Our False Debate on Health Care Reform

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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

On Mother's Day

If you're like me, you've probably, on more than a few occasions, given your mother a hard time--not because of any deep-seeded malice or resentment, but simply because that is the nature of relationships between mothers and their offspring. She'll call at the most inopportune times, ask seemingly inane questions about your daily routine and insist on babying you even if you've been legally eligible to live on your own for five-plus years. And still, you know that underneath it all, this is precisely why you love her.

My mom has been there literally since before day one, and has worked so hard every day thereafter, often sacrificing luxuries for herself, to provide for her family and thereby set a path for mine and my brother's success. For that, I am eternally grateful.

For all the complaining I do about having not yet landed that dream job out on the east coast, I can say with total sincerity that it is a joy to be home with Mom on Mother's Day for the first time since my senior year of high school. Here's hoping it's the first of another long string of such holidays together.

A very happy Mother's Day to all the mothers out there.

Fed up

Being from the great city that is Chicago, I am more than familiar with the concept of the loyal yet continually disappointed sports fan. The Bears' Super Bowl drought is nearing the quarter-century mark; the Bulls are less than a shadow of the Jordan-led dream team that spoiled us with six national championships back in the 1990s (although this season's performance, ended yesterday with a hard-fought conclusion to a scintillating first-round playoff series with the defending champion Boston Celtics, provides some hope for the future); and of course, our Cubbies, the most lovable of losers (man I hate that cliché) are 101 years removed from their last World Series victory.

That having been established, those of you who know me know that I readily admit to being, at best, a fair-weather fan when it comes to those team sports that dominate the psyche of many Americans. My true passion lies with the sport of tennis. An avid follower of the game since age eleven, I love to play and immediately became a devoted follower of Pete Sampras. After his fairy tale career capping win at the 2002 U.S. Open, I thought I'd be hard pressed to find another player whose game and attitude could so capture my imagination, whose approach to tennis was so direct and whose playing style made it look so ridiculously easy. And then along came Roger Federer.

Simply put, Roger is Pete with a much more complete repertoire. I could elaborate on the fundamental soundness of every stroke in his arsenal or his deceptively deft footwork. I could sing praises to his unnatural ability to keep his eye on the ball at every single moment--even as his racket makes contact--and his perfectly calm facial expressions compared to the contortions all other top players exhibit while toiling on court. He is, in many ways, the perfect player, and up until a couple years ago, he proved it with his results.

How times have changed. Through 2007, even a modestly attentive tennis fan was shocked each time Roger lost a match, save maybe for those encounters with Rafael Nadal on clay. In the months since, however, there has been a shift almost completely in the opposite direction--it is now a pleasant surprise when he wins even the least prestigious of tournaments.

It is clear that this troublesome trend started in early 2008, when he lost his Australian Open title to Novak Djokovic, only to reveal several weeks later that he had in fact been suffering from a moderate case of mononucleosis. Fine. But even after he claimed to have been given a clean bill of health, the losses continued to mount, against his top rivals and ATP journeymen alike. Alarm bells truly started to sound when he lost his most beloved Wimbledon crown--he had won the title five years running--to top rival Nadal. It was, by all accounts, a devastating blow that helped ensure Rafa's takeover of the number one spot later that summer. In fact, the only large bright spot for Roger in all of 2008 (in singles, anyway--he did manage a very impressive gold-medal effort in doubles at the Beijing Olympics with countryman Stanislas Wawrinka) came at the U.S. Open, where, seemingly out of nowhere, he summoned his old dominance and romped to a thirteenth major title. Eight months later, though, that remains his largest recent accomplishment, and the losses sadly have continued to pile up.

I am not so much disappointed that he is losing. All great champions hit rough patches, and given what Roger has achieved already at age 27, it is understandable that the pace at which he adds to his trophy cabinet would decline. What bothers me much more is how he is losing. In several of his recent losses, especially those to top 4 players Djokovic and Andy Murray (who combined now account for four of his six losses this year, with Nadal beating him in the Australian Open final and Wawrinka winning against him for the first time after an admittedly half-hearted effort in Monte Carlo), he has actually played brilliantly, even like the Roger of 2006... for a set, anyway. He might start off well in the second set as well, but then inexplicably commences a barrage of the ugliest unforced errors that at times rival those of the average club player. He then inevitably loses his confidence and his drive to find a second wind, and by the time the match is over, I cannot help but be thankful that the torture session has ended. It is as if he puts himself in position to go for the kill, and then succumbs to an overwhelming sensation of doubt that paralyzes his genius. At the risk of sounding melodramatic, it can be quite scary to witness.

