Rutgers women’s basketball lost chance

Recently, the UConn women achieved an unprecedented milestone in College Basketball as they won their 89th straight game.  Much of this streak can be attributed to UConn’s great coach, Geno Auriemma, and the ability to recruit great players, such as Maya Moore from Gwinnett County, Georgia.  Maya Moore also represents how far UConn’s program has distanced itself from rivals such as Tennessee.  In fact, Pat Summit is likely so scared of facing a Maya Moore-led UConn team, that she stopped the annual game between UConn and Tennessee.  Summit can always use the argument that Geno used illegal recruiting of Maya, but she’s really jealous that UConn raided territory that Tennessee was already robbing from Andy Landers of Georgia for years, so Summit’s argument falls flat.

In addition to distancing from national rivals such as Tennessee, UConn has also distanced itself from the rest of the Big East conference, such as Rutgers.  In fact, since UConn began its winning streak, Rutgers has been not much more than a speed bump.  This is sad considering four seasons ago Rutgers came within one game of winning a National Championship losing to Tennessee.  C. Vivian Stringer was the toast of Women’s College Basketball and could have used the game and the rise of the Rutgers program to recruit players like Moore to push Rutgers over the hump, supplant UConn as the Big Dog of the Big East, and finally win a title.

Instead, we all know what happened… Radio shock jock Don Imus made a stupid remark and Stringer wanted Imus’s head.  Joined by Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton (both of whom were running away from the Duke Lacrosse rape story that was imploding in their faces), Stringer won the battle to get Don Imus fired from MSNBC and his national radio program.  But has Stringer been able to recruit National 5-star recruits to her program?  Not really, in part because Stringer thought more of her ego more to fire Imus than trying to use the 2007 season to bring more top-rated players to compete with UConn.  Rutgers is further away from a National Championship program that it has ever been.  In fact, now they are more of middle-of-the-road team in the improving Big East—check the current standings.  Stringer is slowly becoming the new Andy Landers—great coach, occasionally making a deep run every once in a while, but not able to win the Big One or build a consistent National program.

Imus ultimately got back on the radio and Cable TV (now on Fox Business), so all the efforts Stringer made to get Imus fired from radio eventually came to naught, although Imus’s audience is much smaller than the minute audience he had at MSNBC.

If Stringer had made more of a push to get Maya Moore and had won the Maya Moore recruiting sweepstakes, UConn would not have won all those games in a row and back-to-back titles.  In fact, we might be doing HBO Real Sports features on how Stringer is a great coach and how she was able to finally overcome the UConn juggernaut and National Title hurdles.  Instead, Geno is the toast of Women’s College BB, and Maya Moore is turning out to be a women who can do anything she wants after college.  I suspect she will go into politics and become an amazing congresswoman some day.  It’s clear she has a huge fan in the Oval Office.  There’s no guarantee UConn’s winning streak will continue or UConn can win three in a row, but Geno and Maya have raised the standard of Women’s BB to a point that even Rutgers can’t follow.

On Thursday (12/30), Rutgers will play at Tennessee in a re-match of the 2007 Title Game.  But even that game will be overshadowed by a bigger women’s college game taking place later in the evening – UConn putting their streak on the line at Stanford, the last team to beat UConn.  I am sure C. Vivian Stringer is not happy to have such a significant game dwarfed by UConn.  But you had a chance, Coach Stringer, to step up to even bigger national prominence and you blew it on a stupid shock jock.

The Graying Democratic Party

Now that the midterm elections have ended, analysis has been pouring in as to what happened, what should happen next, and what it all means.  But there is an underlying current in this election that has not been exposed on a massive level:  age.  Once upon a time, the Democrats used age as a issue to try and vote out Republicans who were “old and out of touch”.  However, when you look at the age issue now, the Democrats appear to be the geriatric party. 

