First Post in a Long Time

Hello, I know it's been a while since my last real post. I am actually working on one, though, so there's that. This has been a strange time for me--I got a 220 on the PSAT (75 CR, 78MTH, 67WS), got into the all of the AP classes I applied to, and am the editor of my school newspaper's sports section, all while dealing with a potential ADD diagnosis and some emotional strains due to some low grades and familial struggles. Nonetheless, this school project fit the bill as something I would post (read: have a strong opinion on). The first part is my stance, the second is an opinion in light of said stance. Without further ado...

_________________________________________________________________________________

     Throughout mankind’s history, discrimination has often been the norm, not the outlier. In the United States alone, and without going into great detail, the hate has shifted from Native Americans to African-Americans to Catholics, to Jews and now more currently, to homosexuals in addition to all the others. In short, the claim that the nation that prides itself upon liberty and equality has eliminated discrimination within its government is inherently false. Homosexuals have been and are continuing to be denied basic human rights as a consequence of codified bigotry. In an egregious violation of moral and constitutional law, the U.S government has stripped individuals of the right to marry, artificially labeled them as subhumans, and prevented them from participating in aspects of life for reasons only based in their sexual orientation.

     Homosexuals have been unable to marry for centuries. Homosexuality was seen as an unnatural abomination, and as such was outlawed. Yet, times and laws change. The ones regulating same-sex marriage, however, largely did not. The Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996, prohibited marriage between members of the same gender and defined marriage as a union solely between one man and one woman. (GovTrack, 3) As of 2012, homosexuals unfortunate enough to be in one of thirty-seven states are denied 1,138 additional benefits and responsibilities ranging from inheritance issues to a lack of spousal protection in court cases. (Human Rights Campaign, 1) Furthermore, the recent ruling of the United States Supreme Court overruling certain parts of the aforementioned Defense of Marriage Act only applies in the thirteen states that actually have legalized same-sex marriage. As such, many couples are left with little more than a written acknowledgement of their commitment that often does not translate across state borders—a civil union.

     Beyond basic legal rights like marriage and tax issues, homosexuals find themselves victims of the system in daily life as well. Homosexual males are almost entirely banned from donating blood. (NBC News Health, 1). Due to an AIDS outbreak in the 1980s, any homosexual male that had engaged in sexual intercourse with a member of his own sex was forever banned from donating blood, even if he was not infected with any sexually transmitted disease. Further, in certain states that do not allow unmarried couples to adopt, such as Nebraska, Utah, and Ohio, homosexuals are forever banned from adopting a child and even face undue discrimination in the adoption process in states like Mississippi. (Wong, 1) Though popular opinion has changed dramatically over the last decade, particularly men, are shown undue scrutiny based upon unflattering stereotypes. They also have to deal with daily slurs and homophobic actions. Words and phrases like “faggot” or “no homo” may seem humorous to some, when in reality, they are far from it. Yet, despite substantial media coverage and the obvious presence of homophobia, only around two-thirds of states include sexual orientation in hate crime legislation.  (Shively, 10)

     The unreasonable prejudice extends to the areas that are supposed to preach tolerance and acceptance—churches. People of faith generally misunderstand homosexuality, and as such refuse basic rights and see them as subhuman. Though churches are well within their right to whom they give their ceremonies, many followers misunderstand their faith’s teachings. As New Jersey Governor Chris Christie (R) stated regarding his position on homosexuality, "My religion says it's a sin,” expressing a popular misconception among Catholics. (On the Issues, 1) The Church’s actual teaching is essentially that homosexuals are no more prone to sin or are more sinful than heterosexuals. Homosexuals can take full part in their faith.( United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 1) Being a homosexual is not a sin; rather, it could actually be a call to holiness, as some believe was mentioned in Matthew 19:12. Sex outside of marriage and sex incapable of producing a child, however, categories in which all homosexual sexual contact falls under, are inherently sinful. In short, acting upon homosexual attractions is sinful. In an asexual context, having them, however, is not. However, many groups, particularly the infamous Westboro Baptist Church, protest against immoral “choices,” when, in actuality, homosexuality is not a choice at all. Such groups reject reality in order to create their own. “Pray the gay away,” is far worse than and hardly comparable to “Born this way.”

