Bittersweet Broken Bonds

Ultimately, August 7, 2007 will go down in history as the day Barry Bond became the temporary home run king. While heads turned and the ball bid the park adieu, Barry Bonds will not reign on the home run throne for long. Nevertheless, congratulations are in order. We are talking about a man that became a lot more muscular, won seven National League Most Valuable Player awards, eight Gold Glove awards, one N.L. batting title, and he played in one World Series. Bonds also became the most polarizing player in baseball.

Nevertheless, baseball has more to do with hand-eye coordination than strength. And with a single, violent swing of his bat, Barry Bonds made baseball history Tuesday in San Francisco, climbing one home run closer to the immortal Hank Aaron.

If you’re a technocrat and want to get all technical, there’s no arguing that Bonds has forcefully redirected 756 pitches into home run territory over his 22 major-league seasons. Yet according to the ziggurat of evidence compiled in the book “Game of Shadows” (http://www.gameofshadows.com/), Bonds also ingested performance-enhancing drugs during his peak slugging period, making some of those home runs less authentic. Question is, how many? How many of Bonds’ home runs are honest? And how many came courtesy of his reported juicing?

If Bonds is proven guilty (which I believe he will be, but no time soon) then I think they should void his homeruns from the 98 season (the height of the scandal) to the 2005 season (which is when I presumed he stopped or moved on to a new steroid). Which means that 73 home run record in 2001 for most homeruns in a season, should be wiped away with due diligence. This seems to me the best and only way to solve the problem and would effectively return Hammer’n Hank Aaron to his rightful position as king.

Across the land, baseball fans, including me who played and watched the game, are unsure what to make of 756 because of the players who achieved success on their own natural abilities. Bonds’ alleged use steroids beginning in the late 1990s, only adds fuel to a late-career explosion in offensive production that is unparalleled in baseball history. Even as Bonds took aim at Aaron’s record this summer, a grand jury continues to investigate him for possible perjury and tax evasion charges stemming from his involvement with an alleged steroids ring.

So, let the debates about the authenticity of Bonds’ record begin. It will be here for a while. It took Bonds more than four years to reach 100 home runs, and almost three more years to get to 200, in July 1993. He hit No. 300 in April 1996, and then needed another two years and four months to reach 400. He hit his 500th on April 17, 2001, then reached 600 in August 2002. No. 700 came two years later.

Regardless, I will let those that choose mourn 755 elsewhere. I will let the authorities claim foul play was involved in its demise. But for today, I will grin and bare and say all hail Bary Bonds the new home run king!

References:

1. http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=hruby/060512
2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/07/AR2007080702301.html
3. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/08/sports/baseball/08bonds.html?ref=sports

A Happy Marriage: Politics and Religion

Introduction:

It’s a sad truism of American life that religion has no place in the politics. Faith, it is said, is a private affair that should have no bearing on public policy. But this is not only unjust to the millions of religious (mostly Christian) voters and taxpayers in this country - it's also false. The United States has a long tradition of separating church from state, but an equally powerful inclination to mix religion and politics. Throughout our nation's history, great political and social movements – from abolition to women's suffrage to civil rights to today’s struggles over abortion, gay marriage and capital punishment – have drawn upon religious institutions for moral authority, inspirational leadership and organizational muscle. But for the past generation, religion has been woven more deeply into the fabric of partisan politics than ever before.

The 2004 election was the latest presidential campaign in which candidates openly discussed their religious beliefs, churches became increasingly active in political mobilization and voters sorted themselves out not just by their policy preferences but also by the depth of their religious commitment. In fact, whether a person regularly attends religious services was more important in determining his or her vote for president than such standard demographic characteristics as gender, age, income and region. Polling data also indicate that Americans are divided over how involved churches should be in the political process. According to a July 2006 poll by the Pew Forum, roughly half of Americans (51%) think churches and other houses of worship should express their views on day-to-day social and political questions, while 46% believe these organizations should stay out of political matters.

