Augusta National finally admits women as members...and?

   Earlier this week, Augusta National Golf Club, home of the Masters (PGA Tour golf major) tournament finally ended their 80 year policy of only admitting men as full members by voting to admit, then invite two women, including former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, to become members of the club as of this October. This is well overdue, but in the grand scheme of things, does this really mean a lot, especially outside of professional golf?
     I am sorry, but it does not. One PRIVATE golf club changing its sexist (formerly racist AND sexist) acceptance policy for membership is not the same as desegregation of a school system or of a university, especially when it took years to do so after the federal government (and the Supreme Court) ordered such years prior to THAT.
    Private clubs or organizations (usually) has the right to admit whoever they want or have whatever policies they want, as long as (local, state and/or federal) laws are not broken. That is the benefit of being a private club. This club got so much hell for their policies, especially in the last 15-20 years was because they hosted a PGA Tour major, where only the best in the world were invited, based on PGA and/or world ranking, and number of Tour wins (including in this tournament in the past) that was shown AROUND the world. Men of color have only been allowed to be members for 22 years, and only allowed to play in the tournament for not that much longer than that (true, there are few men (or women for that matter) of color in professional golf).
    Tiger Woods, a BI-RACIAL man won his first (of 14 so far) majors here and set all sorts of records in doing so. Some were cringing from that (and may still be). Not that many years ago, he wouldn't have been able to play here. Nor could have Vijay Singh (from Fiji and a multi-time major winner) or probably by right, golfers of Asian descent from South Korea, Japan, much less Asian-Americans or Native Americans, by this logic. You still hear insensitive comments about Tiger, mostly not because of his multi-racial background, but other things. Still not good.
     This barrier being broken is nice, but it means little to me. That means (certain) women can play the course as full members. Great. But I cannot. Not because I am Black, or even because I am part Native American. but because I am a average citizen. Whatever this club's (or other private golf clubs) membership requirements are for membership at Augusta National, I don't meet them. Nor does my wife. Does Dr. Rice deserve this invitation to join more than me or my wife? Yes, but only because of who she is, and what she used to do is what got her this (good for her), not because of her gender or her skin color (anymore). She doesn't deserve the comments some have made on ESPN's website or elsewhere dissing her (and/or women in general) when the story broke. That is part of the game. Will a woman be allowed to play in the Masters? Probably not (the ladies do have their own (ladies-only) tour and their own majors. So be it. There are bigger things and bigger wrongs that need to be corrected. Shine the light of truth on those things. One golf club changing its policy to what is write is really not a big deal. Sorry.

How will the 2012 presidential election end up?

 Disclaimer: The following is just a prediction of how the 2012 presidential race will end up, based on the knowledge, thoughts and gut feelings of one US citizen observing such from afar, as of Monday, August 20, 2012, before the nomination conventions that are fast approaching, the (expected) debates and heavy campaigning this fall. This is not an endorsement of either candidate or of any political party (major or minor) who has a candidate in this race. The author of this piece is not giving his own political views (at this time) nor does he say that this will end up (exactly) this way (or close to it). At this point, no one but God knows how this will turn up. The author reserves the right to adjust this blog post as needed depending on (unforeseen) changes in the lineup and climate of this race. The author also does not allow any part of this blog statement to be used for commercial or private use without: 1) requesting permission to do so beforehand from the author of this blog, in writing and 2) citing the name of this author and the name of this blog as the source for the text that is used by a third party for a separate blog entry and/or news story and/or editorial piece and 3) said quote is written exactly as it shown here, in the same context, to prevent confusion or worse. Thank you.

The Ebony Hammer

August 20, 2012

    I think the US presidential election of 2012 will end up like most recent elections (of the last 40-50 years). There will be a lot of back-and-forth and the normal BS. The conventions will be two big RAH-RAH things, though the Republican one will be a lot more contentious, because of party friction and because they are not the incumbent party for the second election in a row. The fall will be a crazy fight to the end. The debates will be tough affairs.  Here is how I see it:

1.           Obama wins the debates: President Obama is a better statesman and handles the media better than Governor Romney, in my opinion. He is less likely to make a (major) mistake in the debates than the governor, I believe. All things are possible, though. We all know how likely Vice-President Biden (or his spouse or both) is to say something dumb (no offense to either of them) on camera (I like it though, makes them look like real people instead of cookie-cutter politician and/or spouse of such). However, the Vice-President still has much more experience than Congressman Ryan does in debates and so on and he will win his debate(s) over Ryan, just like the Vice-President beat Governor Palin (who probably was (and still is) far less (and no better) prepared for this job, much less the job of President of the United States, in 2008 than Congressman Ryan is today) in 2008. (No offense to Governor Palin).

