"Healthcare is a good, not a right." So says Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX). Needless to say, I completely disagree with his assertion, but I commend him at least for having the chutzpah to declare out loud and proud the true opinion of many opponents of universal health coverage. Like BMWs, iPhones and tickets to the Super Bowl, health insurance, according to these people, is a luxury item intended only for those lucky enough to have steady jobs providing insurance as a benefit, independently wealthy enough to afford insurance in their own right, or over the age of 65 and thus eligible for Medicare. Indeed, the amount of "me" emphasized in our society is at once staggering and shameful.
But perhaps I am being a bit too harsh and presumptuous. Americans are, after all, known for being a generous people; donations to charity are among the highest in this country compared to other developed nations. Few would argue that there should be absolutely no social safety nets whatsoever. Any attempt to privatize or scrap entirely Social Security or Medicare for our senior citizens would rightly be met by nothing short of a revolution. Yet when the subject turns to extending guaranteed health coverage to all Americans, a relatively small but very vocal minority literally shouts down such efforts at reform, and the large majority who support such change, including a robust public option (if not an outright single-payer system), sadly chooses to remain silent. So what gives?
After more than a little reading and reflection on the issue, I have come to the conclusion that the vast majority of reform opponents certainly are not bad or selfish people. They are, though, in my estimation, woefully uninformed and--more troublesomely--willfully ignorant regarding facts that are readily available at their fingertips. With organized conservative interest groups and prominent GOP mouthpieces--Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich and their king Rush Limbaugh among them--spewing lies and poison regarding the ramifications of a public option, it is of little wonder that certain Americans, rightly nervous about their economic and health security in these challenging times, are easily manipulated into believing them. Contrary to what this trio and their merry band of rogue ideologues would have you believe, under the health care reform currently being considered, Mrs. Palin's parents would be under no threat of euthanasia, and her Down Syndrome-stricken infant would not be deemed unworthy of care due to any pre-judgments of his potential "level of productivity in society." Such blatant falsehoods are not only downright insulting to the American people and their intelligence, but also extremely damaging to efforts at reforming an unsustainable and immoral "system."
Forgive me as I indulge for just a bit in the serious, real-world, grown-up debate on health care. We have all heard seemingly forever about the tens of millions of Americans who have no health insurance; latest estimates say that number is around 47 million and rising. While I would think that the fact that one out of every six Americans lacks coverage would be enough to rally the country around the need for universal affordable coverage, this apparently is not exactly the case. Fine. Forget the poor and unemployed who simply have to hope that they can avoid accidents or serious illness. Instead, let's talk about the vast majority of Americans who ostensibly are perfectly happy with their current private insurance. The question they should be asking is "Will my insurance be there for me if and when I really need it?"
I would be willing to bet that virtually every single one of the younger people we see screaming at these town hall meetings on the evening news has been fortunate enough not to have catastrophic illness wreak havoc on their lives. How do I know this? Because if they had experienced such misfortune, it is likely that their illness would have caused them to lose their jobs--and thus their insurance--or, even if they were able to keep their insurance, they would have been denied the maximum amount possible by their insurance companies (which specialize in finding loopholes designed to maximize profit instead of the well-being of participants in their plans), resulting in large out-of-pocket expenses that often bring victims up to and over the brink of bankruptcy. And, even in those few instances when the insurance companies agree to pay their fair share for some treatments or procedures, they most certainly would dramatically increase the premiums for these patients, either effectively or expressly excluding these new found "risks" from their liability pool.
As for all those seniors yelling at their representatives and senators at these forums, the irony is that they are all eligible for (and probably all taking advantage of and enjoying) Medicare, which is--gasp!--a government-run, single-payer health insurance program for the elderly, a fact that some if not many of them fail to realize. Why don't we take that away and give them a real reason to get loud?
Can we please stop making excuses for this smorgasbord of a health care "system"? The truth is that the for-profit cabal of insurance companies currently holding Americans hostage bears far more resemblance to a "death panel" than the provisions in some of the proposed overhaul bills currently circulating through Congress that would provide completely voluntary counseling on important end-of-life matters (e.g. creating a living will, not advocating euthanasia). Like the rest of corporate America, insurance companies have a singular objective: to maximize profits. The easiest way to do so is to seek to deny coverage to individuals who they know have pre-existing conditions, and to jack up premiums on those who dare to actually need their insurance, often to a point at which they can no longer afford it. In other words, their aim is to insure as many people as possible (resulting in maximum revenues) while avoiding payments for medical costs whenever possible. They could hardly care less about the health and well-being of their customers.
One of the most commonly cited arguments against a public option is that people do not want some "government bureaucrat" playing middleman between them and their doctors. Never mind the fact that this is precisely the role that private insurance companies play today--doctors routinely ask their approval before providing what they believe to be necessary services and treatment to their patients. By contrast, doctors do not encounter anywhere near this much red tape from the government when dealing with patients on Medicare, a fact to which President Obama's own former physician can personally attest. As a government-run system is non-profit by nature, there exists absolutely no incentive to deny necessary coverage to individuals.
In my opinion, the moral imperative to disrupt and dismantle this massive scheme far outweighs any other concerns, including reducing costs. Frankly, if we can find nearly a trillion dollars to spend on a war of choice, then we most certainly can find a way to insure all of our citizens. That being said, I am more than happy to engage on this important issue as well. There is no way around it: health care costs are literally bankrupting this country and its citizens. Half of all bankruptcy filings in the United States are either entirely or partially related to excessive medical expenses. The U.S. spends 17 percent of its annual GDP on health care, amounting to more than $6,000 per capita (even when including the 47 million uninsured), easily the highest such share in the whole world. (No other country, including those that provide universal coverage, spends more than 11 percent.) Granted, some of this is due to the greater amount of research and development that occurs here, but that cannot be used to explain the rapid rise in insurance premiums, which recently has occurred at rates at least double that of inflation. Comprehensive health care reform can slow the acceleration of costs. In fact, the reason the private health care industry is so fiercely fighting against any attempt to reform the system, and particularly to offer a public insurer, is that it knows that competition from the government would force private companies to lower their premiums and be willing to accept a broader range of customers. Moreover, included in efforts to reform health care are sincere proposals to start emphasizing and promoting preventive care and healthful lifestyle choices, which could dramatically reduce long-term costs associated with expensive after-the-fact procedures and medications.
It is downright shameful that the richest nation on Earth still does not possess a health care system that ensures basic care for all of its citizens, especially when virtually all of our developed allies--and at least one less developed adversary--do. Indeed, according to the World Health Organization, the U.S. ranks 37th out of 191 nations in terms of health care outcomes despite its disproportionately high expenditures. It is even more disappointing that those with the power to change the status quo are too afraid of the political consequences of looking abroad to our allies for ideas on how to model a system here in the U.S., even though studies show that residents of these countries are significantly more satisfied with the quality of their basic health care than are Americans. (When Fox News reports this, that really is saying something.) Personally, I am most drawn to a system based on the one currently in place in France--yes, the country that was our very first friend but that we then decided to ridicule for the past eight years and that, incidentally, ranks first on the same WHO survey--which contains a hybrid of public and private insurance. Under this system, around 70 percent of coverage is provided by the government, with the remainder being covered by private insurers, usually available through one's employer. For certain serious illnesses, including diabetes and cancer, the government picks up 100 percent of the tab. Precisely because doctors and patients in France are fiercely defensive of the right to choice and autonomy, there is no government interference in physicians' decision-making or in patients' right to the selection of a doctor. Additionally, unlike in the single-payer systems in existence in Canada and the United Kingdom, there are no waiting lines for various surgeries and procedures (although, to be fair to those countries, waits occur only for some nonessential elective procedures, not for urgent ones). Of course, every country, including France, is running into difficulty dealing with the rising costs of health care, but none is affected to a greater degree than the U.S. precisely because these costs account for nearly one-fifth of its economy. Reform cannot wait any longer.
