Friday, December 15, 2006

A little bit of everything

Once again, I apologize for the extended delay between posts. I hope that there are still people out there who periodically check this venue of discussion to make sure I am still alive. Apu, thank you for letting me know that you do, feel free to encourage others to do the same.

Alright, this will be another epic multi-issue post. I will try to remain current and not post on things that are no longer relevant.

First, on a personal note, it's been a bit difficult living here in CT. We haven't yet found a home church, which means our access to a community of believers is limited. We did find a Baptist church that holds its services entirely in Polish. Isaac is sitting up now and doing long division. (Ok, that second part isn't entirely accurate.) I am still unemployed but I am waiting to hear about a non-sports, non-film job opportunity for which I interviewed. The flip side of the lack of income/lack of work issue is that it's been nice being home with Isaac and Vanessa and enjoying Isaac's early months of growth.

Next, to current affairs (I'll hit sports last so that I don't lose those of you who don't much care about sports):

Newsline: Boston. So the Governor-elect of MA has decided to throw off the chains of tradition and not allow anyone to conduct a background check on the people who he is going to appoint to public office. Allow me to shed some light on the predicament MA has willingly gotten themselves into: You have a defense laywer who has defended convicted rapists, murderers, and cop killers, among others. Mind you, he's assuredly gotten some people acquitted or he wouldn't have been as successful as he's been, and not every sentence is a life sentence. Now this man is running the Commonwealth's government and will not allow background checks on his appointed officials. Does that instill a sense of confidence in you? Does he owe some people "favors?" I can't help but wonder what they are hiding.

Newsline: The Supreme Court: The highest court in the nation is currently hearing a case that once again involves the desegragation of schools. Did you think that was decided with Brown v. Board of Education? Think again. There are two states that are involved in this litigation. These two states regularly bus children to different school systems to ensure that the schools are integrated so that they comply with the historic ruling listed above. The problem is not that the schools refuse to be integrated, but that the schools that have been receiving the bussed students are now forced to turn away students from their own town, forcing those students to be bussed to the school from which the non-resident students would be attending. Why is this before the Supreme Court? Only the white students are being turned away. Apparently, the school already has too many white students. Now take a moment and replace the word "white" in the above sentences with "black" or "hispanic" or "minority." Outraged? Why not before? Bottom line: Bus in whomever you like, that's not the issue. However, do not tell parents who live in your town and pay taxes that go to fund your school that their children are not allowed to attend there. Schools are funded by town budgets so the town has a choice. A) Refund the taxes of the people whose children are being shipped to another town against their will (and pay for the added expense those children cause in said other town.) or B) Let the kids go to school with the children who live next door to them.

Newsline: Connecticut: Enfield, Connecticut has a graduating class of about 450 students. Their gymnasium holds 800 people. For those who don't feel like doing the math, that's less than 1 family member per graduating student (especially if you count faculty and staff who would be attending.) In the past, the school has held their graduation ceremony at the Bushnell in Hartford. (For those of you in Boston, think "The Wang".) This was no inexpensive endeavor, however. The school had to cut a check for $18,000 for the use of that venue. There is a "mega-church" in Enfield that seats just about the same number of people as the Bushnell and is only asking $6,000 for the use of their sanctuary. What a great deal for this school (a school that was spending $18,000 of the tax payer's money). I bet we all know what's coming next. The ACLU has stepped in. They are fighting the school system saying that they can't have it in a church because that "favors one religion over another." The church has promised to remove all of their banners and mobile religious symbols. Behind the staging area is a stain glass window of a dove. The ACLU laywers say that the issue isn't the symbols, simply the symbolic nature that the building is a church. Any guesses on how many complaints they've had from the 450 families who have graduation seniors? One. So that one person could possibly take $12,000 from the sports, computers, art, music, another teacher's aide, field trips, you name it, all because they are offended that the graduation might be held in a building that is a church. For crying out loud, what if everything someone was offended by didn't happen or exist? No more rap music. The middle finger is outlawed. Forget all of the profanity you know. Most of prime time TV is a big no-no. The Religious Right is disbanded. Political parties are parties no more. The Yankees cease to exist. You see what I'm getting at. Really, sometimes people need to suck it up and deal. (One more thing about the offended people and the church. They wouldn't be offended if the graduation was catered by Dunkin Donuts saying that was the town showing favor of one doughnut place over another, demanding that it be catered by a non-Dunkins, non-Krispy doughnut provider. Why is it that the church is so offensive? Is it because it appears to require one to change how they live? (when in actuality, once one has faith, it is the Holy Spirit that encourages the change?) What would these people have done in acient Greece? "Can't do that, that favors Hermes over Ares, or Aphrodite over Hades.")

Sportsline: New Orleans: So I am no longer pulling for the New Orleans Saints. I was hoping they'd do well with the reconstruction of their city and Reggie's rookie year, not to mention the resurgence of Drew Brees. However, they committed one of the most despicable actions in sports and, therefore, have lost my support. They purposefully ran up the score against Dallas last week. Now it's one thing to have a potent defense and perhaps recover a fumble or grab an interception and run it back. Or get a turnover and run a potent offense against a porous D. That's not what happened. Up by 25 points in the fourth quarter, New Orleans lined up as though they were going to kick the ball away and instead executed an on-sides kick. An on-sides kick! Despicable, low, no good, needless. It's something my brother-in-law does against me in Madden '07. It's not something a professional head coach does against his former team. Maybe the coach had Brees in his fantasy league and wanted to make sure he got some extra fantasy points because they already had the spread beat if he had money on the game. If that had been done by a high school coach he'd be fired (or at least fined.) That kind of unsportsman-like coaching has no place in the NFL.

