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."
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
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 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.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
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.
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.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
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.
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.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
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!
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!
Thursday, April 9, 2009
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.
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.
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!
Happy reading, and I hope the few of you who end up reading this let your thoughts be known as well. Thanks!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
