Friday, April 16, 2010
Spring Has Sprung
It is with wonderful amazement that I watch the season turn. It comes with a dazzling display of a familiar order of colors. The red maples, yellow forsythia, the white pear trees, redbuds and dogwoods. We have recently planted a fringe tree, or "Old Man's Beard" in a planter on our deck. It is just now starting to bud, and some of the flowers are starting to show. This tree is known for its brilliant flowers in the spring, and later in the year it produces fruit for our wildlife neighbors. I look forward to the years passing and watching the growth in our yards...
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Bud's throwing stones...(alt title: Bud has no stones)
Several years ago, over a thousand professional baseball players submitted to drug testing. This was done not for punitive purposes, but to assess the extent of drug use in professional baseball. This information would be a step in developing an appropriate drug policy. The people submitting to this testing were assured that the test results would remain confidential.
Out of over a thousand tested, over a hundred positive results turned up.
Out of over a hundred positive test results that were to remain confidential, only one name has been released. Alex Rodriguez. Prior to the test results being released, A-Rod maintained to the media that he did not use performance enhancing drugs. Since the positive test result was leaked, he admitted his use.
Prior to this, A-Rod was looked upon in a positive light, the knight in shining armor to wrest the home run record from Barry Bonds, the black knight who shamed the sport by taking an unfair advantage that Hammering Hank Aaron would never have done.
Since this revelation, baseball commissioner Bud Selig has vilified A-Rod, where before he lauded him.
Bud, do you expect us to believe that as the commissioner of baseball you did not have access to the results of these tests? If you did, why change your stance on A-Rod now?
If you did not have access to these test results, why aren't you looking at the whole context of this issue? The players submitted to drug testing so that they could help professional baseball ascertain the extent of performance enhancing drug use amongst its players. The players submitting to the testing were doing so to help the sport. The players had a reasonable expectation of privacy when it came to the results of these tests. The players knew that more testing would be coming in the future.
My belief is that everyone, somewhere, somehow, at sometime did something that they shouldn't have or failed in some way that they would not admit. If for some betterment we were asked to reveal our shortcomings in exchange for immunity from whatever evil would result from this revelation, that expectation of privacy should be respected.
It has since been reported that 4 baseball players are the ones who chose to tell the media that A-Rod failed his drug test. The drug test that was supposed to have been kept sealed.
Why are we not asking who these 4 players are? Frankly, I am outraged that these four would do what they did and do so anonymously. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Whoever outed A-Rod violated the agreement that he and everyone else who submitted to testing had.
If any one of us agreed to admit a wrong doing in exchange for leniency, we would be angered if someone wrongfully revoked that leniency.
Many are clamoring to find out who the other 100+ players who tested positive are. Just because the dam leaked, we should not tear it down. Just because some anonymous individuals took it upon themselves to violate the agreement for one, the agreement should not be violated for all.
Bud, why are you not asking how and why and by whom this information that was for baseball's purposes to remain confidential was made public?
Bud, why are you choosing to vilify A-Rod? He got tested when asked, in exchange for anonymity. He maintained that his clean record because no one was supposed to release that information. When the information was released, he admitted to his actions.
People are glorifying players from years past who did not use performance enhancing drugs...how many of them would have taken the advantage if it were available? Do we think that Ty Cobb or Gaylord Perry wouldn't have? Do we really know they didn't?
Why aren't you simply stating the facts and say that it is time for baseball to move forward? We thought we were further out of the steroid era than we actually were.
Bud, what skeletons are there in your closet?
Out of over a thousand tested, over a hundred positive results turned up.
Out of over a hundred positive test results that were to remain confidential, only one name has been released. Alex Rodriguez. Prior to the test results being released, A-Rod maintained to the media that he did not use performance enhancing drugs. Since the positive test result was leaked, he admitted his use.
Prior to this, A-Rod was looked upon in a positive light, the knight in shining armor to wrest the home run record from Barry Bonds, the black knight who shamed the sport by taking an unfair advantage that Hammering Hank Aaron would never have done.
Since this revelation, baseball commissioner Bud Selig has vilified A-Rod, where before he lauded him.
Bud, do you expect us to believe that as the commissioner of baseball you did not have access to the results of these tests? If you did, why change your stance on A-Rod now?