Roger insists that he does not need a coach to guide him at this stage in his career. That may have been an acceptable argument when he was winning two or three Slams and four Masters 1000 events every year, but now it comes across as arrogant and reeks of denial. Results do not lie. Roger faces increasingly insurmountable mental battles with himself every time he walks on the court against these guys, and with each loss his confidence takes another hit. Now that he has just gotten married and has a baby on the way, it appears likely, if history is any predictor, that his game will simply continue to slide.

I have to admit, I nodded in agreement after reading the following comment on his Web site (triggered by his most recent woeful loss to Djokovic on clay in Rome):

"Tired of watching you lose -- get your head straight -- nothing wrong with your game that a clear head won't fix -- get a coach and a sports psych and get back on track -- you are not a quitter and that is what I saw today! Shame on you Roger -- if your love and passion for the game is gone then retire -- otherwise stop being so stubborn -- what you resist persists -- and your stubbornness is a sign of resistance -- you want to beat Nadal? you want to be #1 again? then get your head fixed. Losing to Djokovic is a joke -- but until you get your head on straight -- the joke is on you."

He needs to change his outlook, be it through a coach, a sports psychologist, or sheer inner determination to win. But change he must, and until he acquiesces, he will continue to waste the potential of these last prime years of his career. And if wasting his potential is satisfactory for him, then I agree: he may as well retire and save us all the emotional torment of watching him tarnish his legacy.

So long Souter

U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice David Souter revealed yesterday his intention to retire after nearly two decades on the nation's highest bench at the end of the current session in June. Appointed by President George H. W. Bush in 1990, Souter disappointed many hard-line conservatives over the years as it became apparent in numerous Court decisions that he was, well, not one of them. In cases involving such hot-button issues as abortion rights, school prayer and affirmative action, Souter repeatedly sided with the more progressive wing of the Court. Having enjoyed his job but despised the city in which he worked, he now looks forward to a quiet retirement alone in his beloved New Hampshire.

There was widespread speculation that one or two justices would retire soon, although most of the attention was focused on 89-year-old John Paul Stevens and 76-year-old Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court's oldest justices. Thus, Souter's announcement comes as a bit of a surprise. Nevertheless, it adds to the long laundry list of responsibilities already assigned to President Obama--resolving the economic and financial crises, handling two wars, monitoring the oh-my-god-run-for-your-lives-it's-a-killer-pandemic-oh-wait-maybe-it's-not-so-bad swine flu situation, etc.--the task of naming someone to America's highest court.

Conventional wisdom says he will choose a woman (perhaps even Elena Kagan, former Dean of Harvard Law School and current Solicitor General of the United States) to mitigate the shame of having just one female justice. I certainly think that will be the case. Beyond that, though, it really is anyone's guess. Some minority groups have started to actively lobby the White House to name a woman of color to the Supreme Court, which would be a first. Additionally, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus is starting to pressure the President to name a Hispanic to the Court, another first. Regardless of whom Obama chooses, though, the new justice is not likely to change the political ideological balance (for lack of a better term) of the Court. Still, these decisions are always surrounded by excitement and intrigue because each justice--conservative, moderate or liberal--brings a unique personality and background to the bench. I personally find it fascinating to observe how each justice views his or her role on the Court and how each approaches his or her duty to interpret the law and the Constitution of the United States. For me, these occasions in Washington are right up there with presidential inaugurations--sometimes significantly better.

I have complete confidence that the President will tap a supremely qualified individual to replace Justice Souter, and with the Democrats in the Senate all but assured of having 60 seats by the time the confirmation vote takes place, he should have no trouble getting his nominee seated. Let me know if anyone wants to start a pool on potential nominees.

Benedict Arlen?

The political world is abuzz today with the news that Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania has decided to switch parties and become a Democrat ahead of his reelection bid next year.

In recent years, Specter has become increasingly well known nationwide due to his reputation as an independent-minded moderate and his courageous fight against cancer. He has now added to those identifying factors a decision which, in all likelihood, will give the Democrats that magic filibuster-proof number of 60 seats in the U.S. Senate (assuming Norm Coleman ever gives it up, or is forced to do so, in the never-ending Minnesota Senate race against Al Franken).

