.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

In the Margins...

Comments on the passing political and cultural scenes.

Name:
Location: United States

Sunday, December 26, 2004

Ho - Ho - Ho-hum

Christmas has passed, but not without the chorus of anti-Western protesters chanting their opposition to the use in American society of certain phrases associated for centuries with this season of well being. Down with "Merry Christmas" and out with "God Bless You." Up with "Happy Holidays" and in with "Season's Greetings." But this year, some lovers of the Christmas tradition have lashed back in newspaper and television commentaries.

Critics as diverse as Charles Krauthammer, James Q. Wilson in an editorial in the Wall Street Journal, Oliver North, Emmett Tyrrell, and John Gibson in his "My Word" segment of The Big Story have lambasted the politically correct tendencies of the liberal media, the American Civil Liberties Union, and other let's-do-no-insult-to minority-religions or cultures-organizations for their insistence that traditional terms denoting the Christmas season be curtailed or completely eliminated. These groups not only want to take the Christ out of Christmas, they also want to take the -mas out of Xmas.

The life and teachings of Jesus Christ are the foundations upon which Christian churches are built. Although the United States is overwhelmingly Christian in outlook (eight-five to ninety percent of Americans profess to be Christians) and quite liberal and tolerant toward other religions within its midst, this doesn't seem to be good enough for certain liberal and intolerant individuals, groups, and organizations.

But let's be honest. Christmas is the reason for the season. Would Americans knowingly spend and spend and go into debt during any other time of the year? If it is true the economy basically recovers during the splurge at the end of the year, when, in the name of Jesus, would Americans, so thriftly for eleven months of the year, throw monetary caution to the wind and plunge headfirst into an ocean of gluttony - food, drink, and merchandise? Do we bottle up our desires for months, only to let loose in December without cause?

Certainly not. Yet, it's apparent to the least informed that to tie the greatest shopping season of the year to two of the deadly sins - greed and gluttony - would be counterproductive.

To those who wish to mitigate the Christian elements of the season of giving and receiving by using phrases such as "Happy Holidays!" and "Season's Greetings!", I can only say these phrases in no way diminish the true nature of the season. In fact, if we examine the phrases, we can see they refer to nothing less than Christmas itself. Holidays is simply a shortened; combined form of the phrase holy days, and, in Western culture, these days occur during specified times of the year. Christmas is the most important of these holy days.

And it goes without the need for much comment that "Season's Greetings" denotes one season, the Christmas season. Are these phrases next on the chopping block?

Whether some like it or not, Christianity is the bedrock of modern Western culture. To pretend otherwise is sheer folly. And a fundamental belief of Western culture - of American culture - is a tolerance toward all religious beliefs, even those that run counter to Western traditions, such as Islam, for example.

It would be nice if the minorities would allow the majority to celebrate its beliefs, openly and without fear of condemnation. The tyranny of the minority is just as abhorrent as the tyranny of the majority. If we are, as a society, to have the benefits of the season, then we all need to recognize this time of year as the Christmas season.

Monday, December 13, 2004

The Agony of Victory

From Senator John McCain to baseball commissioner Bud Selig to the players’ union, promises have been made to clean up baseball with its drug problems, particularly the use of steroids among players. Most likely, the cleaning will simply be lifting the edge of the carpet and sweeping the debris under it where it will remain hidden for the time being. We have only to look at track and field to see the lengths athletes will go in order to enhance their performances and reap the millions of dollars waiting for the ‘best’ of them.

So the public should not, as Jim Pinkerton of Newsday writes, “bet on any big changes.” Pinkerton expects “the trend toward human-body modification…to continue, even accelerate.” And he has every right to expect the use of illicit substances to enhance athletic performance to continue. Despite decades of monitoring, track and field is still rife with athletes who use “undetectable” drugs to make them run faster, throw farther, and vault higher.

The unbridled use of steroids is dangerous, to say the least. We only have to recall the premature deaths of sports figures such as Ken Caminiti, Lyle Alzado, and John Matuszak, who, after the ravages of enhancement drugs took their toll, made impassioned pleas against using the substances. We have only to recall the behavior shifts in baseballers Mark McGwire and Barry Bonds to see the negative effects of substances such as “the clear” and “the cream.”

Steroids in whatever form have invaded every sport of consequence: football, basketball, track and field, golf…

It would be naïve to believe otherwise. During the closing commentary following a Target stores sponsored golfing event – which Tiger Woods won – one announcer made the comment to the effect that it was nice not having to deal with the subject of steroids and golf, as if golf somehow was immune from the world of banned substances. It was this kind of ‘head in the sand’ attitude that allowed steroids and drugs to get such a strong foothold in the other sports fields. If we don’t see it, it doesn’t exist.

But fame and fortune are powerful inducements to athletes to excel. Where sports heroes of yesteryear achieved greatness through a natural talent and practice, the heroes of today take the chemical shortcut to celebrity. How do we – can we – compare the natural talents of a Babe Ruth or a Henry Aaron with the drug-enhanced ‘talents’ of a Mark McGwire or Barry Bonds?

The truth is we cannot compare, we can only contrast. Henry Aaron feels his lifetime record of most homeruns should stand, even if Barry Bonds surpasses his record this year. Why? Bonds relied on outstanding seasons under the influence of steroids to achieve his output. At best, Aaron insists, Bonds’ marks should carry an asterisk indicating his use of steroids. As fans, we can sympathize with Aaron who made his mark the old-fashioned way.