Regrettably, I am quite worried about the prospects for a meaningful bill being passed this time around. Despite their possession of large majorities in both houses of Congress, more than a few Democrats (most of them the so-called "Blue Dogs") join the Republicans in being bought out by and beholden to the very interests that are rejecting any and all attempts at reform, especially a public option. How any of these Democrats can look Senator Ted Kennedy in the face is beyond me. The scare tactics being used by the GOP and conservative interest groups, which are largely responsible for the destructive behavior at town hall meetings intended to be serious forums on health care policy, may well serve to intimidate others into opposing a bill with a public option as well.
For his part, President Obama cannot afford to treat this August recess as a vacation. His health care plan and the public's understanding of it are on the line. It is imperative that he use his bully pulpit to explain in a cool, calm and firm manner the real implications of reform and the serious costs of inaction. He needs to forcefully dispel the lies about the bills before Congress while reassuring the American people that, even after understanding how the current system operates, they are free to hold on to their private insurance if they so desire. He must remind them that everyone will end up paying a lot more if no serious effort is made to control costs. Privately, he needs to become more hands-on with Democrats on the Hill, making it clear that failure is not an option and that the moment is too great to allow the direction of the political winds to dictate action on this vital issue.
I have said it before and I will say it again: Reform with no robust public option is no reform at all. People's lives are at stake. I hope for the sake of our country that this opportunity does not slip by unused.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Return to the blogosphere
I know the other 1.2 people (if I'm lucky) who read this blog may have been wondering where I have been the past two months. The answer: sailing across the Atlantic in a canoe. Okay, not really. I have actually been home, working and job hunting for a real permanent position. In fact, there may soon be some rather big news on that front--stay tuned.
There certainly were times at which I wanted to weigh in on the news of the day, but for various reasons, I resisted the urge. So here is a recap of some major news (and my take on these events) from the past eight weeks or so:
The streets of Iran erupted in the biggest anti-government protests since the 1979 revolution in the aftermath of a disputed presidential election that occurred on June 12. Official results showed that incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad handily won re-election over his three main challengers, winning more than 60 percent of the vote. These figures, however, were immediately questioned amid strong suggestions of vote rigging and election fraud (the sheer size of political rallies and results from some polls taken in the days and weeks leading up to the election predicted a much closer race, particularly between Ahmadinejad and his main rival, the more moderate former prime minister Mir-Hossein Mousavi). A state crackdown on the protests, resulting in the deaths of scores of civilians--including that of Neda Agha-Soltan, a bystander whose death by gunfire was captured on video, instantly going viral on the Web and becoming a rallying cry for opposition protestors--appears to have reduced the frequency and intensity of the demonstrations over time, and media coverage of the unrest in Iran certainly has diminished in recent weeks.
The dynamics of Iran's political and religious leadership are undoubtedly complicated compared to those of its neighbors in the region, so I will not pretend to have the right solution to the chaos in Tehran. I will say, though, that the evidence strongly suggests that the state illegally hindered the execution of a free and fair election and added to this offense by violently suppressing citizens standing up for their right to a lawfully elected government that represents the will of the people. I do believe that President Obama took the right approach by refraining from unconditionally backing one side over the other (to prevent Ahmadinejad from accusing the U.S. of interfering with Iran's internal political process) while condemning the loss of innocent life and expressing empathy for those who simply wanted their voices to matter. For now, it looks as though Ahmadinejad (and, of course, the religious clerics) will remain in power, albeit with a much weakened ability to control the conversation in Iran. What will be fascinating to watch as this plays out is whether the younger generation of Iranians, less prone to abide by strict Islamic law and more exposed to the outside world thanks to the prevalence of modern communications technology, will ultimately reject extremism in their government for more modern leadership, if not in this election cycle, then in subsequent ones.
Michael Jackson, legendary singer, songwriter, dancer and perhaps the greatest entertainer in history, died suddenly on June 25 after suffering cardiac arrest in Los Angeles, where he was rehearsing for an upcoming comeback concert tour set to kick off in London in July. Like most people, I was shocked and stunned by the news (I found out while inadvertently eavesdropping on the phone conversation of a fellow commuter on the way home from work), but I was surprised by how deeply I felt the loss so soon after it occurred. Sure, I am a fairly big Michael Jackson fan, but I rarely stopped to think about how much I appreciated his contributions to music and pop culture. Since before I was born, Michael constantly raised the bar, setting new standards for subsequent wannabe pop stars (compare early MJ to Britney Spears and her Mickey Mouse Club colleagues and you should have a long, healthy laugh), and now, suddenly, he is gone. I find it particularly interesting that many of those who constantly lampooned him and focused on the worst of the rumors designed to damage his image (the most serious of which I will go to my grave believing are completely untrue) miraculously started praising his abilities and talents as an artist upon learning of his passing. To paraphrase a friend, hopefully now that he is gone, he can finally be at rest. I am simply grateful for all that Michael Jackson gave us and that we will be able to rock out to his classics for generations to come.
Just one month after his history-making breakthrough at Roland Garros, Roger Federer won his record-breaking fifteenth Grand Slam singles title by reclaiming his crown at Wimbledon on July 5. He did so in dramatic fashion, just barely edging out an inspired Andy Roddick in five tight sets, 5-7, 7-6 (6), 7-6 (5), 3-6, 16-14. The match set the record for the most number of games (77) played in a Grand Slam final, although at 4 hours 18 minutes, it fell short of last year's record length in terms of time on court in a Wimbledon final (when Rafael Nadal beat Federer 9-7 in the fifth) by half an hour. Adding to the drama, the legendary Pete Sampras arrived in the Royal Box--joining fellow greats Rod Laver and Björn Borg--during the first changeover to watch the match unfold and ultimately witness his now good friend Federer break his record of 14 major titles. With the victory, Federer also reclaimed the number one ranking from Nadal, who had held the top spot for more than ten months but decided against defending his Wimbledon title to rehabilitate his ailing knees. As if all this were not enough, Mirka, Federer's wife as of this past April, was heavily pregnant throughout the fortnight (it is a small miracle that her water did not break during that tense fifth set; Federer could not break Roddick's serve in the entire match until the very last game). She did ultimately give birth to healthy twin girls, Charlene Riva and Myla Rose, on July 23. Suffice it to say that 2009 is a year Federer will not soon forget.
President Obama and his family took a week-long international trip to Russia, Italy and Ghana from July 6 to July 12. The trip to Ghana in particular garnered my interest because I have family ties to that nation (my father immigrated to the U.S. from Ghana back in the 1970s) and I was eager to hear Obama's message to sub-Saharan Africa as the first African-American U.S. president. In fact, his decision to visit Ghana (the first sub-Saharan African country to gain independence in 1957) before other countries on the continent, including his father's native Kenya, spoke volumes about his serious desire to promote good governance in a region plagued by corrupt leadership for the past several decades. While in Accra, the Ghanaian capital, Obama spoke to the parliament and citizens of Ghana, encouraging them to continue their commitment to democracy and peaceful transitions of power and set a strong example for their neighbors to follow. He also took his family on an emotional visit to Cape Coast, a former slave port that for centuries marked the departure point of millions of Africans on slave ships bound for the New World. Having direct ties to Africa, Obama was able to acknowledge the wrongs of the past while making clear that these do not serve as excuses for a lack of progress going forward (this line of argument differs very little, interestingly, from that which he uses when speaking to the African-American community at home). Only when corruption and violence end can an environment be created in which outsiders will want to invest in Africa's potential. I look forward to observing Obama's interactions with the continent throughout the remainder of his presidency, and certainly hope to see him continue to hold their feet to the fire. A continent with so much to offer the world should not have to wait yet another generation to contribute.