     Just as people of faith unfortunately misinterpret the tolerant words of Jesus Christ, many citizens fail to understand the United States Constitution—the gospel of American law. The Defense of Marriage Act was a blatant overreach of boundaries as the Constitution never gave any legislative body the authority to regulate primarily religious institutions. Further, such regulation was never necessary to a degree similar to that of roads, federal banks, or public schools, and certainly never proper in a legal sense to warrant wholesale restrictions upon the institution. However, mountains of red tape and webs of tax law have made a “hands-off” approach impossible. Yet, a simple solution can be found—the fourteenth amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law. As it stands, the federal government does not afford equal protection to homosexuals in multiple ways, most obviously in the form of denying spousal protection in legal trials. Partners must take the stand against each other if called. (Ghianni, 1) Here, there is no protection under the law at all. Further, there is a more tangible burden that applies only to homosexual couples—the financial one. Homosexuals are denied marriage tax deductions and Social Security survivor benefits as they cannot get married. (Human Rights Campaign, 1-3)There is a financial penalty for being born different.

     Even after a brief examination of the facts, it is clear that the United States of America discriminates against homosexuals. It denies basic rights in marriage, provides a legal consequence-free environment for such discrimination, and treats them as sub-humans by refusing to let them engage in basic civil functions like blood donation. All because they were born different. They loved someone else. Congress cannot regulate human attraction. It should not even try. It can however, protect its constituents and afford them the rights and protections given to them by the Constitution. 

_________________________________________________________________________________

     I believe that the Church can teach it whatever feels best fits its teachings. Catholic tradition holds that the Holy Family was composed of a heterosexual couple of a man and a woman, and a son—Jesus Christ. A ban on homosexual marriage is in line with its teachings due to its endorsement of sex and marriage as primarily child-bearing unions, though it may certainly be against the tolerant message of Jesus’ message. Further, Jesus never really stated an opinion on the definition of marriage, who can take part in it, and why he believed such things. Further, the Bible contains few references to homosexuals beyond those of Sodom and Gomorrah. Looking through a strictly biological lens, it is clear that heterosexuality is the more advantageous option for the human race—the “blueprint” has been given to humanity. In a Roman point of view, the Church had to side with heterosexuality because of that fact.

     I feel that the Church has done a very poor job of educating its priests and the laity, because many misunderstand its teachings, as shown through the prior Christie quote. At my church, I have overheard a few discussions and read through the parish book of intentions (a spiral notebook people can scrawl intentions in for Mass) enough times to know that many parishioners lack a basic understanding of what it actually means to be a homosexual. They base opinions in stereotypes they find on TV, on the radio, or on the internet and discuss ways to “fix” “erstwhile” children. It is rather disappointing.

     On a purely political level, I would support lifting the ban on same-sex marriage. I find the issue to be very similar to the previous ban upon interracial marriage, which was lifted after a Supreme Court ruling. People cannot change their sexual orientation just as they cannot change to a significant degree the color of their skin. Why restrict social freedoms—marriage or otherwise-- for something one cannot change? I respect the Catholic Church’s position, yet find it necessary to federally respect same-sex marriages and other rights many religious groups (perhaps mistakenly) do not. Perhaps the reader can gather I have a somewhat strict definition of the Constitution—I, along with many others,--find Congress has made a law that directly violates the right to equal protection under the law it affords, one that also restricts the natural rights Thomas Jefferson promises in the Declaration of Independence—the pursuit of happiness.

     Though I am not a homosexual, I find it tremendously shallow that people find love to be based upon what kind of genitals a person happens to possess rather than his or her mind, soul, or being. That being said, I feel as though the Catholic Church, of which I am a devoted follower, has every right to control, defend, or even radically alter its position on this important topic. The government, however, does not. Homosexuals are citizens too. Rights are inalienable, regardless of who has them.

All images are used for non-commercial purposes and will be taken down if such action is requested.