But is this truly all great news for the Democrats? And what are the implications of Specter's defection for the already reeling Republican party?

I'll admit, as someone who identifies as a Democrat, I've always had a certain admiration for Arlen Specter, perhaps not too unlike that which many Democrats had for, say, the John McCain of 2000. I was proud and relieved to see him break ranks as one of only three Republicans to vote for President Obama's stimulus bill in February. It was an act of political bravery that undoubtedly led him to do what he did today, given the certainty of the impossible fight he would face in next year's GOP primary race. Still, as big as it was, it was just one vote. He has since given mixed signals regarding how he might vote on the Obama budget and has proclaimed his opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act, an issue of critical importance to organized labor, a major Democratic constituency. In other words, while he has been largely welcomed into the Democratic caucus, Specter can hardly be expected to become as reliable an ally as Ted Kennedy. That being said, by becoming a member of the caucus, Specter will be under much more pressure on a regular basis to support Democratic initiatives, especially when they require that magic number to block a GOP filibuster. It is also very important to note that, while he may have avoided near certain defeat in a Republican primary contest, he will now have to compete on the Democratic side, which means he must be careful not to anger the more progressive voters who will decide his fate in early 2010. All in all, though, I think this is news that the Democratic party can and should celebrate.

The main reason for this is that Specter's abandonment of the Republican party summarizes quite nicely the fine job that the GOP has done over the last several years of alienating moderates and traditional conservatives with its shameless pandering to those in the extreme right wing of the party. Such patterns left them unable to become genuinely enthusiastic about Sen. McCain, their presidential nominee in 2008, and caused them to choose the utterly unqualified but bona fide conservative hockey mom Sarah Palin as his running mate. Earlier this year, they allowed conservative comedian Rush Limbaugh to take the mantle of de facto leader of their party, and those that dared challenge his credentials soon found themselves groveling at his feet seeking forgiveness. (For a sampling of more recent stances taken by the GOP and their allies, consider that their congressional leaders just weeks ago sought to enact a completely illogical federal spending freeze in the midst of a deep recession, or that their beloved mouthpieces have started using the current swine flu scare to ratchet up xenophobic rhetoric.) The bottom line: Republicans continue shooting themselves in the foot and shrinking their base in an attempt to find their voice, and Democrats are loving it.

It remains to be seen if Sen. Specter will be able to play ball in a Democratic primary and how willing he will be to help advance President Obama's ambitious agenda. For now, though, this progressive says "Welcome home, Senator."

Torturous Decisions

As the country and its new leadership in Washington grapple with the unprecedented challenges presented by the current economic crisis and ongoing conflicts in Afghanistan/Pakistan and Iraq, the media have given varying levels of attention to the issue of torture (or, depending on the source, "harsh interrogation techniques") implemented by intelligence officials on terror suspects during the previous Administration. While I believe President Obama is right to prefer to focus on the most pressing issue of the day--hastening economic recovery--and to look ahead rather than to the past, I am equally pleased that he has decided not to attempt to block potential investigations into wrongdoing by those who devised these un-American tactics.

There is certainly legitimate debate over who exactly should be brought to justice for the use of these techniques. It now appears that those who actually conducted acts of torture will not necessarily be pursued. Granted, their Nuremberg-esque "We were just following orders" defense is worrisome. To be fair, though, one certainly cannot compare desperation to retrieve information that may save lives to the horrors perpetrated on countless innocents by the Nazis prior to and during World War II. I therefore find it a good balance to investigate those who drafted and approved the use of these interrogation methods.

The United States must seize the opportunity presented by the new-found goodwill from the rest of the world to proclaim unambiguously that it does not engage in torture. While the effectiveness of torture is debatable, it is undeniably true--regardless of how petulantly Dick Cheney protests--that when Americans employ these strategies, they severely compromise their ability to claim any moral high ground and to reduce the chances that their own soldiers and operatives will be subjected to such treatment by our enemies. Moreover, acts of torture perpetrated by Americans almost certainly increases the ranks of those who would do us harm. If abandoning torture means that our only option is to be twice as smart and two steps ahead of the terrorists who plot against us, then so be it. The United States has the best intelligence-gathering agencies in the world and does not need to sink to levels of barbarism to ensure the safety of its citizens and allies.