To be fair, the two oldest House members of the 111th Congress are Republicans, but then look at composition of House members above the age of 70.  36 are Democrats, compared with just 18 Republicans.  And it’s not just the fact that the 36 Democrats are old; these Democratic members compromise most of the House leadership and committee chairmanships.  Nationally recognized Democratic figures like John Dingle, John Conyers, Charlie Rangel, Pete Stark, Ike Skelton, Maxine Waters, Henry Waxman, departing David Obey, Barney Frank, John Lewis, and the three biggest Democratic leaders (Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, and Jim Clyburn) are all 70 or older.  What’s worse is that some of the youngest members of the Democratic caucus were defeated in the mid-term election (most notable locally, one Frank Kratovil from Maryland).  Compare to the younger Republicans leaders:  Dave Camp (future Ways and Means Chairman) is 57, Darrell Issa (future Oversight Committee Chairman) is 57, Paul Ryan (future Budget Committee Chairman) is 40, likely Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy is 45, and incoming Majority Leader Eric Cantor is 47.  Even Speaker of the House, John Boehner is relatively young at 60.  Only Jerry Lewis appears to be the oldest of the possible incoming Republican leadership at 76, but there’s no guarantee he will get back a committee chairmanship he once held because of Republican rules.

And it’s not just the House when the Republican youth movement is being seen.  Look at the U.S. Senate.  The three oldest senators who survived the midterm elections are Democratic (and that doesn’t include Arlen Spector who was voted out or Robert Byrd who died in office at the age of 92).  Then look at the Republicans who are incoming to the US Senate.  Marco Rubio from Florida is 39.  Mark Kirk from Illinois is 51.  Rand Paul from Kentucky is relatively young as well.  Now, the Democratic Party may still be overall younger in the Senate, but if they are, it’s not by much.

And then there is the Governor’s mansions.   Perhaps the biggest turnover of the night from Republican governor to Democratic governor was in California and it was accomplished by 70+ year old Jerry Brown, who once upon a time was the youngest Governor in the State’s history.  Of course, the White House is occupied by a young President Obama, but if something happens to him, old Joe Biden is waiting in the wings.

But it’s not just Democrats in Washington.  One of the staunchest allies to the party is the NAACP.  And although their leader is young, the Executive Board (most notably one Julian Bond) is comprised of some of Dr. King’s lieutenants in the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s.  Jesse Jackson is now at least in his late 60s as well.

And it appears to be a worldwide movement to go to younger leaders.  In Great Britain, the leaders of the three main parties are all in their 40s, including the defeated Labor Party who jettisoned 59-year old Gordon Brown after their losses.  Even the repressive North Korean regime is looking at a 29-year old successor to the man I mockingly refer to as “Lil’ Kim”. 

The Democratic caucus, particularly in the House, will need to get younger leaders soon.  Heath Shuler is making an attempt to take the top leadership away from Nancy Pelosi.  But for now, perhaps the Democratic caucus will not refer to Republicans as “old white dudes”.  Maybe just “white dudes” at least until younger leaders like Chris Van Hollen and Heath Shuler are ready to take over.

Why the 2010 midterm elections are important

I know this is going to sound like a political statement in favor of Republicans or Democrats, but it is not.  My goal in this posting of Rogue Corner is to explain why these mid-term elections are more critical than any other mid-term since 1990.  At stake is the potential configuration of state legislatures and U.S. Congressional Districts for the next 5 election cycles.  In addition, the usual nature of the U.S. Senate configuration will cause major headaches for both parties in the next three cycles.

As many of you know, every 10 years the U.S. is required by laws to take a census of U.S. citizens to determine the population and where funding should go.  In addition, the Census data is used in many instances to draw Legislative districts in State houses.  But the big key is that as part of the re-drawing of districts, U.S. House of Representatives districts are drawn, and the party that controls the state legislatures in many instances draws the districts in their party’s favor.  This is important in states which add or lose Representatives.  Districts could be drawn to force two congressman from the same party to battle for one spot.  Or new or existing districts could be gerrymandered to guarantee the congress people favors one party.  Don’t believe me?  Check out Maryland’s congressional map, particularly the 2nd and 3rd districts.