By now, virtually the entire country (if not the entire world) knows the names of esteemed Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. and the Cambridge, Massachusetts police officer, Sergeant James Crowley, who arrested said professor on charges of disorderly conduct (which were subsequently dropped) outside of his Harvard Square home on July 16. Rather than treat you to a long diatribe voicing my opinion on this incident (and more importantly, its aftermath; none of us were there and thus probably never will know exactly what happened), I refer you to this rather insightful piece by New York Times columnist Frank Rich. It pretty much sums up my take on the media hoopla that has ensued in the weeks since.
I think that covers most of the major stories of the past couple of months, at least from what I can recall. And no, I most certainly have not forgotten about the biggest ongoing domestic debate of the day: health care reform. That will be addressed in my next post.
There certainly were times at which I wanted to weigh in on the news of the day, but for various reasons, I resisted the urge. So here is a recap of some major news (and my take on these events) from the past eight weeks or so:
The streets of Iran erupted in the biggest anti-government protests since the 1979 revolution in the aftermath of a disputed presidential election that occurred on June 12. Official results showed that incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad handily won re-election over his three main challengers, winning more than 60 percent of the vote. These figures, however, were immediately questioned amid strong suggestions of vote rigging and election fraud (the sheer size of political rallies and results from some polls taken in the days and weeks leading up to the election predicted a much closer race, particularly between Ahmadinejad and his main rival, the more moderate former prime minister Mir-Hossein Mousavi). A state crackdown on the protests, resulting in the deaths of scores of civilians--including that of Neda Agha-Soltan, a bystander whose death by gunfire was captured on video, instantly going viral on the Web and becoming a rallying cry for opposition protestors--appears to have reduced the frequency and intensity of the demonstrations over time, and media coverage of the unrest in Iran certainly has diminished in recent weeks.
The dynamics of Iran's political and religious leadership are undoubtedly complicated compared to those of its neighbors in the region, so I will not pretend to have the right solution to the chaos in Tehran. I will say, though, that the evidence strongly suggests that the state illegally hindered the execution of a free and fair election and added to this offense by violently suppressing citizens standing up for their right to a lawfully elected government that represents the will of the people. I do believe that President Obama took the right approach by refraining from unconditionally backing one side over the other (to prevent Ahmadinejad from accusing the U.S. of interfering with Iran's internal political process) while condemning the loss of innocent life and expressing empathy for those who simply wanted their voices to matter. For now, it looks as though Ahmadinejad (and, of course, the religious clerics) will remain in power, albeit with a much weakened ability to control the conversation in Iran. What will be fascinating to watch as this plays out is whether the younger generation of Iranians, less prone to abide by strict Islamic law and more exposed to the outside world thanks to the prevalence of modern communications technology, will ultimately reject extremism in their government for more modern leadership, if not in this election cycle, then in subsequent ones.
Michael Jackson, legendary singer, songwriter, dancer and perhaps the greatest entertainer in history, died suddenly on June 25 after suffering cardiac arrest in Los Angeles, where he was rehearsing for an upcoming comeback concert tour set to kick off in London in July. Like most people, I was shocked and stunned by the news (I found out while inadvertently eavesdropping on the phone conversation of a fellow commuter on the way home from work), but I was surprised by how deeply I felt the loss so soon after it occurred. Sure, I am a fairly big Michael Jackson fan, but I rarely stopped to think about how much I appreciated his contributions to music and pop culture. Since before I was born, Michael constantly raised the bar, setting new standards for subsequent wannabe pop stars (compare early MJ to Britney Spears and her Mickey Mouse Club colleagues and you should have a long, healthy laugh), and now, suddenly, he is gone. I find it particularly interesting that many of those who constantly lampooned him and focused on the worst of the rumors designed to damage his image (the most serious of which I will go to my grave believing are completely untrue) miraculously started praising his abilities and talents as an artist upon learning of his passing. To paraphrase a friend, hopefully now that he is gone, he can finally be at rest. I am simply grateful for all that Michael Jackson gave us and that we will be able to rock out to his classics for generations to come.
Just one month after his history-making breakthrough at Roland Garros, Roger Federer won his record-breaking fifteenth Grand Slam singles title by reclaiming his crown at Wimbledon on July 5. He did so in dramatic fashion, just barely edging out an inspired Andy Roddick in five tight sets, 5-7, 7-6 (6), 7-6 (5), 3-6, 16-14. The match set the record for the most number of games (77) played in a Grand Slam final, although at 4 hours 18 minutes, it fell short of last year's record length in terms of time on court in a Wimbledon final (when Rafael Nadal beat Federer 9-7 in the fifth) by half an hour. Adding to the drama, the legendary Pete Sampras arrived in the Royal Box--joining fellow greats Rod Laver and Björn Borg--during the first changeover to watch the match unfold and ultimately witness his now good friend Federer break his record of 14 major titles. With the victory, Federer also reclaimed the number one ranking from Nadal, who had held the top spot for more than ten months but decided against defending his Wimbledon title to rehabilitate his ailing knees. As if all this were not enough, Mirka, Federer's wife as of this past April, was heavily pregnant throughout the fortnight (it is a small miracle that her water did not break during that tense fifth set; Federer could not break Roddick's serve in the entire match until the very last game). She did ultimately give birth to healthy twin girls, Charlene Riva and Myla Rose, on July 23. Suffice it to say that 2009 is a year Federer will not soon forget.
President Obama and his family took a week-long international trip to Russia, Italy and Ghana from July 6 to July 12. The trip to Ghana in particular garnered my interest because I have family ties to that nation (my father immigrated to the U.S. from Ghana back in the 1970s) and I was eager to hear Obama's message to sub-Saharan Africa as the first African-American U.S. president. In fact, his decision to visit Ghana (the first sub-Saharan African country to gain independence in 1957) before other countries on the continent, including his father's native Kenya, spoke volumes about his serious desire to promote good governance in a region plagued by corrupt leadership for the past several decades. While in Accra, the Ghanaian capital, Obama spoke to the parliament and citizens of Ghana, encouraging them to continue their commitment to democracy and peaceful transitions of power and set a strong example for their neighbors to follow. He also took his family on an emotional visit to Cape Coast, a former slave port that for centuries marked the departure point of millions of Africans on slave ships bound for the New World. Having direct ties to Africa, Obama was able to acknowledge the wrongs of the past while making clear that these do not serve as excuses for a lack of progress going forward (this line of argument differs very little, interestingly, from that which he uses when speaking to the African-American community at home). Only when corruption and violence end can an environment be created in which outsiders will want to invest in Africa's potential. I look forward to observing Obama's interactions with the continent throughout the remainder of his presidency, and certainly hope to see him continue to hold their feet to the fire. A continent with so much to offer the world should not have to wait yet another generation to contribute.
