Lonely, Lonely Big Apple

The buzz in the New York sports world for the past month has been all "oohs" and "ahhs" over the new baseball stadiums for both the Yankees and Mets.

Certainly, both stadiums are sites deserving of admiration, like Jeffrey Maier's glove or Curt Schilling's bloody sock (just how did he reapply the ketchup in the dugout without a camera seeing?). Having a Shake Shake in Citi Field alone would cause me to act like a thirteen year old girl at a Backstreet Boys concert.

But take a closer look at the new stadiums, particularly Yankee Stadium. Amid all the praise lauded to the architects, the owners, and the buildings, something's amiss that has appeared to slip through the nightly coverage: There's hardly any one in the seats.

And no, I don't buy the "official attendance numbers." When the Yankees versus A's looks like a Marlins vs Nationals game on Bingo night in Florida, I reserve the right to be skeptical.

Even though the new stadium seats less than the old one to make room for all those new luxury boxes - which, ironically, may be even emptier than those pricey ground level seats - fans still can't fill out the stadiums.

Last week's Yankees games looked like bad Triple A games, where no one shows up because it's hot and the players suck. Considering both Chien-Ming Wang and Carl Pavano pitched, maybe that comparison isn't too far off. Tough jab, I know.

Blame it on the tough economic times. Blame it on the fans of New York having to use their taxes to pay for the stadiums and still have their ticket prices raised. Blame it on both. It doesn't really matter. All that matters is that seats are empty. Awkwardly empty.

Maybe it's not as bad as it seems. Maybe they're all at Shake Shack. Hell, if it's between Mike Pelfrey's pitching and a cheeseburger, how can you blame them?

Tone Deaf Cable News

Watching MSNBC this morning, I saw a segment in which the anchor described the "new fashion" in the music industry - singing or rapping about the economic recession.

The anchor then asked a music expert - not sure if you go to school for that title or if you need a PhD, but he looked serious - whether it was: a) a surprise that musicians are starting to incorporate the recession into their songs and b) whether it was working - that is, was it effective in selling songs? Poor Neil Young even had his latest youtube-style music video played during the segment.

Come on, really? Damn it, cable news, don't do that to music.

Isn't music, or great music, by default, not something that takes reality and contorts it to sell records, but in fact, a reflection of reality itself? And when we describe history and time, don't we invariably look to the art and music of the period for some part of an answer? Music defines generations as much as it's defined by them. That's what I thought. If not, what the hell was the 1960's and 70's all about? Even worse, why'd I have to suffer through art history 101?

By this definition, the anchor's question was circular at best, nonsense at worst.

Shouldn't it be more of a surprise if artist's ignored the recession rather than if they incorporated it into their work? Would they even be an artist if they were disconnected from their reality? I would tend to think not.

Who Knew? Volunteer Work is Compatible with Capitalism

Back in January, a Starbucks in Arizona offered a free cup of coffee to anyone willing to sign a pledge sheet and join then soon-to-be President Obama's volunteer corps. I still have yet to find out how many people signed up, but if the raging caffeine addicts at my local Starbucks are any clue, people will go a long way for a cup of coffee.

Heading to Obama's hometown of Chicago, the White Sox - one of the windy city's Major League Baseball teams - got in on the act too. They've pledged to organize increased community service events involving players, organizational members and willing fans and citizens.

The NBA has also gotten in on the Obama volunteer bandwagon; they highlighted their usual NBA Cares program with commentary from Obama and NBA players alike during the most recent All-Star Weekend in Phoenix.

Who knew that volunteer work could be so compatible with capitalism?

Now we've all heard the cries of political opponents and bloggers, describing Obama's volunteer program with adjectives ranging from Gestapo-like and socialistic, to rumors of children being "drafted" into a civilian national security force, aimed at being as powerful as the military.

But apparently wealthy corporations and businesses don't seem to mind. That should settle the socialistic argument. I can't imagine anyone but the extreme right-wing bloggers are really pre-occupied about the other rumors and complaints.

Yet aside from settling ridiculous rumors, the actions of Starbucks, the White Sox and the NBA represent something much more important - the perpendicular intersection of two commonly believed parallel actions. In a time period of grandiose recession and stories of businesses cheating, stealing, swindling and collapsing, it's pleasant to see three corporate entities thinking about something larger than themselves - the community which supports them.

(Ok, so maybe Starbucks was just looking to increase customers by hooking even more people on caffeine. But it's nice to believe otherwise.)

