Friday, December 30, 2016

Losing our place in the league

I am no football expert, but I have to believe that the Patriots have a plan in place for the post-Brady era. Of course, we all hope that day does not come for many more years and playoff appearances, but clearly the value of the franchise is too high for the ownership to let the team lose its place in the league.

I am no foreign policy expert either, but even casual observers might note that in recent years, it seems like the United States is not the world power it used to be. How we’ve ignored the crisis in Syria, our dealings with Iran — and most recently, our deteriorating relationship with Israel — makes me think that we’ve ceded our role as a world leader. With a Republican Congress and a Trump White House ready to unwind much of the domestic policy that was thought to be the Obama legacy, I think we may find (for better or worse) that the real Obama legacy is that we’ve disengaged from the rest of the world.

American politics is cyclical. With the exception of Vice Presidents who have attained office through death or resignation, Reagan is the only President to have a “third term” since Roosevelt. However, our position as a world leader has been steady and certainly, our strong relationship with Israel has never wavered until now. I am personally sickened that we have not done more to end the suffering in Syria. It’s a sad day for America when people are being slaughtered and we offer them no protection. And last week, we ABSTAINED from voting on a UN resolution condemning Israel’s settlements on the West Bank and in East Jerusalem. For more than 40 years, we’ve stood up for Israel (in an increasingly anti-Israel UN) and vetoed such resolutions. Secretary Kerry’s remarks following our abstention included. “Israel can be Jewish or democratic, but not both.” I am not certain whether he’s asking for them to give up their heritage or their democracy.

So what’s the plan? We’ve heard a lot from President-elect Trump through Twitter and through his appointments to know that he differs greatly from the Obama administration, but “I’m going to do the opposite” is not a plan either. Maybe Bill Belichick can help.

Friday, December 23, 2016

A trade we need to make

I was at McCoy for Clay Buchholz' first start in AA and at Fenway for his first major league start so seeing him get traded to Philly should make me a bit wistful - but it doesn't. He was a big part of recent winning seasons, but it's time to bring in reliable talent that can bring wins. Now is not a time to whine about the fact that so many good pitchers have left Boston in recent years — or to grouse that we should have gotten rid of him years ago — it's simply time to turn the page on Buchholz and look ahead to 2017.

We also need to be more positive and look forward to better days for Rhode Island. Sure, we have been at the bottom of every ranking for too long to remember — but Rome wasn't rebuilt in a day and four years of a do-nothing Chafee administration did even less for our economy. If you told me just a few years ago that GE Digital or Johnson & Johnson technology were going to put down roots in Providence, I would have laughed in your face, but with the focused leadership of Governor Raimondo, Rhode Island is finally attracting the kinds of jobs we need to pull ourselves out of an economic pit. I have always been impressed with her smarts and her determination to turn Rhode Island around but as a native Rhode Islander (and a pre-2004 Sox fan), believing in something that I have never seen here — economic success — has always been hard to grasp.

Love her or hate her, for more than three years Gina Raimondo has been single-minded her goal of attracting new businesses to Rhode Island and her hard work is paying off. Democrat or Republican, progressive or conservative, Rhode Islanders must give her props for articulating an economic development vision, getting elected on that platform, executing on the policies needed and relentlessly pursuing and persuading until that vision happens. At the same time, she has led the charge to invest in skills and education in a way that lets companies know that we're serious about creating a good workforce here. Statewide kindergarten, computer science for all, free standardized tests and the other too-numerous-to-name programs that have shown that she is serious about making Rhode Island a destination for companies who need a highly educated workforce. The recently announced Wexford development is particularly exciting since it has the ability to spawn just the kind of businesses this our workforce will be able to sustain - right in our own backyard.

For those who want to complain that there are too many tax dollars going into these projects, I challenge you to find a state where there are no incentives available to attract companies. She has not lured a start-up with a back room deal and "double or nothing" funds, she has persuaded established and successful companies to give Rhode Island a shot.

So I propose a trade of a different kind — and I am going to make it my New Year’s Resolution too. Let's shake our crappy, negative attitude about Rhode Island. This is a great place to live and it’s just getting better. Let’s view our state as others do — a place with tremendous attributes that can use a little freshening up — and join our cheerleader in chief with a more positive outlook.

Monday, December 12, 2016

There’s bias at every base

Red Sox fans remember well the excitement surrounding Pablo “Panda” Sandoval’s arrival in 2015 as well as the disappointment we felt when he emerged bigger and slower to start the 2016 season. While big athletes exist in many sports, his proportions were worrisome in a sport where speed and agility are key. When his belt actually gave way in the middle of a game, the wrath of fat-shaming Red Sox fans knew no boundaries. One headline screamed “Pablo Sandoval’s Belt Lost Its Will to Live Mid-Swing”. Shoulder surgery ended his season and mercifully took him out of the camera’s range.