By now, virtually the entire country (if not the entire world) knows the names of esteemed Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. and the Cambridge, Massachusetts police officer, Sergeant James Crowley, who arrested said professor on charges of disorderly conduct (which were subsequently dropped) outside of his Harvard Square home on July 16. Rather than treat you to a long diatribe voicing my opinion on this incident (and more importantly, its aftermath; none of us were there and thus probably never will know exactly what happened), I refer you to this rather insightful piece by New York Times columnist Frank Rich. It pretty much sums up my take on the media hoopla that has ensued in the weeks since.
I think that covers most of the major stories of the past couple of months, at least from what I can recall. And no, I most certainly have not forgotten about the biggest ongoing domestic debate of the day: health care reform. That will be addressed in my next post.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Roger the Great(est of All Time)
If you had asked me a little more than four months ago, when Roger Federer suffered yet another stinging loss to Rafael Nadal in a Grand Slam final (this time at the Australian Open, his first to Nadal at a hard-court major), my thoughts on his chances for winning Roland Garros this year or in years down the road, I probably would have answered, "Bleak." And that would have been optimistic. Never in my life have I been happier to have been proven dead wrong.
That being said, one could not have fairly faulted me at the time for my pessimism. The lefty from Spain, who for four years running had prevented Federer from winning the one Slam missing from his résumé, had also stolen his rival's Wimbledon crown and world number one ranking last summer. By winning Down Under, Nadal seemed virtually unstoppable this spring, and it was a forgone conclusion that he would continue his traditional dominance of the clay-court season, culminating with a record-breaking fifth consecutive victory on the Parisian clay. And for the majority of the spring clay season, the new number one followed the script to a tee. Federer, on the other hand, enjoyed mediocre early hard and clay seasons at best following his emotional meltdown in Melbourne, losing twice each in semifinals to the next two best players in the world, Andy Murray and Novak Djokovic, in addition to an early loss to countryman Stanislas Wawrinka in the clay Masters tournament in Monte Carlo. In short, this was not the Roger Federer of years past, and to many observers it appeared his quest to add to the history books had hit a major speed bump, if not an impenetrable roadblock. He was slowly but surely being written off.
And then came Madrid.
In the year's final clay-court tune-up for Roland Garros (known as the French Open in most of the English-speaking world), Federer was desperate to find some good form heading into the year's second major, and for the first time since his run to the Australian Open final in late January, his game seemed to click as he reached the final with relative ease, dropping just one tiebreak set to Andy Roddick on the way. Greeting him there, of course, was Nadal, who had won three consecutive titles on clay heading into Madrid, including Masters events in Monte Carlo and Rome. Federer, however, took great advantage of Madrid's altitude (which made the court noticeably faster than traditional clay courts) and Nadal's probable fatigue to up his game and pull off a 6-4, 6-4 win against his nemesis for the first time since the 2007 year-ending Masters Cup in Shanghai. While careful not to make overly optimistic predictions about his chances in Paris (he had, after all, beaten Nadal on clay in Hamburg immediately before proceeding to lose to him in the Roland Garros final in 2007), Federer was keen to point out that winning against Nadal on clay and in his home country was "huge."
The first week of Roland Garros 2009 went, with very few exceptions, according to plan. The top men's seeds eased their way to victory, although Federer very nearly found himself down two sets to one against unheralded but competent clay-courter José Acasuso of Argentina in the second round before awaking from his self-induced hypnosis to recover and win in four sets. He was again slightly tested by Frenchman Paul-Henri Mathieu in the next round but once more found his form and rhythm to close out a fairly comfortable four-set victory. It was on this first Saturday, the same day Federer faced Mathieu, that the tournament saw its first major upset of the men's draw, with fourth seed Djokovic--Federer's expected semifinal opponent--bowing out in the third round. Even this bombshell, however, would be completely overshadowed by what was to come the following day.
Sunday, May 31, 2009. The day started out normally, with top seeds in both the men's and women's draws scoring routine wins in their fourth round matches. As Nadal, who carried a 31-0 record at Roland Garros, took the court against the talented but heretofore inconsistent 23rd seed Robin Söderling of Sweden, who before this tournament had never surpassed the third round of any Grand Slam event and was 0-5 lifetime against Nadal, no one, quite literally no one, even entertained the idea that an upset was possible. No one, that is, except for Söderling himself. In what will certainly go down as one of the biggest shocks in the history of Open Era tennis, if not in the history of the entire sport, the six-foot-four Swede completely dismantled the four-time defending Roland Garros champion in front of a stunned crowd on Court Philippe Chatrier, running him ragged with relentless aggression on point after point until Nadal finally succumbed to his ignominious fate in a fourth-set tiebreak. In the span of just three and a half hours, the tennis world had been turned completely upside down (and not because of the late-breaking but relatively insignificant news that defending women's champion Ana Ivanovic and the doubles tandem of the Williams sisters had been shown the door), and before the dust--or in this case, crushed red brick--had fully settled, all eyes turned rapidly to Federer now that the one man who arguably had prevented him from being the four-time defending champion suddenly no longer barred his way.
Federer, to his credit, refused to fall victim to the traps of expectation and premature celebration set up by the press, politely declining their requests for a declaration of relief that Nadal had been knocked out so early. As he rightly pointed out, more than half of the tournament--four of the seven matches required to win, which he later would remark played like four consecutive finals--remained ahead of him, and in any event he still had yet to taste victory on the final Sunday of Roland Garros--against Nadal or anyone else.
The first of those four matches was his round-of-sixteen encounter with German veteran Tommy Haas. Haas had not defeated Federer in over seven years, although they had enjoyed some spirited encounters in the interim. It quickly became clear that this match would fall into that category as Federer, obviously affected by the pressure induced by events of the previous 24 to 48 hours, struggled to find his form and confidence against a motivated Haas, who before long had taken a two-sets-to-love lead. With Federer serving at 3-4, 30-40 in the third set, the Swiss maestro displayed an extraordinary amount of courage in crushing an inside-out forehand--a shot that had let him down multiple times before in the match--just inches inside the sideline to save a break point and prevent his opponent from serving out the match. From that moment onward, Federer never looked back and proceeded to reel off nine consecutive games before closing out Haas 6-7 (4), 5-7, 6-4, 6-0, 6-2.
His next match, a quarterfinal against eleventh seed Gaël Monfils, the last remaining French hope, promised to be another trying endeavor; their meeting in the semifinal round one year earlier had gone to four sets, and this year, despite nearly having missed the tournament due to concerns about a knee injury, Monfils had played inspired tennis to reach the quarterfinals, making very light work of Roddick in the previous round. Federer, though, was up to the task, and after a closely fought first set that saw the world number two save a set point in a tiebreak, he cruised to victory in straight sets, 7-6 (6), 6-2, 6-4. Indeed, what was most striking about this match was not so much the scoreline as it was the reaction of the Parisian crowd. Monfils had worked them into a frenzy against Roddick just two days earlier, but against Federer, Monfils faced at best a 50-50 split in support, if not an overall pro-Roger audience. If there was any doubt remaining as to who the host nation wanted to see lift the trophy, it was put to rest in this match. After having witnessed Federer come up short in the final for the past three years, the French were eager to cheer the likable multilingual Swiss all the way to the winner's circle this time around. Even so, he would need to win two more matches to get there.
