LeBron James, often seen as Jordan’s successor in terms of basketball skills and marketability, was put in a similar position recently when asked to sign an open letter to the Chinese government – the same Chinese government who’s funding and supporting the Sudanese genocide by purchasing two-thirds of the oil produced in the region and selling weapons to the janjaweed. Those suffering in the horrific and ongoing situation in Darfur found no sympathizer in James though. King James refused to sign the letter, providing the lame excuse that he needed to look into the matter further before signing his name to anything. Of course, as a sporting legend and one in the making, Jordan and James have no responsibility to speak out on issues of a political or social nature. It’s not in their job description.

But those who are in a position to influence situations and events to provide a better life for others should do so. Jordan never embraced that idea. He never shied away from being a public figure – his image was everywhere, not just in the US, but in the world – but he did shy away from anything remotely contentious, preferring to concentrate on the bottom dollar, and all those above it sitting in his bank account. Now James is beginning to follow in those Air-y footsteps – and in this case, that’s not a compliment.

At the other end of the spectrum is Greg Oden, putative future number one NBA draft pick, currently finishing up a stellar season at Ohio State University is a basketball legend in the making. But more than that, he has already shown signs of being a thoughtful young man who sees the world in terms of something larger than himself. Having just recently seen An Inconvenient Truth, Oden ran into a student on the Ohio State University campus who was working to raise environmental awareness. He promptly stopped to chat and donated $20 in aid of the cause.

A few years ago, on the eve of the Iraq war, Steve Nash made his feelings on the subject known in the form of a t-shirt. He was roundly criticized by fellow athletes and journalists. Yet several years later, it appears that a thoughtful athlete did have something of value to contribute to a politically charged subject.

Nash and Oden are examples of athletes who have a sense of their position in the world. They understand that through circumstances not of their choosing, they have a powerful pulpit from which to speak. They can use that space and time in any way they wish – to hock products in exchange for even more money or to help those less fortunate or to speak out on socio-political issues. Musicians do it all the time – admittedly to mixed reviews – but they never fear the importance of exercising their First Amendment rights.

In a commercial that sparked widespread debate at the time, Charles Barkley famously said, “I am not a role model… Parents should be role models.” He makes a fair point. Basketball stars get paid to play basketball, not to provide the nation with a moral compass, nor to cure the world of its social ills.

No, our sporting heroes do not have to do anything beyond showing up for work on the basketball court and the occasional practice. Whether or not they want to license their image for use in marketing various products is entirely their business. But if they truly want to live up to the title of “sporting hero”, it’s the Nashes and Odens of the world who are leading the way.

Following the end of Game 4, three players were suspended: Horry for two games, Stoudemire and Suns teammate Boris Diaw for one each. David Stern’s decision (on PTI, his “I’m the Decider” speech leaves no doubt as to who made the determination) has been maligned by many a pundit who assert that the suspensions have missed the spirit of the law while adhering to the letter. The rules governing suspensions and such situations were designed to prevent bench-clearing brawls which the league finds embarrassing. Again, NHL hockey this is not. But by suspending Stoudemire and Diaw, Stern punished people for a reflex action. Such is the human spirit, and such is the fraternity that is an NBA team, that when a teammate is assailed in an egregious manner, the reaction is generally to stand up for yourself and your brother. Since neither Stoudemire nor Diaw threw a punch nor escalated the altercation in any manner, neither should have received a punishment as harsh as the one meted out by the league. A fine would have been sufficient. The rules should evolve and be interpreted to best serve the league – just as the US Constitution allows room for interpretation through the Supreme Court and evolution through the provision for Amendments. The league and the game were not served by the Suns’ suspensions.

Everyone understands that David Stern wants to reign in the “violence” in the league and clean up its supposedly thug-like image. But suspending the Suns leading scorer for walking towards a teammate who’d been battered by an opposing player? It’s false bravado on the part of a commissioner who is afraid to look like he’s playing favorites. That he’s put the Suns at a huge disadvantage must have occurred to him, yet he continues to claim the decision is fair. Fair would be actually investigating the numerous claims against Bowen whose play – even if it is just tough defense – could prove to be injurious to an opposing player. Why should Bowen be allowed to clip at Achilles tendons and knee people in the groin, but Stoudemire get fined and suspended for taking a walk?

