Wednesday
November 2nd, 2005
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
Opinion
The Promised Land
By Jason Satek - Columnist
At 11 p.m. last Wednesday night, I experienced the baseball equivalent of The Rapture. With the Chicago White Sox winning their first World Series in 88 years, I can let out a metaphysical exhale. The following plaudits and parade will be nice, politicians will cozy up to the team, and the merchandise will sell, but all is not yet right with the world.
John Rooney has almost certainly called his last game for the team, as the broadcast rights along with his partner Ed Farmer will transition from WMVP AM 1000 to WSCR AM 670 and John likely will not be retained. Paul Konerko may not be resigned and made team captain, as was done in Boston with Jason Varitek. Frank Thomas may not be first in line to receive the coveted ring. These are problems, but admittedly they are endnotes on a remarkable season.
At a dinner party in July, someone jokingly called me a bandwagon fan, as they hadn't seen many Sox fans around before this season. I jokingly defended myself, but how can years of faith be verified in an instant? How can years of following Kittle, Baines, Ventura , Thigpen and One Dog be proven?
My grandfather was born in 1918 and became a White Sox fan as was his mother before him. He was offered a chance to play Triple-A ball, but instead chose a more stable job in manufacturing. He died in 1998, never having seen them on top.
My father, born and raised in Wisconsin , likely would have followed suit in fandom were it not for the creation of the Milwaukee Braves in 1953. He loved baseball, but swore it off after the 1994 strike succeeded in canceling a World Series where two World Wars hadn't been able to. Still, he told me recently that this team and this season had given him a rooting interest for the first time in 11 years.
At this moment I feel for the Cubs fans. This victory has uncoupled us from the dismal promenade that has been Chicago sports teams. The Cubs last won in 1908, nearly a century, and that was alright with me as for years I only knew of two dedicated fans: George Will and my friend Brandon.
The Cubs' NLCS loss in 2003 to the Florida Marlins, who have won two Series in an astounding 12 years of existence, was alright with me as well, because I knew that the Sox would have to win it first to have any impact. The truth of the Sox/Cubs rivalry is that it is incredibly lopsided, with the Cubs as established favorite paying little-to-no attention to the Sox, who fully realize their position as second banana and resent it. Until this year.
The White Sox had no romantic curse, despite the attempts by Fox to generate one with their pre-game hype. Unless they were the first team to uncork the pent-up longing of the city, there would be nothing left but scraps.
With a payroll of $75 million, $2 million more than an average of all 30 teams, the White Sox may not return to these heights. Undoubtedly, the New York Yankees will push their payroll from $200 to $300 million in pursuit of a 27 th title. Other teams will be ascendant. Lightening may not ever strike again, but for now I am sated. There is a definite feeling that I may never need to watch another sporting event after this. Then again, there is an offseason for a reason. Talk to me in March.
Meditation on a milestone
By Ron Felten - Columnist
It's truly strange how time, people and occurrences sometimes come together to form eerily twisted perfection. Consider, if you will, the following example. Last week marked the 2,000th American fatality of the second Iraq War while today has the distinction of being the one year anniversary of President George W. Bush's reelection.
While this is nothing more than a coincidence at best, especially considering the dates don't perfectly align, one would be remiss if (s)he didn't use the occasion to reflect on the quite interconnected events that this milestone and anniversary allude to and, further, to engage others in that discussion. The problem, though, is that some individuals are currently suffering from a systematic and merciless campaign of denigration, usually by the hands of radio talk show hosts and extremists, for doing just that.
Close analysis of one's beliefs and actions, along with a close inspection of the positions and deeds of one's nation, however, is every citizen's responsibility. To suggest otherwise is not only to insult the limitless potential of humankind but also to undermine the very concepts of self-determination and democracy which America was founded on.
And while hopefully only a few will disagree with the above sentiment, it's also important for us to recognize that human nature compels us to believe that what we and our country do is the right and moral thing. This, of course, brings us to the current situation in Iraq .