If you did not have access to these test results, why aren't you looking at the whole context of this issue? The players submitted to drug testing so that they could help professional baseball ascertain the extent of performance enhancing drug use amongst its players. The players submitting to the testing were doing so to help the sport. The players had a reasonable expectation of privacy when it came to the results of these tests. The players knew that more testing would be coming in the future.
My belief is that everyone, somewhere, somehow, at sometime did something that they shouldn't have or failed in some way that they would not admit. If for some betterment we were asked to reveal our shortcomings in exchange for immunity from whatever evil would result from this revelation, that expectation of privacy should be respected.
It has since been reported that 4 baseball players are the ones who chose to tell the media that A-Rod failed his drug test. The drug test that was supposed to have been kept sealed.
Why are we not asking who these 4 players are? Frankly, I am outraged that these four would do what they did and do so anonymously. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Whoever outed A-Rod violated the agreement that he and everyone else who submitted to testing had.
If any one of us agreed to admit a wrong doing in exchange for leniency, we would be angered if someone wrongfully revoked that leniency.
Many are clamoring to find out who the other 100+ players who tested positive are. Just because the dam leaked, we should not tear it down. Just because some anonymous individuals took it upon themselves to violate the agreement for one, the agreement should not be violated for all.
Bud, why are you not asking how and why and by whom this information that was for baseball's purposes to remain confidential was made public?
Bud, why are you choosing to vilify A-Rod? He got tested when asked, in exchange for anonymity. He maintained that his clean record because no one was supposed to release that information. When the information was released, he admitted to his actions.
People are glorifying players from years past who did not use performance enhancing drugs...how many of them would have taken the advantage if it were available? Do we think that Ty Cobb or Gaylord Perry wouldn't have? Do we really know they didn't?
Why aren't you simply stating the facts and say that it is time for baseball to move forward? We thought we were further out of the steroid era than we actually were.
Bud, what skeletons are there in your closet?
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Tolerance
In my youth, I remember being taught about tolerance by my late mother. However, back then it wasn't called that. It was just "mommy being mommy".
During my early elementary education my mother came to school one day to teach knitting. I was not going to have anything to do with that. That was for girls. One of the boys in my class wanted to take my mom's knitting lesson. I protested to my mother that it wasn't right for a boy to knit. My mom simply explained to me that if this boy wanted to learn to knit, she would not judge him. She would teach him. She explained it to me in a way that made sense. I accepted this fellow's choice to learn to knit and didn't think any differently of him. I asked myself if I wanted to learn to knit. I still wasn't interested, and mom and I were OK with that also. We didn't call it tolerance back then. We didn't call it anything, really. I really didn't think much more of this until it came time to write mom's eulogy.
I remember being taught about intolerance in my youth, as well. Being raised in Judaism, I had a Sunday School teacher who made it plainly clear to us that the world outside of our predominately Jewish neighborhood had different views of us. I recall hearing her tell a story where someone she met, (I forget where) who had never met a Jew before, asked her, "Where are your horns?" I remember seeing my grandmother cry in front of the TV set when watching the mini-series "The Holocaust". The book burnings had a strong effect on her. I now wish I could go back to that time and talk with my grandmother more about it. She was from Poland, I believe, and I don't know how close she was to such experiences. With my Jewish/Polish/German/Hungarian ancestry I do not doubt that I am within a few degrees of separation from someone who died in the Holocaust.
This past week, Senator Elizabeth Dole put out an advertisement which attacked her opponent, NC State Senator Kay Hagan, for meeting with a group of atheists and claiming that NC State Senator does not believe in God. Kay Hagan is a former Sunday school teacher. She does believe in God. She is rightfully upset about this attack as it simply is not true.
I am offended by this advertisement on another level. It speaks to intolerance. It says to me that if you are not of a certain religious belief then you are not suitable to serve in a job that has far more to do with representing everyone in your state on matters of economics, foreign policy, the environment and protecting people's civil liberties than it does religion.
Somewhere out there is a Schoolhouse Rock song about the "Great American Melting Pot". Growing up in New York City, visiting the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island, and attending elementary school with an ethnically diverse student body I know that is a lot of what America is about. ("Bring us your poor, your tired, your huddled masses longing to be free...")