Postscript
During halftime of tonight’s Cleveland-New Jersey game, Charles Barkley claimed Nash may have exaggerated the injury by throwing his arms over his head after flying into the boards and onto the floor. This is a classic case of throwing stones at the victim while the bully walks away laughing. Note to Sir Charles: Steve Nash, more so than anyone in this series, has exuded sportsmanlike conduct and has taken many a beating from the Spurs in this series. In game 1, Nash stopped to ask Tony Parker if he was ok while Parker lay on the floor having opened up a gaping wound over Nash’s nose. He never publicly complained about getting kneed by Bowen either. If anyone’s behavior needs to be scrutinized for being questionable, it’s not Steve Nash.

Brady Quinn, former Notre Dame QB and a Cleveland Browns’ draft pick, was publicly chastised by fellow former ND QB Joe Theismann who was critical of Quinn’s hair and general appearance on draft day. Following the usual media circus that surrounds such insignificant comments, Kornheiser and Wilbon of PTI discussed the issue and fallout (Quinn showed up at Browns’ mini-camp with a haircut) on their show. Both agreed that Quinn did the right thing in getting his haircut and that acknowledging Theismann’s many successful years in the league was in keeping with the proper deferential attitude young NFL players should show the old guard. Here’s the problem with that: it’s Quinn’s hair. Even if Theismann had offered a critique of Quinn’s football skills (he offered no criticism at all on that front), Quinn does not owe Theismann anything. He can take or leave his ramblings as he will – after all, Theismann may be a College Football Hall of Famer and a television analyst, but that does not make him the authority on everything. If Quinn wants to sport a longer hairstyle, or a punk rock-inspired multi-colored mohawk, he has every right to. And he has every right to do so without Theismann judging him and without the sporting media bowing to the latter’s purported “wisdom”.

Steve Nash, on the other hand, had a problem with his nose – it wouldn’t stop bleeding. Following an accidental collision with Spurs’ Tony Parker (which floored Parker and resulted in a large bump on his forehead) Nash received a gash to the nose. Twenty bandages later and the Suns’ trainer was powerless to stop the scarlet stream from flowing forth. In the waning seconds of a close game, Nash’s nose would not stop bleeding and with the Suns’ trainer seemingly utterly helpless, applying band-aid after band-aid in a vain attempt to staunch the bleeding, the referees enforced the rule disallowing any player from returning to the court with a bleeding, open wound. The Spurs wound up winning the game as the Suns fell apart without their fearless leader and repeat MVPer. The explanation provided later that the position of gash made it difficult to treat is unacceptable. The media has largely been silent when it comes to assigning blame for this one, but this is an easy one. As a trainer for an NBA team, it is expected that these docs are some of the most qualified in the country when it comes to treating sporting injuries. A bloody nose is a fairly common sporting injury. Yet viewers at home watched as tiny band-aid after tiny band-aid was applied to the large wound, as if the trainer was hoping his First Aid treatment would be all that was required. Why a large gauze/Ace bandage wasn’t just wrapped around his head – after all, there were only a few seconds left in the game – is uncertain. Why they couldn’t attempt a temporary stitch-job on the bench is also unclear. But as the Suns fell apart on the floor as Nash restlessly tried to check himself back in, there’s one person should be blamed – one person whose ineptitude cost them game 1 and home court advantage.

TIME Magazine’s annual Person of the Year issue hit newsstands recently and readers were intrigued to discover that they’d each been named. At first blush, this felt akin to the competitions entered into by children – “you’re all winners today, there are no losers” a grown-up would happily, breathlessly declare so as to spare the kids from the traumatic experience of losing out in the grade school talent show. And then, there was the inevitable feeling that we’d been cheated. What had I done to warrant the honor of being on the cover of this illustrious newsmagazine? Of course it’s often argued that the Person of the Year is not so much an honor or recognition for good deeds as it is an acknowledgement of the individual (or group) who have influenced the world the most in the previous year – for better or for worse.