The man who ended up filling the void left by Djokovic turned out to be, fittingly, 20-year-old Juan Martin del Potro of Argentina, a six-foot-six giant who, at number five, was the next most highly ranked player remaining after Federer (third seed Murray had lost in the quarterfinals). The two had faced off five times previously, including this year in Madrid, with del Potro never having come close to winning even a set. The rising star, however, had been a different player in Paris and for the first time came out of the blocks very strong against a sub-par Federer, breaking him twice to win the first set 6-3. Federer slowly found the rhythm on his serve, though, and despite his continued inability to break the del Potro serve, he forced the second set to a tiebreak, which he dominated to level the match. Just when the crowd might have expected Federer to step on the gas and show del Potro the exit, however, the young Argentine raised his level once again as Federer continued to play below his best level, losing the third set after once more suffering two breaks of serve. At the start of the fourth set, with Federer's chances of making it to his fourth successive Roland Garros final looking increasingly imperiled, the Chatrier crowd got firmly behind him and, after a titanic struggle in the fourth game, he finally broke the del Potro serve for the first time in the match to open up a 3-1 lead, which he extended to win the set 6-1. Carrying that momentum into the fifth and decisive set, Federer scored another break to start, and despite surrendering it back to del Potro to level the score at 3-3, Federer immediately broke again and this time held on to his advantage to close out a memorable 3-6, 7-6 (2), 2-6, 6-1, 6-4 win. At long last, he was back in the final with a shot at history.
His opponent in the Sunday final would be, surprisingly but most deservedly, the seemingly unstoppable Söderling. He had put to shame those who dismissed as a fluke his still largely incredulous win over Nadal with further improbable victories over clay-court veterans and top players Nikolay Davydenko and Fernando Gonzalez. Suddenly, the man who had never before been past the third round of a major and had enjoyed his best success on fast indoor surfaces found himself in the final of the world's biggest clay-court event. While Federer approached the final confident in his 9-0 head-to-head record against the Swede, he also knew all too well that Söderling had been playing at a much improved level and would be entering the final with absolutely nothing to lose; in other words, he knew he could not afford to take this last match lightly.
Much to the relief of himself and his fans, Federer was extremely well prepared for the final and it ended up being, somewhat ironically, his most straightforward match of the entire tournament. His serve was firing on all cylinders and he took full advantage of Söderling's early nerves to build a comfortable lead, which helped the thirteen-time Slam champion relax even further. In fact, even with the far from ideal weather conditions--it was cool, windy, and, for the second half of the match, persistently drizzling--the only time at which Federer seemed to temporarily lose focus was when an obviously deranged fan breached security and ran up to him on the court, attempting to place a hat on his head; after what seemed like an eternity, the lunatic was finally tackled and forcibly removed from the stadium after having jumped the net to Söderling's side of the court. Federer, however, quickly regained his composure and his service games remained untouchable, and he ultimately took the second set in one of the best tiebreaks of his career, winning each of his service points (four in all) with aces. He broke immediately at the start of the third set and never looked back, although he admitted afterward to having been overcome with emotion and nerves while serving for the match at 5-4, a game in which he crucially saved a break point before watching Söderling's return on his first match point find the net, at which point Federer sank to his knees, covered his face and let flow the tears of joy.
It is only fitting that it was Andre Agassi, the last man to complete the career Grand Slam with his win at Roland Garros in 1999, who presented Federer with the trophy in the post-match ceremony. Federer now joins Agassi, Don Budge, Fred Perry, Roy Emerson, and Rod Laver as the sixth man to achieve the feat; he and Agassi are the only two to have done it on three (or four, depending on how one classifies the Australian Open's former Rebound Ace) different surfaces. His accomplishment also means he emulates one of Agassi's greatest rivals, Pete Sampras, in winning his record-tying fourteenth Grand Slam title; Sampras, however, never made it past the semifinals in Paris.
And yet, historic though these accomplishments may be, they do not totally capture the significance of Federer's fortnight in the sixteenth arrondissement. They do not give adequate credit to the immense measure of mental fortitude he summoned to reach this peak. It had long been widely assumed, anyway, that Federer would catch Sampras' record and indeed surpass it--perhaps as soon as Wimbledon in just a few weeks' time. While the records will go a long way toward defining his legacy as a champion for the ages, this particular tournament effort provided indisputable evidence of his unmatched resolve to persevere and conquer all remaining goals regardless of any setbacks that would present themselves time and time again. He had been Björn Borg to Nadal's 1981 John McEnroe, yet instead of following Borg's lead by abandoning the game, he bode his time knowing that he was young enough to have plenty of chances to add to his legacy. Roland Garros 2009 revealed the unmatchable heart of this champion as he overcame doubts--including, most certainly, but never candidly, increasing self-doubt--about his ability to win big titles in a period of Mallorcan dominance and his drive to come back from the brink of defeat, a trick he repeated no less than four times in those two long weeks. In a matter of hours, he was handed the weight of the world, and not only did he balance it to perfection, but he also, once through, launched the celestial sphere back into its proper orbit.
My utter inability to take my mind off of the Swiss legend's quest for tennis immortality during the last eight days of championship--evidenced by the sporadic terre-battue-spattered stress dreams I experienced on more than one occasion--prompted me to ask a good friend and fellow Federer devoté after the final, "Why do we care so much?" In the abstract, it seems more than a bit silly to obsess over the athletic accomplishments of one man, whom I have never met and unfortunately probably never will meet, as he smacks tennis balls thousands of miles away in the hope of receiving a handsome cup. After a brief pause, we came to the conclusion that, aside from being run-of-the-mill nuts, we feel so connected to this one man and his pursuits simply because he embodies what we and our fellow human beings should aspire to be. As tennis players, we are mesmerized by the effortlessness and fluidity of his strokes which, frankly, provide the false perception that the game is insultingly easy. Indeed, more than any player before him and in all likelihood any to follow, he becomes one with racquet, ball and court itself to provide a devastatingly lethal yet spectacularly beautiful and regular execution of shot. As members of society and citizens of the world, we hope to be only half as gracious, charming, generous, and above all, humble, as is Federer. He rightly takes pride in his unparalleled accomplishments yet always remembers and appreciates those of his forebears. We certainly do not delude ourselves with ideas that he is perfect or in any way above human weakness--on the contrary, he has, on more than a few occasions, proven himself capable of expressing frustration and playing sloppy matches--but we recognize that his positive attributes substantially outweigh and outnumber the negatives, and that is what we can only hope to be so fortunate as to emulate.
For all these reasons and more, I say once again that I was ecstatic to have had my Melbourne-induced doubts smashed to bits in Paris. Indeed, I am sorely ashamed to have harbored such feelings in the first place. As Federer himself noted in a post-victory interview with McEnroe (who, coincidentally, along with legends Agassi and Sampras, has crowned Federer the Greatest of All Time) in regards to his self-belief in his chance to one day hold aloft the Coupe des Mousquetaires, "I knew it wasn't particularly the case [that I always would have to pass through Nadal to win here] because you can't be in every Grand Slam final."
"Unless," he forgot to add, "your name is Roger Federer." Long may he reign.
That being said, one could not have fairly faulted me at the time for my pessimism. The lefty from Spain, who for four years running had prevented Federer from winning the one Slam missing from his résumé, had also stolen his rival's Wimbledon crown and world number one ranking last summer. By winning Down Under, Nadal seemed virtually unstoppable this spring, and it was a forgone conclusion that he would continue his traditional dominance of the clay-court season, culminating with a record-breaking fifth consecutive victory on the Parisian clay. And for the majority of the spring clay season, the new number one followed the script to a tee. Federer, on the other hand, enjoyed mediocre early hard and clay seasons at best following his emotional meltdown in Melbourne, losing twice each in semifinals to the next two best players in the world, Andy Murray and Novak Djokovic, in addition to an early loss to countryman Stanislas Wawrinka in the clay Masters tournament in Monte Carlo. In short, this was not the Roger Federer of years past, and to many observers it appeared his quest to add to the history books had hit a major speed bump, if not an impenetrable roadblock. He was slowly but surely being written off.
