We often refer to our presidents as "our leaders". Sometimes (often, during the last 8 years) begrudgingly. As commander-in-chief, and chief executive of our nation's government, the president dictates the focus of the nation every year during the State of the Union address to Congress and watches as hopefully his agenda is carried out.
President Bush set agendas and then infamously dragged the country kicking and screaming down his paths. He was a leader, and a strong one. But the issue of whether he was a wise leader, or a good leader tends to receive some harsh responses.
President Obama came to office preaching that he would lead the country down a new path: a path paved with ethics, guided by reason, and directed to prosperity. Nobody will argue that he was given an extraordinary assignement, given the number of tasks at hand - both inherited, and conceived during his election campaign.
But, in a routine reminiscent of "The Emperor's New Clothes", I'm forced to wonder whether this confident man is leading the country, or simply parading about naked with nothing but his oratory and charm to save him.
The argument flairs on both sides of the coin. He is often praised for successfully addressing the things on his campaign agenda. But, if you look at what he's accomplished, the tasks were much like his campaign - a lot of talking.
In creating a Stimulus Plan, he addressed the media and Congress while Congressional Democrats drafted a plan and put it before him. In bringing science to the foreground, he gave an Executive Order. And, in bringing the war in Iraq to a successful close, he once again promised to pull troops in the next 18 months, while simultaneously promising to send more troops to Afghanistan. In fact, many of the other items he promised were simply earmarks on a bloated stimulus bill that had no chance of being defeated anyway.
A leader surrounds himself with good people, able to do their jobs and lend their expertise. Yet, to-date Obama's team finds itself short-staffed - due in no small part to the crookedness of his picks. Those people that have successfully joined his teams, come largely from the Wall Street World which many people blame for causing the problems so rife in our economy.
The stimulus and bailout plans being penned under his watchful gaze are touted as part of his progressive thinking. But, when you look at the plans, you see that they look to tax "those that can afford it", spend hundreds of billions of dollars, and create spending geared towards a typically liberal agenda. This is not new thinking. Right or wrong, this plan could have been crafted by John Kerry or Al Gore. Obama may not excel in politicking, but his marketing skills are top notch. He has taken the old way of thinking and re-branded it to seem new.
Obama's success is that he has maintained the confidence of the people around him. He tosses gold coins to them in the form of Executive Orders and speeches. But we will wait to see if he can deliver true leadership, or whether as in the story, a little girl points out that this emperor has nothing to show us.
I hope for a strong recovery for our good country, but would have a hard time accepting the victory as belonging to Obama unless he can demonstrate that he was instrumental in bringing about that change. We will succeed. But will it be because of him, or in spite of him?
Monday, March 16, 2009
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Stem cell debate rages - who wins?
I've spent a lot of time reading about stem cells since Obama's Executive Order on March 9, lifting President Bush's ban on using federal funding for research on embryonic stem cells (ESC).
As aneducated person, I should be elated by the developments. I work for an organization that supports stem cell research, so I should be professionally satisfied. Instead, I find myself irritated.
What I know of stem cells is that they have good potential. From what I've read, that's about all anyone knows about them. So, why is the scientific community standing on its head?
Many people say that those who argue on the grounds of religious beliefs are blinded by their faith. As such, they are labeled "fanatics" or "zealots". And, certainly many of the more vocal opponents do sound zealous.
But, when you look at those who support the research, there is an equal potential for blindness. Scientists follow a belief in science - that learning and understanding is paramount. And, some of the most vocal lay supporters are people and families stricken by diseases they hope will be cured. They too, place their faith in science that it will cure them. Is one faith or belief more blind than another? Opponents of ESC research would suggest that the research community has turned a blind eye to the benefits already achieved through the use of adult stem cells.
Scariest to me is that the controversy over stem cell research has become a weapon of sorts. People use it to place labels on others. It casts a dividing line in the sand, and all those that are not on the right side are on the wrong.
This is a debate that has the potential to linger for decades. Any successes in the research are assured to be years off. That assumes that success in the areas of ESC research ever takes place. I have maintained the personal philosophy to remain cautious unless I know I'm right. So, do people know they are right?
As an
What I know of stem cells is that they have good potential. From what I've read, that's about all anyone knows about them. So, why is the scientific community standing on its head?
Many people say that those who argue on the grounds of religious beliefs are blinded by their faith. As such, they are labeled "fanatics" or "zealots". And, certainly many of the more vocal opponents do sound zealous.