Although the public is divided over churches speaking out, most Americans view President Bush's expressions of religious faith as appropriate. Barely more than half (52%) say Bush mentions his religious faith the right amount and another 14% say he talks about his faith too little. Only about a quarter (24%) believe that Bush mentions his faith too much, a percentage that has stayed about the same in the past two years but is much higher when compared with July 2003 (14%).

The relationship between Christianity and politics is a historically complex subject.

Biblical foundations:

The Bible contains a complex chronicle of the Kings of Israel and Judah, written over the course of many generations by authors whose relationships and intimacy with the rulers of the several kingdoms fluctuated widely in both intimacy and respect. Some historical passages of the Hebrew Bible contain intimate portrayals of the inner workings of the royal households of Saul, David, and Solomon; the accounts of subsequent monarchs are frequently more distanced and less detailed, and frequently begin with the judgment that the monarch "did evil in the sight of the Lord."

The New Testament, instead, begins with the story of Jesus, crucified as a criminal who had offended both the Jewish priesthood and the Roman imperial authorities. At least to outward appearances, Jesus was at the periphery of political life and power in the Roman province of Judea. Nevertheless, a number of political currents appear in New Testament writings

Render unto Caesar:

All three synoptic Gospels portray Jesus as saying "Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." (Matthew 22:21; Mark 12:17; Luke 20:25) Jesus gives this answer to Pharisees who ask him whether it is lawful to pay taxes to Caesar or not; Jesus begins by asking them whose portrait appears on a Roman coin.

The incident can be read to support a position that Jesus announced that his religious teachings were separate from earthly political activity. This reading finds support in John 18:36, where Jesus responds to Pontius Pilate about the nature of his kingdom, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.”

Conclusion:

Public debates about the role of religion in the government in America are often characterized by rancor and bad feelings. It’s questionable whether much progress can be made on this issue if people can’t learn to work together more, so some scholars have been seeking ways to decrease the level of animosity in the rhetoric and arguments. However, Christianity and Politics have always been fused and will (should) continue to be discussed and embedded into United States Codes. Besides all the rhetoric about the Bill of Rights having Christian influence as well as, US Codes having Biblical influence; Christianity and politics is ultimately good for America. Because Christian morals assist to uphold the constitution and indoctrinate people into becoming not only better Christians but productive members of society that are socially responsible.

Even without empirical proof, I would argue that since the Ten Commandment were removed from schools and court house crime, abortions, and divorce have risen. I am not saying that if the Ten Commandments where reinstated (although I think they should be) that these problems would necessarily dissipate. However, I do believe that eventually over time there would be de-escalation. Americans should return to their Christian heritage to salvage this country from the degradation it’s headed to. I pose this question very loosely, but I do wonder if more Americans were religious would there be a need for all this added security (i.e. the recent Foreign Intelligence Bill that was recently signed into law, giving the executive permission to wiretap without warrants)?

References

1. http://pewforum.org/religion-politics/
2. http://www.wikipedia.com/

Why the Ethics Reform is a Congressional KO

Although it was not October 30, 1974 and Heavyweight champion George Foreman was not getting ready to battle Muhammad Ali in Kinshasa, Zaire. There was much semblance in Congress taking on Washington lobbyist. Congress much like Muhammad Ali was being bullied along for seven rounds before knocking out George Forman in the eight. Congress last week landed the knock-out blow to lobbyist after years off ethic woes and lobbying scandals.

Congress did a knock-out job in passing the Ethics Reform bill that now is waiting for President Bush to sign into law. The great thing about this law is that tougher rules change the game for lobbyists and even the keel for small interest groups and individuals to share status. Unlike, major lobbying firms’ individuals and small interest groups don’t have the expenses accounts to indulge congress members or congressional aides. Last week Congress reassured the American people that money does not always make might, with its far-reaching ethics and lobbying rules. All that depends now is whether or not President Bush will sign the bill into law. Let’s pray he does.