Taken in that spirit, the people named were extremely appropriate – a self-indulgent year deserved a self-indulgent “winner”. 2006 was the year YouTube became the biggest phenomenon since MySpace launched when it was sold for $1.65 billion and MySpace did pretty well in its own right. Both did so by getting users to do all the actual work in the site development – all the company itself did was provide a platform. And work they did, as users logged on by the millions to either see or be seen on such sites and “pore over the minutiae” of the daily lives of average people.

Frank Rich believes that this is that is indication of America’s desire to escape from the dismal reality facing us. Certainly that reality is not a pleasant one: a war with no end in sight and no palatable solution under discussion, an economy that seems to be running on fumes as people work harder and longer for fewer dollars and cars that are as well, thanks to the ever-escalating price of gasoline, pausing for brief respites via downward dips around election time before continuing its upward crawl. The outlook is similarly bleak when considering America’s lag on the education front and the ongoing struggle to unearth some way of providing affordable healthcare to all Americans. Add to this list natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina worsened by both the present administration’s ineffectual response to the event itself as well as its inability to acknowledge the reality of global warming and it’s no wonder that everyone would prefer to take the ostrich approach.

In Brave New World, Aldous Huxley wrote of a woman – Linda – who spent several years in the “real” world of the Reservation, away from the artificial life she had led. Once reintroduced to the man-made society of England, she spent much of her time in a soma coma, unable to bear anything but the pleasant daydreams induced by the drug. While Mr. Rich is correct in stating that many people are seeking some form of escapism from the dreariness of their lives, there is a second element here: that our society is basically self-involved. Between web sites that allowed people to broadcast themselves and reality TV shows, entertainment in 2006 centered around anything that allowed people to feel as though they were getting their fifteen minutes of fame, or infamy, as the case may be. There was no distinction between celebrity and notoriety, just as long as there was some exposure. Of course the irony was that no one was really in the limelight; just blending into the vast tapestry that is the present-day entertainment industry. And thus a new phenomenon was born: anonymous fame.

Many of the characters in Brave New World exhibited these very qualities. Their primary concern was always for themselves, and not for self-preservation or intellectual enlightenment but purely for amusement. They spent as much time as possible rushing from one task to another, from one game, dance, weekend trip to another; rushing to anything that would provide them with a little more pleasure or at least, what they were conditioned to believe was pleasure. They all perceived themselves to be the center of the universe, cared not for others or for anything that was happening in the world outside of the two-foot radius from where they were standing.

Like Huxley, Ray Bradbury painted a similarly disturbing picture of the future in Fahrenheit 451. Bradbury’s characters race around in their cars in a world of minimum speed limits and live in houses where the televisions bleed into every corner, every thought, at all times. Books are forbidden, lest the populous pause to think, to question their bland, meaningless existence. In both novels, the masses are kept in check, thoroughly occupied with empty busy work; all the while the society’s leaders do what they feel is best for themselves. We’re not being force-fed soma and televisions aren’t mandatory yet, but is TMZ much better?

More recently, Green Day’s album American Idiot focused on the same themes. At the time of the album’s release, said frontman Billie Joe Armstrong, “Bush is a former Ritalin kid who happens to be one of the most powerful men in the world right now.” He goes on to say, “We’re a pacified country, a Prozac nation. People are putting band-aids on the problems and that’s supposed to be okay. They’re government-issue tranquilizers—just get everyone to agree and keep them drugged as well, and then feed ‘em bullshit.” Armstrong’s views and Green Day’s album perfectly encapsulate the state of affairs in the country—the self-obsessed narcissistic way of life and the semi-conscious state most Americans are living in explain why the war in Iraq doesn’t occupy the same place in our minds and in the media that Vietnam did and why it to took this long for the voters to realize just how inept the federal government’s executive branch has been.