More than Games

     On April 15, 2013, a bomb went off near the finish line of the Boston Marathon. Three innocent people, each with their own hopes, dreams, and aspirations, are now dead, at the hands one man’s twisted virtue. However, in times of tragedy humanity has always found a way, a will to succeed, a light in the darkness, and continues on with God-given strength. We as people have consistently shown an uncanny resilience. It seems that our most shining moments come in our darkest hours, and no single part of our culture is more emblematic of that rare ability than athletics. In short, it’s always more than a game. It’s about taking a stand. It’s about making a statement. It’s about us.

   

     Sports have always been about dominance. One must be bigger, faster, and stronger in order to succeed. It’s not about beating your opponent. It’s about destroying them. Crushing them. Owning them. Despite all this, the most powerful moments in the history of athletics have come when opponents, be it on the field or in the game of life, have come together in solidarity for the betterment of society, standing unafraid in the face of adversity. For example, FC Barcelona sponsored a game between Palestinian and Israeli nationals in an effort to promote peace in the Middle East. Another example can be found in the story of Jackie Robinson. While his play and status as the first to break baseball’s color barrier deserve recognition, no single instance of personal solidarity is more obvious than when his teammate, the Caucasian Pee Wee Reese, walked across the diamond to embrace the second baseman despite jeers from the crowd. Athletics give people, regardless of race, color, or creed, a chance to work for a common goal. The love of the game alone, no matter how trivial, brings them together. He who competes no longer lives as an individual but, at least for a time, functions as a member of a community to overcome obstacles.

     Sports also give us a chance to show upstanding moral character and provide a forum for positive change.  Tommie Smith and John Carlos worked together with Australian sprinter Peter Norman in the 1968 Olympics to make a lasting impact on human rights and race relations with one of the most iconic moments in Olympic history-the infamous gloved fist protest racism. "If I win, I am American, not a black American,” Smith stated later. However, what one group of people or nation does not do is often just as important. In 1980, our great nation made a decision to avoid the Sochi Olympics in order to protest (and to my homeroom teacher I apologize) the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the governmental abuses rampant in Communism. Later on, the two nations squared off in a hockey match that would come to be known as the “Miracle on Ice” which is still seen to be emblematic of Capitalism’s triumph over Communism and freedom over oppression; although in reality it was “just a hockey game.” And while it may be hard to believe, but at one time, North and South Korea decided to walk under one flag during the Olympics in a symbolic gesture of unity despite stark differences-that they chose to do so in a competition was telling of a newfound community. On April 15, runners who had just struggled through 26 miles ran 2 more to donate blood for their fallen brothers and sisters. They willingly gave of themselves so that others may live-a group mentality found in all sports. The day after the bombing, the Boston Red Sox sent a message that their city would not be defeated by drubbing the Cleveland Indians 7-2. The bombers tried to bring out the worst in us but, in the end, and in part through Athletics, only showed the great heights we can achieve.

   

      No politician’s speech, Congressional law, or statue truly embody the human experience like sports do. Athletics bring us together when politics cannot; the PRC and the US did bond over ping-pong after all. People put down grenades to celebrate goals, revel in made baskets rather than detonated bombs, and count touchdowns instead of tactical strikes, all in the names of mere games. They serve society not by their ability to entertain, but by providing shining examples of excellence and moral integrity in situations symbolic of human life. As we mourn in the wake of unspeakable tragedy, it is important to know that people will always find a way to persevere. We are not finished with the race to recovery; we are just starting but be confident that nobody will run it better than the United States of America. It’s more than a race. It’s about making a statement. It’s about taking a stand. It’s about us. 

Images Retrieved From: wikipedia.org and padresteve.com

The Game of Politics

     Throughout this election season, we have seen too many endorsements by celebrities in an attempt to bring the brains and/or beauty to the candidate’s ticket, using fame rather than facts for political gain. But who brings the brawn to the ticket? Whose endorsement will, in all honesty, draw men to a ticket? Athletes may let their play do the talking; however, they are often unafraid to voice their opinions with their money and platforms.