The greatest achievement are the new “temptation rules.” Not only do they bar lawmakers and aides from accepting any gifts, meals or trips from lobbyists, they also impose penalties up to $200,000 and five years in prison on any lobbyist who provides such freebies. Unbeknownst to many, Congress and the federal prosecutors can still kick ass and take names by taking a newly aggressive approach to corruption cases by including treating campaign contributions as potential bribes. The provision goes beyond Federal Election Commission law, which covers only contributions physically handled by lobbyists or solicited by distributing pre-addressed envelopes. The House bill adds to that contributions credited to registered lobbyists through tracking or code systems.

The new proposals, which in the end passed overwhelmingly, would expand the information available about how business is done on Capitol Hill and make it available online. They would provide expanded, more frequent and Internet-accessible reporting of lobbyist-paid contributions and sponsorships, and would for the first time impose prison terms for criminal rule-breakers. They would also require strict new disclosure of “bundled” campaign contributions that lobbyists collect and pass on to lawmakers' campaigns. The bundling reports, filed quarterly and posted online, would mean “much more visibility of conduct that has typically occurred undetected because current law doesn't cover it or the FEC has been spotty in its enforcement,” said Kenneth A. Gross, an ethics attorney at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom.

“It will be easier to connect dots,” said Ted Van Der Meid, a Washington lawyer who was counsel to Representative J. Dennis Hastert when he was House speaker. “Even if there shouldn’t be a connection, you are going to have to explain to them how the way they connected the dots is not what you intended. You are going to have to basically prove your innocence.”

References

1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/24/AR2007052400266.html


2. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/07/washington/07lobby.html?_r=1&ref=washington&oref=slogin

Why Dating Out is Okay but Marrying Out is Wrong!

Recently, Dionne Walker of the Associated Press published an article in the Washington Post called “More Black Women Consider 'Dating Out.” Where she pointed to the US Census data showed 117,000 black wife-white husband couples in 2006, up from 95,000 in 2000. Analyzing this data what does it say about Black marriages?

Easy, Black men are slowly disappearing leaving Black women to increasing select from a larger pool of candidates outside their race. According to the American Council on Education's most recent statistics, Black women on campus largely are surrounded by non-black men: In 2004, 26.5 percent of black males ages 18 to 24 were enrolled in college versus 36.5 percent of black women that age.

While this topic seems to garner increasing attention by Black female-white male romance becoming a hot topic in black-geared magazines and on web sites, even hitting the big screen in movies like last year’s “Something New.”

I believe that individuals should date outside their race, because it allows them to experience another’s culture. Experiencing another’s culture is good because individuals can learn to empathize with their partner’s culture. Additionally, dating allows you to view your partner’s world through their eyes and experience, see how they perceive life, and handle obstacles. Nevertheless, there has to be a stopping point when it comes to marriage. Here are some reasons why:

• Think back to when black women agonize over breaking male-female bonds forged in slavery and strengthened through the Jim Crow era.

• Think when White males raped and ravaged or when because it was exotic during slavery.

“It may be even more of an issue for educated black women who have a sense of the historical realities of this country, where black women often were abused at the hands of white men,” Dr. Craig-Henderson, a professor at Howard University.

• ‘“Black-on-Black” Love is a form of resistance in a racist society’ Teejays Blog – notes “When brothas recognize that “Black-on-Black” Love is a form of resistance in a racist society (in effect, boycotting the negative stereotypes assigned to us by the mass-murdering-media) and steadfastly refuses to permit neither themselves nor anyone else (including sista’s) to exploit & disrespect Black Womanhood, THAT is revolutionary and you best believe it won’t be televised!’

• Shared Experiences/ Shared Worldview - For anyone who wants a life partner/ soul mate (as opposed to a fling/ relationship driven by enhancing one’s status), it’s natural to seek out an individual who has been through/ is going through what one has been through/is going through; someone who has a shared understanding of what it’s like to be a black person in a white supremacist world.

• Escape Additional Racism – avoid the ‘hassle’ of being in an interracial relationship – from the stares to the problems with racist in-laws – relationships are already challenging in themselves with partners of the same ethnic group - why add to your potential difficulties?

• Avoid Being fetishized - Know that your partner sees you as an equal/ another human being rather than the object of some unhealthy sexual fetish/ fascination.