There is also Senate ramifications that could spell big trouble for the Democrats in 2012 and 2014 and a huge problem for the Republicans in 2016.  If the Republicans win 8 Senate seats from Democrat control in this cycle (and not NY and WV), the Democrats and their allies will be forced to defend 43 seats in the next 2 elections, compared with a mere 23 for Republicans.  But that also means the Republicans will be forced to defend 26 seats in a Presidential election in 2016, compared with just 8 Democrat seats.  Like I said, it’s headaches for both sides.

What I’m trying to say is no matter your political affiliation, please remember to vote, whether you have already early voted or will vote on Tuesday.  I have no compassion for those who complain about the elections, but refuse to exercise their Constitutional right to vote.

Why most Yankee fans are/should be Democrats…

Many people know Keith Olbermann as the unabashed and combative liberal host of MSNBC’s Countdown show weeknights at 8 pm/ET.  But what many people may or may not know is that Keith is also one of the New York Yankee’s most visible fans.  Seems like an oxymoron that Olbermann, a person who rails against the rich and says they should be taxed heavily would support the richest team in baseball.  I mean, why doesn’t Keith support the Kansas City Royals or San Diego Padres?  And yet, when you look at the Yankees, why wouldn’t Keith be a Yankee fan and a liberal Democrat.  After all, the Democrats have been good to the Yankees – or at least Democratic Presidents have.  Could the real reason that Keith Olbermann is a liberal Democrat have more to do with Keith’s love of the Yankees than his actual beliefs?  It sounds crazy, but when you look at the statistics, it’s not as crazy as you think.

In the 100+ years of World Series play, the Yankees are baseball’s most successful franchise.  They have won over a quarter of the World Series, and almost 40% of the American League Championships.  But, when you look closer, some interesting statistics related to politics show up:

--Since the World Series came into existence in 1903, there have been 57 World Series played under Republican presidents and 48 under Democratic chief executives.  The Yankee’s winning percentage under Republican presidents is just under 56%.  Under Democrats, their winning percentage goes up to over 58%.  The Yankees have made 23 World Series appearances under Democrats and 17 appearances under Republicans.

--In terms of championships, the Yankees have won 20 World Series under the Dems, but just 7 under the Reps.  Translated that means the Yankees have won over 40% of the titles Team Donkey has controlled the Presidency, but just about 12% of the titles when Team Elephant has ruled.

--The Yankees have won their last 7 World Series Appearances under a Democratic administration (last loss occurred in 1964), but even more interesting is they have won each of the last 4 years of Democratic rule (last 3 years Clinton was in charge and the first year under Obama).  New York has lost their last 5 World Series Appearances under a Republican administration (last title occurred in 1958).

In short, considering 2010 is a year that the Democrats control 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and that the Yankees are just 8 wins away from Title #28, are we about to see the same end result that we have the last four times this scenario has played out?  Don’t bet against it.

Having rights v. executing those rights

One of the most emotionally charged issues has finally reached the Supreme Court.  It is the case of Snyder v. Phelps, a case that has forced many to take uncomfortable positions.  And if you think you have figured out what side I’m taking in this fight… well, that’s why I call this blog “Rogue Corner”.

The case of Snyder v. Phelps concerns a protest by the Westboro Baptist Church against a Marine funeral in 2006 in Maryland.  The father of the fallen Marine (Al Snyder) heard about the protest, saw it on tape, then found that the members of the church had posted hate about his son and family on-line.  It was too much.  Snyder sued the church, won a multi-million dollar judgment, only to have the judgment overturned on appeal.  Now, the case has reached the highest court in the land.  At stake:  future definition of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.

To be fair, I don’t have kind words to say about the Westboro Baptist Church.  This “church”, led by a former civil-rights attorney named Fred Phelps, is at least 2/3 related.  Even folks from Appalachia think this group is largely “in-breds”.  Over the years, they have shown up at funerals from Matthew Shephard to Mr. Rogers to soldiers who died in combat.  They’ve even shown up at Comic Con in San Diego recently.  They have single-handedly brought together political opposites from Keith Olbermann and Bill O’Reilly to Michael Moore and Fox News, who have all tried to use the media to shame this church into changing their tune.  In filing a friend of the Plaintiff’s brief, 48 states’ attorneys (Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals alike) joined together to try and influence the Supreme Court to basically bankrupt this group of bigoted and hypocritical bullies.