It is my hope that, even if no one ends up serving time as a consequence of these inquiries, at the very least serious questions will be asked and answered regarding the logic behind such decison-making and it will be absolutely clear that going forward, this great nation will live up to its own values and principles on matters of justice and the rule of law.

There's a storm gathering!

This is just so bloody brilliant!

While on the one hand I think the whole "debate" over marriage equality detracts from the most pressing issue of the day (read: the economy), I have to admit it is nice to have some comic relief from time to time.

On teabagging and tear-jerking

I'll admit I've been a bit too busy with my new temp job in the last few days to pay close attention to this "teabagging" nonsense, so I won't spend too much space complaining about it. I will, however, make two observations. First, concerning the idea that people are outraged about supposedly burdensome rates of taxation: um... for those who have not noticed, this country remains under the Bush tax cuts until at least 2011, and 95% of American workers have seen further tax cuts (reflected in reduced tax witholdings in their paychecks) in recent weeks as part of President Obama's economic stimulus package. And if these "teabaggers" are upset about current levels of government spending (gee, I wonder where they were when we started spending all those hundreds of billions on a completely unnecessary war), they obviously would rather see a full-blown depression by having the spender of last resort pinch pennies along with the rest of us. Note to the public: in a recession, people spend less, meaning businesses lose revenue, which means they in turn spend and invest less, which ultimately leads to reduced hours and layoffs, which means workers have lost income and will spend less, and the vicious cycle continues. Add to that a frozen credit market--courtesy of a broken banking system brought down by the housing bubble burst--and a Federal Funds rate already at zero, and you have literally no other option than to have the government step in with robust fiscal policy and spend the money that no one else is willing to, even if it means temporarily increasing the deficit and debt. If the government did nothing as some of these people supposedly want, our economy would certainly fall off the cliff and we'd find ourselves in a truly deep depression that would make the current deep recession look like peanuts. It's really quite simple logic for those who care to pay attention. But these sheep, who respond to mindless soundbites railing against "tax-and-spend liberals" would rather revel in their ignorant bliss and make fools of themselves in the streets, proud of the fact that they are being used by Fox Noise.

Second, "TEABAGGING?" What the HELL were these people and Fox thinking? I find it hard to believe that none of them have heard of the popular use of that term. Unless they all happen to share a particular sexual fetish, the use of this word to describe their "protests" only serves to underscore their ignorance of the facts.

Okay, so I lied about not complaining in excess. Sorry.

On a completely unrelated note, I'm sure by now many of you have heard of Susan Boyle, one of the most unlikely people to shoot to stardom on the television show Britain's Got Talent. Web video of her stunning performance last week instantly went viral.

I'm not ashamed to admit I teared up the first time I saw this... and then the second... and the third. At the risk of sounding a bit corny, this video touched me because it juxtaposed, in my opinion, the worst and the best of the human spirit: the worst being the dismissive laughter she initially received from the audience (note the girl rolling her eyes around 1:24) and the best being her bubbly--if a bit quirky--attitude toward life despite her supposed lack of qualities that usually define one as attractive. Add to all that the moving lyrics of the song and you have a recipe for a truly emotional reaction. Here's hoping this is far from the last we'll see and hear of her.

A tale of two Larrys

Few public figures have elicited such mixed emotions from me in recent years as Lawrence Summers, former Treasury Secretary under President Clinton and president of Harvard, and now head of the National Economic Council under President Obama.

Fairly or not, Mr. Summers has been the subject of more than a little controversy over the last decade, from his partiality toward deregulation of financial institutions while at Treasury--which is oft-cited as one of the many causes of today's financial crisis--to his very public feud with esteemed professor and activist Cornel West, to his infamous remarks regarding women and science in 2005 which served as the catalyst to remove him from the top post at Harvard one year later, to his most recent stint as a part-time adviser at New York hedge fund D.E. Shaw prior to his return to public service in Washington this year.

I certainly am not foolish enough to claim that Larry can do no wrong. He displayed, on multiple occasions, a somewhat brash and condescending demeanor that has cost him quite a few friends in academia and proved to be his downfall at Harvard. In today's New York Times, columnist Frank Rich rightly blasts Summers and his Treasury predecessor, Robert Rubin, for their firm commitment to deregulation of Wall Street back in the 1990s. Indeed, Larry's love for our free-market system almost certainly clouded his ability to serve effectively as a servant of the larger public and to place greater emphasis on pursuing careers outside of Wall Street as president of the nation's greatest institute of higher learning.