• Love your Black Self/ Nurture your Black Consciousness Development – in a racist society, I believe this can only be done by exclusively dating/ marrying black partners. I’ve said in another post that I feel that white music has subtle impact on one’s racial identity development; likewise I feel that a white/ non-black partner is bound to have a detrimental effect on developing one’s consciousness as a black person – how could it not? Most black folk suffer from varying levels of self hate as a result of living in a white supremacist society – dating/ marrying black is way of enhancing self respect and self-love.

References:

1. http://racialrealist.wordpress.com/2006/06/15/why-i-think-black-people-should-date-marry-each-other-3/
2. http://teejsays.blogspot.com/
3. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/04/AR2007080400835.html

The Manifesto of Ascendancy for the Modern American Nigger

Let me tell you something about niggers, the oppressed minority within our minority. Always down. Always out. Always complaining that they can't catch a break. Notoriously poor about doing for themselves. Constantly in need of a leader but unable to follow in any direction that's navigated by hard work, self-reliance. And though they spliff and drink and procreate their way onto welfare doles and WIC lines, niggers will tell you their state of being is no fault of their own. They are not responsible for their nearly 5 percent incarceration rate and their 9.2 percent unemployment rate. Not responsible for the 11.8 percent rate at which they drop out of high school. For the 69.3 percent of births they create out of wedlock.

Now, let me tell you something about my generation of black Americans. We are the inheritors of "the Deal" forced upon the entrenched white social, political, and legal establishment when my parents' generation won the struggle for civil rights. The Deal: We (blacks) take what is rightfully ours and you (the afore-described establishment) get citizens who will invest the same energy and dedication into raising families and working hard and being all around good people as was invested in snapping the neck of Jim Crow.

In the forty years since the Deal was brokered, since the Voting Rights Act was signed, there have been successes for blacks. But there are still too many blacks in prison, too many kids aggrandizing the thug life, and way too many African-Americans doing far too little with the opportunities others earned for them.

If we as a race could win the centuries-long war against institutionalized racism, why is it that so many of us cannot secure the advantage after decades of freedom?

That which retards us is the worst of "us," those who disdain actual ascendancy gained by way of intellectual expansion and physical toil—who instead value the posture of an "urban," a "street," a "real" existence, no matter that such a culture threatens to render them extinct.

"Them" being niggers.

I have no qualm about using the word nigger. It is a word. It is in the English lexicon, and no amount of political correctness, no amputation into "the n-word"—as if by the castration of a few letters we should then be able to conceptualize its meaning without feeling its sting—will remove it from reality.

So I say this: It's time for ascended blacks to wish niggers good luck. Just as whites may be concerned with the good of all citizens but don't travel their days worrying specifically about the well-being of hill billies from Appalachia, we need to send niggers on their way. We need to start extolling the most virtuous of ourselves. It is time to celebrate the New Black Americans—those who have sealed the Deal, who aren't beholden to liberal indulgence any more than they are to the disdain of the hard Right. It is time to praise blacks who are merely undeniable in their individuality and exemplary in their levels of achievement.

.....

This, then, is my directive: Let us achieve with equal disregard for the limitations of racism and the weight of those of us who threaten to drag all of us down with the clinging nature of their eternal victimization. Our preservation is too essential to be stunted by those unwilling to advance. And in my heart I don't believe all blacks cannot achieve in the absence of aid any more than I believe the best way to teach a child to run is by forcing him to spend a lifetime on his knees.

As long as we remain committed to holding high our individuals of supreme finish, others will be inspired to loose themselves of the gravity of the waywards and downtroddens.

Once free, they will rise. They will drift high toward the attainments of which we are invariably capable; being better fathers and husbands and lovers. Better mothers and daughters, sisters and best friends. We will rise to the simple obligation of taking care of our own with the same dedication we will give to improving our community and country and our world. Yes, our influence will extend so.

Where do we go from here?
The only direction we can.
The New Black America will ascend.
By John Ridley
http://www.esquire.com/