While we like – and, on some level, need – to believe our involvement in the Middle East is justified and proper, it's difficult to ignore what appear to be the facts. Our soldiers are dying at a steady rate, Iraqi civilians are being killed in even greater numbers and, worse still, the insurgency's stamina and strength is apparently indeterminable. The recent ratification of Iraq 's new constitution, on the other hand, seems to be an undeniable step in the right direction. So, do we “pull out now” or “stay the course”?
I would argue that there's no “right” answer to that question, as our moral obligations seemingly lie with both possible solutions. One thing is right, however: people assuming either position and, in turn, making their opinions known to others should not be berated simply for doing so.
To criticize antiwar protestors and label them as traitors and unpatriotic, for example, is about as hypocritical an action as one can commit. For isn't one of the primary reasons many cite to justify our nation's involvement (and our soldiers' sacrifices) in Iraq that we, as a country, are trying to fight the “terrorists” abroad and, consequently, protect our freedoms at home?
If that's truly the case, how can we claim that activists like Cindy Sheehan, whose son was killed in Iraq last year, are somehow acting inappropriately by speaking out and attempting to engage our political leaders in debate? We may wholeheartedly and passionately disagree with their position(s) but how, in good conscience, can we suggest that people holding different opinions than our own be silent?
While I fully understand the argument that suggests a complete pull-out of our troops from Iraq will dishonor the fallen, a position to which many adhere, I pose this question: If American soldiers are fighting and dying – and if we propose they keep doing so – to protect our freedoms and the ideas embodied in our Constitution and its amendments, won't their sacrifices have been and continue to be in vain if we proceed to suppress freedom of speech and condemn those who exercise their rights here at home?
So with the 2006 midterm elections quickly approaching and with the number of American military deaths rising higher each day, perhaps the 2,000 dead mark and the anniversary of Bush's reelection aren't as unrelated as they first appear, for they both have encouraged our engagement in a discourse about our roles as citizens. And by thinking about, discussing and ultimately “reacting” to these and other events, we will be living up to our responsibilities as Americans and patriots, no matter which side of the debate(s) we stand on.
Goodbye to an old friend
By Jason Stuebe
Boy, it's been a while but it just feels so right to make a comeback right about now.
I'm not a life long Cardinals fan, I readily admit that. I am however a sports fan and more importantly a Braves fan, a mediocre one at that; but then again, if your team plays mediocre in the playoffs aren't you allowed to be mediocre yourself? But I digress.
Nevertheless, thanks to living with UIS legend Jared Jones, I became a part-time Cardinals fan: one who cheers for the Cardinals but not when they play the Braves.
After a less than spectacular lonely walk home from my neighborhood watering hole, Boone's Saloon, I had time to just walk and think about what I had just witnessed: the end of an era.
Certainly, it's incredibly easy to be sappy and don't get me wrong, I fully intend to be at some point in this long pointless rant. But at the same time its ok. It's ok to be sad, after all Busch Stadium and those ghostly souls that have played their represent something so incredibly special to this great region of the United States that it is immeasurable.
At the same time, it's ok to be jubilant. Yes, jubilant in the memories that Busch Stadium and the St. Louis Cardinals provided to countless Midwesterners – myself included. For many of us it was our first ballpark that we ever visited. While it pains me to have watched the last homerun (hit by an Astro), the last pitch (pitched by an Astro), the last out (made by an Astro) – it comforts me to know that so many people throughout nearly forty years were so greatly touched by such a special place.
Maybe, just maybe that Albert Pujols unbelievable three-run shot in the top of the ninth down in Houston wasn't meant to catapult the Cardinals into a come-from-behind run into the World Series. Maybe, it was simply meant to give us all one more taste, one more pitch, one more big play, one more home run to enjoy at that grand ‘ol and fabled cookie cutter stadium.