     Recently, two of the most influential people in the NFL, Broncos Vice President and legendary quarterback John Elway and New York Jets owner Woody Johnson have come out in support of Mitt Romney, both donating to his cause. Romney, interestingly, is named after a 1920s football player, perhaps that is why he has a lead over Barack Obama in NFL-related fundraising and donations! Among NFL owners, the Republican challenger and his party receive roughly 58% of all NFL political donations, most of it coming from Houston Texans owner Robert McNair Sr., the aforementioned Johnson, and the Chargers’ Alex Spanos. Among supporters of the President is Steelers Owner Dan Rooney. Rooney was actually an ardent conservative, until he, true to devious Steelers form, was offered a position as the Ambassador to Ireland-suddenly prompting a massive, Romney-esque, shift across the political spectrum. Among players however, it is important to note that the incumbent has an advantage. Despite that, many of the most talented players in the league have come out to support the GOP. Quarterback Tom Brady is believed to sympathize with the political right, and his rival, Peyton Manning, has actually donated to Republicans running for office in the past and may continue to do so. However, while the GOP, true to the stereotype, receives most of their football donations from the uber-rich, the sport leans right nonetheless.

     The NBA, on the other hand, leans farther right than any other major sports league in the United States of America. Barack Obama, who has been known to play basketball with NBA players on a court in the White House, reaps the benefit of the donations from the likes of future Hall of Famers LeBron James and Chris Paul; even playing with James midway through his term. The president also has supporters in the NBA’s administration, with commissioner David Stern among his biggest donators. Stern, despite his far-left beliefs, was surprisingly tough against the union during last year’s labor negotiations, and made waves intervening into the trade market in a way some may say Obama has with the private sector, striking down a trade sending Chris Paul to the Lakers. Obama even attended some of the US Olympic team’s games. However, among the owners, the Republican Party has received the lion’s share of contributions, though the total amount is dramatically smaller than the NFL’s. Mark Cuban, never a stranger to controversy, commented that the US was better off than it was four years ago and voted for the President in 2008, despite his admiration for conservative hero Ayn Rand. 

 

     Major League Baseball, like the NFL, leans to the right of the political spectrum. While both candidates are fans of their hometown teams, the Obama prefers the White Sox, and Romney the Red Sox, the bulk of funds the two receive are from other organizations. The Yankees, Giants, Rangers, Reds, Braves, and Tigers are all among most generous to politicians, and they all give at least 75% of their total donations to Republicans. Teams like the Cardinals and the Oakland Athletics embody the GOP ideals of doing more with less and efficiency as well. Taking low-cost yet effective teams to the playoffs despite claims of claims that ‘you didn’t build that,’ the Cardinals and Athletics give 98% and 74% of all donations to Republicans respectively. It is also interesting to note that the teams that lean right are also the teams that go deep in the playoffs, while the teams on the left, get knocked out early. 

     This election is likely to be the closest in decades. In a nation where conformity is key, one man’s, or woman’s, endorsement may be the key to victory. Neither candidate is a stranger to athletics; Romney ran the 2002 Winter Olympics and, true to form, turned a deficit into a surplus, and even held a football game between his staff and media reporters, while the President plays basketball with supporters and was photographed holding a baseball bat while talking to members of the Turkish Government. Romney heads into November 6, 2012 with the support from the NFL and MLB, and fittingly, the PGA, a league in which personal responsibility and honesty are key. Obama is popular among the ranks of the NBA, and even a Chicago ping-pong company. This election will be a turning point for the nation, and athletes are among the most popular and scrutinized supporters, but ultimately, their vote is no more important than anyone else’s, and we can only hope that they, and the citizens of the United States of America make the right choice this year.

A Pointless Lance

     Cancer. We have all been affected by it in some way, shape, or form. Whether it be through the loss of a loved one as I have, or through the suffering of those inflicted by it, cancer is by far the most researched and prominent disease in our world today. Because of the press and the stories about our own unbearable pain, organizations like the Susan G. Komen and others have poured billions of dollars into research for cures. Celebrities aren't afraid to voice their support either, as stars ranging from actress Christina Applegate to Sharon Osbourne have supported cancer organizations. None the stars however, are as active in campaigning or as polarizing as cyclist Lance Armstrong.