2.          The election ads will not get quite as nasty as four years ago, but will be as (or even more) costly than four years ago. This will be the case because the Republicans are no sure thing to hold control of the House of Representatives, much less win control of the Senate and will do virtually anything to win both houses of Congress, as well as the White House. Don’t bet on the GOP to do all three. They will not!

3.            Congressional elections:  I don't know how many Senate seats are up for grabs this year, in addition to ALL 438 House seats (remember your US History, only 2 year terms in the House, 6 years in the Senate!). I don't really care. Bottom line, the electorate will not forget who tried to block a lot of Obama’s programs, especially health care, nor what will possibly happen if the Republicans win. The Republicans have to hold the House, win control of the Senate AND win the White House back to be able to (try to) complete all of these (alleged) repeals that some GOP folk (allegedly) say they will do if Governor Romney is elected as President and so on. They will not (and cannot) do all three. My predictions:

a.       The Democrats keep a slim hold on the Senate…or it will be a (near) even split of seats, like it is now. Neither party will come close to having a super-majority here (nor I doubt either party will have such in the near future).

b.      The Republicans advantage in the House is cut greatly, but they keep control, just barely. Slight control without control of the Senate means almost nothing in the grand scheme of things.

4.          Who wins the White House? President Obama by a slim majority…no landslide this time. Simply put, Romney will do better than Senator McClain in winning normally Republican states, especially in the South. Normal Democratic states, like New York and California, stay with Obama. However, the battleground states will be split almost down the middle. The deciding states: Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, maybe Colorado and/or Nevada, North Carolina, and finally, my home state, the Commonwealth of Virginia. I think Florida and North Carolina will go to Romney, just because they usually go Republican, but Romney (probably) won’t have to have cheating occur to do it (like I think occurred in 2000). Colorado, Nevada and Pennsylvania will be barely won by Obama. Ohio is a tossup.

    As such, it will come down to one state to either give a candidate the magic 270 electoral votes or it throws the election into the House (like it should have in 2000, or could have done in 2008 if things were different). That state is Virginia. I believe the state has 13 electoral votes. Normally, governor and other state officials have come from from either party (back and forth), but for presidential elections, Virginia almost always goes red…except in 2008. Obama also won Nevada, Ohio, and even Illinois, Pennsylvania,  Florida (shocker!), North Carolina and that, plus somehow winning Virginia, put him over the top in the Electoral College and made that election a near-landslide, which included just under 53 percent of the popular vote and majority of states and the District of Columbia.

    However, this year, Romney and Ryan will rally the Republican base better than McCain and Palin did, especially after 8 years of former President George W. Bush (no surprise). Honestly, barring major errors, did you really think the Democrats would NOT win the White House in 2008? Get real.

     Obama will not carry all of those battleground states this time, unless Romney really screws up somewhere. Split Florida, North Carolina, Ohio and Nevada and one or two smaller states (say New Mexico and Nebraska) for Romney, and Pennsylvania and Illinois to the President. That puts both short of 270. That leaves Virginia as the tipping point. I believe that, like in 2008, whoever wins Virginia wins the election. I think the President will barely win Virginia and win re-election by a very slim majority in the Electoral College (maybe with 285-290 votes) and the popular vote…maybe with right at 50 percent, but not much more or much less than that.

     Otherwise, the election goes into the House and a single vote for each state delegation (the current group, not the incoming one for next year’s term). If that vote finishes in a tie (I am guessing 25-25, for I don’t think the District, Puerto Rico get votes here), then the President of the Senate (meaning Vice-President Biden) casts the deciding vote. Hence, the Democrats win.