That being said, I don't believe Larry to be an ill-intentioned individual. I am particularly drawn to him due to his insistence on expanding Harvard's undergraduate financial aid program through the landmark Harvard Financial Aid Initiative, started in 2004 (the year I matriculated). Were it not for this breakthrough, I almost certainly would be unable to refer to myself today as a Harvard graduate, and the many doors that I now find open would have remained firmly shut. This, incidentally, was the primary reason for which I believed the "witch hunt" conducted against Larry by the Harvard faculty back in 2005-06 was unfair because many faculty members failed to realize--or care--that Larry's staunch support of the program had greatly enriched student life at the University.

On a less personal note, I am more inclined to chalk up Larry's exposure to today's most vilified institutions as simply a product of his passion for his field of study. Let there be no mistake: the man is brilliant--even a nerd of sorts. He became, at age 28, one of the youngest tenured professors in Harvard's history. Sure, he may have slept with the devil from time to time, but he knows his stuff and has applied his background to causes both public and private, noble and not so noble.

The irony is that his now supposedly in-depth understanding of how Wall Street thinks may be his most valuable asset as he takes on his historically unprecedented task of finding solutions for this ailing economy. This theory is rather well examined in Louise Story's recent Times article. Anticipating the financial sector's response to government actions provides him, Secretary Geithner and the rest of President Obama's economic team the best chance to formulate winning solutions. And, at the end of the day, it is the President who gives orders and directives to Summers; given that few would question Obama's commitment to fixing this economy for the sake of those losing their jobs, homes and retirement (and not for the Wall Street fat cats who largely caused this mess), it is reasonable to assume that Larry has this in mind as he brainstorms with the other wonks in the Administration.

This global crisis in many ways presents Larry Summers an opportunity to redeem himself for past mistakes, misguided priorities, and yes, unfair accusations. Let's hope, if not for his sake, then for the sake of the world economy, that he succeeds.

Mairwidge, dat bwessed awangement, dat dweam within a dweam

On a much happier note, Roger Federer and his long-time girlfriend Mirka Vavrinec finally tied the knot this morning in a small private ceremony in his hometown of Basel, Switzerland after a nearly nine-year relationship. This follows last month's announcement that Roger and Mirka are expecting their first child sometime this summer.

Naturally, as a dedicated fan, I am eager to see what effect--positive, negative, or none whatsoever--this new family life will have on Roger's game as he attempts to match and surpass Pete Sampras' record of 14 Grand Slam titles and perhaps regain his number 1 ranking. At any rate, I think I speak for most people when I wish the new couple every happiness in the future!

Mairwidge is wot bwings us togethuh...

So I was watching Hardball on MSNBC last night, and one segment in the show featured a "debate" on the recent victories for marriage equality in Iowa (where the state supreme court ruled that barring same-sex couples from marrying violates the state constitution) and Vermont (which became the first state to legalize same-sex marriage through the legislature and not the courts--in fact, state lawmakers voted to override Governor Jim Douglas' veto). Iowa and Vermont now join Massachussetts and Connecticut as the only states that allow same-sex marriage. Incidentally, the District of Columbia city council voted this week to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. (California's supreme court is currently reviewing the legality of Proposition 8 which voters instated last fall to amend that state's constitution to restrict marriage to heterosexual couples. Additionally, New Hampshire and New Jersey are working on establishing marriage equality through legislative means.)



What struck me about this exchange is that Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage (I know), makes the first ever attempt--that I've heard anyway--at backing up the claim that same-sex marriage somehow threatens "traditional" marriages and will change society for the worse. (Because obviously the sky has completely fallen in Massachusetts in the last five years.) Yes, the anti-equality movement has wised up to the fact that the tired old argument that same-sex relations are just "unnatural" or "icky" won't do, so they are actually trying to give credence to the view that allowing same-sex couples to marry will adversely affect straight couples. What's particularly sad and ironic is that Ms. Gallagher nails it when she predicts that people will one day be told that this "traditional" view of marriage (i.e. only between a man and a woman) will be regarded as a "disgarded relic of ancient bigotry." So she's essentially saying that if LGBT Americans are given their rights, children will be taught that those who seek to deny them these civil rights are in fact bigots. No shit!