Frankly, I couldn't care less about the religion (or lack thereof) of a politician. I am looking for someone who is going to eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels for energy, protect the environment, balance the budget, stimulate the economy so that people can work and have a house they can afford, maintain and improve our infrastructure and keep Americans safe at home and abroad. (And get us out of places we don't belong.)
The issues of whether or not we should have "In God We Trust" on our currency and on the walls of our governmental buildings means far less to me. So much less that truthfully, as far as I am concerned, you can leave it the same or change it. It won't matter that much to me. Whether or not someone wants the pledge to read "one nation, under God" is not a big issue. And don't call me godless. And this is why...this is America. This country was founded by people that wanted to escape the religous oppression of the Church of England. It is currently populated by people of countless different ethnicities and religious beliefs. Wake up. You are free to practice your religion, or not practice any religion, however you choose. Having religion included as a part of a political discussion is for the most part a moot point. We have freedom of religion. That's all that matters.
Further along this point...think about how many wars and atrocities have occured in whole or in part in the name of religion...
The more I write, the more I am for the complete separation of church, synagogue, mosque, and temple from state.
During my early elementary education my mother came to school one day to teach knitting. I was not going to have anything to do with that. That was for girls. One of the boys in my class wanted to take my mom's knitting lesson. I protested to my mother that it wasn't right for a boy to knit. My mom simply explained to me that if this boy wanted to learn to knit, she would not judge him. She would teach him. She explained it to me in a way that made sense. I accepted this fellow's choice to learn to knit and didn't think any differently of him. I asked myself if I wanted to learn to knit. I still wasn't interested, and mom and I were OK with that also. We didn't call it tolerance back then. We didn't call it anything, really. I really didn't think much more of this until it came time to write mom's eulogy.
I remember being taught about intolerance in my youth, as well. Being raised in Judaism, I had a Sunday School teacher who made it plainly clear to us that the world outside of our predominately Jewish neighborhood had different views of us. I recall hearing her tell a story where someone she met, (I forget where) who had never met a Jew before, asked her, "Where are your horns?" I remember seeing my grandmother cry in front of the TV set when watching the mini-series "The Holocaust". The book burnings had a strong effect on her. I now wish I could go back to that time and talk with my grandmother more about it. She was from Poland, I believe, and I don't know how close she was to such experiences. With my Jewish/Polish/German/Hungarian ancestry I do not doubt that I am within a few degrees of separation from someone who died in the Holocaust.
This past week, Senator Elizabeth Dole put out an advertisement which attacked her opponent, NC State Senator Kay Hagan, for meeting with a group of atheists and claiming that NC State Senator does not believe in God. Kay Hagan is a former Sunday school teacher. She does believe in God. She is rightfully upset about this attack as it simply is not true.
I am offended by this advertisement on another level. It speaks to intolerance. It says to me that if you are not of a certain religious belief then you are not suitable to serve in a job that has far more to do with representing everyone in your state on matters of economics, foreign policy, the environment and protecting people's civil liberties than it does religion.
Somewhere out there is a Schoolhouse Rock song about the "Great American Melting Pot". Growing up in New York City, visiting the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island, and attending elementary school with an ethnically diverse student body I know that is a lot of what America is about. ("Bring us your poor, your tired, your huddled masses longing to be free...")
Frankly, I couldn't care less about the religion (or lack thereof) of a politician. I am looking for someone who is going to eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels for energy, protect the environment, balance the budget, stimulate the economy so that people can work and have a house they can afford, maintain and improve our infrastructure and keep Americans safe at home and abroad. (And get us out of places we don't belong.)
The issues of whether or not we should have "In God We Trust" on our currency and on the walls of our governmental buildings means far less to me. So much less that truthfully, as far as I am concerned, you can leave it the same or change it. It won't matter that much to me. Whether or not someone wants the pledge to read "one nation, under God" is not a big issue. And don't call me godless. And this is why...this is America. This country was founded by people that wanted to escape the religous oppression of the Church of England. It is currently populated by people of countless different ethnicities and religious beliefs. Wake up. You are free to practice your religion, or not practice any religion, however you choose. Having religion included as a part of a political discussion is for the most part a moot point. We have freedom of religion. That's all that matters.
Further along this point...think about how many wars and atrocities have occured in whole or in part in the name of religion...
The more I write, the more I am for the complete separation of church, synagogue, mosque, and temple from state.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)