Obama Should Pick Up Where Edwards Fell Off

It sure seems like all the rave these days is to talk about class. On one hand, there's the economic coverage and the struggles of millions of middle class families to pay their bills. On the other hand, there's Obama's "socialistic" plan to increase taxes on the upper class - with "class warfare!" as the battle cry to defend against the President's actions. Each of these notions have been getting considerable air time on the major media networks.

But pay attention long enough and you'll find that the term "lower class" is rarely ever mention in isolation. You may hear the phrase, "lower and middle class," as if both classes fit snuggly together like peanut butter and jelly. But it doesn't take much common sense to figure out that this shouldn't be and isn't true - after all, why bother having two separate names?

And, if you really pay attention, you'll hear virtually no discussion about the "lowest of the lower class," namely the homeless and those in poverty. So the question remains - "Where has the lower class gone?"

The answer, of course, is no where. In fact, with this economic crisis, it's more than likely that this class will continue to grow as unemployment continues to rise and the credit markets continue to sap. The real question, therefore, should be, "Where's the discussion of the lower class gone?" And the answer to that question, is unfortunate - it's been sucked out of political discourse on the back of John Edwards failed political career.

If you can remember, a mainstay of Edwards' 2008 presidential bid focused on the need to end poverty, a topic which many of the other candidates were silent about (in fact, he proposed a plan which projected to eliminate poverty by 2036). His campaign, although unsuccessful, pushed the issue of poverty into the forefront of the political debate and forced the other candidates to offer solutions and grapple with the epidemic. And then, just like that, the topic was gone, as Edwards was caught having an extra-marital affair.

One of the greatest moral dilemmas of our time was wiped off the political spectrum, untouched for much of the remainder of the campaign trail. But Obama can change all of that - he can pick up where Edwards left off. And he's already got a head start.

In his national speech before the members of Congress, Obama called for a new GI Bill, modeled on the post-WWII bill, which provided educational and vocational opportunities to millions of veterans returning from the war. But caring for the new veterans of both Iraq and Afghanistan is just a start - albeit a very good start. Obama must extend this care to all veterans, especially those forgotten in the "lower class." According to a USAToday article, approximately one-fourth of all our nation's homeless have served in the Armed Forces. That doesn't include those who have served and are living just above poverty line, or the number living "better off" in the higher strata of the lower class.

Obama is correct for calling for more support to those who serve their country. But the discussion cannot end with a new GI Bill. The opportunity is now to push the conversation one step further and bring back the "lower class" into the political discussion. Like a newer version of the GI Bill, it is long overdue.

Obama's Call to Action

Earlier this week, when President Obama delivered his address to Congress, the new President managed to squeeze in a topic that was held in high regard by many of his campaign followers during the election: the call to reward volunteer work. And in between the over-the-top clapping and applause served up by Congress, Obama seems to really have a solid notion of rewarding community work.

(Before continuing, I have to make a note of something real quick. Remember when Obama hit on the topic of healthcare and re-enforced an important notion that it is a tremendous weight that needs to be lifted immediately? Did anyone else think it was straight brass that any Congressional official had the moxie to stand up and applaud? Not that I disagree with Obama - I completely agree in fact. But these same politicians are standing up and applauding, nodding their heads, conveying a sense of "Yes, yes definitely. It's about time." Umm, riiiiiight.....and how long have you been serving in Congress? Ten, fifteen, thirty years? And what have you done concerning this issue since then? But you applaud anyway. Trust me, you're not fooling anyone.)

Back to Obama's plan: it's certainly time to reward good and honest work. Personally, I don't think there's any better way of restoring America's sense of integrity following an economic crisis caused by greed, profit-only thinking, and straight selfish activity, than a program which rewards the exact opposite. Plus, it'll likely reward the volunteer (if Obama was truthful during the speech) in the area of education by offering a tax credit or some other economic aid for higher learning.

Sometimes, although I don't like to admit that I ever give any politician a free pass or quick once over when scrutinizing his or her's intentions, it really does feel good to breathe a sigh of relief, sit back and marvel that Obama is truly serious about this program.

I would also hope that the overall popularity of this program (I have yet to see a poll on the topic but can't imagine it not being overwhelmingly popular) makes Rudy Giuliani and those at the Republican convention blush.

After all, it wasn't that long ago that the former New York Mayor made a "joke" about Obama being a community organizer. While on the surface, Giuliani was only calling Obama's resume thin at best, deep down - when combined with the historical context of the Republican party -the joke was much more than a simple jab. It was a "dis" towards honest work, helping those less fortunate, and the idea that a non-"me first" attitude is unuseful at best - a failure at worst.