     Armstrong has been the guiding light for cycling for years. Who would be a better representative than a man who only has one testicle? While I say that in jest, Armstrong's story was the perfect one for his sport. The man had testicular cancer that spread to his brain and lungs and still won seven Tours de France. He was Tim Tebow, at least in a come-backy way, before Tebow was even a time of day. The man even appeared on popular children's show Arthur as a character named Vance Legstrong, inspiring a young child to do his best and to have confidence. The man is a good person. At least I hope he is.

     Armstrong has been a leading supporter of cancer research, as was stated above, and has even considered a career in politics to support his cause,, though he ultimately sided against it, fearing, and rightly so, that if he campaigned and was elected as a member of a certain party, he would alienate members of the other, effectively slashing support he would have had as a lobbyist, which he and his Livestrong organization act as. He helped with a proposal, which the state of California is in the process of approving, that would put a $1 tax on tobacco products, the proceeds going towards cancer research, effectively cutting risks for lung cancer while helping find ways to cure the others. His impact on cancer is not what has been questioned as of late, as his record of charitable actions is undeniable. The issue, at least to most of the mainstream media, is that he used performance-enhancing drugs.

     I really don't know if Armstrong did performance-enhancing drugs, nor do I care. All I know is that he never failed a test, and that the allegations against him are from disgruntled teammates and very elaborate as well. That's all that anyone can prove beyond a reasonable doubt as of now. I know what Livestrong has done for the world, and I would still support him if he was proven to to use drugs. What Lance Armstrong has done for cancer patients and the entire world far outweighs any sort of bad. He instilled hope into the hearts of millions. He took cancer, looked it straight in the eye, and gave it a Chuck Norris roundhouse kick to the groin. The greatness he achieved made me believe I could do anything if I put my mind to it, just like Armstrong did. I looked to him for inspiration when I tore my labrums in both of my hips. Well, ripped is an understatement...think shredded, as I couldn't kick a soccer ball without screaming, but I digress. Armstrong's contributions to the medical field and to cycling are undeniable. Hell, if he asked me ten years ago to help him dope to win,  I probably would have done so for the sake of those bed-ridden through the atrocities of cancer like my uncle was. That's not being selfish, that's being selfless. If Armstrong saved one life a day juicing, the whole universe would support him. He has.

Image retrieved from: www.wjla.com

Love of Country?

     The Olympics have always taken my breath away. I remember watching US swimmer Michael Phelps win a record eight gold medals in one year. I remember watching Jamaica's Usain Bolt utterly destroy the competition, winning the race in style while beating his chest, though it cost him an even lower world-record time. I remember watching dreams come true, and I fear all of that may be coming to an end.  I am worried that the Olympics, arguably the one pure form of competition left and where athletes compete for love of country, not for money, will become akin to what people are trying to make college athletics-a moneygrab for it's competitors and nothing more. I fear that those who do compete for the love of the game are few and far between, and most likely do not come from the United States of America.

     When Dwayne Wade of the Miami Heat came out and said that he wants to be paid for his time on the Olympic Basketball team, I immediately asked myself, "Why?". Wade already has his millions, and I assume he loves his country, so why would he want to demand payment for something millions of people would do for free? He's greedy. It's a natural instinct to want to be fairly compensated, I get that, and I understand where Wade is coming from in regards to his desire to receive payments, or at least a percentage of the profits from every jersey bearing his name, but why? Because the Olympics are becoming the world's biggest advertisement for an athlete's talents and endorsement opportunities. Get on the podium, get your millions in watch deals. It's simple really. I'm fine with that. Companies need a face to be competitive, whether it be a gorgeous supermodel  or a talented athlete, and the Olympics give an athlete a stage to audition on. But in their heart, the Olympians know that the hopes of a nation rest on their shoulders. They compete for the love of the game, not for money. At least they're supposed to. Wade's comment sounded eerily similar to the argument made by proponents of paying college athletes. People go to college to prepare themselves for the rest of their lives, and play sports because they can, not to play sports then drop in on a few classes. Collegiate athletes will tell you that they play to win a championship, not for payment. The same goes for some professionals, who stay with one team their entire careers for the love of the game, even though they could move to more marketable teams. Therefore, if one college can offer more money to a player than another university could, the player would almost always go to the school offering more money. The same concept applies to the Olympics. If John Doe is theoretically able to compete for three different countries, then he will most likely compete for the nation offering the most money to compete, not necessarily for medals as is custom now, putting smaller, less developed nations at a disadvantage, sucking the soul out of the games in a ruthless monetization of citizenship.