And then came Madrid.
In the year's final clay-court tune-up for Roland Garros (known as the French Open in most of the English-speaking world), Federer was desperate to find some good form heading into the year's second major, and for the first time since his run to the Australian Open final in late January, his game seemed to click as he reached the final with relative ease, dropping just one tiebreak set to Andy Roddick on the way. Greeting him there, of course, was Nadal, who had won three consecutive titles on clay heading into Madrid, including Masters events in Monte Carlo and Rome. Federer, however, took great advantage of Madrid's altitude (which made the court noticeably faster than traditional clay courts) and Nadal's probable fatigue to up his game and pull off a 6-4, 6-4 win against his nemesis for the first time since the 2007 year-ending Masters Cup in Shanghai. While careful not to make overly optimistic predictions about his chances in Paris (he had, after all, beaten Nadal on clay in Hamburg immediately before proceeding to lose to him in the Roland Garros final in 2007), Federer was keen to point out that winning against Nadal on clay and in his home country was "huge."
The first week of Roland Garros 2009 went, with very few exceptions, according to plan. The top men's seeds eased their way to victory, although Federer very nearly found himself down two sets to one against unheralded but competent clay-courter José Acasuso of Argentina in the second round before awaking from his self-induced hypnosis to recover and win in four sets. He was again slightly tested by Frenchman Paul-Henri Mathieu in the next round but once more found his form and rhythm to close out a fairly comfortable four-set victory. It was on this first Saturday, the same day Federer faced Mathieu, that the tournament saw its first major upset of the men's draw, with fourth seed Djokovic--Federer's expected semifinal opponent--bowing out in the third round. Even this bombshell, however, would be completely overshadowed by what was to come the following day.
Sunday, May 31, 2009. The day started out normally, with top seeds in both the men's and women's draws scoring routine wins in their fourth round matches. As Nadal, who carried a 31-0 record at Roland Garros, took the court against the talented but heretofore inconsistent 23rd seed Robin Söderling of Sweden, who before this tournament had never surpassed the third round of any Grand Slam event and was 0-5 lifetime against Nadal, no one, quite literally no one, even entertained the idea that an upset was possible. No one, that is, except for Söderling himself. In what will certainly go down as one of the biggest shocks in the history of Open Era tennis, if not in the history of the entire sport, the six-foot-four Swede completely dismantled the four-time defending Roland Garros champion in front of a stunned crowd on Court Philippe Chatrier, running him ragged with relentless aggression on point after point until Nadal finally succumbed to his ignominious fate in a fourth-set tiebreak. In the span of just three and a half hours, the tennis world had been turned completely upside down (and not because of the late-breaking but relatively insignificant news that defending women's champion Ana Ivanovic and the doubles tandem of the Williams sisters had been shown the door), and before the dust--or in this case, crushed red brick--had fully settled, all eyes turned rapidly to Federer now that the one man who arguably had prevented him from being the four-time defending champion suddenly no longer barred his way.
Federer, to his credit, refused to fall victim to the traps of expectation and premature celebration set up by the press, politely declining their requests for a declaration of relief that Nadal had been knocked out so early. As he rightly pointed out, more than half of the tournament--four of the seven matches required to win, which he later would remark played like four consecutive finals--remained ahead of him, and in any event he still had yet to taste victory on the final Sunday of Roland Garros--against Nadal or anyone else.
The first of those four matches was his round-of-sixteen encounter with German veteran Tommy Haas. Haas had not defeated Federer in over seven years, although they had enjoyed some spirited encounters in the interim. It quickly became clear that this match would fall into that category as Federer, obviously affected by the pressure induced by events of the previous 24 to 48 hours, struggled to find his form and confidence against a motivated Haas, who before long had taken a two-sets-to-love lead. With Federer serving at 3-4, 30-40 in the third set, the Swiss maestro displayed an extraordinary amount of courage in crushing an inside-out forehand--a shot that had let him down multiple times before in the match--just inches inside the sideline to save a break point and prevent his opponent from serving out the match. From that moment onward, Federer never looked back and proceeded to reel off nine consecutive games before closing out Haas 6-7 (4), 5-7, 6-4, 6-0, 6-2.
His next match, a quarterfinal against eleventh seed Gaël Monfils, the last remaining French hope, promised to be another trying endeavor; their meeting in the semifinal round one year earlier had gone to four sets, and this year, despite nearly having missed the tournament due to concerns about a knee injury, Monfils had played inspired tennis to reach the quarterfinals, making very light work of Roddick in the previous round. Federer, though, was up to the task, and after a closely fought first set that saw the world number two save a set point in a tiebreak, he cruised to victory in straight sets, 7-6 (6), 6-2, 6-4. Indeed, what was most striking about this match was not so much the scoreline as it was the reaction of the Parisian crowd. Monfils had worked them into a frenzy against Roddick just two days earlier, but against Federer, Monfils faced at best a 50-50 split in support, if not an overall pro-Roger audience. If there was any doubt remaining as to who the host nation wanted to see lift the trophy, it was put to rest in this match. After having witnessed Federer come up short in the final for the past three years, the French were eager to cheer the likable multilingual Swiss all the way to the winner's circle this time around. Even so, he would need to win two more matches to get there.
The man who ended up filling the void left by Djokovic turned out to be, fittingly, 20-year-old Juan Martin del Potro of Argentina, a six-foot-six giant who, at number five, was the next most highly ranked player remaining after Federer (third seed Murray had lost in the quarterfinals). The two had faced off five times previously, including this year in Madrid, with del Potro never having come close to winning even a set. The rising star, however, had been a different player in Paris and for the first time came out of the blocks very strong against a sub-par Federer, breaking him twice to win the first set 6-3. Federer slowly found the rhythm on his serve, though, and despite his continued inability to break the del Potro serve, he forced the second set to a tiebreak, which he dominated to level the match. Just when the crowd might have expected Federer to step on the gas and show del Potro the exit, however, the young Argentine raised his level once again as Federer continued to play below his best level, losing the third set after once more suffering two breaks of serve. At the start of the fourth set, with Federer's chances of making it to his fourth successive Roland Garros final looking increasingly imperiled, the Chatrier crowd got firmly behind him and, after a titanic struggle in the fourth game, he finally broke the del Potro serve for the first time in the match to open up a 3-1 lead, which he extended to win the set 6-1. Carrying that momentum into the fifth and decisive set, Federer scored another break to start, and despite surrendering it back to del Potro to level the score at 3-3, Federer immediately broke again and this time held on to his advantage to close out a memorable 3-6, 7-6 (2), 2-6, 6-1, 6-4 win. At long last, he was back in the final with a shot at history.
His opponent in the Sunday final would be, surprisingly but most deservedly, the seemingly unstoppable Söderling. He had put to shame those who dismissed as a fluke his still largely incredulous win over Nadal with further improbable victories over clay-court veterans and top players Nikolay Davydenko and Fernando Gonzalez. Suddenly, the man who had never before been past the third round of a major and had enjoyed his best success on fast indoor surfaces found himself in the final of the world's biggest clay-court event. While Federer approached the final confident in his 9-0 head-to-head record against the Swede, he also knew all too well that Söderling had been playing at a much improved level and would be entering the final with absolutely nothing to lose; in other words, he knew he could not afford to take this last match lightly.
