many think that he is expendable thanks to the promising young Trevor Arriza, I'll take the sure thing over a prospect any day. The Lakers with Kobe Bryant, Pau Gasol, and Odom were able to win a title, the 15th in franchise history, but let's not forget that with this crew they were barely able to beat a Houston squad that was without their two best players, and thanks to Ginoboli's injury never had to square off against long time playoff nemesis San Antonio.

Forget about the Nuggets, they are likely to spend more time this summer in the local tattoo parlors than in the gym, and outside of Carmelo Anthony I don't see much there that will replicate itself. But the Spurs are four-time champs under Duncan, and the Rockets under the right circumstances could be a rising contender for the crown. Regardless of what happens in H-town though, the Spurs with Jefferson are the team to beat in the West, and if the Lakers lose Odom they could be in trouble come next spring.

The Draft is approaching, and I won't even try to handicap that, honestly I don't follow college hoops closely enough to have an opinion that is worth much as far as what players will come through in the pros. Add to that the European factor, and the fact that many of these college players only play a year or two, and the draft is a crap shoot.

But based on the off season moves made so far, I would rank the top 5 contenders going into next season in the following order:
5) Cleveland
4) Orlando
3) LA
2) Boston
1) San Antonio

We'll see how it plays out, and the nice thing about blogs is that this post will be there for all to see if it does pan out next spring. And if I'm nowhere near being accurate, I can always delete this sucker and act like I don't ever remember writing it.