While there are of course some who are concerned about the “greater good” there are many more whose main priorities are self-gratification. It’s tempting to say that the media only provides the masses with unintelligent fodder and that if we were given more substantive material, we’d all throw ourselves with equal zeal into that. But we were given the opportunity to be less superficial – following 9/11 everyone examined the lives they were leading and vowed to concentrate on what was really important – yet we’ve fallen back into the same routine. The egocentric, 24/7 entertainment-focused lives we lead have come to symbolize the year.

This of course is not an indictment on fun. Life, after all, is meant for living and enjoying oneself. But when serious issues such as war and global poverty, not to mention a climate crisis, loom large, perhaps it would be wise to tone down the celebration of excess symbolized by the Paris Hiltons and Britney Spearses of the world and emulated by countless others on YouTube and MySpace.

So yes, Time magazine got the subject right for their cover. They just got the title wrong. It wasn’t you who was big in ’06 – it was ME.

(1) Combat Rock, Guitar Legends No. 81

How Iverson has gone this long without a title is almost a mystery. He posts numbers that are consistently amazing – the 30+ points per game average this season is just par for the course. On Thursday he tied Oscar Robertson for fourth on the list of 40+ points in a game (77). What should have been considered a major accomplishment barely got a mention in a week dominated by coaching news – there was The War of the Words between Shaquille O’Neal and his former coach in Los Angeles Phil Jackson, Bobby Knight’s quest to pass Dean Smith for the all-time Division I coaching wins record, and of course, Denver’s own George Karl hitting the 800-win mark. All of that overshadowed AI’s performance. Everyone takes it for granted that he’ll carry his team, whatever team that may be, that he’ll play through the injuries that would sideline players with lesser drive, that he’ll post stellar numbers. He’s set the bar high for himself.

But he has yet to win championship. After his demand to be traded to another team, Philly fans were sad but let him go. They understood. He’d given everything to their team. He carried them on his 6’0” frame to the NBA Finals, but needed help to get the ring and got none. The organization was woefully undermanned year after year. Even when another future Hall-of-Famer joined the team in the form of Chris Webber, it was only after injuries had rendered him a shadow of his former self. Although the two proved to be one of the best duos in the league, it still wasn’t enough. AI needed to move on, a decade in the league and he expected to have won a championship by now and the adulation of his fans, a city that loved him, personal awards, none of it meant a thing to him without the ring.

AI is a champion because he cares – a quality sorely lacking in many professional athletes. And that in itself is to be applauded. Philly fans let him go with no hard feelings because they respected his desire for a ring. In an age where the talk around the league is of image-damaging brawls and self-centered athletes, who would’ve guessed in the draft of ’96 that AI would come to epitomize the qualities the league needs most in its athletes – that drive to do nothing but win an NBA championship, to enjoy playing basketball, and to get the fans to enjoy watching the game again.

According to Mr. Flowers, his main gripe with the concert DVD is that it was recorded at a show in England. Apparently Mr. Flowers felt Green Day’s material was unsuitable for an overseas tour. The charge is as ridiculous as the uproar over the Dixie Chicks’ comments which were made while on tour abroad – as if Americans speaking their minds while outside the country somehow undermines the United States’ standing in the world. The Bush administration has done just fine without any help from American entertainers. In fact, such remarks should strengthen the foreigners’ view of us – that we don’t all think in lock-step with our president and that we’re not the mindless pawns of the government illuminates the dual jewels of Freedom of Expression and Democracy that America prides itself on. Clearly lacking in an understanding of how Americans are viewed in the world, Mr. Flowers launched into a diatribe fueled by nothing but his own ignorance. Billie Joe Armstrong and co. aren’t the root of anti-American feeling overseas, the US government’s foreign policy is to blame. Green Day can hardly claim any hand in shaping US foreign policy – but they can react to it in any way they like (note to Brandon Flowers: see the First Amendment to the US Constitution for more information).