So you would think the Supreme Court should vote 9-0 against Fred Phelps and his Jack-booted followers, right?  Not in my eyes.  And apparently not in the eyes of the ACLU, and many national newspapers, from the New York Times to the Wall Street Journal.  We all are arguing the same point:  their language is despicable, and it would be best if they would go away, but they have rights to speak whatever vile they wish.  And, if I am allowed to go further, Al Snyder did go looking for Westboro blogs about what they had to say about him and his family.  That was a mistake, and I think it’s this will ultimately cost Al Snyder at the Supreme Court.  (Side note:  me siding with the ACLU on a freedom of speech issue?  You’d think my name was John Parks Brown!)

Look, saying to someone “God hates you” or “God is angry with you” stings people (and nobody knows that better than me how it feels).  But at the same time, if we had a right to sue for people saying vile things about us, former President George W. Bush would supplant Carlos Slim as the richest man on earth.  It shouldn’t be a reason to start down a dark path where freedom of speech could be compromised.  We already had a stupid court decision in the last ten years with the Kelo case and eminent domain.  Ruling against Westboro would be a bigger mistake, and I think the court should rule in the Phelps favor, although they’ll probably hold their noses in doing so.  Remember, the Supreme Court has allowed Nazis to march through the Jewish Chicago suburb of Skokie, IL in the past.

That doesn’t mean we should tolerate this church in our communities.  The Comic Con folks had a great approach:  dish it back and mock these protesters.  Maybe one day this church will get the message:  just because you have the right to protest doesn’t mean you should execute that right often.

Slots at Arundel Mills… Can I tell both sides to piss off?

In this political season where we are seeing what is a growing tidal wave of anti-incumbent fever, one issue has boiled my blood.  It’s an issue that has been years in the making, has seen incompetence from politicians and horse racing owners, greed from entertainment moguls, stupidity from people assuming that the politicians and entertainment moguls would do the right thing, a court system attempting to bypass a recall system, and a campaign that has come up with misleading one-line slogans, such as “Jobs and Revenue” and “Safer streets”.  I am talking about the vote to Build a Slots Parlor at Arundel Mills Mall, which has been allowed via the Maryland Constitution.  And both sides need to be taken to task.

To summarize how we got to this stupid point, let’s review the history…  In 2007, after years of trying to legalize slots to help the sagging horse racing industry, the Maryland legislature decided that they didn’t want the responsibility to try and pass slots (mainly because Maryland Speaker Michael Busch wouldn’t bring slots up for a vote), so they put the decision in the hands of voters via a Constitutional Amendment.  The Amendment mandated specific locations for the slots to be placed:  Cecil County, Western Maryland Mountains, near Ocean City, Baltimore City, and Anne Arundel County.  And to ensure passage by voters, the legislature tied school funding, union concessions, and police and fire money to the slots, which was initially designed to save horse racing.  Naturally, it passed with about 60%.

With the amendment passed, bids were opened in 2009.  The Maryland Legislature hoped for a windfall just on the bidding process.  Unfortunately, due to the economy and the fact that other nearby states already had slots and were pushing table games, the bidding process was a disaster.  In Anne Arundel County, it was assumed that Laurel Racetrack would be the winner.  However, the owners of Laurel did not place their bid in time nor did they meet the minimum bid.

Enter Frank Cordish, entertainment mogul with an idea:  build a slots parlor near the popular Arundel Mills Mall.  Cordish put forward a proposal that was on time and met the requirements of the bidding process.  Naturally, the bid from the Cordish group was selected and the Anne Arundel County Council voted to support the Cordish bid.

That’s when residents near Arundel Mills Mall got involved.  They obviously hated the idea of a gambling place near their Single Family Home neighborhoods, and, with the help of the Horse Racing Industry, organized a petition to force the Slots Proposal on the ballot.  They got well over the necessary signatures.  Cordish sued claiming (1) most of the signatures were fake and (2) the petition process was illegal to begin with.  Cordish won the legal case at the County level, but the Maryland Supreme Court reversed the lower court ruling, forcing the ballot question.