Last week — some eight months after the belt-busting episode — a picture of an almost unrecognizably svelte Panda was tweeted out. I don’t know what the number on the scale reads, but he may need to be renamed Baby Panda or Skinny Panda or Pool Noddle, but he can no longer be tormented for his size.

The interesting thing about Sandoval’s plus-size episode is that it provides us with the starkest example I’ve seen of a double standard I’ve seen. Even before the belt-busting incident he was absolutely tormented by the headlines: “…weight a serious issue”, “once gained 21 pounds in 21 days” and my favorite: “needs babysitter to control weight”. His weight is of course relevant to his profession — while five extra pounds are not a problem, forty extra will slow him down — and certainly his contract obliges him to stay in top physical shape.

I don’t ever want to be in the position of defending Donald Trump, but thinking about how Panda was raked over the coals, does anyone remember the pageant winner who was fat shamed by Trump? Are the circumstances different? Or does the media just hate the messenger?

At a time when everyone is still talking about the election that the media bungled badly and the epidemic of fake news, the term “media bias” is thrown around with abandon but I think most people have no idea what it means. My eyes pop out of my head when I hear, “I read the Boston Globe — the Herald is so biased.” Newsflash: everything has a bias because reporters are human and they write pieces from their own viewpoint. You may prefer one bias to another, but everyone has one. You can disagree with one’s perspective and choose only to talk to people who agree with you and you can choose to read only the articles that are pleasing to you, but it doesn’t mean that the opposing idea is wrong.

While this sounds a bit didactic, we seem to be on the verge of stupidity in wanting to block out ideas that are in conflict with our own. I am struggling to negotiate conversations with adults that I used to find intelligent and while trying to drill a healthy skepticism into my kids. I tell them to read what you want, believe what you want, but at least make an effort to a discern the speaker’s viewpoint and to think about why someone might believe something different. And of course, take the time to fact-check anything you want to share online. Unless it’s about super-slim Panda - I’ve seen the proof. Pitchers and catchers report in 60 days … it can’t come soon enough.

Monday, December 5, 2016

It’s not easy to field a whole new team

Since the election, the news has been full of rumors, fake articles and some legitimate information about President-elect Trump’s cabinet picks as well as the transition itself. It seems as if the news media is still scrambling to come to terms with the outcome of the election and some writers seem legitimately surprised that the President-elect has the ability to hire his senior staff and appoint a cabinet (many of whom will require the advice and consent of the Senate). He can hire Satan as a senior advisor: it’s his prerogative and no online petition is going to make him say “oh darn, people who didn’t vote for me don’t like my choices, I should pick someone that makes them happy.” Sorry folks, not going to happen.

I’ve never served on a presidential transition but worked on transition teams for two Rhode Island governors and these days I wince every time I look at the news. Transitions are incredibly tough. Hours are long, expectations are high and more people are critical and disappointed than helpful and understanding. Bottom line: I do not envy Trump’s team right now. Not only do they have a challenging boss, but they are getting unfairly hammered on several fronts. FYI: the Secret Service determines how to protect the president-elect and there’s nothing they can do to control the Manhattan traffic. They also have a ridiculously immense job to do in a very short period of time. Baseball GMs publicly wring their hands each year about finding one or two new players to round out their team. The Trump people have to identify, vet and hire about 4,000 new employees between now and January 20th.  Those 4,000 current employees are happily serving the Obama administration so the chance that they would eagerly stay aboard (if asked) to serve President Trump is less than likely.

The unexpected outcome of the 2016 campaign further complicates the transition process. While the Clinton team probably had a full transition plan outlined and had many senior staff and cabinet positions assigned, the learning curve for Team Trump is very steep. The Clintons had a unique and intimate understanding of how the federal government and the Office of the President runs — they didn’t need to “measure for curtains” — they already had the dimensions. Making things even more difficult is the fact that Trump is not “of Washington” (which was a positive on a the campaign) and does not have a huge network of experienced and like-minded individuals who would like to join his team. If he hires people with no relevant experience, he can expect sharp criticism and if he appoints people who have years of government or DC service, he’s not “draining the swamp.” He is damned no matter what he does.

I’m not suggesting that anyone support the new President’s policies or endorse his behavior, but I wanted to note that he is in the middle of an incredibly challenging time and the first real test of his administration.