    Honestly, I want to see the election go into the House, both from a historical standpoint, but to also just screw things up and make everyone (news organizations, candidates, Congresspersons, and the public) run to Google, history texts and the like to figure out what this little known wrinkle in our election system is, means and how it works. Why not have this happen once or twice (every 200+ years or so)? True, this could mean the wrong candidate wins and it means the vote comes down to less than 400 persons instead of the popular vote. Yes, but that is part of the Constitution and as of today, we cannot do anything about it. This will mean someone will push harder (maybe) to scrap the Electoral College entirely, but that has been discussed for decades and no one has seriously tried to do it…partially because it would take a bit more than an act of Congress to pull it off. Not likely.

      The Founders put this in for a reason, possibly to make elections fair (and without widespread corruption) for all candidates and to make sure EVERY state and EVERY voter's vote does matter, not just those from the most populated 12 to15 states. This means Nevada’s 5 electoral votes, or each Dakota’s and Alaska and Montana, Vermont and even the District of Columbia’s (3 each) electoral votes do matter! I do think it is cool that an original 13 (colonies) state (Virginia) could be the one that decides everything…but it could be Washington state (11 votes) or Oregon (7 votes) whose polls close later…or maybe it could be the last states…our newest states Hawaii (4 votes) or Alaska who decide it…who knows? It makes our elections unique, noteworthy and something everyone around the world watches closely….every time, especially this year. I like that. Who will be President (and Vice-President) next January? We will know about 3 months. I look forward to it. So should we all!

Do the Raiders make the playoffs in 2012(-13)?

    Do I, the big Oakland Raiders fan, really believe this team can make the playoffs this year, or am I talking the BS or desperate hope of a true fan? I do believe this and here is why:

1.       Personnel: This team is young, but has a solid overall defense that can only get better. Stay healthy and this could be a beast of a defense. This defense had starting corners who, to be honest, sucked. They are gone, replaced by younger, hungrier and possibly (eventually) better corners. The D-line is strong, linebackers are not bad and safeties are good, led by Branch. Plus, having a young, defensive-minded coach who knows this division (coming from Denver) are all pluses. The offense is young, but has an experienced QB (Palmer) who will be better with a full off-season under his belt. Changes in coaches won’t affect him as much as normal since he only played half of last year. The receivers are fast, young and more experienced. Most teams will have problems with their speed and depth stretching the field. The O-line is improving fast, too. This all leads to…

2.       McFadden: If he stays healthy, he will give this team 3 wins with his feet, due to ball control. That means the defense gets more rest, fewer 3^rd and longs, more time the other team’s offense is sitting and better field position and ultimately…more points for Oakland and fewer points against.

3.       The schedule: It is manageable. 5 of the 8 road games are in the Eastern Time zone (KC is in the Central zone with a 405pm start time, San Diego (the last game) is just a 2 hour flight down the coast and is a 415pm start time, and Denver is in the Mountain time zone with a 405pm start time and is just before the Week 5 bye week), a record for this franchise. BUT there are no real bad weather games at all (unless Cincinnati has an early, freak winter snow storm come through or Carolina has the same occur just before Christmas…very unlikely!) All of the other road opponents where there could be a cold-weather issue (Pittsburgh, Denver, KC, Baltimore, Cleveland) either are coming to Oakland or has the game in September (Denver) or early November (Baltimore). There is only one dome game (at Atlanta right after the bye) and only one back-to-back road games (Carolina and San Diego the last two weeks). If Oakland wins the AFC West, the first playoff game will be in Oakland 1 or 2 weeks later. If they are a wild-card, even if the game was in, say, Buffalo or Baltimore or Miami, Oakland would not be traveling cross-country back to back weeks…that helps, too. 

4.       Focus and fewer penalties: This team is going to be focused and driven with this being the first full season after Mr. (Al) Davis passed away. There will be the memorials and all and everyone who was here last year will play extra hard to honor his memory.  Increased focus will lead to fewer penalties against Oakland (and more for opponents). This team set NFL records for number of penalties and yards last year. Cut those numbers by a fifth; add 1-2 wins. Cut those numbers by a quarter or more; add at least 2-3 wins. That is no less than a wild-card berth, possibly a division title.  Lastly….