Sportsline: Boston: So Theo has finally made his fantasy come true. The Red Sox have signed Julio Lugo. Why Epstein has been infatuated with this player, I have no idea. He steals, he strikes out, and he bunts. This is not the Moneyball player that Theo claims to adore. I'll miss the most reliable defensive short stop the Red Sox have ever had. Maybe we can sign him and move him to second, because there is no way that Loretta is sticking around. Also on the theme of the Red Sox, they better sign "The Monster" or they wasted $51.1 million. I heard a rumor that he was signed for $52 million over 6 or 10 years, but that has been unconfirmed at this time. Making the total cost for this player $103.1 million. (and Scott Boras, the jerkiest agent in sports would get $5.2 million over 6 or 10 years. He doesn't really need any other players, does he? He's kinda like Jay Mahr's character in Jerry Maguire, you gotta deal with him, but nobody really likes him.) I wonder if the Sox will see another complete team turnaround like they did last year. Everyone gone but Papi and 'Tek. Yup, once again they are trying to trade Manny, will they never learn? I'm out of WEEI range so my news may be old. But it's met with the same mixed emotions it would be if I heard it from Jerry and John, Dale and Holey, or The Big O, Pete, and Buck.

Finally: If you've made it this far, I have a question to pose for which I have no answer. I've been wrestling with this and would like others' input. Here it is: Is health care a human right? Please comment with your answer (and who pays for it...)

Again, sorry it's been so long. Thanks for wading through these issues with me. I hope it will be less than a month before you receive another installment of that which is just my opinion.

7 comments:

Apu said...

so good to hear from you and delightful to read your opinions again!

I am all for the Red Sox signing Matsuzaka. I heard his yearly salary will be $8.6 million (slightly less than what the Sox are paying Matt Clement and less than the $11 million the Royals gave Gil Meche). There has been a lot of funny money thrown around this year by a lot of teams because of revenue sharing. Getting D-Mat for Clementesque money is a bargain. The posting fee is easily paid for by selling 100 million subscriptions to Japanese NESN (something the Yankees have been doing for several years now with their YES network).

And of course, I would think the more Asian/Pacific Islanders the Red Sox sign, the better.

along the same lines...

I heartily endorse Bobby Jindal in '08! Marc, check him out and let me know what you think :)

Anonymous said...

re: New Orleans

(1) the onside kick occurred with 4 minutes left in the 3rd quarter, not the 4th

(2) the Saints were ahead 18, not 25

(3) Dallas had marched the field 3 straight possessions, even though they only came away with 10 points. It's certainly not impossible to score 18 points in 19 minutes, as the Saints scored 42 in 30.

If you think it's classless, that's your opinion, but you probably should actually watch the game first.

Dawn said...

great to hear from you again! i have been thinking of you guys and hope all is well. i have a Christmas card for you but no address; i'll have to email you for it. also, we are pregnant again and due july 13! please give vanessa our love and blessings to you all this Christmas!
btw, dave is also still unemployed and has been since labor day (ironic, no?) - but we hope to find out tomorrow whether or not he gets the youth min position he's been wanting for a long time. in KANSAS!

Anonymous said...

Marc,

Great to finally hear from you again. As far as out-lawing anything offensive, I would not exist, so I totally agree with everything you said in that section.

Healthcare is not a human right. Medications, doctors, medical equipment all need to be paid for. It has never been considered a human right. Since medicine began, even back when doctors would do house calls, people had to pay for services provided. I much prefer the option of choosing to pay for health insurance over Canada's health policy. (Remember, this is coming from someone who spends many thousands of dollars above and beyond my healthcare premiums)

Marc said...

Hey coward, yeah, you Annonymous. First, next time comment with a name or you won't even warrent the time of day. Second, 3rd Qtr, 4th Qtr, it's called hyperbole, maybe you've heard of it.
Third, oh, the Saints were up by three scores not four, my mistake.
Fourth, I did watch the game and I was outraged when it happened, not when the dispicable action was replayed on SportsCenter. Feel free to make excuses for your team's cowardly action. Dallas marched the field several times without scoring. Apparently NO's coach didn't think that his D could do stop them again? Too bad. It was still running up the score.

james said...

Who get health care for free? Canada by no means gets "free healthcare." It's all paid for by Mr & Mrs. Taxpayer.

You'd really favor paying directly out of your pocket for an emergency visit to the ER, when it still might mean you have to sell your possessions in order to pay it off. Me thinks there's a better way.

Anonymous said...

Me thinks that I have a great-aunt in Canada who is in her 90's. She has had a brain tumor for 15 years and will be dying very soon. Although it is benign, it has been growing and can only go so far before it kills her. She cannot (and has not been allowed since diagnosis) have surgery as her life expectancy is not considered worth the cost. Yes, I would rather pay my premiums than have my government decide whether my life is worth the cost of an operation!