Much to the relief of himself and his fans, Federer was extremely well prepared for the final and it ended up being, somewhat ironically, his most straightforward match of the entire tournament. His serve was firing on all cylinders and he took full advantage of Söderling's early nerves to build a comfortable lead, which helped the thirteen-time Slam champion relax even further. In fact, even with the far from ideal weather conditions--it was cool, windy, and, for the second half of the match, persistently drizzling--the only time at which Federer seemed to temporarily lose focus was when an obviously deranged fan breached security and ran up to him on the court, attempting to place a hat on his head; after what seemed like an eternity, the lunatic was finally tackled and forcibly removed from the stadium after having jumped the net to Söderling's side of the court. Federer, however, quickly regained his composure and his service games remained untouchable, and he ultimately took the second set in one of the best tiebreaks of his career, winning each of his service points (four in all) with aces. He broke immediately at the start of the third set and never looked back, although he admitted afterward to having been overcome with emotion and nerves while serving for the match at 5-4, a game in which he crucially saved a break point before watching Söderling's return on his first match point find the net, at which point Federer sank to his knees, covered his face and let flow the tears of joy.
It is only fitting that it was Andre Agassi, the last man to complete the career Grand Slam with his win at Roland Garros in 1999, who presented Federer with the trophy in the post-match ceremony. Federer now joins Agassi, Don Budge, Fred Perry, Roy Emerson, and Rod Laver as the sixth man to achieve the feat; he and Agassi are the only two to have done it on three (or four, depending on how one classifies the Australian Open's former Rebound Ace) different surfaces. His accomplishment also means he emulates one of Agassi's greatest rivals, Pete Sampras, in winning his record-tying fourteenth Grand Slam title; Sampras, however, never made it past the semifinals in Paris.
And yet, historic though these accomplishments may be, they do not totally capture the significance of Federer's fortnight in the sixteenth arrondissement. They do not give adequate credit to the immense measure of mental fortitude he summoned to reach this peak. It had long been widely assumed, anyway, that Federer would catch Sampras' record and indeed surpass it--perhaps as soon as Wimbledon in just a few weeks' time. While the records will go a long way toward defining his legacy as a champion for the ages, this particular tournament effort provided indisputable evidence of his unmatched resolve to persevere and conquer all remaining goals regardless of any setbacks that would present themselves time and time again. He had been Björn Borg to Nadal's 1981 John McEnroe, yet instead of following Borg's lead by abandoning the game, he bode his time knowing that he was young enough to have plenty of chances to add to his legacy. Roland Garros 2009 revealed the unmatchable heart of this champion as he overcame doubts--including, most certainly, but never candidly, increasing self-doubt--about his ability to win big titles in a period of Mallorcan dominance and his drive to come back from the brink of defeat, a trick he repeated no less than four times in those two long weeks. In a matter of hours, he was handed the weight of the world, and not only did he balance it to perfection, but he also, once through, launched the celestial sphere back into its proper orbit.
My utter inability to take my mind off of the Swiss legend's quest for tennis immortality during the last eight days of championship--evidenced by the sporadic terre-battue-spattered stress dreams I experienced on more than one occasion--prompted me to ask a good friend and fellow Federer devoté after the final, "Why do we care so much?" In the abstract, it seems more than a bit silly to obsess over the athletic accomplishments of one man, whom I have never met and unfortunately probably never will meet, as he smacks tennis balls thousands of miles away in the hope of receiving a handsome cup. After a brief pause, we came to the conclusion that, aside from being run-of-the-mill nuts, we feel so connected to this one man and his pursuits simply because he embodies what we and our fellow human beings should aspire to be. As tennis players, we are mesmerized by the effortlessness and fluidity of his strokes which, frankly, provide the false perception that the game is insultingly easy. Indeed, more than any player before him and in all likelihood any to follow, he becomes one with racquet, ball and court itself to provide a devastatingly lethal yet spectacularly beautiful and regular execution of shot. As members of society and citizens of the world, we hope to be only half as gracious, charming, generous, and above all, humble, as is Federer. He rightly takes pride in his unparalleled accomplishments yet always remembers and appreciates those of his forebears. We certainly do not delude ourselves with ideas that he is perfect or in any way above human weakness--on the contrary, he has, on more than a few occasions, proven himself capable of expressing frustration and playing sloppy matches--but we recognize that his positive attributes substantially outweigh and outnumber the negatives, and that is what we can only hope to be so fortunate as to emulate.
For all these reasons and more, I say once again that I was ecstatic to have had my Melbourne-induced doubts smashed to bits in Paris. Indeed, I am sorely ashamed to have harbored such feelings in the first place. As Federer himself noted in a post-victory interview with McEnroe (who, coincidentally, along with legends Agassi and Sampras, has crowned Federer the Greatest of All Time) in regards to his self-belief in his chance to one day hold aloft the Coupe des Mousquetaires, "I knew it wasn't particularly the case [that I always would have to pass through Nadal to win here] because you can't be in every Grand Slam final."
"Unless," he forgot to add, "your name is Roger Federer." Long may he reign.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
U.S. Supreme Court ruling coming soon on same-sex marriage?
Last Tuesday's other big story--alongside news of President Obama's announcement of Sonia Sotomayor to fill an upcoming U.S. Supreme Court vacancy--was the California Supreme Court's decision to uphold the legality of Proposition 8, a referendum narrowly passed by voters last November to amend the state constitution to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples, even while ensuring the continued validity of the 18,000 or so same-sex marriage licenses issued in the six months prior to Election Day.
Needless to say, the court's 6-1 decision to affirm the right of voters to amend the state constitution to deny rather than expand rights is disappointing and troublesome. It now appears that, unless voters reverse their actions in a future statewide referendum, the only chance that Californian same-sex couples (as well as such couples in the dozens of other states with constitutional amendments banning marriage equality) will have to be granted equal rights is a successful challenge of the state law in federal court.
Indeed, within 24 hours of the court's ruling, such a lawsuit was filed on behalf of two California same-sex couples by the unlikeliest of bedfellows: attorneys Ted Olson and David Boies, who argued against each other in the infamous 2000 U.S. Supreme Court case Bush v. Gore, which effectively decided the outcome of that year's presidential election (and sealed the fates of hundreds of thousands of innocent people around the globe... but I digress). While I agree with the spirit in which this motion was filed, like many who look forward to a day when marriage equality is practiced nationwide and recognized at the federal level, I worry that this lawsuit may be greatly mistimed. Messrs. Olson and Boies seek to emulate the landmark Loving v. Virginia ruling in 1967 which invalidated state bans on interracial marriage; however, it is worth noting that the current make-up of the U.S. Supreme Court hardly resembles the Warren court of the civil rights movement's hey-day. In fact, it is entirely possible that a failure at the U.S. Supreme Court level will devastate the movement for equal rights and set it back at least a generation in large swaths of the country.
The debate within the LGBT rights community regarding the best tactics going forward--continuing to advocate for equal rights at the state and local levels while waiting for a more friendly Supreme Court versus filing lawsuits now in federal court--is likely to continue for some time. I'm not sure exactly where I stand on this issue, as I applaud Olson, Boies and their clients for confronting the matter head-on but also worry about the long-term consequences of failure. I suppose that I can only hope that they use their courtroom talents to the fullest and get it right the first time.
