S7s: 3/20- March Madness

1) NCAA Wrestling from Madison Square Garden this weekend. I watched some of the semifinals on Friday and was amazed. The Finals last night were terrific.

• Nolf vs I-Mar, Snyder vs Gwizz both lived up the the hype.
• How good is Nashon Garrett? A pin 21 second in the semifinals?! Against the defending national champion! 
• NYC was a great venue, despite my skepticism going into the tournament. 
• I am so impressed with Penn State and the level of wrestling they are able to achieve. Cael Sanderson has become a legend as a coach as well as a wrestler. And they're loaded for a good run for a few years. 
• Congratulations to Virginia Tech for finishing 3rd and NC State for a top 10 finish. 
• No champions for the Iowa Hawkeyes, but three finalists and a top 5 finish for Coach Brands' team.
• He didn't wrestle last night but he was interviewed several times: Jordan Burroughs is a winner, class act and great ambassador for the sport of wrestling. 

2) There was another national tournament happening this weekend. I followed very little basketball. I know my bracket is in the 12th percentile right now. Wrestling was more compelling to me.

3) Lady Knights Track had two meets this past week: the Jus Running Relays on Tuesday and Times-News Invitational on Saturday. Some solid performances. 10th place yesterday at Times-News. We're still a work in progress, but you can see we've got some great athletes. We need to get healthy. Spring Break will be much needed for my athletes. 

4) All Area Wrestling Teams announced by our local media outlets.

• Times News Wrestler of the Year was Josh Blatt. Well deserved and great honor for Josh.
• All-Area Wrestlers for the Times-News: Morgan King, Will Baldwin, Paul Searcy.
• Basketball teams had 17-18 players on the Times-News teams, while wrestling only had 9 total. Wrestling has 14 weight classes, basketball has 5 positions. Seems Daniel Dowling, Cele Cardenas should have made it. Possibly Pete Willingham, Damian Murphy and Joshua Feliz. Rosman High School underrepresented also.
• Citizen-Times All-WNC: Josh Blatt, Morgan King, Will Baldwin
• Searcy one of the best wrestlers in WNC but I can't argue with having Wilson on the team-- they split this season, but Conan placed higher at Regionals and State. 

5) I read this article the other day: In Love with Donald Trump

It's so good. Christians don't agree with Trump, his character or his morality. But people love his message. Why? Because we pursue the things we love and he's selling us what we love. And the love of many Christians is less in Christ and more in the offerings of the world.

6) Obama made an appointment for the Supreme Court. I know nothing about Merrick Garland. He may or may not be a good Justice. I do believe that the Senate has a duty to hold hearings on Mr Garland. It doesn't mean that they have to appoint him, but his case to be Justice needs to be heard.

• There's the argument that if the roles were reversed that Democrats would block the nominee from being confirmed or heard. It's like gerrymandering: just because the other side does it doesn't make it right. The nomination process can take months, so if we're looking at the next president appointing the next Supreme Court Justice, we're looking at the Supreme Court sitting with one Justice short for nearly two years.
• Any wonder why Congress has an 11% approval rating according to the Pew Research Center? 
• In case you're wondering, Gallup Poll for March 13 had the President at 51 percent approval.
• The Republicans are going all in, especially if they have to nominate a third party candidate or block Trump at the Convention. Between that and the refusal to hold hearings on the President's nominee, they are playing a dangerous game with perception. If enough moderates are turned off by the stance of the GOP led Senate, they may be putting their majorities in the House at risk. A longer shot is that they lose their Senate majority. 

7) Speaking of the President, he made an official visit to Cuba today. I am looking forward to more normalized relationships with Cuba. The policies of the last 60 years haven't worked there. I can't wait to visit the island. 

Obama and Osama

It's been a week since the announcement that the United States, after a decade, had finally found Osama bin Laden. You know the story, so I won't rehash it here. I've read many different perspectives on the President's role and none of them have changed my mind that you are always going to believe what you want to believe.

This was making it's way to the feeds of some of my friends on Facebook:
Let's be clear on this: OBAMA did NOT kill Bin Laden. An American soldier, who Obama just a few weeks ago was debating on whether or not to PAY, did. Obama just happened to be the one in office when our soldiers finally found OBL and took him out. This is NOT an Obama victory, but an AMERICAN victory!! REPOST IF YOU AGREE

Sure, everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but there was something that bothered me about these postings.