That Mr. Flowers’ sensibilities have been so easily offended is humorous, but not as laughable as the next words out of his mouth: that his own band’s new album is a much better representation of America than Green Day’s. Mr. Flowers’ feeble attempt to hock his wares by assailing one of the most popular bands in the world is a cheap trick worthy of the GOP. One wonders if Mr. Flowers has been reading from Karl Rove’s and Tony Snow’s playbook since the modus operandi fits so neatly: start off with negative attacks on your rivals featuring a focus on non-issues followed by a weak attempt at proving that you are superior because you displayed the foresight not to fall into the same trap. The American public wised up to this trompe l’oeil at the midterm elections and the public has greeted The Killers new album with a similarly frosty reception. The jingoistic view of America espoused by Mr. Flowers is also reminiscent of the GOP’s party line: America is #1 no matter what we’ve done.

If Mr. Flowers had paid attention to the concert, he would hear Mr. Armstrong yell the words: “This song isn’t anti-American… it’s anti-war!” prior to the opening chords of Holiday. Rather than undermining the nation, Green Day does it a service: those outside of the US will gain a different perspective on Americans – that we’re not all war-mongers eager to strong-arm anyone who has the slightest objection to our policies and unable to engage in multi-lateral resolutions to any problem.

That Green Day are popular overseas despite being an American band means they may yet be hope – that we haven’t all been tarred with the same false WMD dossier. After all, despite the hit America’s credibility has taken in the past five years, Billie Joe Armstrong has had crowds of scores of thousands of non-Americans enraptured, hanging on his every word, following his every move. That alone should signify that there’s still hope that America may yet recover from this bleak period in our history.

But while Mr. Limbaugh’s attack is superficially shocking – challenging the veracity of another’s disease/disability and charging that it’s merely a front used to further the campaign of a politician is practically a crime in itself – it is also repulsive at its core. Why the vehement outburst against Mr. Fox? This ad should come as no great surprise to anyone even remotely familiar with Mr. Fox’s track record as someone who has devoted his later years to increasing support for and awareness of Parkinson’s Disease, with stem cell research providing much hope in the search for a cure. Surely in this case, the reaction was spurred on by Mr. Limbaugh’s own personal intense opposition to stem cell research and the ill-informed (read: non-science based) opinions on the matter espoused by his loyal followers – members of the far right who equate embryonic stem cell research with human cloning and murder. The resistance has become so passionate that Mr. Limbaugh and those like him are blind to any facts that may enter the discussion. See the actual facts in the text version of Missouri’s Proposition 2. Moreover, what makes Mr. Limbaugh’s gut reaction so vile to the rest of us is his need to take down the person presenting the issue, rather than discuss the merits of the issue itself. He plays to his base by stoking their worst fears – human cloning, embryo destruction – without acknowledging the facts. Fact: Stem cell research would not produce embryos that could become humans. Fact: While scientists should of course tread carefully, we are a long way off from Gattaca and The Island.

Taking a page out of the Democrats’ ad, the Republicans rushed to line up their own celebrities to respond to Mr. Fox’s series of commercials. The latest miscue from the G.O.P. is almost laughable. Throwing a few C-list athletes and actors in front of the screen does not amount to a serious rebuttal. Mr. Fox lives with the disease every day and has become a prominent spokesman for its advocacy groups. He’s clearly got a vested interest in finding a cure for the disease. The various spokespeople chosen by the Republicans to state their case could not have missed the point more. Kurt Warner admits to doing the commercial (as many bloggers have noted, in an orange jumpsuit in front of a brick wall) because of his Christian faith. Hardly a strong scientific case to rebut Fox’s argument. And the inclusion of Jim Caviezel (several commentators have questioned whether his garbled introduction was given in Aramaic) was bound to invite the Jesus jokes.