Let's hope that rewarding volunteers leads our country into a new direction - a future where a jab like Giuliani's not only isn't funny (which is wasn't) but impossible. After all, in a society that helps each other and looks for other values other than money, the jab loses all context and is irrelevant. This program is a good start.

It's Tough to Be Jindal - Tougher to Be the GOP

My first thought watching Bobby Jindal's "reaction" speech tonight:

"Oh man, there's a teleprompter.....yea he's screwed."

My second: "Man, this is boring,"

"What were they thinking?" should have been my third but I'd already changed the channel.

OK listen, I get it. Throw Jindal out there, let'em give a speech, make it look Presidential and try to steal some of Obama's thunder. Give conservatives some hope!

But like so many Republican ideologies, tonight's tactic fell flat because it's outdated and ignores recent history. Remember Inauguration Day and what you were doing ten minutes after Obama's speech? Were you on the phone? Washing the dishes? Getting back to work? Writing a blog?

Who knows what you were doing? But I'll tell you what you were definitely not doing ..... watching the TV, marveling in the next speaker.

You know why? Because it wasn't gonna be Obama. And by some transitive property, that meant whoever was next was gonna suck (sorry poem lady). But honestly, it's the truth. And this isn't anything new.

It's why they put the crappy musicians in the opening set of a concert. Because there ain't no way in hell anyone's gonna sit around and watch if they come after the main event. They aren't as good and no one's pretending that they might be. It won't matter if they play the best concert of their life - compared to the popular and, well, better band, they suck. It seems like the GOP forgot to include this in their Jindal thinking.

But it gets worse....

To stick with the above example:

The Republican party basically slotted their relatively unknown artist in Jindal AFTER a multi-platinum selling, girls screaming in the aisles, Van Halen popular in the 1980's artist in Obama. AND, if that wasn't daunting enough, encouraged him to play the exact freakin' song that got him boo-ed off stage last week and dumped by his girlfriend after she realized he sucks as a musician and won't make it (read: the 2008 election).

I mean, how'd anyone think it was gonna work? What would be the best case scenario for Jindal? Assuming people were in the mood for another speech (which they knew wasn't gonna be as good) and assuming people forgot how empty and pathetic the Republican rhetoric has sounded in the past (which I'm not convinced they are) AND assuming that people would not heavily compare Obama's and Jindal's speech giving abilities and immediately become disinterested (come on, he was using a teleprompter!), wouldn't the best case scenario be something along the lines of: "Hmm, Jindal wasn't bad actually."

Is that the highest Republicans can shoot for these days?

Here's Hoping History Remembers

As the stimulus package passed through Congress this week, I couldn't help but think of the strong and stubborn Republican opposition to the bill. And as the bill was finally signed into law, I also couldn't help thinking: "I hope history remembers."

Mired in a deep economic recession, we find ourselves approaching a cliff, running full speed ahead. But that isn't our only concern - the world is still unsettled over key environmental regulations to curb global warming; our educational facilities are outdated, impairing America in this ever accelerating globalization race; the disastrous and immoral battle to insure millions of Americans; and the dangerous affairs in the Middle East, which aren't ending anytime soon. In other words, we've got some serious work to do.

And so "if", and it's a big "if", we're able to stomach all the massive problems on our dinner plate - we revive a broken economy, spawn a new "Green Revolution", reboot our entire education system to compete in a globalized world, unravel miles of red tape and lobbyist power grabs on the health care industry and solve ethnic and economic problems spanning decades (even centuries) - let history remember who guided the country to better times. More importantly, let's remember who stood in the way.

Remember when you were younger and learned about FDR, the New Deal, and the way all of America pulled together to starve off....well...starvation? Guess what? Some people (cough, cough) stood in the way of that legislation too. In fact, Republicans held such a grudge that the New Deal was passed, they continued to shout it from the hallways of Congress through the decades that followed, making it a party mission to undo most of Roosevelt's contributions. And they have certainly come close to succeeding.

Make no mistake - the unraveling of the New Deal programs and regulations done by Republicans and pushed forward by conservative think tanks has directly led to the current situation. But some are still out on news programs, echoing empty Republican mantras, some even claiming the New Deal was a failure. They yell "tax cuts" without historical perspectives - that tax cuts helped us dig ourselves even deeper into this economic mess.

So if fate allows it and sensible people win out in this partisan struggle (yes, all politicians only look to get re-elected but at least the Democrats are listening to economists and academics while trying to do so), and this country overcomes one of the most dramatic and dangerous time periods in American history, let's not lump everyone into the "hero" column. Instead, we should teach our kids what really happened, who stood for what and how the situation became so grave. Hopefully, we'll get the opportunity.