5.       Health and intangibles: Lack of health cost the Raiders the division title and the playoffs (via tie-breaker). Losing McFadden (especially), Ford, Campbell and others for most of the second half of the year did us in. Tebow’s miracle wins for Denver did the rest, which was a lack of focus by other teams. Oakland has owned the AFC West the last two years, but have played like babies versus everyone else. That ends in 2012. In 2012, the opponent’s playing level will be lower, and the Raiders will be higher. Win the road games at Miami, Atlanta, and Cincinnati, win the SD opener on MNF, beat Manning (if he lasts that long) and the Broncos in Denver before the bye, and be no less than .500 at home in the other games before the (Week 15) home finale on December 16 (KC), Oakland can clinch the division title before the final two games at Carolina and San Diego and just play for a 1^st round bye with one or two wins. Lastly, having replacement officials will hurt the NFL if they start the regular season with them. However, I do think that IF that occurs, such will hurt Oakland less than some teams. Also, an early (Week 5) bye could be good if regular officials return around Week 4 or 5 (figuring they will need 1-2 weeks to get the kinks out), and other teams are hurt by those errors, while the Raiders sit and recover and return from bye with the officiating back to its normal high standards. Of course, if that dispute lasts longer than that…every team will get screwed somehow with less than real NFL officials, but I cannot see this Raiders team getting MORE penalties (and/or penalty yards) than last year, either way…can we? 

6.       Final record: If all of the above occurs, I see this as an 11-5 or 12-4 year (lose to New Orleans or at Kansas City (one or the other), at Baltimore, at Denver, at San Diego (which may not matter), and maybe a fluke loss somewhere along the way. If there are key injuries (McFadden especially, Palmer, Seymour or a lot of defenders), I still see a 10-6 or 9-7 season, which means wild-card (maybe division if last year is any proof). If penalties do not improve and there are injuries….8-8 again or worse. Some think this will be a 5-11 season for this team. They are fools and haters. This team, even without McFadden is better than 5-11. Palmer is better than Campbell and will win games with a full offseason and a better RB, defense and better weather, both home AND away behind him than what he ever had in Cincinnati. The AFC West is NOT better as a whole than last year and Oakland has only 7 games versus playoff teams (2 versus Denver)…5 of them are road games. Win 5 road games and at least 4-5 home games means playoffs, especially if more than 5 of them are division games and almost all are conference games (split the NFC games like last year will help too).  Many will disagree, but so what? This is my thoughts not yours or theirs. Good luck to all teams in 2012…go Raiders!

Is same-sex marriage REALLY that big of a deal?