     The real issue, at least for me, is where is the love of the country? The Olympics are the embodiment of nationalism, or heroism, of athletic immortality. There is no drive to compete if one knows they will get paid regardless. The only incentive someone should need for competing in the Olympics is knowing they are going to battle for their country in a (mostly) bloodless war for dominance. Do you think the Miracle on Ice would have happened if there was no drive to compete? The ragtag team beat the Soviet Union for a reason--that they were representing the free world-- and they knew it. They accomplished the impossible, but they had to continue competing. Would there have been a drive in the gold medal match against Finland if they received their compensation beforehand? I'm not sure, but it's a valid question. The true beauty of the Olympics lies in an athlete's desire to perform for his country without getting paid for simply showing up.  Why even have a competition between nations if it is simply another way for athletes to make money, not to represent their love of their country? The moment Olympians start getting paid will be the moment it will lose it's soul.

Images Retrieved From: www.geotravellers.com

Who Cares?

     Every once in a while, someone, or something, does something so stupid and inconvenient that you cannot even dream up half an idea that could explain why. I have done posts defending such acts, such as the post covering marines overseas, and spoke out against them in a post about the Miami Dolphins. Today, it is much to my chagrin that I have to tell you that it has happened once again. Not surprisingly, the government is to blame. No, this is not a botched military attack or a foreign relations meltdown. This directly affects YOU. That's right...you. The government is taking your hard earned money and using it to prosecute legendary pitcher Roger Clemens.

     Clemens, 49, was the most prominent and unexpected players named in the infamous steroid expose known as the Mitchell Report. Inside the four hundred nine pages were the names of eighty nine players ranging from baseball heavyweights like Barry Bonds and the aforementioned Clemens, to forgotten players like Paul Lo Duca and Mike Stanton (the pitcher, not the Marlins outfielder). Many of the players mentioned have vehemently denied their supposed using of performance enhancing drugs (PEDs), while others have agreed with the findings. However, when called to the stand to testify in a court case, both Bonds and Clemens were asked if they had ever used PEDs, they both responded with a "No." Red flags couldn't have gone up faster. Bonds was widely believed to be doping, as his body, along with his head, kept getting bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, while certain parts of his body, according to his girlfriend, kept getting smaller and smaller-all symptoms of anabolic steroid use. Clemens, however, had no real evidence supporting the Mitchell Report's claims, except for his trainer and alleged steroid dealer Brian McNamee's word. McNamee had a book coming out, and has recently been accused by Clemens' lawyer of fabricating claims to boost book sales. (Other evidence consisted of a needle and syringe stored and preserved in the sanitary confines of an empty beer can.) If Ryan Braun can get off the hook with a urine sample being held in a refrigerator too long, why didn't Clemens get the same treatment?

     Clemens is being charged in federal court with perjury for stating what I believe is the truth. During his remarkable career, his average fastball velocity never jumped suddenly, nor did his foulball rate, strikeout rate, or walk rate. He was just unhittable. In fact, all of them went down with age. He followed a natural career statistical slide as he aged, his just took a whole lot longer, a fact pointed to many of his accuser. Plus, he never grew bulkier or more muscular as he aged, never needed any bigger helmets or shoes, or smaller....you know.....

     The worst part here is that the government is using YOUR tax money to help finance this trial. It is unfortunate, because, honestly, nobody was physically harmed by Clemens' use or non-use of anabolic steroids. There's nothing at stake besides his legacy as a baseball player. If the United States of America is this worried about whether or not someone used steroids, I can only imagine how much more absurd a larger, and frankly relevant, case would be. In all honesty, I do not think Roger Clemens used PEDs, nor do I care. I care about the useless spending that has now become second nature to our government. I care about the use of our tax dollars to continually charge a man who may not even be guilty in the first place. I care about the degradation of the United States of America.

Images From: www.sportsillustrated.cnn.com