I'm all for praising our soldiers, but this took stabs at the commander in chief. Some people will say it does not, it just directs praise in the right direction. The tone, however, speaks very differently. It assumes Obama's role was fairly minor (he just happened to be there) and it was the SEALs took the initiative, made the decisions and acted on the intelligence on their own. If so, they are rouge and I don't want them on my side.

But they are not rouge. They are doing exactly what they were trained to do: follow the orders of their superiors to the best of their abilities.

A few notes:

• The evidence was strong, but not conclusive that Bin Laden was in the compound. The decision to send the SEALs was not a light decision. It involved a lot of wrangling for the President and within his staff.
  
• Bombing would have been easier, but then there is the risk of not being able to identify the body.
• What if it wasn't Osama Bin Laden hiding out there? Or what if it was a failure-- ala Bay of Pigs or Carter's attempt at rescuing the Iranian hostages? This was a huge gamble that if it did not work would have been disastrous to the President's political career. There were many reasons Jimmy Carter was only a one term president and the failure in the Iran Hostage Crisis didn't help.
• Political opinions aside, could you imagine what this would have been instead of a dead Bin Laden we find some wealthy recluse and his family? Or if our soldiers were ambushed and the images that we're fighting to release or not release are the burned and mutilated bodies of American soldiers like we saw in Somalia, on which the book and movie Black Hawk Down was based? The video of slain Army Rangers being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu still gives me shivers when I think of it.
• Oh, and there's the entirely different and yet crucial issue of staging a raid in a sovereign nation without their knowledge and approval.
  

Barack Obama essentially had three choices: sit on the intelligence until it was more conclusive, bomb the compound from high above or send in the SEALs. The toughest decision was the latter. I'm not sure that if I were the guy calling the shots, that would be the choice I make. It was a decision that put American soldiers in harm's way, threatened our already somewhat fragile relationship with Pakistan and had the makings of a political disaster if not successful.

I commend the SEALs for a job well done. No one injured, much less killed. And they'll receive no credit for that's part of their job to be "quiet professionals". They will become anonymous and disappear into society like nothing every happened.

I commend the President for doing what politicians should do: make tough decisions.

Now I challenge him, House and Senate leaders and local and state governments to continue to make tough decisions. We need leaders in this country. We're not always going to work together and agree, but we need people who are willing to put country above politics. Maybe an electorate that could do that would be great too.

Opinions? Leave them in the comments. But please abide by the rule I tell my students: "We don't have to all agree; but we can disagree respectfully." For the most part, they get it.

Anonymity

"I just miss - I miss being anonymous. I miss Saturday morning, rolling out of bed, not shaving, getting into my car with my girls, driving to the supermarket, squeezing the fruit, getting my car washed, taking walks. I can't take a walk."
- Barack Obama

I was explaining to my students a few weeks back why I don't envy Kate Middleton. Her life will never be the same. Besides the obvious of always having security, handlers and staff, her highness will never just be able to take a stroll like the rest of us.

Being in high positions and celebrity does have it's perks. I'm not sure they are enough to make me trade in my anonymity.

Oh, but it was a nice wedding.

Nobel and Rio

So, I have thoughts on two major headlines of the last week:

First, the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to President Barack Obama. Many people were annoyed, stumped or disgusted by the pick. If we are going on accomplishments, then I agree that Obama has not accomplished enough to merit the award. Nominations for this year's award were due in February, so Obama was only in office for less than three weeks. But I think it's more than that, which is why I think it is a beautiful thing.
Thinking outside our political attachments and putting ourselves in a more global mindset, here are some things to think about regarding selection of Barack Obama for the Nobel Peace Prize:

Contrary to what some believe, I think that the world is a fan of America. They love the ideals of America; they love what this country stands for. They do not like, however, the arrogance and entitlement that Americans often show abroad and that our nation often displays on the global stage. Like it or not, this award is at least partially an indictment of the Bush administration: unpopular war, unilateralism, "with us or against us". Obama represented a 'change' from the past and a new 'hope'.

