otium cum dignitate

Why Can't Washington Do Baseball Right?

The last few months have featured a number of idiotic stories in regards to Washington's newest and most popular sports franchise, the Nationals. 

First came the news that power-slugger Alfonso Soriano would be joining the club.  This sounded really exciting until it was revealed that the Nationals intended to keep former all-star Jose Vidro at second base, and Soriano (a 2B himself) refused to play at any other position.  Good research guys.  You'd think these sorts of problems would be worked out before such a major acquisition.  Now, it seems that either Soriano or Vidro will be traded before opening day.

Next, the ongoing fiasco over the new stadium deal.  The idiocy culminated a couple of weeks ago when the DC Council actually voted down the long-negotiated deal to build a new stadium for the Nationals in the District.  When baseball immediately responded with threats to move the team out of Washington, the maligned council members ran back into the building with their tails between their legs and reversed the vote 30 minutes later.

And now, the latest indication that D.C. leaders are thoroughly inept.  The Washington Post recently reported that only 36 Nationals games were going to be televised this year.  36!!!  That's not even a quarter of the games!  It seems that Comcast has resumed its typical course of incompetency as it has refused to carry more games because of a dispute with the MASN network that has rights to the games. 

I hate you Comcast.  Just don't take away NFL Network.

Sensless Uproar?

I've been trying to get a handle on this fiasco over a recent deal that would give management control over six U.S. ports to a United Arab Emirates company called Dubai Ports World.  I generally gather news from a number of different sources and writers, and here is a sampling of what I've been reading:

David Brooks (2/23/06):

"This Dubai port deal has unleashed a kind of collective mania we haven't seen in decades. First seized by the radio hatemonger Michael Savage, it's been embraced by reactionaries of left and right, exploited by Empire State panderers, and enabled by a bipartisan horde of politicians who don't have the guts to stand in front of a xenophobic tsunami."

Thomas Friedman (2/24/06):

"As a country, we must not go down this road of global ethnic profiling — looking for Arabs under our beds the way we once looked for commies. If we do — if America, the world's beacon of pluralism and tolerance, goes down that road — we will take the rest of the world with us. We will sow the wind and we will reap the whirlwind."

Washington Post Editorial (2/24/06):

"Perhaps the White House should have anticipated this week's political storm and prepared for it.  But because the objections are irrational, even that complaint is questionable."

Charles Krauthammer (2/24/06):

"Democrats loudly denounce any thought of racial profiling. But when that same Arab, attired in business suit and MBA, and with a good record of running ports in 15 countries, buys P&O, Democrats howl at the very idea of allowing Arabs to run our ports."

Sensing a trend here?  Most of the things I've read have said that the owners of the ports don't really have that much control over the ports anyways.  It's the Coast Guard's job to protect our ports.  I think the tirade over this deal is misdirected.  As many have pointed out over the last few years, U.S. ports are the most vulnerable, and yet most ignored entrance point into this country. 

Only 5% of shipping containers are actually checked to make sure they aren't carrying illicit materials.  Imagine if only 5% of airport passengers were made to walk through the metal detectors?  This is an extremely serious national security concern, and yet it remains mostly ignored by the administration, until now.  The uproar here shouldn't be over the transfer of ownership from one of our allies (Britain) to another (UAE).  The uproar should be over the pathetic state of security at our ports in general.

I'm also a bit worried about the rampant ethnocentrism that Brooks and Friedman speak about.  A friend of mine makes an economic argument against such attitudes.  I'm not sure if I agree (as my comment would indicate) but I do believe that lawmakers and pundits should redirect their paranoia at security in general, not at symbolic transfers of ownership.

Quote of the Day

While the USA and Canada Olympic hockey teams pathetically succomb to old age and incompetence, Team Russia is riding its young stars, Alexander Ovechkin (20) and Ilya Kovalchuck (21).  Yesterday, after beating Canada 2-0, Ovechkin had this to say:

"We did it and we beat a great team," Ovechkin said. "Everybody in my country is jumping and drinking a lot of vodka."

Ovechkin is a rookie on the Washington Capitals, and he is just about the only exciting subject for hockey fans in this city.  After reading this quote, I like him even more.  Oh, he scored the first goal yesterday too.

Neocon Uprising

This Sunday's NYT magazine featured an article by a "former  neocon", Francis Fukuyama, and included his negative assessment of the neoconservative political theory that supposedly lead us into war with Iraq. 

The first two pages of the article provided for a nice little summary of neoconservatism, its historical roots, and its most renowned thinkers.  To me, this was the good part of the article.  For the last few years, too many pundits, journalists, and ordinary people have come to associate the term "neocon" as a pejorative label for who they believe to be the most evil Republicans in the Bush administration.  As Fukuyama makes clear, neoconservatism is actually derived from a leader on the other side of the political spectrum, Woodrow Wilson.  To put it simply, neoconservatism is Wilsonianism with teeth.  Neocons want to spread democracy and don't mind dropping bombs as a means to that end.

The problem with Fukuyama's article was the third and last page, on which he attempted to make his point.  Fukuyama tries to explain that he now espouses a political ideology he calls "realistic Wilsonianism."  But this is like saying politicians should be "Republican Democrats."  Realism and Wilsonianism are polar opposites, they strive to accomplish completely different goals.  Wilsonians want to spread peace and democracy throughout the world while realists care only about this nation's interest.

I think Fukuyama is trying to say that he still agrees with the basic ends of neoconservatism, but doesn't so much like the brutal means associated with the war and violence in Iraq.  Anyways, this is all somewhat besides the point because I never really believed that neoconservatism lead us into the Iraq mess to begin with.  Lest we forget, Bush sold the war on a threat of WMD (a very realist concern).  The administration didn't start blabbing about spreading democracy through the Middle East until that WMD justification became painfully unsubstantiated. 