But, when you look at those who support the research, there is an equal potential for blindness. Scientists follow a belief in science - that learning and understanding is paramount. And, some of the most vocal lay supporters are people and families stricken by diseases they hope will be cured. They too, place their faith in science that it will cure them. Is one faith or belief more blind than another? Opponents of ESC research would suggest that the research community has turned a blind eye to the benefits already achieved through the use of adult stem cells.
Scariest to me is that the controversy over stem cell research has become a weapon of sorts. People use it to place labels on others. It casts a dividing line in the sand, and all those that are not on the right side are on the wrong.
This is a debate that has the potential to linger for decades. Any successes in the research are assured to be years off. That assumes that success in the areas of ESC research ever takes place. I have maintained the personal philosophy to remain cautious unless I know I'm right. So, do people know they are right?
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Facebook is evil...or is it?
Since the beginning of the internet social scene, I've been afraid, nay, I've been downright paranoid about the whole concept. When Facebook emerged as a force to be reckoned with two years ago, I believed that it was ruining society. People would brag about their Facebook friends and tell the world that "I got totally wasted last night". It got so bad that colleagues were friending colleagues and students were friending teachers. Actually, it got so bad that the word "friend" became a verb!
Needless to say, I decided to steer clear of the whole mess and stick to good ol' fashioned email and txt msg. Okay, so I'm not completely in the stone age. But I believed that Facebook was teaching people to lose a grip on reality and forget that there were actual friends out there.
So now, as 2008 is winding to a close, I have created a Facebook page. And no, you can't Friend me. But, I have enjoyed being able to regain a connection with people that have been out of my life for some time.
So here is my goal. I am going to use Facebook as a tool. A tool to make strong personal connections. Nevermind that I am a fan of How I Met Your Mother, and thinking about doing some trivia questions. I am going to find actual friends that I lost contact with. I will develop real relationships that will exist outside of Facebook. And, I am going to maintain friendships with people, away from whom I have recently moved.
Think I can do it? Could you do it? Are you doing it?
Needless to say, I decided to steer clear of the whole mess and stick to good ol' fashioned email and txt msg. Okay, so I'm not completely in the stone age. But I believed that Facebook was teaching people to lose a grip on reality and forget that there were actual friends out there.
So now, as 2008 is winding to a close, I have created a Facebook page. And no, you can't Friend me. But, I have enjoyed being able to regain a connection with people that have been out of my life for some time.
So here is my goal. I am going to use Facebook as a tool. A tool to make strong personal connections. Nevermind that I am a fan of How I Met Your Mother, and thinking about doing some trivia questions. I am going to find actual friends that I lost contact with. I will develop real relationships that will exist outside of Facebook. And, I am going to maintain friendships with people, away from whom I have recently moved.
Think I can do it? Could you do it? Are you doing it?
Thursday, June 26, 2008
George Carlin: we miss you.
As everyone is now acutely aware, one of the great purveyors of truth, George Carlin 'expired' this week. Carlin spent 50 years teaching Americans how stupid they could be - you'd think people would have learned by now!
Case in point. I was reading the New York Times this week two days after his death and ran across this headline: "Many normal weight teenagers feel fat". I was expected to take this as news. It turns out, scientists in Europe had spent time and money to discover something I learned by talking to females. Worse still, this was not the first study performed! The study concluded that 75% of average weight females felt fat. One would have thought that with such overwhelming numbers they could have stopped after one study.
Meanwhile, my friend told me that water had been confirmed on Mars. I read the NY Times, CNN, Washington Post and CBS on a daily basis and had to learn this from my friend! What is wrong with this world?
So, in conclusion as George would say "some people are stupid", "some people are full of sh**" and some are just "f*****g nuts" - journalists must be all three!
Case in point. I was reading the New York Times this week two days after his death and ran across this headline: "Many normal weight teenagers feel fat". I was expected to take this as news. It turns out, scientists in Europe had spent time and money to discover something I learned by talking to females. Worse still, this was not the first study performed! The study concluded that 75% of average weight females felt fat. One would have thought that with such overwhelming numbers they could have stopped after one study.
Meanwhile, my friend told me that water had been confirmed on Mars. I read the NY Times, CNN, Washington Post and CBS on a daily basis and had to learn this from my friend! What is wrong with this world?
So, in conclusion as George would say "some people are stupid", "some people are full of sh**" and some are just "f*****g nuts" - journalists must be all three!
The tennis greats
Roger Federer is a great tennis player and athlete. There, I said it. His statistics will stand for themselves, and he will undoubtedly be remembered in tennis lore for all time.
