Hope Springs Eternal

I went to a couple Grapefruit League games in Florida with my daughter and I have a few observations.

First, Bryce Harper.  Are they using a different font size for the number on the back of his jersey?  He’s so huge it makes it seem smaller, and he’s the youngest guy out there!  I remember the first time I saw Tiger Woods swing and it looked like he was swinging so hard he’d come out of his shoes and yet the ball went exactly where he wanted it to.  Harper’s like that with a bat.  I’ve never seen a guy swing so hard, and yet he makes consistent contact.  He is the best prospect I’ve ever seen.

Speaking of prospects, I was also amazed by Anthony Rendon.  If the ball is in the strike zone, he’s going to get a good bat on it.  And it just seems so natural to him.  He’s also faster than it may seem at first glance.  He hit a routine grounder (not a dribbler) to short and nearly beat the throw.  10% of umps would have incorrectly called him safe.  I just wish he didn’t play the same position as Ryan Zimmerman.

Edwin Jackson will be a roller coaster all year.  Jackson put the first two guys he faced on, took the next batter to a 3-0 count, but got out of it.  If you have a heart condition, I suggest watching something else when he starts.

And finally Ian Desmond.  The worst hitter and worst fielder of all of our starters and yet as leadoff hitter and shortstop, he may be as important to the success of this team as any player.  My worries continue.  It’s early, I get it, but he was back to booting balls, making bad throws and looking lost at the plate.  I truly think that Manager Davey Johnson is a difference maker.  He’s got to get through to Desmond if we’re going to make the playoffs.

As Much About Gender as Religion

I have been following the contraception controversy pretty closely.  Weighing first amendment rights versus public health is as important as any policy decision we can make.  But there is one aspect of this debate that I think has been largely overlooked:  The lack of female leadership in the Catholic Church impugns its credibility on this issue.

The reality is that men are making a decision about a health issue that largely impacts women.  Women spend far more money on contraception than do men, and of course, are far more affected by unprotected sex than are men.  So when an entity run by men claims the first amendment protects their doctrine that mainly impacts women, I think we as a society have a responsibility to look harder at the issue.

I’m far from a religious scholar, but it seems the Church has modified its stance on issues to reflect changing times.  But not this one.  Nobody is asking Catholics to condone contraception, but merely to allow people of all income levels to make their own decisions on this important health decision.  I have to believe that if women were in leadership positions, the Church would have a far different view at this point in human history.

While the first amendment is as basic to our idea of a free society as any other right, it is not absolute.  Evidence seems to clearly point to requiring health plans to cover contraception as an overriding need.  Surveys conducted by the Guttmacher Institute show that nearly one in four women with household incomes of less than $75,000 have put off a doctor’s visit for birth control to save money in the past year.  More than a quarter of women using contraception say they use it inconsistently to save money.  More than half of young adult women say they have not used their method as directed because it was cost-prohibitive.

But of course a person’s propensity to have sex is not based on income.  So there’s a health risk we’re creating based on our unwillingness to provide funding for this basic healthcare service.  We understand the value of providing other basic healthcare services to the poor.  We even provide healthcare coverage for illnesses derived from other lifestyle decisions like smoking, eating, riding motorcycles, drinking alcohol, and using illegal drugs.  The Catholic Church, however, thinks this particular choice (even this particular sin) deserves different consideration.  I have to think its male-dominated leadership has something to do with it.

Don't Be Fooled on Keystone

Is the American public really this fooled by Keystone XL politics?  Republicans are painting the president as being dangerously opposed to job-creating, energy independence-creating fossil fuel production, when there is little evidence that is the case.

On Keystone, the Secretary of State said she was “inclined” to support it.  The Administration was doing its due diligence and appeared on the cusp of approving it when the State of Nebraska, at the 11^th hour, called a special session of its citizen legislature to discuss passing a law to give it a better say over the location of the pipeline.  Something the state should have done long ago.

Citizens clearly had concerns about the pipeline crossing their aquifer, and while their approach to protesting was irresponsible at best, it didn’t change the fact that so many of them wanted a different route.  So the president responsibly said we should move the line.  That, by law, restarts the process of environmental assessments, delaying the project by a year or more.

It seems likely the president will approve the line once the new application takes its due course.  There is no reason to deny the Keystone XL pipeline.  We have pipes criss-crossing our country.  Some environmentalists want us to deny it because of the impact of tar sands production in Canada on carbon emissions, but implementing climate change on a case-by-case basis is horrible policy.  And when you take into account that it’s a global pollutant that needs attention by dozens of nations, the idea of applying restrictions ad hoc seems even more ludicrous.

But the GOP would have you believe Obama is opposed to the pipeline and drilling, but this is not reality.  Obama's five-year drilling plan opens huge new areas in the Gulf and the Arctic.  Also remember that unilaterally, without a hint of quid pro quo, he opened the Eastern U.S to exploration.  Obama has, due to the BP spill, removed this from his plan until companies can prove they can contain a major spill in the Atlantic, but it doesn't negate the fact that Obama is willing to drill where we are technologically and environmentally ready to drill.

Now let’s look at BP.  The Republicans screamed about the moratorium on drilling.  Is it a good idea to start drilling again when we have no idea if we can respond to a large spill in a timely manner?  As soon as the oil majors put a credible plan forward, permits began flowing.  In fact, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management restarted drilling without proper compliance with numerous environmental laws, for which BOEM is now being sued.  They also have allowed resumed drilling with the knowledge that the blowout preventer fleet is dangerously inadequate, a true disaster waiting to happen.  Do these sound like the actions of an administration that is against drilling?  

Republicans are betting that when it comes to traditional energy jobs and energy independence, they offer the clear choice.  My guess is that many voters will see the truth: we have a president committed to fossil fuel production.