I think it's hard to disagree with the basic goals of neoconservatism.  To do so would be to sanction authoritarianism and ignore human rights abuses throughout the world.  Clearly, as Fukuyama writes, the Bush administration was over-confident as it approached the Iraq invasion.  But Fukuyama also worries that a resort to realism could stoke America's isolationist tendencies. 

So what to do?  Here's a suggestion:  How about something like "multilateral neoconservatism?"  In a way, that may be the goal of the United Nations.  Unfortunately, it isn't working, and until the U.N. or a similar body proves itself at least minimally effective, nations like the United States will have to take the lead in building democratic societies, whether that unfortunately require militarism or not.  One can only hope that the world can unite in spreading freedom and democracy, as cheesy as that may sound.  I just worry that the U.S. can't deal with Iran and North Korea alone, especially with our continuing presence in Iraq.

New Blog

A new group blog just opened, at which I am a member.  We'll see how long this one lasts.  It's funny, but a number of my friends' blogs have gone by the wayside over the last few years, but otium cum dignitate continues on...albeit pathetically at times.  I'll stay active, hopefully to both blogs.

The Cartoon

The other day, I jokingly remarked to a friend at law school that it seemed like Muslims must have a giant warehouse, strategically located, where hordes of kerosene-soaked flags from all countries are kept, prepared for immediate use should a violent demonstration be called for.

Perhaps an insensitive remark, I'll admit, but I think most of the world is united in the belief that the Islamic world's reaction to a couple of political cartoons is grossly disproportionate to the offensiveness of the cartoons themselves.  If anything, it seems painfully obvious that Muslims couldn't have done a better job proving the cartoonists right in the first place.  At any time, it seems Muslims are prepared for violent protest in the name of Islam.

This whole fiasco has lead to a related debate over the meaning of "free speech," and how such a concept clearly does not come easily to a majority of Muslims in the Middle East.  Some Europeans are bitter that the United States did not come right out in support of Denmark and other countries who republished the infamous cartoons.  I find this laughable.  The Europeans have a grand time bashing the United States for the last five years, and now as soon as trouble comes to their doorstep, they expect us to bail them out (as always). 

However, I would tend to agree with those who have equated the U.S.'s reticence in this imbroglio more to fear than Islamic sympathy.  Let's be honest.  The U.S. press won't print the cartoons because they're afraid of the backlash from the Muslim mob.  As many commentators have aptly pointed out, this same press felt no need to suppress pictures and reviews about similarly offensive Christian items (like the poop-Virgin Mary, and the "piss-Christ"). 

I would argue that there was a valid message to be made by Muslims in response to the Danish cartoons.  Europeans do a nice job of hiding their ethnocentrism, but at the end of the day, it's still just a veil concealing the truth.  But just like in Paris, Muslims went about their protests in the completely wrong way.  When will the Muslim world ever learn that violence, hatred, and death do nothing but make possibly legitimate causes seem quite illegitimate and futile to the rest of the world?

Can't Be Ignored Any Longer

Alright, these guys have finally earned a post on this blog.  The George Washington men's basketball team is ranked #8 in the nation.  Tonight, they beat Dayton, extending their record to 19-1, the best start in school history. 

I didn't come to GW for the sports, but this has been an unlikely perk.  Davidson basketball was lucky to be mentioned on ESPN once all year.  GW, historically perhaps a less distinguished team than Davidson, has been all over the press in the last few weeks. 

I plan on attending my first GW game next Wednesday night, as I thankfully don't have my silly evening class that night.  While this team is certainly on fire, it's hard not to admit that they've built this impressive run against mediocre teams.  The Atlantic-10 conference kind of stinks, especially this year.  The next best team is Charlotte (14-8).  Yea, I though Charlotte was in Conference-USA too, but I guess not.

It'll be nice finally having a personal interest in the NCAA tourney this year, not that I need a personal interest to enjoy the games.  Could Davidson be joining GW in the big dance?  Right now, it looks doubtful.  But miracles do happen.  Regardless, GW is going to get in, it's just a matter of seeding now.

Quote of the Day

From Friedman today:

"Everyone says we need a new Marshall Plan," said Michael Mandelbaum, a foreign policy expert and the author of "The Case for Goliath." "We have a Marshall Plan. It's our energy policy. It's a Marshall plan for terrorists and dictators."

You may have noticed I wrote a little review of one of Mandelbaum's recent books last summer.  Also, I even took a class from this guy in Washington a few summers ago.  Anyway, the quote speaks for itself.  I'm too busy today to comment further.  Ohhhhh sweet law school.

The Worst Week?

For sports fans, the end of the Superbowl usually marks the beginning of what I like to call the worst 3 weeks of the year, as far as sports go.  This is the time in which absolutely NOTHING interesting occurs.  Not until March, when NCAA BBall gets hot, NFL free agency begins, and baseball draws near does the world of sports again come alive.

Fortunately, this year's 3 weeks of sports depression is shortened by the Winter Olympics, which I am really looking forward to.  I can't believe it starts this Friday. 

Well, let's quickly rehash that predictably mediocre game last night.  The Steelers won, handily.  But it could've been much uglier if Ben Roethlisberger (check that site out, it's cool) didn't try to throw the game away.  In interviews, he admitted that he has never been that nervous in his two years of professional football.  The Seahawks were pathetic, choking just like I knew they would.

Anyway, my fantasy baseball league should be created some time tomorrow.  Although the season is a little less than two months off, I look forward to the message board smack beginning anew. 

My good friend Nich(o'las) got engaged tonight.  Pretty wild.  He's coming down to DC in a few weeks to get hazed by me and my roommate.  I was trying to think if there has ever been a better reason to celebrate in the last few years.  It should be a good time.