Tuesday, February 13, 2007

* So about this gay basketball player...

Some of you may have heard about John Amaechi, a former NBA player from 1998-2003 who recently published a book saying he's gay. More specifically, a lot of responses have come from this. Here is one from Chris Broussard, from espn.com. I've been waiting for a response like this regarding a Christian who has gay friends.... "...here's where I stand: I'm a born-again, Bible-believing Christian (no, I'm not a member of the Religious Right). And I'm against homosexuality (I believe it's a sin) and same-sex marriage. But before you label me "homophobic," know that I'm against any type of sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman. That includes heterosexual fornication (premarital sex). Some cats in the NBA run around, sleeping with different women in every city -- I don't agree with their lifestyles. Some players run around, cheating on their wives -- I don't agree with their lifestyles. It's all wrong to me and against the Biblical teachings I believe in. I'm saying all that to say that if I can play basketball with a homosexual, just about anyone can. I've played in several rec leagues with LZ Granderson, who is an openly gay writer at ESPN The Magazine. I consider LZ a friend. I've gone out to lunch with him, talked music, sports, politics and lots of other things with him. I greet him with a handshake and a hug, just like I greet lots of other guys. By the way, LZ can ball. In a league in New York City that features several former college players, we both made the All-Star team. He was kind of like our Shawn Marion minus the dunks (though he claims he can still slam!) and I was like our Gilbert Arenas (high game of 39, thank you). Anyway, when we play in our rec league games, I give him high fives and hugs. Same with one of his friends who is on the team and also gay. When we're on the court trying to get a win -- or in the office talking about a story, for that matter -- his sexuality is not an issue. Granted, I don't shower with LZ after games like NBA teammates do, and I'll admit that if I had to, it might be a little uncomfortable at first. But if a gay player just goes about his business in the shower, showing that he has no sexual interest in his teammates and that he's not "checking them out," I think the awkwardness would wear off fairly quickly. LZ and I know where each other stand and we respect each other's right to believe as he does. I know he's gay, and he knows I believe that's a sin. I know he thinks I get my moral standards from an outdated, mistranslated book, and he knows I believe he needs to change his lifestyle. Still, we can laugh together, and play ball together. That's real diversity. Disagreeing but not being disagreeable. For the record, I covered Amaechi as a beat writer for the Akron Beacon-Journal when he was a rookie playing for the Cleveland Cavaliers. I like John. He's intelligent, nice and you can have good conversation with him. I haven't seen him in several years but if I saw him today, I'd smile and give him a hug. I think dinner with him would be a blast, with lots of great discussion/debate about race, politics, religion, Africa and yes, sexuality. Since Amaechi came out, I've read lots of columns about being "progressive." The implication -- or outright assertion -- being that anyone who believes homosexuality is wrong is not progressive or enlightened. That's where this thing becomes problematic, because those who hold to that view are saying I must change my entire belief system/religion because of your belief system. Where's the diversity in that? Those folks don't want diversity. They want everyone to agree with their "enlightened" opinion. Look, I'll accept your right to have your own belief system and to live as you please, but I'm not changing mine. Diversity is not just accepting alternatives to what has long been perceived as normal, but it's accepting the significant number of people who hold to longstanding "traditional" beliefs as well. Millions of Christians who follow the Bible -- and Muslims who follow the Koran and Jews who follow the Torah, as well as many non-religious Americans -- believe homosexuality is wrong. That doesn't mean they're unenlightened. That just means their moral code doesn't fluctuate based on society's ever-changing standards. As long as we're not being violent toward one another, as long as we can be civil, everything should be fine. We don't have to agree. And please don't compare being homosexual to being black. I consider that insulting to blacks for a number of reasons. The fact that some blacks make the comparison themselves only shows how crushed our racial esteem has become because of America's oppression (witness our insistence on calling ourselves the n-word). You can't hide your skin color, choose your skin color, change your skin color, or switch your skin color back and forth. Some argue that you can't do that with your sexuality either, but there are many scientists on both sides of the genetic debate, and I believe a truly objective person would admit the biological evidence for homosexuality is far from definitive. Nor has the Bible, the Koran or the Torah ever associated a particular skin color with sin (it was only racist whites who twisted the Scriptures 400 years ago who did that, never the Bible itself). I'm not trying to get into a religious or scientific discussion here, I'm just saying that some people will accept homosexuality as fine and others will not. Some will write me off as a bigot for this article, but folks, this is real talk. Unfortunately, we can't have real talk in America nowadays. Whites can't voice their real opinions -- no matter how legitimate -- about race for fear of being called racist, and everyone's afraid of offending anyone. It seems the only person who can be openly criticized, or disagreed with, is the President. How crazy is that? Until we can honestly hear each other out -- and be civil while doing so -- we won't get anywhere. One thing I hope this article does is encourage people to have frank discussions about sensitive issues such as this one. Here's the bottom line: if I can accept working side-by-side with a homosexual, then he/she can accept working side-by-side with someone who believes homosexuality is wrong. If an NBA player can accept playing with a homosexual, then the homosexual must accept playing with guys who don't agree with his lifestyle. Believe me, when the ball goes up, his sexual preference isn't going to matter...." Comments?

Tuesday, February 6, 2007

* Sports - If I was commish

Now for something completely different: As many of you know I'm pretty passionate about sports. Baseball, football, basketball, hockey... I may not remember my differential calculus but I can recite the lineup of the 86 Mets in my sleep!

So here's a question: if you were named Commissioner of any of the major sports, what 5 changes would you make?

For me, I'd start with baseball, my first love. And a sport lost to Pittsburgh...

1.) Institute a salary structure - and not just a revenue tax or even a salary cap. In addition to both I would institute a full blown salary floor (each team must spend a minumum amount) and if you can't meet that minimum, your team will be demoted to the minor leagues the following year. What's more, to be eligible for revenue sharing, you must stay in the major leagues (considering how much $$$ was spent on FAs last year that's a lot of money to leave on the table). Nothing is an incentive QUITE like losing $$$. Plus this handles issues like too many teams, etc. Also, as a nod to Toronto for the canadian dollar, I would compensate their share based on the US/Canadian dollar ratio.

2.) To help break into the market share of the larger cities I would move some teams, and realign the divisions. Namely, Tampa Bay to Connecticut; Oakland to San Jose; and Kansas City to Sacramento. Then I would place Sacramento to the AL West and move the Milwaukee Brewers back to the AL Central. We now have 6 5 team divisions as opposed to the current setup of 6 team division, 1 4 team division and 4 team divisions.

Also, I'd keep the name A's (now San Jose) and Kings (now Sacramento - yes the city will have 2 Kings teams.). Connecticut however should have a new name...

3.) We're losing a whole generation of fans to night time baseball, particularly the post-season. No games start after 6pm, and unlike football the time between innings will NOT increase due to increased ads - have a ticker like they do in soccer.

4.) With each record that was set between 1994-2005 (the associated "steroid" era) I would place an asterick near each record. Yes, we are innocent until proven guilty, but with each new finding, there are less and less innocent. Roger Maris endured an asterick, so should the others.

5.) To prevent the wild card from winning the WS so much, restructure the playoffs like this: Each league will have 3 division winners and 2 teams make the wild card. The 2 teams with the WORSE records (wild card or division) play a 1 game play-in, with the other 3 teams on "bye". The divisional round starts THE NEXT DAY. This prevents lower teams from resetting their rotations, etc. So the teams have to travel that day as well. And if you play in a strong division you should not be punished.

What do you think? I'll post similar ones for the other 3 sports...