The campaign has been a mess.  The slots opponents maintained their simple message:  no slots at the Mall, and put the slots at Laurel Racetrack.  The Cordish group has kept it to simple one-liners:  Jobs and Revenue, Safer Streets, Lower Taxes, and Better Schools.  The supporters have even had the chutzpah to place giant signs at Arundel Mills telling people it’s about Jobs and Revenue.  I’m sure residents fume at seeing those signs on a daily basis.

So why am I pissed at both sides?  Simple.  To slots opponents at Arundel Mills, many of them voted in 2008 to legalize slots.  Now they’re upset that Cordish is within the constitutional right to put slots in their neighborhood?  Sorry, hypocrites, but you voted to allow the possibility in the first place.  If slots pass, you’ll just have to deal with it.

As for Cordish, you’re one-liners are full of misinterpretations.  Slots at the Mall will NOT lower taxes or provide safer streets.  It could bring in a criminal element (like it has done in the past).  Better schools is just a pipe dream in a state that already has some of the nation’s best public schools.  And your key point of Providing Jobs and Revenue?  Legalizing prostitution would provide Jobs and Revenue, but you don’t see Marylanders voting for that (oh wait, we already have legalized prostitution in Maryland… it’s called ANNAPOLIS LOBBYISTS!!!)

The games that have been played over the slots issue has been an embarrassment and I have had enough.  Can we eliminate the biggest reason for slots and just put the Preakness up for sale to the highest out-of-state bidder yet?

AT&T caught in 4G crossfire…

This may be one of the few times to feel bad for the Telecom giant AT&T.  Sure, AT&T is a juggernaut in the telecommunication world, particularly with regards to wireless and cable.  AT&T is the sole provider of the iPhone and iPad in the US, two devices that are must haves.  Also, AT&T has the largest network in America in terms of coverage.  And AT&T’s U-Verse is a very formidable cable standard that is gaining in popularity.

But AT&T’s cellular market has taken a hit in recent years as the giant has struggled to provide 3G speeds, particularly in urban areas where iPhone usage has strained the network.  And now, AT&T seems to be lagging in a growing 3-way battle for pre-4G supremacy.  AT&T’s attempts to split the difference may provide turbulence over the next 4 years.

In one corner is Sprint and Clear, who started the 4G war by launching WiMAX 2 years ago in Baltimore.  Though the network stopped and started over the last two years, it now has a good base of customers and devices.  WiMAX may ultimately not survive, but it will be a force at least for the next 1-2 years.

The second corner is occupied by T-Mobile.  T-Mobile has all but officially supplanted AT&T as the fastest 3G network as their HSPA+ network has rapidly spread across the nation.  While AT&T is still modernizing their networks, T-Mobile has put in advanced infrastructure making upgrades to HSPA+ faster via software only, providing speeds that match and, in some cases, exceed WiMAX.  HSPA+ is a cheap alternative to WiMAX and LTE technology, as T-Mobile waits for the arrival of true 4G technologies.

The third corner is occupied by Verizon Wireless and MetroPCS.  MetroPCS has just launched LTE with Verizon following suit later this year.  Both had to go with LTE, considering that their technology was not keeping up with AT&T’s speeds.  Upgrading to LTE surpasses AT&T’s current network speed.

So what is AT&T’s plan?  Right now, AT&T is trying to upgrade to HSPA+ in some areas and LTE in others over the next two years.  In addition, AT&T will probably push Femtocells to help saturate coverage and close the speed gap.  Over the next couple of years, AT&T will likely be playing catch-up with more nimble competitors.  Don’t plan AT&T’s funeral yet, though.  AT&T has the resources to be the likely forerunner of true 4G when it arrives in 2013 or 2014.

For now, Apple is AT&T’s best friend.  As long as the iPhone and iPad maintain their status and are exclusive to AT&T, AT&T is fine.