On the eve of an election where pundits everywhere are predicting gains by Democrats – enough to nullify the GOP majority in both houses of Congress, if not gain a majority of their own – Mr. Limbaugh and those on the right are once again playing the same old tune: attack the Democrats on image and superficial nonsense (see: Kerry Misses a Line, GOP Misses the Point) while playing down the facts. Fact: the Republicans are running scared.

The Republicans are desperately reaching for some Democratic scandal – no matter how unscandalous the incident – that will overcome their own scandals: Iraq-gate, Foley-gate, Tom DeLay & Jack Abramoff, to name but a few. The immediate and all-too-earnest reaction by high-ranking officials in the party (the President, Vice President, and White House Press Secretary) who all took a strong stance against Mr. Kerry was bordering on embarrassing. The incident was a minor one, but as they all raced to mock Kerry’s misspoken line (as if President Bush has never slipped up during a public event), it exposed their fear. Fear that the public would pay attention to the real issues – the lack of direction in Iraq, the economic problems facing average Americans, gross problems with the state of healthcare and education, climate change, and the governmental corruption that exacerbates all of them.

All in all, it is highly unlikely that the now infamous “botched joke” will have any impact on the election outcome. The Republicans hackneyed strategy - politicians who've never served in the military attacking one who did - is ringing hollow. If the GOP sincerely thinks that it will get a last-minute boost from Kerry’s flubbed line, then they are truly beyond repair. The botched job they’ve done over the past few years has done more damage to America’s psyche than such a supposed slight could ever do.

In the meantime, here’s some real news from the front that should have gotten more press than it did:

Kevin Tillman contributed a strongly worded, passionate piece to Truthdig days before his late brother's birthday and the election.

In a night that seemed stripped down in order to display the rawness of their musical talent. The only embellishments were the screens on stage and on the ceiling providing larger views of the band to those who did not have the good fortune of being situated front and center. But what the show lacked in literal pyrotechnics, it more than made up for with the 4- and 6-stringed acrobatics of Flea and Frusciante. In the night’s only gimmicky moment, the audience members, who were given “lighters” (battery-operated, non-flammable plastic light sticks) upon entry into the arena, were asked to light them up during the performance of “Snow”, being taped that evening. The Starry Night Effect, to coin a phrase, although having been utilized by every band to sing a slow-speed song since the 1960s – first with lighters, now with cell phones – was nonetheless effective and provided the type of low key audience participation the night warranted.

The show was dominated, as any new tour is, by the songs on the latest album. But the old favorites were not neglected. “Californication”, “Scar Tissue”, and “By the Way” were amongst the ‘older’ material featured that thrilled the captive audience – who were, like the Chili Peppers’ music itself, a tapestry of ages and styles, drawn together by a common thread. The Chili Peppers proved once again that music does not need to fit into a defined category in order to be great. There are certain universal truths in music and the Chili Peppers’ skill, consistency, and depth is one of them. The Red Hot Chili Peppers have managed to turn themselves into that rare creation – the rock band that has become mainstream in appeal, while remaining niche in its music.

Grohl’s always had a good rock voice – the requisite mix of grit and melody sported by any credible rock singer. On this tour, his vocals were on display more than ever being accompanied by the less overpowering acoustic instruments and the occasional a cappella moment. And that’s when it hits you. You realize just how much he’s been underestimated as a force in rock music. He’s not just a good drummer/singer/songwriter/guitarist – he’s great at all of these things. Follow that through to its natural conclusion: why isn’t this band touring more, performing more live shows – acoustic or otherwise? Grohl clearly enjoys the role of entertainer and revels in the audience response. In both stadium shows and more intimate ones, he’s appeared at ease. Equally comfortable talking to a crowd of thousands as a crowd of scores, Grohl is that rare animal who looks like performing is in his blood. Nothing about the show felt forced; just a true show performed by a true showman.