Rafael Nadal also is a great tennis player, and quite possibly an even better athlete. Too bad, he just can’t seem to get around Roger.
Well, if Roger is better than Rafa, then clearly that makes him the best player. But when you think about it, shouldn’t there be someone, anyone else to compete? In the last five years (dating back to 2004) only three other men have won a single Grand Slam title (Gaston Gaudio, 2004 French Open, Marat Safin, 2005 Australian Open and Novak Djokovic, 2008 Australian Open). The great competitors and one-time heirs apparent to Federer’s throne (Andy Roddick, James Blake and Lleyton Hewitt) have fallen away and the champions before Federer (Pete Sampras, Andre Agassi) have retired.
To my mind, this begs the question of historical standing. On the one hand you have Federer, whose career championship wins places him within easy striking distance of Pete Sampras for number one all-time, and on the other you have a host of champs who never put up nearly the same kind of numbers. So, from the outside it looks as though you have a two-horse race.
However, I would venture to argue that not only are there other athletes to consider, but that Federer’s odds should actually be stacked a little more heavily against him.
The first number that I will submit is a rather unusual one for Roger – ‘0’. Zero is the number of French Open titles that Roger has collected. Many would argue that this number carries no weight in such a determination. In fact, in the Open Era, only one man, Rod Laver has ever won a natural Grand Slam (all four titles in one year). However, many of the greats have at least won a career Grand Slam. It demonstrates a mastery of all surfaces and conditions and shows your dominance in the field. Thus far, Roger has demonstrated a ¾ dominance, and after his performance at this year’s French Open, it does not seem that Roger is prepared to remedy this problem soon.
More significantly and more interestingly is the level of competition. For the purposes of this argument, I will look at three ‘classes’ of great competitors. The great class of the ‘90’s (Sampras, Agassi, Jim Courier, Todd Martin and Michael Chang), the great class of the late-‘80’s, (Boris Becker, Ivan Lendl, Stefan Edberg and Mats Wilander) and the preceding class (Jimmy Connors, John McEnroe, and Bjorn Borg).
It should first be noted that each of these classes had long reigns that overlapped with each other, so that not only were they competing against their class, but also the greats of the preceding and following classes. It should also be noted that there were many other competitors, too numerous to count.
Between 1989 and 2003 the class of Sampras and Agassi amassed 27 Grand Slam wins. In that same time span, they had a total of 45 Grand Slam finals appearances. That means that on average these five men accounted for almost two Grand Slam victories every year. Between 1983 and 1992, the class of Becker and Lendl combined for 25 wins and 45 appearances – an average of 2.5 Slam victories every year. And, from 1974 to 1984 the last group gained 26 Slam victories and a total of 41 appearances.
These numbers are impressive for two reasons. For one, they show that over the span of approximately a decade, groups of players have been able to concurrently dominate the sport, often having to defeat other members of the same group to gain championships. For a second, each group had some amount of time of overlap with other groups. That means that any of the players in any of these groups had an opportunity to be the single dominant force in tennis, were it not for his peers.
To put those numbers into perspective, the duo of Roger and Rafa has combined for 15 titles and 20 total Finals appearances since 2003. They will likely be able to eclipse the 2.5 victories per year mark with only one more victory this year. But, with the exception of Andy Roddick and his four total appearances during that span, no other man has been around to compete for a title more than once.
This then brings about two characterizations of dominance that are lacking: duration and quality of competition. It is likely that if there were 1-2 other top players all of these numbers would look more comparable to previous generations providing a more accurate scale with which to measure Federer’s greatness.
Borg won 11 titles in his career. But it was because of his 5 losses to McEnroe and Connors that he is considered a champion. Andre Agassi lost four championships to Pete Sampras and another in 2005 to Roger Federer. He played in the eras of two of the greatest champions of tennis and still won 8 titles including a career Grand Slam. We remember the great champions because of the struggles that they endured. And, especially in the case of Agassi and Sampras, we love them for it.
While personality does not dictate tennis success, it does affect how we view our champions. Pete Sampras was humble in his dominance. We saw fire when he played Agassi. We saw grief when his coach Tim Gullickson died. Agassi was the brash rebel who shed his image and his hair to become a proud champion and respected elder statesman. Connors brought the passion while McEnroe brought the fire. And yet, Federer brings none of these things. He brings an eerie state of calm. At times his quiet demeanor can almost be mistaken for sheer ego as he calmly describes his anticipation of victory.