For obvious reasons, this line of thinking has absolutely no grounding in logic or reason. Ray and Tommy upstairs will have no more impact on my life than Richard and Linda next door do now. I'll admit her argument regarding religious organizations being compelled to change their practices has slightly more merit on the facts, but that doesn't make her correct--not by a longshot. The simple fact of the matter is that religious groups that seek special status in the form of tax exemptions or government funding should be required to adhere to the protection of individual rights as defined by the government. If not, they forfeit their claims to special treatment. Why is that so bad? I might add that throughout our history, churches have preached several doctrines that have since been viewed as archaic and even immoral. In antebellum America, for example, there were some religious sects that condoned slavery, citing the Bible as their defense. That didn't give them a pass to continue this practice once the Civil War ended and emancipation was enshrined in the Constitution.

I could go on and on with this, but suffice it to say I am pleased with the trends we're starting to see in this country. Slowly but surely, state by state, thoughtful judges who take seriously their responsibility to uphold equal protection clauses--and now legislatures--are granting equal rights to LGBT couples. We obviously have quite a way to go before this happens on the federal level, but I'm confident that eventually a case will make it to the United States Supreme Court and we'll see a Loving-esque ruling that strikes down all existing state bans on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional. How do I know that the United States will one day ensure marriage equality? Just look at today's polls on the subject. There is nearly a (reverse) linear correlation between age and support for marriage rights, so it is only a matter of time (read: once the baby boom generation dies off) until the vast majority of Americans see their LGBT fellow citizens as just that: fellow citizens deserving of the same rights and responsibilities as everyone else.

Women's tennis is a joke (there, I said it)

Has anyone else been shaking their heads in bewilderment at the carousel of World No. 1s we've seen recently on the Sony Ericsson WTA Tour? Are there really that many dominant women clamoring for the top spot, or does this phenomenon speak to the long overdue need to reform the tour's rankings formula? I'm afraid it's painfully obvious that the latter is the more plausible scenario.

Don't get me wrong; the women at the top of the game are real and dedicated talents who toil week in and week out, garnering fairly consistent results. What irks me is the fact that the world rankings at any given time rarely reflect accurately the true stand-outs on the tour. In particular, the current game of musical chairs at the very top of the list exposes the outdated and unfair assignment of rankings points presently administered by the women's tour. The formula as it exists does not place enough value on the four Grand Slam tournaments--which are the pinnacle of the sport--and fails to distinguish actual champions from those who merely grind it out every week of the season and manage to reach the semifinals of virtually every tournament.

We see this absurdity manifest itself in the seemingly routine crowning of players who have not even one Grand Slam title to their names as the No. 1 player in the world. Case in point: Next week, Dinara Safina (a slamless player) will snatch the No. 1 ranking from Serena Williams. Nevermind the fact that Serena currently holds the U.S. and Australian Open titles in addition to having been runner-up at last year's Wimbledon. Her sister Venus, despite having beaten Serena in that final--and thus holding arguably the most prestigious title in all of tennis--in addition to posting solid results at other tournaments throughout the year, remains a relatively lowly number 5. This has happened on several other occasions in the recent past, with both Kim Clijsters and Amélie Mauresmo achieving the number 1 ranking before breaking through and winning their first major titles. And Jelena Jankovic spent an astonishing 17 weeks at the top spot starting last year and running through this year's Australian Open--in her entire career, she has managed to reach just one Grand Slam final. Her secret? She plays a lot of tennis.

It's time for this madness to stop. The WTA must follow the example of the ATP World Tour (the men's counterpart) and seriously assess and reform its current rankings formula to reflect the fact that the four Grand Slam tournaments form the pillars of this great sport by widening the gap between the amount of points awarded at Slams and the amount awarded at less prestigious events. How crazy would it be if Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer were not at the very top of the men's game in spite of their utter dominance at the majors? For whatever reason, the women's tour values quantity over quality with regard to its top players, and women's tennis is worse off for it.

I've joined the bandwagon

Hello everyone. I've decided that, instead of posting a disorganized string of notes on Facebook that can easily become lost in all that site's other junk, I will venture for the first time into the blogosphere. I'm not sure how often I'll write here; that depends entirely upon my mood and the issues that catch my attention at any given time. That being said, I hope to air my grievances at least once a week or so.

Happy reading, and I hope the few of you who end up reading this let your thoughts be known as well. Thanks!