The encore featured Grohl alone, standing for the first time in the set, stating he was tired of sitting down. Apparently the audience was as well, refusing to take their seats as Grohl launched into energetic, solo acoustic versions of their hits and spoke of his pre-fame days, roughing it with Kurt Cobain. The finale was an extended version of “Everlong” which saw Grohl start as a solo number, but as the house lights came up, the rest of the band (plus additional members on various instruments) chimed in. The evening ended with Grohl promising to get a rock tour going soon with the release of the next album, but a case could be made that the acoustic tour highlighted Grohl’s brilliance better. His intimacy with the audience, his ease in performing, the creative genius that emanated from the stage as the band performed reinterpretations of their classic songs, the stark emotion that was borne out in his voice… It’s almost sacrilegious, but the show leaves you thinking – has Dave Grohl eclipsed Nirvana?

The scandalous behavior in this story is partly the behavior of Mark Foley. But more disconcerting than the actions of one reprobate, are the knee-jerk reactions of the GOP and their mouthpieces in the right-wing media. They’ve become so entrenched in their skewed perception of reality that they can’t even respond to a scandal correctly. Immediately rushing into defense mode was a tactical mistake by the self-proclaimed kings of political strategy. Where was Karl Rove on this one? The populous isn’t so easily fooled that they will believe that the teenage pages who were the targets of Mr. Foley’s electronic conversations should bear the blame. Nor will they turn their anger towards the Democrats or the media for any strategic planning in the timing of this scandal. Incidentally, the evidence against Mr. Foley was turned over by a congressional aide who is now, and always has been, a registered Republican.

Mr. Foley, for his part, proved to be as media un-savvy as they come – odd for one who prided himself on running along the outskirts of Hollywood circles. His lawyer issued statements as if they were darts, hoping one of them would hit its target: sympathy and exoneration for his client despite the egregious nature of his actions. He provided the public with the information that: Foley is gay, Foley is an alcoholic, and Foley was abused by a priest as a child. The statements were appalling, not simply for the attempt by Mr. Foley and the Republicans to escape culpability (the former looking for a way out of bearing responsibility for his actions, the latter looking for a explanation as to how one of their own could commit such acts), but for the implication that anyone who is either gay, alcoholic, or had been abused as a child has a valid excuse for pedophilia. Combined with the statements that the Democrats and the media leaked the story weeks before Election Day in order to smear the Republicans, it would appear that the “personal responsibility” tenet of the Republicans’ beliefs applies only to those at the lower end of the economic scale who require help from the state.

The manner in which the GOP tried to weasel out of this scandal showed precisely how out of touch and off base they are. They immediately tried to equate Mr. Foley’s offenses with characteristics that their most conservative base would despise – as though Mr. Foley was one who slipped through their radar, one who does not conform to their moral ideal. They should have known better, given Mr. Foley’s excuse regarding his alleged molestation at the hands of a priest – the scandal involving Catholic priests was made much worse by the Roman Catholic Church when it tried to hide and protect the priests. It is clear that the Republicans have been aware for some time that Mr. Foley was problematic, to say the least. But rather than deal with the issue when they first knew about it, they allowed it to fester and protected him instead of his victims.

This situation now becomes doubly awkward for the Republicans. Apart from appearing to give safe harbor to an alleged pedophile, they have, in recent years, attempted to portray themselves as the morally superior political party. Based on nothing more than their close affiliation with right-leaning Christian groups, they have claimed in thinly veiled words to be next to god. They have long had an uncomfortable relationship with any minority group (racial, ethnic, gender, orientation) and while not overtly barring any of them from the party, they have not rushed to embrace them either. Now, all their hate-mongering has finally come back to haunt them. Their holier-than-thou attitude looks hypocritical in light of recent events and their inability to handle the scandal gracefully has compounded the problem.

Recent polling data has shown an interesting shift recently. If they want to win in November, the self-proclaimed party of god better start praying.

That intel was ignored, and just as the administration lived in a fantasy world, blissfully ignorant of the real problems the country faced, the populous lived in its own fantasy world, absorbed in the lives of Hollywood celebrities and scaring themselves with fake dangers. In the immediate aftermath following 9/11, exhortations came from every corner – the government, the media, the people – everyone look back at the shallow summer and called for “real news” and “real issues”.