How the best stack up:
Pete Sampras: Watching Pete Sampras as a kid, there is no doubt in my mind that he was a better all-around player than Roger. While Federer could go toe-to-toe with Pete on ground strokes, Sampras’ service game would give him the edge to win in five sets. Roger’s greatest strength – his ability to play on grass- would be completely neutralized by Pete.
John McEnroe: John McEnroe can certainly match Roger for skill, and his superiority at the net may have given him a slight edge, but I imagine that Roger’s better court movement and versatility would help him win in four sets. Johnny Mac had a deft touch at the net, but Roger can move the ball around better and still hit a strong winner when needed.
Boris Becker: Becker in his prime was not all that dissimilar from Roger – a machine. Playing with perhaps a slightly stronger serve, he played the same calculating tennis that has helped Roger rise to the top. Given the same equipment opportunities, I see Roger narrowly defeating the German, but not without the help of at least one tiebreaker and easily going into the fourth set as neither will give up the easy service break.
Andre Agassi: Andre had many different faces. The new-look Andre of 1994 would be able to defeat Roger. He proved that when as an ailing 35 year old he was able to take a set from Roger in the 2005 U.S. Open Finals. I have no problem believing that a healthier, younger Agassi would be able to soundly defeat Roger on hard court or clay by placing his shots and swallowing up Roger’s potent serves. Grass would likely prove to be a different story as Roger’s better touch and good court movement would almost certainly be more than Andre could handle. On clay: Agassi in straight sets. On grass: Roger in four.
Jimmy Connors: Many of Connors’ strengths in the early part of his career would no longer be much of a help. He would not enjoy a size advantage over Roger, nor would his being a lefty do much good. But, the one strength which transcends the generations is the ability to feed off the crowd. So, while once again Roger would reign supreme at Wimbledon, Connors’ love affair with New York would be enough to carry him through another five set thriller on Center Court. He won’t be as pretty to watch as Federer, but you won’t want to miss a minute of it.
Michael Chang: Just for fun, I’d love to see a fresh-faced 20 year old Michael Chang face Roger in Paris. Federer may think he’s watching the tennis equivalent of Rafa as Chang does his version of the Energizer bunny. While Chang’s game was not strong enough all-around to beat Roger on a quicker surface, I think he could frustrate him and possibly eke out a four-setter.
Rafael Nadal also is a great tennis player, and quite possibly an even better athlete. Too bad, he just can’t seem to get around Roger.
Well, if Roger is better than Rafa, then clearly that makes him the best player. But when you think about it, shouldn’t there be someone, anyone else to compete? In the last five years (dating back to 2004) only three other men have won a single Grand Slam title (Gaston Gaudio, 2004 French Open, Marat Safin, 2005 Australian Open and Novak Djokovic, 2008 Australian Open). The great competitors and one-time heirs apparent to Federer’s throne (Andy Roddick, James Blake and Lleyton Hewitt) have fallen away and the champions before Federer (Pete Sampras, Andre Agassi) have retired.
To my mind, this begs the question of historical standing. On the one hand you have Federer, whose career championship wins places him within easy striking distance of Pete Sampras for number one all-time, and on the other you have a host of champs who never put up nearly the same kind of numbers. So, from the outside it looks as though you have a two-horse race.
However, I would venture to argue that not only are there other athletes to consider, but that Federer’s odds should actually be stacked a little more heavily against him.
The first number that I will submit is a rather unusual one for Roger – ‘0’. Zero is the number of French Open titles that Roger has collected. Many would argue that this number carries no weight in such a determination. In fact, in the Open Era, only one man, Rod Laver has ever won a natural Grand Slam (all four titles in one year). However, many of the greats have at least won a career Grand Slam. It demonstrates a mastery of all surfaces and conditions and shows your dominance in the field. Thus far, Roger has demonstrated a ¾ dominance, and after his performance at this year’s French Open, it does not seem that Roger is prepared to remedy this problem soon.
More significantly and more interestingly is the level of competition. For the purposes of this argument, I will look at three ‘classes’ of great competitors. The great class of the ‘90’s (Sampras, Agassi, Jim Courier, Todd Martin and Michael Chang), the great class of the late-‘80’s, (Boris Becker, Ivan Lendl, Stefan Edberg and Mats Wilander) and the preceding class (Jimmy Connors, John McEnroe, and Bjorn Borg).
It should first be noted that each of these classes had long reigns that overlapped with each other, so that not only were they competing against their class, but also the greats of the preceding and following classes. It should also be noted that there were many other competitors, too numerous to count.
