July Sucks

July is the worst month of the year. Why do I say that? There is no basketball, football, or meaningful baseball. After the NBA Finals and the majority of Wimbledon in June, July comes along with nothing. To top off a pointless July, even golf blows because Tiger is out for the year, making the British Open about as exciting as an Algebra class. Not only does the sports schedule come up empty, the temperatures get to the point of ridiculous. Since skipping July isn't an option, we need the NBA to start a month later so they can end their season towards the end of July and MLB can shorten its season so the playoffs start in the first part of August, ending just around the time football season starts. There, I've solved the scheduling dilemma that leaves fans stuck watching lame inspirational stories on ESPN for a month and a half. Fortunately, since this change won't happen anytime soon, this summer provides earlier relief with the Olympics starting in August, but waiting every 4 years for the pain to stop a month early isn't all that consoling. Instead of locking up terrorist suspects in Guantanamo, we should start the Roman Coliseum sports again, with terrorist gladiators trying to win their freedom. That could be a year around sport. If we ever catch Osama, we could give him a shovel and have him fight Kimbo Slice, and to make sure it doesn't go to waste, we could save this event for July.

Politicians act like little girls

The New Yorker released its newest magazine today and the cover has created quite the controversy. The artist and the magazine say they were just incorporating all of the rumors about Obama and his wife into one piece of satire, but Obama isn't okay with that explanation. McCain immediately condemned the magazine--I'm sure he thought it was hilarious--playing the political game the way he has to. Did the New Yorker cross the line? When it comes to satire and humor, are the restrictions greater when dealing with an African American? I don't think the picture is out of line; the only reason it has provoked outrage is because its depicting a black man and woman in a demeaning light--that and it's related to an election. President Bush gets mocked in ways as bad or worse regularly and neither the White House, the Obama camp, nor anyone else condemns such political satire. Why should this instance be treated any differently? The fact that Obama is venturing where no other black man has in American politics shouldn't spare him from the same type of treatment that any other politician faces, and his response is disappointing. For supposedly running a different type of campaign and practicing a different kind of politics, his response is sadly typical. The freedom to make fun of politicians is part of what makes America different than much of the world, and as a contender to lead our country, Obama should say he respects the 1st amendment and move forward.

Congressional Cowardice

President Bush signed legislation today that grants immunity to phone companies that illegally spied on Americans, and it also expand the President's power to continue spying on Americans. Is this bill Constitutional? Is it necessary? Has Dubbya used the climate of fear since 9/11 to needlessly, an dangerously expand presidential power? It isn't necessary, it isn't constitutional, and it is a dangerous expansion of government power. I believe this bill was passed--unnecessarily--because our lawmakers lack courage, and fearing labels that Bush and Cheney will certainly give those that oppose legislation meant to "protect" us, they cave in and vote in favor of legislation they disagree with. A prime example is the lack of courage displayed by Barack Obama. He repeatedly criticized the President's wiretapping program, and said he would vote against any legislation granting immunity to telecom companies, but today he voted in favor of this legislation. Why? Because he is a sellout that is more concerned with what his advisers are telling him, and less concerned with the civil liberties he purportedly supported a month ago. I'm sure that I'll get wiretapped--I read books and post blogs that are supportive civil liberties, and I support peace and justice programs (peace and justice programs at college campuses across the country and monitored by the FBI for their "extremism). If Obama keeps flip-flopping like John McCain, I may have to vote for Ralph Nader.

Nadal Behead's the King on Center Court

In what may have been the "greatest" tennis match ever played, Rafael Nadal ended Roger Federer's reign at Wimbledon. In five crazy sets, Nadal prevailed 6-4, 6-4, 6-7, 6-7, 9-7, just as darkness was enveloping Center Court. With the victory, Nadal became the first man in 28 years--Bjorn Borg was the last--to follow up a French Open championship with one at Wimbledon. I know that I had predicted a Federer victory, but if I had to be wrong and Fed had too lose, this was the way to do it. In the first two sets, Roger let 11 break point chances get away, putting himself in the position of having too win three straight sets. If he could have stepped up on any of the big points, he may have had at least one, if not both, sets and been in position to win. He didn't do this, and it end up costing him his chance to stand alone in history with 6 straight Wimbledon titles. Nadal had chances to close out Fed in the 4th set tie break, leading 5-2 before falling 10-8. The fifth set provided the best tennis of the match, with both players ratcheting up the level of their play, with Nadal making more plays to pull out a 9-7 win, completing the longest match in Wimbledon history.

While I may be quite disappointed that Fed didn't win, I really enjoyed the match, and bias aside, Nadal deserved too win. Fed is still a great player, and still ranked #1 in the standings, but it is tough too argue against the idea that Nadal is the new king of tennis. Unless Fed wins a bundle of tournaments to close the season, Nadal will end the year #1, ending Fed's record run, and perhaps the most dominating 4 years a men's tennis player has ever had. I still think Fed will win 3-5 more majors, surpassing Sampras, and making a compelling case to be considered the greatest player ever, but his run of supremacy is no more. Nadal will have to be considered a threat to win any tournament, and with Djokovic in the mix, Fed's appearance in the Finals is no longer a sure thing. He did himself a disservice by making his dominance appear so easy, and now when he doesn't win every major tournament, he faces ridiculous questions. He's only 26, and if he stays healthy, he has tons of opportunities to add to his resume. Sampras won his last major at the age of 31, and prior too that, he struggled for a couple of years. Rafa's aggressive style of play leads me to believe he will face injuries that Sampras and Fed have avoided, and that may be enough to deny him the kind of dominance he could have otherwise. Fed won't win 3 majors in a year anymore, but he can count on winning 1-2 a year for at least a couple more years, and now that he has lost his throne, he can enjoy playing with less pressure than he has the last couple of years. If he focuses on the majors and doesn't have to deal with otherworldly expectations, he should enjoy padding his stats, ending a career that will leave all others--including Sampras--in the dust.