That didn’t last long. Five years removed from September 11, 2001, we’re back in the same spot. The past summer has showcased such stories as the Jennifer Aniston-Brad Pitt-Angelina Jolie triangle, Britney Spears and K-Fed, and of course, the Cruise-Holmes union. The uproar over Tom Cruise’s now infamous interview with Matt Lauer on The Today Show and equally infamous couch-jumping incident on Oprah seems ridiculous in the light of the dangers the nation is facing.

Cruise is entitled to an opinion, however ill-informed, in his “I’m an actor” capacity. In the meantime, Senator Bill Frist, in his “I’m a doctor” capacity takes his medical knowledge (that term being used loosely in this context) and provides a web cam-based diagnosis yet receives far less scathing treatment. Sen. Frist, in a clear attempt to curry favor with the right-wing of his party, has also made harmful comments relating to the transmission of HIV. Cruise has since split with Paramount over incidents which the company deems unseemly. Why have we not had the same outcry with regard to Sen. Frist for his sleazy comments? He continually represents himself as a doctor and attempts to use so-called medical training to undermine what he believes to be liberal opinions. As a senator and a doctor, he is acting irresponsibly, and should be impeached. However, given the lack of outrage in response to some of the stupid things our politicians do, and the overzealous outrage in response to what celebrities our celebrities do, don’t hold your breath.

Following 9/11, the nation gained extraordinary political capital with the nations of the world who mourned our loss as if it were their own. And for once, America appeared more introspective, less shallow. Sadly, neither feeling lasted.

Thomas Friedman asserts in his most recent book, “The World is Flat”, that other countries are beginning to catch up and overtake the United States in terms of education, and as a result of that, information technology development, scientific discovery and invention. Recently, there has also been an obvious Team USA loss trend in sporting events in which we had once been dominant. The soccer loss is almost understandable – there focus on soccer in this country is non-existent, at least not in the dominant way it exists in European and South American countries. On the other hand, Ecuador and Ghana are probably not spending the kind of money the US Soccer Association is. Even allowing for the soccer travesty at the World Cup, this does not explain our inability to succeed at sports – some of which we’ve invented and have created the biggest market for in terms of professional leagues. Basketball and baseball specifically spring to mind. The US has been embarrassed on the world’s sporting stage, and it’s time to evaluate why.

Some pundits feel that the loss of sporting dominance is just the natural progression of events; that the US had raised the bar so high that the rest of the world would take a while to catch up, and now they finally have. This is part of the issue. Now that other nations have invested a little more in their sporting industries and their training, they’ve caught up. Additionally, many of the athletes playing for other nations at the Olympics, are playing in our professional leagues. Major League Baseball and the National Basketball Association boast international rosters.

Others claim that the US had become complacent in recent years and this is why the rest of the world has caught up. Goliath has been caught sleeping; lulled into a feeling of safety in sports since not only have our teams won in the past, they’ve won convincingly. The second group of pundits is partly correct as well. The phenomenon is apparent in the NBA and NFL – athletes being paid astronomical sums of money with little delivery. Oftentimes, their drive to win the championship ring is secondary to their drive to renegotiate their contract.

We find the US lagging in other areas as well. Team USA’s sporting demise across a variety of sports is not a coincidental event just within the sporting world. America is slacking in the education department. Mr. Friedman cites several examples in his book, but the hard sciences are the most worrisome area. As more jobs become “new economy” jobs, those untrained in or unfamiliar with the elements that contribute to that, will fall behind. At this stage, the entire country is having trouble adjusting, while Asia forges ahead. Ever more jobs are being lost from the Big Three who are unable to compete with the Japanese car manufacturers. Jobs are being lost from both the blue- and white-collar ends, a sign of a shift towards the new economy (former) and an inability to train and retrain our employees for it (latter).

Our sporting teams currently are reigning third place champions of most major sports. If we’re not careful, we’ll lose that position – and not simply at the Olympic podium.