On today’s sports scene, with fame comes fortune. The average Major League Baseball player makes more money in one year than the average school teacher makes in a lifetime. Such disparities are hardly noticed, however, by the general public. Jason Giambi, before his fall from grace, had a $120 million eight-year contract with the New York Yankees. Now the Yankee management is trying to void the remaining years of the contract. Giambi’s salary is the rule rather than the exception for most sports franchises, be it football, track and field, basketball, baseball, or whatever.

We can assume the crime is in getting caught, not in the doing. Club owners are not in the dark about the goings-on with their star athletes. They may turn a blind eye, but surely, with such great investments in personnel they know something is afoot when players make startling turn-arounds in performance within a few seasons. Management may pay out millions of dollars to athletes, but it stands to make billions of dollars in return. Thus, one level feeds the other.

The public can expect baseball to make some attempt at regulating the use of steroids and other drugs among the players, just as track and field has unsuccessfully attempted to do for decades. As Senator McCain has threatened, the government may even step into the fray. Some players may be reprimanded; some may have their statistics footnoted; some may, like Giambi, have their careers shortened. But as Pinkerton says, “[T]here’s no stopping it.”

With new technologies coming on the scene daily, the public can be sure that new and innovative enhancement products will stay a step ahead of testing techniques. From owners who want the billions in revenues, to players who crave the money and fame, to the public who want bigger, better, and faster, the temptations to cheat are too great to resist. The agonies that come with the fame and money can be put off to another day.

Who knows? With gene therapy and new drugs, we may be on the threshold of the ‘designer’ athlete.

Friday, December 03, 2004

Out with the Old, In with the New

The Bush cabinet is undergoing a major shake-up in these weeks following the President's re-election. It's not an unusual circumstance; in fact, it's common for members of a cabinet to make their move to leave for greeener, more peaceful pastures after an arduous four years in the government. And the number who leave increases with the degree of stress under which they work. No one can deny that the years since 9/11 have been stressful for all levels of the national government, but senior administration officials are under constant scrutiny from a somewhat hostile press, a worried public, and a suspicious Congress.

The following is a run-down of resignations and replacements to date:

Colin Powell announced his resignation as Secretary of State on November 15, and the next day, the president nominated national security adviser Condoleezza Rice to take over Powell's position. Condoleezza Rice, if confirmed by the Senate as secretary of state, will cede her job as national security adviser to her deputy, Stephen Handley.

On December 3 President Bush nominated former New York police commissioner Bernard Kerik to replace Tom Ridge as Secretary of Homeland Security. Ridge, the first person to fill the post created in the months following the September 11 attacks, resigned November 30.

Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson resigned December 3. Mark McClellan, the government's Medicare chief and brother of White House press secretary Scott McClellan, is Thompson's likely successor.

Earlier President Bush on November 10 named White House counsel Alberto Gonzales, a Texas confidant and one of the most prominent Hispanics in the administration, to succeed John Ashcroft, the much maligned and controversial Attorney General. As chief national law enforcer, he received severe and on-going criticism from liberal portions of the public and press, primarily regarding his advocacy of the provisions of the Patriot Act.

President Bush will likely allow Treasury Secretary John Snow to choose when and whether he wants to leave the post; analysts expect him to stay on at least temporarily to push domestic issues such as permanent tax cuts. Possible successors include White House chief of staff Andrew Card, and Trade Representative Robert Zoellick.

Department of Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham is stepping down, the White House announced on November 15. Several names have been offered as replacements, particularly Democratic Senator John Breaux of Louisiana and Tony Garza, presently U. S. Ambassador to Mexico.

Along with Abraham, Agricultural Secretary Ann Veneman and Education Secretary Ron Paige announced their resignations on November 15. Nebraska Governor Mike Johanns, a Republican attorney who grew up on an Iowa dairy farm, will replace Veneman and Bush's domestic policy advisor Margaret Spellings will replace Paige.

President Bush nominated Carlos Gutierrez on November 29 to replace Commerce Secretary Donald Evans; Evans resigned November 9 to return to Texas. Gutierrez, a native of Cuba, was chief executive officer of Kellogg Company of Battle Creek, Michigan.

Robert Zoellick, U. S. Trade Representative, is expected to depart, but no candidates stand out to succeed him, although possible successors include Gary Edson, former deputy assistant to the president for international economic affairs, and Grant Aldonas, undersecretary of commerce for international trade. The departures so far all seem to have been considered well in advance, and replacements in most cases have been made almost immediately. In other words, there are no surprises.

While speculation has flowed freely in the national press as to whom will be the next to go, the greatest concern had centered around Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Much of the press assumed he would go, although there were those who figured he would remain in office to complete the tasks he undertook almost immediately on entering office - that of reshaping the military to fit modern necessities, and, then, to waging successful wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Whether the secretary is "scarred by postwar violence and prison scandal in Iraq," or not, he has agreed to stay on at Defense after consulting with the president. And unlike the other positions, no name has been offered by the speculative press to succeed Rumsfeld.

There will be new faces in the president's cabinet, but they will be balanced with some of the old. In any event, it is not unusual to see a moderate makeover in any president's cabinet, and in no way do the changes signify dissatisfaction with the policies and practices of the Bush administration.