         Okay, by now most of us have heard many stories, some on going, about same-sex marriage. We have seen in the last few years seven states, including New York state and the District of Columbia have legalized same-sex marriage (California later reversed their law, but supposedly still recognizes those marriages that occurred before November 5, 2008). A few others recognize same-sex marriages done in other states, though they do not (for now) allow such within their own borders. Now, we hear about the CEO of Chick-Fil-A spouting off about his opposition to same-sex marriage and the circus that has caused with protests from both sides of such (and sales increases for his company) and so on. I am just saying....is all this drama really necessary? Should this restaurant chain be capitalizing on the controversial views of its owner?
      I know that people on both sides have strong views on such. Don't bother with the religion card thing, or the moral thing, or the whatever thing. All that is wasted on me. I have friends who (will) oppose same-sex marriage for religious reasons, among other things. Many of them are married heterosexuals (or at least that is the public view...). I respect that, as should we all. I also have friends who support same-sex marriage, for whatever reasons. I respect that as well, as should we all (but many do not...you know who you are). This is not about race, or religion or morals and certainly about comfort. This is a equal rights issue.
    It seems to me that the majority is, once again, trying to tell the minority that they cannot do a certain thing, because it (allegedly) makes the majority uncomfortable. This is a LOT like how slavery was uncomfortable (for at least half of the country at the time) about 150-160 years. This is similar to how the thought of granting women (of ALL colors) the right to vote apparently was so much as a issue around 100 years ago (of course there ARE more women than men, overall, though many chooses not to raise their voices when it comes to issues affecting some, most or all. Go figure). This is a LOT like how granting equal rights and access to public facilities, universities and so on (that is guaranteed in the Constitution, among other documents) to all persons of color (in particular, African Americans) and even Native American was (especially in the South) was 50-60 years (and STILL lingers at times TODAY). See a pattern?
     This country, the United States of America, has done many great things in less than 240 years of existence. Many countries have done less in more years of existence. However, this nation is still in the 1700s (or worse) on certain things. And that is very sad. Less than four years ago, it was a BIG deal that this country elected a person of color (truth is, he is BI-RACIAL, people) as its President. And it is, since each previous President except one (Kennedy, a Catholic) was a WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) male. Don't get me wrong. But people still bitch about that, claiming he is not a American, and was not born here. Technically, neither was Senator McClain (born on a US military base). What a joke! Let it go!
    Even today, the number of instances of discrimination and abuse toward folk is unbelievable. Folk who have done nothing wrong, other than striving to be the best and not being, in most cases, a WASP male. Even being a woman is a problem for some. Now you throw in being homosexual (or maybe being a transsexual and/or a bisexual) into it, that is like throwing gas on a bonfire...in a bone-dry forest full of trees. Not good. What does all this drama do for us? What is the benefit? Stop same-sex marriage? For what? Allowing such might move the needle of divorces back under 50 percent! Maybe. What happened to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?" If you fall in love with a person and he or she happens to be the same sex as you, what is more important....your happiness or that the genitals you have are the same as your lover's? And why (and since when) was the "comfort level" of other people or other (heterosexual married couples) mean more than your own comfort and happiness?
     Some folk say (something to the effect of) homosexuality (and by extension, bisexuality (usually, especially if it is two men, but two ladies..is usually okay...go figure...can you say DOUBLE STANDARD???), much less same-sex marriage is a sin. Maybe it is. I am not a Bible scholar. I do know that adultery is a sin. I do know that premarital sex is a sin. I know murder, and robbery and a bunch of other crimes are also sins. Hell, even masturbation, using contraception and abortion are sins, in some folk's eyes by their Biblical (or whatever religious or other belief system) interpretation.Yet they all happen. Every day. 24/7/365. It may be happening in your house or next door RIGHT NOW! If everyone who did any of the above was put in jail and/or was punished for any of these things, only (most) children under 12 (being realistic) and babies would have a clean record. Don't bother trying to dispute it...because you all know I am right.
    So what is the answer? There is no answer that will mollify everyone. The Supreme Court may have to make a ruling sooner or later that will affect all states. They won't like that. The military just repealed their (basically) anti-gay rules earlier this year, with few issues. Seriously, one's sexuality means nothing with his (OR HER) ability to perform in the (ALL-VOLUNTEER) military that we have here in the USA. I don't care (if I were in the military) if the guy or woman next to me likes my rear and has wanton sexual thoughts about it if we are in a firefight and the enemy is trying to kill us. I only care that he or she can use their skills and weapons to defend themselves, and me, and the rest of the military folks and civilians around them and this great nation, even if it means injury or (heaven forbid) death to do so. The rest of it can be settled later, when the battle is won.
    Should we or I care if the man or woman who plays pro or Olympic sports, or runs a large or small company, are the lead in a Broadway show or on the silver screen, or is the guy or gal who bags my groceries, fixes my car or lives next door to me shares his or her bed with another person (or two or five) who may happen to be gay or bisexual and so on, if they aren't doing it in my face? The answer is no!
      I  have seen gay and bisexual folk in the throes of passion and be happily in love, just like I have seen heterosexual folks be the same. I am blessed to have a wonderful woman to live with, love, have sex with and be married to. Why shouldn't a same-sex couple who wishes to make the same LIFETIME commitment as I have done with my wife be able to do the same and have all of the legal and social benefits of such, until death do they part? Like I said, the divorce rate can only get better by allowing same-sex marriage...lol. I doubt it would get much worse. Happiness and marriage is not a legal right for all, but....it is a strong desire. Marriage represents the ultimate commitment of one person's love for another ahead of all others. Do (Should) we, the adult population of the USA, have the (moral or other) right to deny the joy and (legal) benefits of marriage to about 10-15 percent of the adult population just because the marrying couple are a same-sex couple? I say we do NOT. Do you agree...or not?