The clichés at this point are boundless. With every door that closes, one does indeed open. Every gray cloud does have a silver lining. But nevertheless – those clichés don't do Busch Stadium justice. Sure, the new stadium will do wonders for St. Louis and the region. Sure, it will be great to see a game there. However, at the same time, you can't help but feel the irony. Yes, the irony in that for so many years, spectators and architectural whiz-bangs did nothing but criticize the fabled cookie-cutter stadiums of the mid ‘60's and early ‘70's. In the end however, we'll ultimately miss those eyesores built of concrete and steel, not because of their architectural wonder, but because of the memories they held.
So, go crazy folks, go crazy because you have an awful lot to be thankful for…thirty-nine years of incredible memories that unlike the venerable stadium will never die. As always, Go Stars! And what the hell, I'll be vindictive, go Sox!
Editorials
Smoking ban should pass
The United States was founded on the idea that all of us have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. With that underlying principle in mind, a Springfield city council proposal is attempting to ensure the lives of bar and tavern workers are not cut short because of secondhand smoke. This proposed ordinance bans smoking in bars in an attempt to ensure that the rights of a few do not trample on the public health of all.
This proposal was made by Ward 10 Alderman Bruce Strom. It is supported by the majority of the city of Springfield . According to a poll from the American Heart Association and American Lung Association, 65 percent of those polled strongly or somewhat strongly support the ban. In comparison, only 32 percent of Springfieldians strongly oppose or somewhat oppose it.
Banning smoking in bars is a great step in guaranteeing waitstaff do not have to work in an environment that is lethal to their health. There have been waitresses who have never smoked but after years of working in the bar or restaurant industry have developed advanced stages of throat and/or lung cancer. Not only would a ban help protect the health and lives of workers but also of other bar patrons. Anyone who has allergies or asthma can attest to how difficult it is to enjoy a night on the town while clouds of thick smoke billow overhead.
Springfield is not the first city to propose such a law. A similar ban was passed this year by the Chicago City Council. Both sides of the debate have until the end of November to reach a consensus on the scope of the smoking ban. Parts of 32 other states in the U.S. have enacted some sort of a ban on smoking. And since Illinois is frequently a trendsetter in the realm of public policy, it is only natural that the capital city would be proposing such a lifesaving ban.
In addition to various places throughout the U.S. , countries around the world have passed smoking bans in some sort of public places including India , Norway , New Zealand , Russia , the United Kingdom and Italy . But we don't have to leave campus to find such a ban. UIS Housing recently prohibited smoking in all housing facilities.
While everyone including smokers has a right to pursue happiness, they can find their happiness out on the sidewalk.
Focusing on the wrong issue
The debate over a smoke-free Springfield is focusing on the wrong issues.
Most of the arguments being presented are focused on either the smoker's right to smoke or the non-smoker's right to clean air. People are overlooking something much more important: a business owner's right to choose.
When someone decides to invest the money necessary for opening a restaurant, bar or bowling alley (the three establishments targeted by the proposed ban), they are intending to offer a service to the public and they should be able to choose what public they want to cater to. Imposing a ban on smoking takes that choice away from the business owner and places it in the hands of local government.
While it is unrealistic to assume that there will be significant profit losses to restaurants under a smoking ban because people will want to eat out, even if they can't smoke, the same cannot be said for local bars.
Consider the impact of such a ban on bars and those restaurants with bars in them. When a smoker is able to smoke inside these places they are more likely to stay longer and order more drinks. However, if they must leave the building in order to get a nicotine fix, they may choose not to return, thus the business loses profit.
Also, those who slip outside to smoke with the intent to return will most likely smoke just outside the main entrance to the building. If so, everyone entering the establishment will have to walk through secondhand smoke, even though the purpose of imposing a ban is to remove secondhand smoke from these environments.
And, for those concerned with image, consider how it will look to have smokers hanging around the front of an establishment. How appealing is that image? Not to mention the fact that, regardless of the availability of ashtrays, some people will simply throw their butts on the ground, increasing litter.
Why force business owners to ostracize a portion of their public? Let the owners choose for themselves if they will allow smoking or not.
Consumers are not forced to patronize establishments that allow smoking, they have a choice. Why not give business owners the same courtesy?