Between 1989 and 2003 the class of Sampras and Agassi amassed 27 Grand Slam wins. In that same time span, they had a total of 45 Grand Slam finals appearances. That means that on average these five men accounted for almost two Grand Slam victories every year. Between 1983 and 1992, the class of Becker and Lendl combined for 25 wins and 45 appearances – an average of 2.5 Slam victories every year. And, from 1974 to 1984 the last group gained 26 Slam victories and a total of 41 appearances.
These numbers are impressive for two reasons. For one, they show that over the span of approximately a decade, groups of players have been able to concurrently dominate the sport, often having to defeat other members of the same group to gain championships. For a second, each group had some amount of time of overlap with other groups. That means that any of the players in any of these groups had an opportunity to be the single dominant force in tennis, were it not for his peers.
To put those numbers into perspective, the duo of Roger and Rafa has combined for 15 titles and 20 total Finals appearances since 2003. They will likely be able to eclipse the 2.5 victories per year mark with only one more victory this year. But, with the exception of Andy Roddick and his four total appearances during that span, no other man has been around to compete for a title more than once.
This then brings about two characterizations of dominance that are lacking: duration and quality of competition. It is likely that if there were 1-2 other top players all of these numbers would look more comparable to previous generations providing a more accurate scale with which to measure Federer’s greatness.
Borg won 11 titles in his career. But it was because of his 5 losses to McEnroe and Connors that he is considered a champion. Andre Agassi lost four championships to Pete Sampras and another in 2005 to Roger Federer. He played in the eras of two of the greatest champions of tennis and still won 8 titles including a career Grand Slam. We remember the great champions because of the struggles that they endured. And, especially in the case of Agassi and Sampras, we love them for it.
While personality does not dictate tennis success, it does affect how we view our champions. Pete Sampras was humble in his dominance. We saw fire when he played Agassi. We saw grief when his coach Tim Gullickson died. Agassi was the brash rebel who shed his image and his hair to become a proud champion and respected elder statesman. Connors brought the passion while McEnroe brought the fire. And yet, Federer brings none of these things. He brings an eerie state of calm. At times his quiet demeanor can almost be mistaken for sheer ego as he calmly describes his anticipation of victory.
How the best stack up:
Pete Sampras: Watching Pete Sampras as a kid, there is no doubt in my mind that he was a better all-around player than Roger. While Federer could go toe-to-toe with Pete on ground strokes, Sampras’ service game would give him the edge to win in five sets. Roger’s greatest strength – his ability to play on grass- would be completely neutralized by Pete.
John McEnroe: John McEnroe can certainly match Roger for skill, and his superiority at the net may have given him a slight edge, but I imagine that Roger’s better court movement and versatility would help him win in four sets. Johnny Mac had a deft touch at the net, but Roger can move the ball around better and still hit a strong winner when needed.
Boris Becker: Becker in his prime was not all that dissimilar from Roger – a machine. Playing with perhaps a slightly stronger serve, he played the same calculating tennis that has helped Roger rise to the top. Given the same equipment opportunities, I see Roger narrowly defeating the German, but not without the help of at least one tiebreaker and easily going into the fourth set as neither will give up the easy service break.
Andre Agassi: Andre had many different faces. The new-look Andre of 1994 would be able to defeat Roger. He proved that when as an ailing 35 year old he was able to take a set from Roger in the 2005 U.S. Open Finals. I have no problem believing that a healthier, younger Agassi would be able to soundly defeat Roger on hard court or clay by placing his shots and swallowing up Roger’s potent serves. Grass would likely prove to be a different story as Roger’s better touch and good court movement would almost certainly be more than Andre could handle. On clay: Agassi in straight sets. On grass: Roger in four.
Jimmy Connors: Many of Connors’ strengths in the early part of his career would no longer be much of a help. He would not enjoy a size advantage over Roger, nor would his being a lefty do much good. But, the one strength which transcends the generations is the ability to feed off the crowd. So, while once again Roger would reign supreme at Wimbledon, Connors’ love affair with New York would be enough to carry him through another five set thriller on Center Court. He won’t be as pretty to watch as Federer, but you won’t want to miss a minute of it.
Michael Chang: Just for fun, I’d love to see a fresh-faced 20 year old Michael Chang face Roger in Paris. Federer may think he’s watching the tennis equivalent of Rafa as Chang does his version of the Energizer bunny. While Chang’s game was not strong enough all-around to beat Roger on a quicker surface, I think he could frustrate him and possibly eke out a four-setter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)