Baseball and civility

A couple of days ago, a fight broke out between Texas Rangers players and fans in Oakland. During the melee, a player, Frank Francisco, threw a plastic chair in the stands and hit a woman in the nose, injuring her. Her husband, who had started the whole thing by heckling, was standing in front of his wife to "protect" her. When he saw the chair coming, he ducked, and the chair hit his wife in the face instead.

While I feel strongly that it was totally wrong for that chair to be thrown ("Hey, Mom, look! Just like Bobby Knight!"), it's hard to have sympathy for a fan who has season tickets over the opposing team's bullpen just to heckle the players.

And what kind of wuss is he -- "protecting" his wife by standing in front of her, but ducking when the chair was thrown? Unlike her, he saw it coming. Perhaps if he's stood his ground and been "a man" he would have been able to deflect it or catch it. Fans who act like that, though, are a bunch of losers, but so are players who let themselves get sucked into a fight.

Good grief! IT'S A GAME, people! Lighten up! Those players get obscene amounts of money to play a non-contact sport. (Well, unless you're playing in Oakland, apparently.) Fans pay to watch the game -- it seems to me they should be watching and appreciating their own team's playing abilities, not spending their time trying to anger the other team. Do they do this at Little League games, too?

Sportsmanship not only includes players, but should include fan conduct. Certainly a little heckling is expected, but it seems to me that it should be reactionary to the play on the field. That's what was good about the Brett Boone quotes you used -- it showed how fans will react.

But to go specifically to heckle the other team? Huh. That's just plain stupid. (And yes, the "s" word is a "jail word" in our house. But sometimes, there's just not a better word....)

I would enjoy being the judge on this one, but wouldn't it have been even more fun to see this one go into night court?

(former) President Clinton & his bypass surgery

I was dismayed and worried today when the news about Bill Clinton's heart disease unfolded. It was especially worrisome the way it was done, of course, with the news flash, "Former President Clinton in hospital with chest pains!" screamed the notes.

But as it all shook out, it turns out that things are very much under control, and that the recommended quadruple bypass surgery was recommended, and will be performed, before any heart attack could occur. So of course he's in the hospital, he's getting ready for surgery.

Naturally Senator Clinton, and Chelsea, went to be with him, and, naturally, Hillary made a statement. But I slapped my desk and cried, "Go, Hillary!" when I read this quote:

“... We’re delighted we have good health insurance. That makes a big difference. And I hope someday everybody will be able to say the same thing.”

Health care remains at a crisis in this country, and the Republicans, who now have a president who seems to be vaguely pledging to actually do something about affordable health care, without mentioning how to pay for it or when, spent eight years fighting reasonable health care reform, and insulting the First Lady.

I am praying for Bill Clinton, as should everyone. No matter how common bypass surgery is, there is always a risk. I don't think this country is ready to lose Bill Clinton.

It's too bad he won't be able to campaign for John Kerry for a while. But. perhaps, this will slow down the critics from saying nasty things about Clinton, and indirectly help the Kerry-Edwards campaign.

Washington's primary system

A confusing, irritating in its negativity flyer came out last week from the Secretary of State, "explaining" the ballot for the September primary. The Supreme Court a few months ago that the established blanket primary was unconstitutional. This was at the behest of the three major parties in the state, since they felt that it detracted from their ability to field the party's most effective candidate in the general election.

The current Secretary of State dislikes the Montana system, where a person votes only one party, but no record of which party the voter chooses is kept, and favors the Louisiana system, which effectively annhialates the parties by having the general election be between the top two vote getters regardless of party affiliation.

Certainly in a democratic society this is a good system, but we are not a democracy, we are a republic. The primaries are mainly designed to let the voters help the parties select their candidate for the general election.

What is amusing is that the Secretary of State's office is suddenly being flooded with angry callers. The Supreme Court ruled on this months ago -- and the legislature has been busy working to try to find a reasonable solution for this primary. People are just now finding this out? Too much time watching CNN and MSNBC and not enough time reading the PI and Times, perhaps.

As far as I can tell, the Secretary of State's responsibility is to make sure the election is fair, legal, and that every citizen have every chance to cast their ballots. It is the legislature's responsibility to set policy, not the Secretary of State's.

I confess I have a hard time understanding what the fuss is about. I have lived where not only one has to register by party, but it was binding at the point. The poll workers themselves had access to a voter's primary history, and the power to refuse a voter the ballot of their choice, based on history, if they felt the voter was trying to cross over for nefarious purposes. I have lived where the primary was in the fall, held well after caucuses and caused the parties confusion when the party's endorsed candidate did not not win the primary.

I could argue that even having a fall primary is a disadvantage -- while it may be fine to select state candidates, the voters do not have a choice in selecting a presidential candidate, since the party conventions are held in the summer. A fall primary makes for a shorter campaign season, but in reality it seems to most favor the candidates with the biggest coffers.

I will be voting in September, and I will be comfortable voting on the Democrat's ballot. I am also supporting a different candidate for secretary of state, someone who is more interested in preserving the integrity of the votes that are cast than in bickering over what system is used.

One alternative has not been raised -- eliminate the cost of a primary, and select candidates merely by caucus. That way the parties themselves endure the entire cost of the selection process.

President John Kerry

This morning my 3rd grade daughter was discussing living a long time, to 100 and beyond. I mentioned that my grandmother is turning 100 next year.

My husband, who is Australian, said, "Too bad she's not living in Australia, she would get a letter of congratulations from the Queen. See how much fun it is to live in a commonwealth country?"

I called out from the bathroom, "When someone turns 100 here they can get a letter from the president."

My daughter proclaimed, "Good! She will get a letter next year from John Kerry and John Edwards!"