Goodbye to an old friend
Collegiate playoffs
Dear Editor,
I am writing in response to Mark Brockett's column “Bowl Series rankings still don't work” that appeared on Wednesday, Oct. 26. Lou Holtz, Rece Davis, and other ESPN analysts have called for a playoff similarly to Mr. Brocket, but I believe there is another side of the story that should be presented.
When talking about playoffs in collegiate athletics, invariably7 the NCAA basketball tournament comes to mind. Unless you live in the North East, the Final Four is the Final Four, not the “Frozen Four.” Nicknames are fine, but the idea of a tournament is not. Rick Neuheisel, a highly successful head coach who formerly lead the Buffaloes to an AP raking of #4 (The highest all time by a first year head coach), had his job terminated at Washington (After finishing second, first, and second respectively in the PAC 10) for gambling on tournament brackets in basketball. A tournament would capture the excitement of college football, but also promotes black underbelly of the sport.
Players would not be exempt from temptation either. This past off-season, Phillip Fulmer's Tennessee Volunteer program saw over five players suspended for one or more games this season for “disciplinary” action. Bobby Bowden, the head coach of what some fans call the Florida State “Criminoles” had two players, A.J. Nicholson and Ernie Simms, practice “extra hard” for police charges. Another Florida State player, Clifton Bernard Shaw said, “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” Unfortunately, we cannot create more scandals in College Football than there already are.
Scandals in recent years (Alabama, Colorado and others come to mind) have sullied the prestige that bowl games such as the Cotton Bowl, Rose Bowl, Fiesta Bowl, Orange Bowl, and Sugar Bowl have helped build. “Purists” scoff at the recent bowls, Lee Corso even jokingly said Penn State would play somewhere close to Mexico in one of those meaningless bowls. To have a playoff either eliminates the big five bowl games altogether, or debases their prestige since they would be just meaningless steps on to a championship. Let me tell you, living only ten minutes away from St. Louis , the entire city was ecstatic to host the final four, but I sincerely doubt Indianapolis which hosted the second round was enthusiastic.
I don't get what “purists” want. They loathe the rash of new bowl games in recent years such as the Champ Sports Bowl in Orlando , Fla. , but now want a playoff system that would devalue the very same “Big Five” New Years bowl games that they sought to protect?
People have only themselves to blame for computers deciding the national champion. Tape that the official uses to review a play could very well decide the outcome of that game. The idea of instant replay challenging was to get the play right, and to eliminate human error. You can translate that to the Bowl Championship Series, after the debacles leading up to the year the BCS came into use. How many split championships were there back then? For goodness sakes, Richard Nixon declared the Texas Longhorns National Champions in 1969-1970. Americans were upset when Congress pressured the MLB to initiate a sterner steroid policy, can you imagine the backlash if the President had to declare someone a national champion? The goal of the BCS, like instant replay in college football and the NFL, is to eliminate human error and get it right.
Sincerely,
Robert Jackson
Freshman at UIS
The origin of traits
Neo-Darwinists believe our ancestry includes aquatic invertebrates that changed into aquatic vertebrates that changed into reptiles that changed into small egg-laying mammals that changed into small placental mammals that changed into primates that changed into humans, ultimately as a result of unique historically distinct identical mutations in the eggs and sperm of mating individuals.
But does this hypothesized historical sequence of mutations accurately predict what the Human Genome Project proves about the segmentation of our genome?
Are the parts for our supposedly oldest traits, from aquatic invertebrates, separate from the parts for our supposedly later traits from aquatic vertebrates? Are these parts separate from the parts for our supposedly later traits from reptiles? Are these parts separate from the parts for our supposedly later traits from small egg-laying mammals? Are these parts separate from the parts for our supposedly later traits from small placental mammals? Are these parts separate from the parts for our supposedly later traits from primates? Are these parts separate from the parts for our supposedly most recent human traits?
If the DNA configurations causing these traits arose separately, they must occur separately on the genome. Otherwise, there is no genetic evidence that these traits originated according to the Neo-Darwinian model.
Lydia Hazel
Makanda, IL