Needless to say, the court's 6-1 decision to affirm the right of voters to amend the state constitution to deny rather than expand rights is disappointing and troublesome. It now appears that, unless voters reverse their actions in a future statewide referendum, the only chance that Californian same-sex couples (as well as such couples in the dozens of other states with constitutional amendments banning marriage equality) will have to be granted equal rights is a successful challenge of the state law in federal court.
Indeed, within 24 hours of the court's ruling, such a lawsuit was filed on behalf of two California same-sex couples by the unlikeliest of bedfellows: attorneys Ted Olson and David Boies, who argued against each other in the infamous 2000 U.S. Supreme Court case Bush v. Gore, which effectively decided the outcome of that year's presidential election (and sealed the fates of hundreds of thousands of innocent people around the globe... but I digress). While I agree with the spirit in which this motion was filed, like many who look forward to a day when marriage equality is practiced nationwide and recognized at the federal level, I worry that this lawsuit may be greatly mistimed. Messrs. Olson and Boies seek to emulate the landmark Loving v. Virginia ruling in 1967 which invalidated state bans on interracial marriage; however, it is worth noting that the current make-up of the U.S. Supreme Court hardly resembles the Warren court of the civil rights movement's hey-day. In fact, it is entirely possible that a failure at the U.S. Supreme Court level will devastate the movement for equal rights and set it back at least a generation in large swaths of the country.
The debate within the LGBT rights community regarding the best tactics going forward--continuing to advocate for equal rights at the state and local levels while waiting for a more friendly Supreme Court versus filing lawsuits now in federal court--is likely to continue for some time. I'm not sure exactly where I stand on this issue, as I applaud Olson, Boies and their clients for confronting the matter head-on but also worry about the long-term consequences of failure. I suppose that I can only hope that they use their courtroom talents to the fullest and get it right the first time.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
And the winner of US Supreme Court Idol 2009 is...
Judge Sonia Sotomayor. President Obama named the federal appeals judge as his pick to replace retiring Justice David Souter on the US Supreme Court in a ceremony held this morning at the White House. If confirmed by the Senate, Sotomayor will become the first Hispanic and only the third female Supreme Court justice in US history.
Sotomayor brings an impressive resumé to the nation's highest bench. Having grown up the daughter of Puerto Rican parents in public housing in the Bronx, she proceeded to attend Princeton University, where she graduated summa cum laude, and then Yale Law School, where she landed a spot as editor of the Yale Law Journal. She was first appointed to the federal district court in New York in 1991 by President George H. W. Bush and then promoted to the federal appeals court--where she currently serves--in 1998 following her nomination a year earlier by President Bill Clinton. As such, there is a decent chance that she will receive more than a little support from Republicans in the confirmation process.
That being said, conservatives hellbent on finding some mud to throw at her will likely point to a few "controversial" statements she has made in the past, namely her outlining of her belief that her ethnicity and gender provide some guidance as to how she approaches her duties on the bench, and her tongue-in-cheek observation that the "court of appeals is where policy is made," a statement she immediately sought to clarify. Still, Republicans will have to walk a fine line because, let's face it, they can ill afford to further alienate Hispanic voters. For conservatives and liberals alike, there exists some concern about her supposed lack of an overall "judicial philosophy" and the fact that she has yet to rule on or share her opinion regarding cases involving hot-button issues such as abortion and LGBT rights (which may soon come before the US Supreme Court now that California's Supreme Court has upheld Proposition 8--more on that in my next post). I, for one, cannot understand the basis for such criticisms; I would think that the absence of an overarching ideological drive would be an asset for someone aspiring to become the ultimate interpreter of our nation's laws and Constitution.
I predict that Judge Sotomayor will sail through the confirmation process given that Democrats are virtually assured of achieving the votes necessary to invoke cloture and proceed to an up-or-down vote (moderate Republicans such as Olympia Snowe have already come out in seeming support of her nomination). Having just learned most of what I know about her in the past few days, I can honestly say that I am excited that she will be our new Associate Justice. She is undoubtedly qualified and, just as President Obama indicated was his desire, she brings to her post a vast array of life experiences, in addition to more judicial experience than any of the current justices had before their nominations. Hispanics and Americans of all backgrounds can be proud to welcome this newest member of the Court.
Sotomayor brings an impressive resumé to the nation's highest bench. Having grown up the daughter of Puerto Rican parents in public housing in the Bronx, she proceeded to attend Princeton University, where she graduated summa cum laude, and then Yale Law School, where she landed a spot as editor of the Yale Law Journal. She was first appointed to the federal district court in New York in 1991 by President George H. W. Bush and then promoted to the federal appeals court--where she currently serves--in 1998 following her nomination a year earlier by President Bill Clinton. As such, there is a decent chance that she will receive more than a little support from Republicans in the confirmation process.
That being said, conservatives hellbent on finding some mud to throw at her will likely point to a few "controversial" statements she has made in the past, namely her outlining of her belief that her ethnicity and gender provide some guidance as to how she approaches her duties on the bench, and her tongue-in-cheek observation that the "court of appeals is where policy is made," a statement she immediately sought to clarify. Still, Republicans will have to walk a fine line because, let's face it, they can ill afford to further alienate Hispanic voters. For conservatives and liberals alike, there exists some concern about her supposed lack of an overall "judicial philosophy" and the fact that she has yet to rule on or share her opinion regarding cases involving hot-button issues such as abortion and LGBT rights (which may soon come before the US Supreme Court now that California's Supreme Court has upheld Proposition 8--more on that in my next post). I, for one, cannot understand the basis for such criticisms; I would think that the absence of an overarching ideological drive would be an asset for someone aspiring to become the ultimate interpreter of our nation's laws and Constitution.
I predict that Judge Sotomayor will sail through the confirmation process given that Democrats are virtually assured of achieving the votes necessary to invoke cloture and proceed to an up-or-down vote (moderate Republicans such as Olympia Snowe have already come out in seeming support of her nomination). Having just learned most of what I know about her in the past few days, I can honestly say that I am excited that she will be our new Associate Justice. She is undoubtedly qualified and, just as President Obama indicated was his desire, she brings to her post a vast array of life experiences, in addition to more judicial experience than any of the current justices had before their nominations. Hispanics and Americans of all backgrounds can be proud to welcome this newest member of the Court.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
We'd almost forgotten the feeling...
Roger Federer defeated Rafael Nadal in straight sets, 6-4, 6-4, in today's final of the Masters 1000 event in Madrid, thereby winning his first title since his hometown tournament in Basel, Switzerland last October and beating Nadal on clay for just the second time. Granted, Nadal was almost certainly not in top gear, having won his last three tournaments and barely surviving a draining four-hour contest against Novak Djokovic in yesterday's semifinal. Still, a win is a win, especially against Nadal, on clay and in Spain. I'm sure I'm not the only one hoping this is a sign of the level of play we can expect at Roland Garros at the end of the month.
Some great highlights from today's final:
Some great highlights from today's final:
Monday, May 11, 2009
Comedian-in-Chief
President Obama was on his A-game at the White House Correspondents' Dinner Saturday night:
Part 1
Part 2
Meanwhile, comedienne Wanda Sykes peppered her routine with a few, erm, risqué lines, but overall it was good for a few laughs:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 1
Part 2
Meanwhile, comedienne Wanda Sykes peppered her routine with a few, erm, risqué lines, but overall it was good for a few laughs:
Part 1
Part 2
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