Also, foreigners often have a unfair image of America. The way America is portrayed in minds of some Europeans is a place where we are constantly shooting one another and have serious race issues. To a degree, there is a bit a truth behind those portrayals. Racially, America is a scary place for many Europeans. Racially, America is a scary place for many Americans.

America always seemed behind in race relations. When slavery was banned in Britain in 1833, the United States was still 25 years away from fighting a war in which slavery was a crucial issue. While Europe has had multitudes of ethnic and racial issues over the past 200 years (anyone remember the Nazi party?), the view from across pond is that America is the place in the western world where racism festers. In Obama, we have history's first black leader of a country with a white majority. Never has this happened in England, France, Germany or other European country. In this context, I think the prize is more a salute to America for being bold, overcoming the past and setting new standards than it is for Obama the person or president.

I also agree with some of the detractors that say giving the President the prize before he establishes his legacy puts tremendous pressure on him. I can only hope that instead of declaring "Mission accomplished," the President will continue to strive to make America the beacon of hope and torch bearer of peace that other countries can admire.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

So Rio de Janeiro is the host city for the 2016 Olympics. That was less shocking than Chicago, and their strong bid, being eliminated in the firsrt round of voting. Based on commentary, it seems the vote (by a heavily European panel) was not an indictment of Chicago as a city but rather the IOC's jab at the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) and its arrogance and poor leadership. Unfortunately, Chicago was the victim of the squabble.

Here's my take on the 4 potential cities, in ascending order of preference:

4: Madrid- upside: it's Spain and Spain knows how to party, tapas, Barcelona hosted a fanastic Olympiad in 1992. Downside: Basque separatists using the Games for political means, can Spain raise enough money to stage an Olympics, nearby metropolis London is hosting the 2012 Games.

3: Rio de Janeiro- Upside: competing under the Christ the Redeemer (above), Copacabana and thongs, nice weather, first Olympics in South America and only third in southern hemisphere (Melbourne 1956 and Sydney 2000). Downside: Rio's notorious slums (so famous, they are tourist attractions) and crime (murder rate 7 times Chicago's), missing out on Carnival celebrations.

2: Tokyo- Upside: Japanese efficiency and friendliness, solid infrastructure, relatively safe compared to other places. Downside: nearby Beijing hosted in 2008, we might be out of tuna by 2016.

1: Chicago- Upside: Chicago is awesome (architecture, sports, Lake Michigan, food, nightlife, airports), Midwestern friendliness, many facilities in place, great history and a great American city to be showcased. Downside: Americans don't always play well with others, Chicago does have some crime issues, it can get dangerously hot and humid in summer.

What we can learn from Montana

I was in Montana the same day that President Obama held his town hall in Belgrade (pop 5,728- 2000 Census), right outside of Bozeman. I took a break from listening to "This American Life" podcasts and stumbled upon a live broadcast of the town hall on AM Radio.

The highlight of the meeting was a sharp question by a Randy Rathie, who was obviously passionate about his beliefs (though I chuckled that he got his news from cable outlets because he didn't like the spin of the networks). He called Obama out and wanted to know from the President how we can pay for this without raising taxes. It was blunt and sincere.

It wasn't the question that impress me. It was the way he asked it. It was a question pointed at the president that was asked in a respectful manner. He didn't yell, kick and scream or bury his head in the sand. He asked a question and listened.

In the rhetoric on health care, the biggest loser is all us who are not privy to dialogue and debate because of ranting, baiting and fanaticism. I cannot think of many things more "Un-America" than the supression of of debate. We must have dialogue.

Health Care has to be reformed. We spend more than any other nation, but our care is not as efficient. It's an travesty that in the wealthiest nation on earth, over 15 million go uninsured. No one should have to decide between taking a sick child to the doctor or buying groceries for the week. How do we streamline health care and cut costs (cheaper does not mean worse-- an Accord is cheaper than a Jaguar, but the Jag will be in the shop most of it's life) while still providing quality services and encouraging medical companies to innovate, research and discover? These are the things we need to be talking about and working towards.

Maybe Obama's plan isn't the one. Perhaps it will die much like Clinton's did. Before it does, I would like to see us to talk about the way we insure, care for and treat ourselves in this country. An honest debate is what we need and is what we should get. Anything less would be a disservice to all Americans.