I've seen a number of different commentators discussing the President's conservatism or lack there of recently. Count me among those who will probably not be voting for him this fall.
The _only_ reason I would consider voting for him is that, unlike most of the Democratic candidates, he's serious about defeating terrorism. (And even there, I question some of the means he's using.) In a close election, I would probably vote for him, but he'll have to greatly improve in the next year to get my vote.
As Walter Williams once said: "I'm for a tax cut for anyone, at any time, for any reason."
Government should never take more money than it absolutely, positively needs. There's no reason for a state Delaware's size to have an annual budget of two billion dollars. This should be considered a minimum cut.
Let me begin by establishing my past views of Pete. I came of age as a baseball fan soon after Pete joined the Phillies in 1979. (The earliest baseball season I remember is 1980.) I grew up in Wilmington, Delaware and so the Phillies are my hometown team. I quickly grew attached to Pete Rose, believing (wrongly) that he was easily the best player on the team. (Hey, I was 6.)
I also root for the Cincinnati Reds, solely because Pete played for them before and after his stint with the Phillies. I was really upset when the Phillies traded Pete to the Expos, so much so that I didn't root for them, and actively rooted against then, until the 1993 team. (How could you not love those guys?) Once the Reds reacquired Pete, they were immediately my favorite team until the combination of the '93 Phillies and Marge Schott's antics reordered my priorities.
When he was banned from baseball in 1989, it broke my heart. I didn't follow baseball until well into 1990 when I realized that "my" Reds were running away with the division and ultimately won the World Series.
As my resentment diminished, and I matured, I was able to look upon Pete more objectively. I learned about his apparent multiple affairs, alleged abuse of stimulants and read the Dowd Report
. Clearly this was not a man worth emulating.
To this day, I still keep a picture of him in a Phillies uniform in my cubicle at work. On the field, he played the game the way should be played -- he played hard every second of every game.
However, there is one cardinal rule in baseball: Rule 21(d), which is posted in every clubhouse in the major and minor league clubhouse:
BETTING ON BALL GAMES. Any player, umpire, or club official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has no duty to perform shall be declared ineligible for one year.
Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible.
He has finally admitted to violating the 2nd part of that rule: he bet on his own team. He only admitted that after 14 years of lies and 14 years of attacks on those who said what he now admits is the truth.
Some people have said that he's apologized for doing wrong. He hasn't; he's apologized for the results of his actions, not for the actions themselves. Even though the rule states the player shall be "permanently ineligible," we might be willing to give someone time off for good behavior. Pete's actions since his banishment have not been examples of good behavior.
In his book (which I haven't read), he apparently states that he knows now he had a sickness which drove him to bet on baseball. Why should he be returned to the game when he still indulges that sickness by continuing to gamble? How can he be sure that this "sickness" won't lead right back to the same problems?
How can we expect future players/managers/etc. to abide by the rules when we let Pete off the hook? Permanently ineligible must continue to mean permanently ineligible.
As much as it's hurt me to see one of my idols destroyed, he must not be allowed back into baseball. The integrity of the game demands it.
Posting in this blog will be about anything that strikes my fancy and gets me riled up.
Likely topics include:
- Politics (I'd especially like to focus on Delaware politics)
- Catholicism (from an orthodox point of view)
You can respond using the comments links below each post. Enjoy!
Haven't really gotten going on this yet. Check back later.